Major Health Insurance Companies Take Down Leadership Pages Following Murder of United Healthcare CEO
Major Health Insurance Companies Take Down Leadership Pages Following Murder of United Healthcare CEO
UHC, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Caresource and more are removing or redirecting their about us pages.
If you're worried that your CEO will be murdered, that might be an indicator that you have some deep problems as a company. If you're all worried, that may be an indicator that your entire industry is a problem.
It's really not that hard to run an insurance company without making people want to murder you
Honestly... I'm not sure that it is. The entire concept of an "insurance company" (particularly health insurance) is inherently predatory.
Don't forget that that a CEO legally has to maximize profits. Otherwise the shareholders can sue.
Edit: apparently this is incorrect. It is what they're hired to do though, so not a big difference.
While I think these are scum, people want to murder people over too little cheese on their burger.
They will now create fake CEO profiles (with machine learning capability) available only on Zoom due to safety concerns.
May be one day, they will also replace the CEO by an AI agent. That wonât be worst than today anyway...
Of course they wonât see it that way.
What do you call one dead CEO? a good start.
Oh boy sounds like they're afraid of copycat killers.
Why - are they doing something that should make them afraid?
I think mass shootings in the US are a little passe. This on the other hand...
Targeted killings of evil people get me hard.
What's the old expression?
If you've got nothing to hide/done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.
The two could be combined. Any shooting of three or more executives would be a mass shooting of executives. By a mysterious masked man that no one can identify.
What do you mean? They are just trying to put food on the table for their families.
/s in case that isn't blatantly obvious
I watched a documentary on oil execs a while ago (can't remember the name, sorry :( ). Someone asked an exec why he wasn't giving 50 of the 60 billion dollars he owned to charity or government programs and he literally said "but how am I going to feed my family" without a shred of irony.
You were being funny, but the billionaire class actually believes this.
How many lives does 1 yearly bonus check save?
They shouldnât let this become common. Hiding who Runs the company just makes them even MORE faceless and disconnected from humanity. Maybe focus on not shafting literally the entire population for money and shit coverage.
I would expect only the wrong lessons will be learnt. But I already saw a headline about another insurance company reverting some stupid policy, so maybe correct ones will be learnt, too.
If theyâre publicly traded, then leadership is public record. Someone could always publish the info for them in a more helpful way than This
If theyâre publicly traded, then leadership is public record
For now.
There's a lot of CEOs and wannabe CEOs about to enter government.
Yeah, if I lived off blood money in a country with insanely high gun ownership, I would also start acting like it.
One more dead CEO and the conseevatives will start worrying about gun control.
archive.org and linked in.
archive.today too; name and shame.
Don't paint a target on archive.org.
you know where we can paint a target?
Let's hope they live in fear. Let's hope they are never comfortable, even in their mansions and yachts.
Now that the CEOs have all been herded into their gated communities, it would be a good time to lock those gates from the outside.
Hiding your website link isn't going to stop someone your lack of humanity has pushed to the point of actually shooting you.
And removing the tiniest bit of visible accountability you give doesn't seem like a particularly good idea either.
If this is truly a pissed off customer Iâd be curious to see their appeals and grievances trail.
No, but I imagine it might make them easier to catch. If they have to go digging to find a person's name rather than just going to the company's website.
Good thing there isn't some kind of machine that lets you go way back in time to see the pages before they were removed
Good thing someone who can plan their attack and track their target for days or weeks, someone with absolutely nothing to lose and a single-minded purpose, would absolutely give up on their plans if they can't find a public picture of a company's CEO on the first page they check.
Smells like guilt to me
Quick! To LinkedIn!
Or even, the government itself
Quick! To LinkedIn!
theres a sentence I'd never expected to ever read.
Not nearly enough.
Yet.
We killed one CEO, which resulted in one change to their company.
They stopped automatically denying people anesthetic for surgeries because a CEO was shot.
It works, it was just proven that indiscriminate attacks against the wealthy result in them making concessions.
Now we just need to kill one CEO for every small improvement we want to see.
We have a lot of work ahead of us as a country
Yeah because somebody as motivated as the shooter in Manhattan will totally be deterred by removing the "Our Team" pages from your website.
Talk about focusing on the wrong thing. How about instead of worrying about how to hide the names of your executives you instead have a meeting where you decide to be an ethical company that balances the needs of the shareholder with the needs of your customers.
Novel idea, I know.
That would just encourage people to shoot more CEOs.
Executive thoughts... By Dick Richass
Deny, Defend, Depose
Cause they know what they are doing is wrong!
I doubt it.
If they actually came to that realization, they would change how they do business.
I used to think that way. Indeed, one of my favorite quotes is from D&D, where an Arcanaloth, a being who is literally the physical manifestation of neutral evil, says "My friend, do you truly believe we consider ourselves evil? No, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match."
But more and more in the real world I have come to believe these people know that what they are doing is wrong...and they don't care.
I initially was thinking that people were just aggressive about him, because of the insurance companies and not necessarily what he did, especially since he was CEO for 3 years, but looks like UH had rejections in single digit and after he took over they jumped to over 20%
I understand the outrage though. While some rejections could be people asking for things that are not necessary, for example Ozempic if one doesn't have diabetes, many of those affect quality of life for millions of people and even affect of they can live or die.
It is absolutely horrible and unethical to make money on misfortune of others.
Somebody in another thread yesterday pointed out how those stats are also after appeals are accounted for. So it's not all the stuff they denied, but the stuff that they denied again after doctors and patients went through the appeal process. They had worked in appeals at another health insurance company, and said that the only way you could see denial rates that high were if UHC were denying almost everything that wasn't a standard checkup like an annual physical.
He was also CEO when they setup an AI that had a 90% error rate that was denying claims.
we should use that AI to coordinate the manhunt for his killer.
things that are not necessary, for example Ozempic if one doesnât have diabetes
Weight loss is important if you are obese even if you don't have diabetes. Especially since it can lead to diabetes.
I wish people didn't have to turn to a drug to lose weight, but obesity is a (no pun intended) massive problem in the U.S.
One of the big problems in our healthcare system is preventative medicine is not even considered a thing by insurance most of the time.
Also certain psych meds can cause weight gain that is incredibly hard to lose if the person needs to stay on it to remain stable.
I can see ozempic helping those folks, especially since meds like abilify can increase the risk of developing diabetes. It's a shitty side effect, one that doctors seem to shrug off, but it really matters to the patients and it often really bothers them.
Health Insurance for profit is unethical. Period.
Health care for profit? Also unethical.
It is absolutely horrible and unethical to make money on misfortune of others.
Itâs not just making money on the misfortune of others; itâs active and intentional cruelty on the most vulnerable people who are the least able to fight back. Itâs active choices that hurt these people, bankrupt them, or send them to their deaths, all for maximizing profits.
Itâs cruel, itâs inhumane, itâs vile, and ALL the US health insurance companies do it. They are all guilty of these crimes against humanity.
"there gooees my hero! Watch him as he goes!"
Cowards.
I don't get the fuss about it. Guy went voting ... he had no paper vote against what fucked him, his loved ones, and millions of fellow Americans over, so he used a high velocity lead vote. Still, just democracy at work.
It was actually a subsonic vote if we want to be pedantic. With at least 6 votes given and 3 successful votes received.
All the more reason that internet archives are important.
I love how the internet tough guy is stymied the moment a Google search turns up nothing...
Guaranteed they were not talking about ending their war on humanity
No. The shareholders wonât like this.
Anything but ease up on predatory rates while denying the doctor-prescribed care we pay for, huh?
Oh no they can't take the anger of their customers
That will fix it. Don't need to be doing your job and covering medical expenses or anything. Just make a change to the website and it will all be good.
Expected, I guess.
The irony is that if a lot of corpos start doing this, it makes a cult of personality impossible. In the case of UC it probably doesn't apply anywhere, but it will elsewhere.
I'd love to be a reporter in that shareholders conference right now
Haha way back machine.
Oh no. How sad for them.
Anyone got a link to this story that doesnât require you to sign up for yet another âfreeâ account to read?
My goto is usually archive.is
Edit: I say .is, but it changed the url to .ph đ . Either way lol.
Much obliged!
Even less readily visible accountability.
Can someone with more knowledge of the industry explain why hits even legal that an insurance company gets to decide whether it pays claims or not? Shouldn't a third independent party decide?
Insurance IS the third party. From an idealist perspective, insurance is supposed to be negotiating rates with doctors (independent contractors) to try to set a baseline for services and negotiate on your behalf to make sure a doctor isn't charging 10k to apply a bandage.
Eventually insurance companies found out they were holding both the patient approval and writing the policy and started lobbying until they became monster they are today. Now both patients and doctors hate they have embedded themselves in the process siphoning money.
That would cut into profits.
I mean, that is not how the internet works but okay.
I enjoy how this article basically enumerates every name removed from their sites.
Good. They should be scared.