Do you think UHC is going to change its policies in any major way because of this? If it was self-defense, it was not very good self-defense. Like any other employee in a giant corporation, the CEO is easily replaced with someone else who will do the exact same job. Possibly an even better (from the company's perspective) job.

This does nothing to help all of the people who are being destroyed by the for-profit insurance industry.

I would say revenge makes more sense.

[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they're smart, they will. If they're not smart they will need to hope they can afford to give their security team better health insurance than they themselves offer, otherwise we will see repeats of the reason you're personally allowed to be outside of your company owned work house.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I have no idea why you think any corporate employee isn't kleenex, but they are.

A CEO can't decide to put people above profits because they will be replaced if they do.

CEOs are not emperors. The problem isn't individual CEOs, the problem is capitalism.

[–] AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Idk how you can take such a strong stance against police for being police but not CEOs. If a cop stops doing their job, they too will be replaced with someone who will.

Please stop defending executives causing harm.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Please explain how calling CEOs replaceable kleenex and hating capitalism is a defense of CEOs.

Am I not hating capitalism the right way?

(Gotta love getting downvoted on .ml in the last comment for calling capitalism the problem, BTW. Guess you all became conservatives.)