“Let’s open the closet to see how many people are celebrating this CEO getting shot, surely it can’t be that many”
The closet in question:
I always die like three seconds into that dungeon. I think there’s a spell I have to cast, or something I don’t have yet.
Great use of a fireball/meteor swarm if you have it though.
“We’re not responsible, the algorithm did it.”
We’re not responsible, the bullet did it.
How in God’s name could that be “bigotry”
An astonishing number of people can’t distinguish “hatred based on target’s intrinsic, immutable features” from “hatred based on target’s opinions.”
Almost like there are a ton of bad-faith actors out there intentionally muddying the waters, isn’t it?
Muddying*
Yeah that was autocorrect for some reason
It can possibly be seen as bigotry against the patients that have received denial of coverage, but even that is a stretch.
Some fuckwits would actually argue this I guarantee it.
It’s what they do.
To be fair, the title might have been a tad more sarcastic than people might first think :)
Because greedy scumbag CEOs are a minority class?
I hadn’t heard that algorithmic health care decisions had been ruled illegal. If the company were doing that, couldn’t they be considered a criminal enterprise?
Presumably they stopped doing it in those states, or it’s being appealed or something.
Also possible they’re just ignoring a court order, I suppose, but that seems unlikely
They definitely made an exception for those states. The same thing happened with the announcement of that Blue Cross branch that was going to stop paying for anesthesia after an arbitrary time limit. They made an exception for Connecticut because they passed a law making it illegal.
Given how businesses work they probably didn’t stop doing it they probably just toned it down a little bit. Like instead of “deny 50% of coverage by default” they set it to like “deny 43%”.
As long as it flies under the radar right?
Only ruled illegal in a couple of states. And no, doing some illegal things doesn’t make you (under the law) a criminal enterprise. That’s a term used for operations whose fundamental business is crime, as opposed to just employing some illegal methods in the pursuit of legal activities.
(This is not, remotely, an argument against much, much stronger penalties for companies that do illegal shit. If the fine is less than the profit then its just a cost of doing business).
I knew it was a fantasy when I wrote it. I mean, obviously they pay more for lawyers than anything else.
Just amazing how far they can stretch the law without it snapping back on them.
… for operations whose fundamental business is crime
Oh, so, insurance companies are “criminal enterpriseS”, plural. Gotcha.
You can do deeply unethical things that are legal, such as delay deny defend. If only insurance stopped there it would be a great improvement. It’s more likely they cross the line of what’s legal as long as there’s a chance of profit, even when penalties apply.
If the company were doing that,couldn’t they be considered a criminal enterprise?
