Moderators Delete Reddit Thread as Doctors Torch Dead UnitedHealthcare CEO
www.thedailybeast.com
“When other’s human lives are deemed worthless, it is not surprising to have others view your life of no value as well,” wrote one medical doctor, whose identity the Daily Beast confirmed.

Summary

Reddit’s r/medicine moderators deleted a thread where doctors and users harshly criticized murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Comments, including satirical rejections of insurance claims for gunshot wounds, targeted UHC’s reputation for denying care to boost profits.

Despite the removal, similar discussions continue, with medical professionals condemning UHC’s business practices under Thompson’s leadership, which a Senate report recently criticized for denying post-acute care.

Thompson, shot in what appears to be a targeted attack, led a company notorious for its high claim denial rates, fueling ongoing debates about corporate ethics in healthcare.

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    8·
    9 days ago

    The CEO is obligated to deliver profits to the board and shareholders.

    But since there’s no surefire way to determine what the most profitable course is, that’s largely up to the CEO to justify his/her – oh who am I kidding it’s usually his – actions and direction for the company.

    There’s also no law on the books about this “must be oriented to shareholder profits” crap, most investment in the market is idle investment from index funds, and many of the biggest public companies right now were not profitable for a long time.

    It’s an evil system. I get it, but that doesn’t mean CEOs have no power.

    • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
      35·
      9 days ago

      Huh? Denying claims but maintaining subscriber numbers seems quite transparent.

      It’s not a law, it’s in every company bylaw. They obligate executive staff to work towards certain goals.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        5·
        9 days ago

        You could instead claim to want to grow subscriber numbers by better service to either customers or the employers that often decide whether or not to use your company for insurance.

        His was one path he pursued toward profitability and growth, but it isn’t the only arguable path. The CEO determines what internal metrics are important as well as a strategy to try to hit them.

        https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/18/falsifiability/

        You can justify completely opposing company strategies on just about anything by appealing to “shareholder supremacy”.

        • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
          14·
          9 days ago

          The board and shareholders determine the corporate goals. As the executive officer, the CEO enacts them.

          That’s the system we have, not the ideal.

          Edit The entire insurance industry is predicated on the approach of denying coverage when possible. The agressiveness to which they do so reflects the needs of the business. If they are pean, you can be sure they will deny more.

            • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
              13·
              9 days ago

              In so much as they are “operating as expected” yes.

              In so much as they are trapped in the job? Obviously not. I guarantee that if this dude enacted policy to the likes of folks here, minimal to zero denial of service, he’d be out in a week.

              It’s the system that is the root of the problem, and the politicians who build it.

              This dude is a cog.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                2·
                9 days ago

                You can make completely opposite company-wide decisions as a CEO and justify them using shareholder supremacy. It’s not a falsifiable position because you don’t know what making the other decision would’ve done to your profitability. That’s my point. They have agency in their decision making. Obviously, sure they’re in service of profits, but there are numerous strategies to get profits. That’s why CEO is a job.