If you celebrate someone gunning down a defenceless person in the street, then you advocate for a world in which this is an acceptable thing for anyone to do. You in fact advocate for a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re also a bad person, and gun you down in the street. In such a world, I promise you, your health insurance would cost much more.
I would never be selected to be a healthcare CEO because i wouldn’t be able to put profits over people. Batman getting the Joker is not the same as Batman killing Gotham city residents. What does a Brit know about health insurance costs? The writer is not qualified to make these claims.
Also a strange thing to say because in a world without private, for-profit health insurance there wouldn’t be a health insurance CEO to gun down nor a health insurance costs paid for by the individual that could even go up.
Then why post a random personal blog to your sub just to say they’re wrong?
You can find lots of people wrong all over the internet, I don’t understand when it’s a blog that runs off traffic, giving them traffic…
Like, even if people click your link just to see how stupid the author is…
It counts just like any other page view.
Where else would I critique a random blog? I saw the headline and was interested in reading the story. After reading the story, I had created some opinions. I’m happy to discuss different opinions, not hide them, pretending that they don’t exist.
Also, It’s called a community, not a sub. and just because I created it, mod it, and am the most frequent poster doesn’t mean it’s “mine” it’s everyone’s!
and am the most frequent poster
One person made one other post and you made them a mod too…
Look, I was trying to explain to you why driving traffic to those bait blogs is a bad choice.
You don’t want to listen, and arguing would be pointless. I can’t force you to do the right thing or even to understand why what you’re doing is wrong.
It’s your choice
Thinking on the blog’s comment that the CEO was a bad target as it’s actuaries that set premiums and expected payouts, and they have a narrow profit margin
That’s a pretty shallow analysis
- The CEO sets what the business’s targets are, obviously United was targeting low premiums which implies low payouts which implies many incorrect rejections and/or nasty exceptions in their policies
- This is in the environment where many health fund customers have their health fund chosen by their employer (who will choose the cheapest most of the time) or who due to their economic circumstances must choose the cheapest
So people are forced* into this bad fund so violence against the CEO should get United and other low cost, low payout funds to reposition themselves toward the more expensive, more generous end of the market
The downside is that it should make health insurance more expensive, but that’ll only happen if United changes their premium/payout model to more generous
Other ways health funds can reduce premiums include trading reduced premiums for healthy activities
*I’m not in that system so don’t know the details, are employees forced to take the fund their employer packages into their contract?
