The public reaction is what scares them. They are entirely disconnected from the consequences their actions impose on the public and can’t imagine why their “customers” would be cheering the death of their peer. They don’t think Brian Thompson did anything wrong, maximizing shareholder value is a noble goal after all, so from their perspective the public just seems bloodthirsty.
Much like how DC politicians live in a bubble where they think everyone in the US has grocery options and plentiful healthcare (due to how business around DC structures these things so those “leaders” just assume all of the US is like DC), the C suite lives in a tone-deaf rich-person bubble with zero comprehension about what it is like to actually live in the shitty world they orchestrate and manipulate.
Reading some guff about the Kroger-Albertsons attempted merger was case in point. These corpos said: “Oh, if we don’t merge, we can’t compete against Walmart and Amazon, and we’ll have to close stores.” Like, no? What business goes, “hey, so we can’t compete with adjacent-market companies, time to close up the places that generate our revenue!”
Or the recent Congressional vote to spend THREE BILLION OF OUR DOLLARS paying telecom companies to remove Chinese hardware from their networks. Something they were told to do years ago. The same carriers that will continue to raise our service rates every few months are making us (via Congress) pay them OUR money to do what they should have done themselves years ago.
None of these morons get it, they just keep corrupting their way to profits off of our backs, while digging out the ground we stand on from underneath us.
Everyone says this but I disagree. I’m sure Musk and many other public figures are emperors without clothes or whatever. But this idea that most execs are this other species blind to the muck under their boot… but most people are normal people… They may be mean, evil, mentally ill. But they don’t party in the front train car with no idea about the insect bars in the back. They’re just selfish and don’t care. They’re well aware. Don’t give them credit for ignorance by delusion. It’s malice. I make business decisions. I make them in partnership with colleagues. Some are kind. Some are dicks. But they’re intelligent enough to know what decision they’re making. And this transcends boxes. Even some of the most compassionate and empathetic human centric people I’ve ever worked with, proven in actions, not words, are repeat Trump voters. Having said that, most verticals of business are like elected office in that a certain type of person is going to win and get to the top. Oil tycoons know they’re burning the earth for personal gain. Non profit exec takes a big slice of pie, understanding the bookkeeping. They both just believe they should have it. Maybe not even deserve. Many leaders feel ordained to retroactively validate vile means to ends. “I’m on top, so I’m supposed to be on top. I see I stepped on people but that’s okay, because I’m supposed to be on top.” I know wealthy people too and it’s nearly the same. They’re on earth. They see what’s up. Many of them are in your office but just don’t mention cotillion or junior league. Some are kind, some are assholes. Just like all people.
Signs around NYC.
Wow, I really feel like I should be clutching my pearls over the fact that this is what it’s come to.
On the other hand…
Just like cops, these folks have earned every bit of hatred coming to them from the public. Even now they continue to pad their own bank account at a staggering rate on the deaths and misery of their fellow man.
If I were a healthcare executive with a conscience (lol I know), or even a healthcare executive with an adequate fear response, I’d resign tomorrow. (Or maybe yesterday?) I guarantee any of these folks has enough wealth to exceed the typical US lifestyle for the rest of their natural lives without having to take any more money for denying care to their fellow citizens. They can pack their shit, never work another day, and still spend the rest of their lives with less stress and greater financial security than my family ever will. There’s literally nothing stopping them.
And if their “Type A” personality just can’t let them spend multiple decades of their lives just relaxing with their family and enriching their inner self, they have a great resume to get a job at an industry that doesn’t profit from the death and pain of their fellow citizens.
so they’re going to spend a whole bunch of the companies money on security firms, it’s definitely going to come out of the executive compensation and not the workers, right? …right?
I’m sure most shareholders would agree with you.
The trouble is that most shareholders own their shares through mutual funds in their retirement accounts, and those shares get voted by the fund managers at Vanguard/Black Rock/Fidelity/etc. Those people definitely are part of the good ol’ boys club and will definitely vote in the executives’ interest and against their clients’.
Good
I’m pretty sure that was part of the point.
Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop. There’s no legal argument here that it wasn’t. It may not have been the guy they caught, but someone was murdered and legally that’s wrong.
Morally though, it’s a lot more gray. It’s pretty easy to prove that health insurers policies have literally been killing people thousands of people a year at at a minimum and even if it’s legal for some reason, that’s also still morally wrong. Attacking someone who’s attacking other people is usually called defending.
The CEO was on his way to implement policies that would kill thousands of people, and injure tens of thousands.
I see no moral gray area.
He was a CEO, not a king. He doesn’t single-handedly come up with and implement these decisions.
- The policies are probably brainstormed in meetings with several people.
- The policies are probably voted on by an even greater number of people
- The policies are implemented by another set of people
- The policies are enforced by another set of people
- The profit of the company, which these policies likely aim to improve, is almost the single main goal of all of the shareholders.
- Many other people have likely invested indirectly (e.g., in funds that contain that company’s stock) and were also benefitting from the implementation of these policies.
The CEO may have been a big part of the problem, but he’s not the only part. He may have even been a symptom of the problem. Was he elected, appointed? Who brought him into that position? Who didn’t make the decision to remove him from that position if the opportunity arose?
EDIT: I’m not really sure why people are downvoting this. I’m not saying the CEO was innocent, I’m saying he’s not the only one who holds the guilt for the decision.
You’re hopelessly wrong and un-abashedly trying to defend ghouls.
If the CEO makes the big bucks then they share the most of the blame. You can’t have one without the other.
Also don’t deliberately ignore the fact that for a brief moment in time after the CEO’s death, there was a drastic reduction in the number of claims being denied.
Because you refuse to
Edit: most things are a gray area. Doesn’t speak well of you if you think killing a human is so black and white it shouldn’t even be questioned. You motherfuckers sure ain’t philosophers.
Pretty obvious I meant that if you can’t see an argument for and against killing this guy you’re probably not much of a thinker, at least by choice on this issue
Yeah just as rich leeches refuse to stop exploiting innoncent people and you refuse to stop bootlicking
Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop.
True but this was self defense. I don’t see murder. Murder is the terminology of the regime who is trying to pin some crime on him that I don’t see.
It doesn’t sound like it was self defence, even if you stretch the meaning away from the legal. His life wasn’t directly threatened by this organization.
He did it on behalf of others, which eliminates the self in self defence.
True but this was self defense.
Is this a misuse of legal terms, or is there some sort of evidence behind this?
I was being cheeky mostly but i do think if we as society re asses what self defense means, whoever killed the parasite was defending america from social murder.
The ruling class would never accept such narrative but every American can decide for himself.
When cop murders a civilian for no reason, aint it always also defense? So clearly they misuse the term here. I think newer argument has more legs to stand on.
I’ve been thinking of it like what happened to Nicolai Caucescu. Sure, his death shouldn’t have happened and he should have had a trial for his crimes, corruption, and abuses of power; but, Romania came out better afterwards.
Legally, the murder was wrong. Full stop.
¡Hey Buddy! That’s for a jury to decide
Attacking someone who’s attacking other people is usually called defending.
Same thing said by cops every time they shoot someone.
