United Health CEO Andrew Witty says they will continue to prevent "unnecessary care"

[bnew]

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

the day of or after the guy was shot, i saw a post on reddit that said some pharmacist didn't have any denied claims for that entire day winch is apparently unprecedented.

So, your answer is the one that JUST happened, which isn't exactly what I was asking for and only adjusts billing time for ONE thing. Not a hill worth dying over, but allows me to press the issue to see exactly where this sentiment goes......

How many more murders are you going to justify to get the same treatment for OTHER procedures?​

 

[Wild self]

So, your answer is the one that JUST happened, which isn't exactly what I was asking for and only adjusts billing time for ONE thing. Not a hill worth dying over, but allows me to press the issue to see exactly where this sentiment goes......

How many more murders are you going to justify to get the same treatment for OTHER procedures?​

As much as it needs

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

As much as it needs

And when the Local/State/Federal Government gets involved due to widespread reenactment of 'The Purge', what do you think will happen?​

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

All I'm saying is America was founded with two languages:

English and violence.

People been trying to speak to people fluent in violence with English.

What we have is a failure to communicate. How will people resolve this issue? Continue speaking to someone in a language they do not understand or respect? Or in the language they do understand?

I guess we finna find out.

 

[Wild self]

And when the Local/State/Federal Government gets involved due to widespread reenactment of 'The Purge', what do you think will happen?​

Study the Feench Revolution

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

All I'm saying is America was founded with two languages:

English and violence.

People been trying to speak to people fluent in violence with English.

What we have is a failure to communicate. How will people resolve this issue? Continue speaking to someone in a language they do not understand or respect? Or in the language they do understand?

I guess we finna find out.

Who has more weapons?​

 

[Seoul Gleou]

Who has more weapons?​

The American people collectively own significantly more weapons than CEOs or any specific subset of the population.

Key Points:​

1. American Civilian Gun Ownership:
   • There are approximately 393 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States, according to estimates by the Small Arms Survey. This exceeds the total U.S. population and accounts for about 46% of the world's civilian-owned guns.
2. CEOs and Firearms:
   • While some CEOs may own firearms personally or through corporate security, this is a small fraction compared to the overall civilian arsenal. Data on firearm ownership specifically among CEOs is not well-documented.
3. Corporate Security:
   • Companies, particularly those with high-profile CEOs, may employ armed security teams. However, these represent organizational resources rather than personal ownership by CEOs.

Conclusion:​

The American public far outnumbers any specific group, including CEOs, in terms of weapon ownership. Civilian gun ownership in the U.S. is unparalleled globally.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Study the Feench Revolution

Population of France was ~40 million and the French Army was inadequate.

There's ~350 million Americans and ~1 million people serving in the Armed Forces with weapons that could level an entire country in a couple minutes.​

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

Who has more weapons?​

They apparently want to find out. The problem is actually quite easy to solve, but they don't want to.

So I guess they'll rather kill their customers than make life easier for them so they can continue to make money while not being hated.

Let the chips fall where they may. When you continue to take the things that make life worth living from people, including life itself, they'll have nothing to lose.

Is it a wise decision to do that in a nation with more guns and ammunition than people? I guess these fat cats are curious.

What's that saying about cats and curiosity? Someone remind me please.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The American people collectively own significantly more weapons than CEOs or any specific subset of the population.

When the American public gets it's hands on nuclear submarines, F-22/35's/C-130's, battalions full of well-trained forces, drones, & aircraft carriers, it might stand a chance.​

 

[Cryptocurrency Scarface]

The potential mass shooters should just channel their energy into corrupt ceos police commissioners and politicians as targets

 

[Seoul Gleou]

When the American public gets it's hands on nuclear submarines, F-22/35's/C-130's, battalions full of well-trained forces, drones, & aircraft carriers, it might stand a chance.​

If we assume a hypothetical scenario where a significant portion of the U.S. military operates under the influence or direct command of CEOs or corporate interests, the balance of power would shift dramatically. Here's an analysis of how such a situation might unfold:

---

1. The Military Advantage​

• Enhanced by Corporate Resources:
  • CEOs with control over substantial economic and technological resources could amplify military capabilities by funding advanced research, logistics, and equipment. For instance, companies like Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, or Google could provide cutting-edge technology, data analytics, or AI tools to bolster military efficiency.
  • Private security contractors could integrate with the military, expanding the available manpower and capabilities.
• Technological Overmatch:
  • With corporate backing, the military could gain access to proprietary technologies, such as advanced surveillance systems, robotics, or private satellite networks. This would enhance intelligence gathering, command, and control.
• Economic Leverage:
  • Corporations controlling critical infrastructure—like energy, communications, or food supply chains—could use their influence to weaken resistance by targeting civilian logistics and economic lifelines.

---

2. The Civilian Advantage​

• Numbers Still Matter:
  • Even with a fraction of the military and corporate private forces against them, civilians vastly outnumber their adversaries. Over 81 million gun owners and 393 million firearms would provide significant resistance potential.
• Guerrilla Warfare:
  • Civilians could rely on decentralized resistance strategies, avoiding direct confrontations and focusing on disrupting corporate and military operations through sabotage, ambushes, and cyberattacks.
• Sympathetic Allies:
  • Civilians might gain support from military personnel unwilling to align with corporate interests. Defectors could bring valuable skills, equipment, and strategic knowledge.

---

3. Key Factors in This Scenario​

• Military Loyalty and Fragmentation:
  • A military aligned with CEOs could fracture due to ideological divides, especially if rank-and-file soldiers resist fighting their fellow citizens or reject corporate influence over national defense.
• Corporate Dependence on Public Infrastructure:
  • Corporations still rely on the same power grids, transport networks, and markets as civilians. Targeting these could disrupt corporate-military operations.
• Public Sentiment and Global Attention:
  • A scenario where corporations and parts of the military fight against civilians would likely draw international condemnation. External support for the civilian side could tip the balance.

---

Who Would Likely Win?​

1. If the Military Remains United Behind CEOs:
   • With corporate funding and technological augmentation, this faction would likely dominate in a conventional conflict, leveraging superior resources, intelligence, and firepower.
2. If the Military Fragments:
   • A divided military, with some factions supporting civilians or resisting corporate control, could lead to a protracted conflict where no clear victor emerges. This scenario would resemble an insurgency, with civilians exploiting the fragmented chain of command.
3. In the Long Term:
   • Corporate-backed military forces might achieve early victories but would struggle to maintain control over a resistant and decentralized population, particularly if supply lines, infrastructure, or public support erode their position.

---

Conclusion​

If CEOs managed to align a significant portion of the military to their interests, they would gain a powerful advantage, but their ability to "win" would hinge on maintaining loyalty and control over resources. Civilians, despite their numerical and insurgent potential, would face immense challenges against such a coalition. The outcome would likely depend on whether ideological divides within the military weaken corporate control, tipping the scales toward a prolonged, unpredictable conflict.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So I guess they'll rather kill their customers than make life easier for them so they can continue to make money while not being hated.

They don't have to kill anyone and will get more protection from the Government, which, in turn, will increase costs to the consumer due to increased overhead of hiring bodyguards and other protective measures to keep all the Corporate personnel safe from those who 'hate' them.

So, basically, this is stupid and won't get the changes made that would actually matter.

Terrorism/murder/anarchy is NOT the answer.​

 

[humminbird]

no duh they were going to double down
the shareholders don't give a fukk