Just a moment...
apnews.com

I figured this is the correct community to post to since UHC is a multi-national company but if this is more suited to US News I can move it.

    • TehPers@beehaw.orgEnglish
      41·
      7 days ago

      I would normally be upset about something like this happening, and would never advocate for it. But then I think about how many lives this person is indirectly responsible for ruining and I feel less bad lol

      • Gaywallet (they/it)@beehaw.orgM
        16·
        6 days ago

        At what point does indirectly become directly? I think what’s most important here is intent - this man was clearly knowledgeable enough to know he was causing harm and still chose to do so in order to increase shareholder profit. There is malice here no matter how you slice it.

        • rtc@beehaw.org
          2·
          5 days ago

          If a person refuses to see whether they are causing harm even unintentionally… refuses to even try… that’s all that matters. Responsibility lies there when the person causes harm. Same for persons who are aware and are personally fine with causing harm for gain. On the other hand, seeing and personally trying to reduce it, a person can atone for harm caused by oneself. These things cannot be forced. Attempts to be fully aware and not cause harm only brings happiness to the one making such attempts in the end. The ‘pains of life’, which is the purpose for the concept of ‘escapes’ to exist in the first place, go away completely. You could call such pains either the result of maliciousness or the naivety which aids people who want to cause harm.

          This is a decision everyone can only make by themselves.

        • TehPers@beehaw.orgEnglish
          3·
          6 days ago

          Indirectly or directly doing it, they still had the same intentions either way (like you mentioned). Neither is anymore excusable than the other. One is just more legal.