• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • MadhuGururajan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        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.

        • otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          There’s a question of where the line would be drawn.

          But do you kill everyone responsible for a joint decision?

          Do you kill everyone who benefitted from it? Shareholders, indirect investors, spouses and children…?

          • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            11 hours ago

            How many of your loved ones have they already murdered?

            How many more will have to die before the owners of this country decide that a for-profit healthcare system isn’t worth the threat those profits generate?

            The death toll of the health insurance industry currently stands at like 68,000/year. Health, life, and medical insurance companies combined employ about 900,000 people. We could end the insurance industry overnight and the lives saved would outnumber the jobs lost in like 13 years.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        12 hours ago

        When it comes to money they’re accountable and deserve millions.

        When it comes to the impact of their leadership they couldn’t possibly be accountable.