• bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    21 days ago

    It literally was not, this wasn’t an overnight decision per someone who’s read more than you

    “Turns out the state comptroller was going to go after them about this policy, which is why they’re doing an about-face for now”

    • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 days ago

      at first I blocked you but now I want to point out 1) companies rarely go back on profit-making decisions simply because the state “will” “go after” them, in the future tense and 2) they announce the decision to backtrack on this today, the day after the guy gets got. A Thursday. Kinda random to announce a policy change that ONLY occurred because “the state comptroller” “will” “go after us,” and 3) kinda hard to frame it as “the state comptroller” forcing the decision when they announce rolling it back in other, unrelated states. Unless the state comptroller of Connecticut also holds sway in New York.

      who’s read more than you

      literally eat my entire asshole for breakfast, lunch and dinner btw, thx

      • bbnh69420 [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        Oh so you did do a bunch of research on healthcare in Connecticut/NE? Or are you trying to confirm your priors by thinking healthcare companies are making policy decisions because of one murder?

        • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 days ago
          1. kinda hard to frame it as “the state comptroller” forcing the decision when they announce rolling it back in other, unrelated states. Unless the state comptroller of Connecticut also holds sway in New York.

          doubling down on connecticut like connecticut controls new york (in which they’ve also reversed this decision)

          Or are you trying to confirm your priors by thinking healthcare companies are making policy decisions because of one murder

          I think it’s really suspicious timing and there is absolutely a non zero chance that their decision to announce this, TODAY, was motivated by the murder and the subsequent widespread consensus of “yeah fuck insurance companies, he deserved it” I’ve been seeing

          and again, idk if you know much about America or american corporations or health insurance companies in particular but they don’t typically announce a ghoulish change to make a bunch of money and then go back on it just because “the state comptroller MIGHT go after us 😔😔😔”

          like how much do you think the lawyers to keep that tied up in court would cost versus money saved in the meantime by denying claims? idk, but I would be very surprised if the lawyers would cost more, anesthesia and related insurance is fucking expensive because if they fuck up, people die

          anyway, blocking you again