If there was ever an argument for national health-care this is it
this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
303 points (99.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
2646 readers
292 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We support it, at least in theory.
The problem is 99% of voters support Republicans and Democrats, and both of those parties oppose universal health care.
Well one of those parties expands Medicaid, the other reveals it
It is infuriating watching Democrats say they support something but then working against it behind the scenes. I agree.
I wouldn't say support when we only have two choices. I'm liberal and loathe the Democrats. And listen to conservatives, they don't use the word Republican any longer, they just say "conservative values". As with liberals, they know their party doesn't represent what it says it represents.
Anyone happen to have the names of the c suite at Blackrock? For research purposes.
fink /fiNGk/ DEROGATORY•INFORMAL noun an unpleasant or contemptible person
Anyway,
Yeah, hard to imagine a more apropos name for sometime at the top of such a scummy operation.
so you're saying it worked.....
Oh, so BlackRock needs to be the next target?
The reason they gave for suing UHC certainly would seem like that's what their lawyers are requesting.
Someone is paying attention. ^^
The System Working Exactly as Designed This isn’t a bug in American healthcare — it’s a feature. BlackRock’s massive influence helped shape UnitedHealth into the claim-denial machine it became. They voted on executive compensation packages that rewarded denying care. They approved strategies that prioritized shareholder returns over patient outcomes. But when public outrage threatens that business model, they don’t pivot to supporting better healthcare. They sue to protect their right to profit from human suffering. The Punchline That Isn’t Funny BlackRock will probably win this lawsuit. Or settle for millions. Either way, they’ll extract value from a system designed to extract life from patients. They’re not just suing UnitedHealth — they’re suing the very idea that health insurance should provide health insurance. They’re fighting for their constitutional right to profit when people die and lose money when people live. Welcome to American healthcare, where caring too much is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Now we need Mario
Feels like a post-credits reveal of a new big bad that was controlling the old one this whole time.
Blackrock Executivea are shaken lmao
Good
Hey CEO's: This is the actual value that investors put on your lives.
I’ve been skeptical about the argument that UHC made major changes to be more pro-consumer after the shooting. So I am very curious what the case is based on here.
Honestly, I thought the first lawsuit was a publicity stunt but blackrock doesn’t seem like the type, so maybe there is something to this.
They did temporarily approve more cases shortly after the death. They certainly didn't make major changes though, and I think it's back at the status quo now.
Look, if someone is sick and it's anything above a scraped knee, the science says you shoot them in the head. I don't know how else you can run a profitable healthcare company. /s
False. The cost of bullets brings down profits. Just throw them in a ditch. As long as there’s no transport cost, of course.
Edit: I forgot to add, make sure the guy throwing them in the ditch isn't getting any overtime.
Unlike cops, who bilk cities out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime, the bullshit plebs that operate our ditch-throwing service are exempt. Invest in my healthcare company!
~Cave Johnson
Luigi Larry Fink
This piece does beat the dead whale a bit, but it's interesting the first time around.