(09-12-2024, 06:05 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: The CEO of a company doesn't deploy AI. Doesn't turn down claims. Doesn't make rude signs at claimant relatives. The CEO manages the directors and senior managers, and is ultimately responsible to the shareholders.
Killing him is a political assassination, a poltical statement, underlined by the grandstanding of the notations on the shells. It achieves nothing real in the battle against the privatised US health system. If anything it makes it even more resistant to change.
I'm not altogether sure on that; it has stirred up a lot of already existing resentment with their health system which may eventually force some change. Even a small window dressing type of change could eventually lead to bigger changes, although I agree that it was very much a political assassination.
They might do better to perhaps try approaching those shareholders very publicly.
(09-12-2024, 06:05 PM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: The CEO of a company doesn't deploy AI. Doesn't turn down claims. Doesn't make rude signs at claimant relatives. The CEO manages the directors and senior managers, and is ultimately responsible to the shareholders.
Killing him is a political assassination, a poltical statement, underlined by the grandstanding of the notations on the shells. It achieves nothing real in the battle against the privatised US health system. If anything it makes it even more resistant to change.
I think though that maybe their entire system desperately needs a massive overhaul, but that seems unlikely while there's money to be made - even if it's from the suffering of others, some don't seem to mind.
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)