Can we estimate how many deaths a company is responsible for?
Can we estimate how many deaths a company is responsible for?
The current news has me thinking that, while the death of any human is not something I actively relish, most people feel a certain satisfaction, relief or, at least, less sad when someone like Osama Bin Laden dies, because they were responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
Which got me wondering, have studies been done estimating how many legitimate insurance cases are rejected, delayed or otherwise mishandled, and how many of those result in deaths? I guess other industries are also responsible for some pretty measurable risk factors (e.g. air pollution). It would interesting to see some rough numbers of how many deaths the CEOs who choose to continue running these companies in harmful ways account for. Obviously, they are only indirectly responsible, but the same could be said about Bin Laden, he didn't fly the planes himself, he delegated.
I have no idea how to answer your question, I just want to point out something you hinted at, intentionally or not: The UHC CEO and other ghouls like him have killed more Americans than Bin Laden could ever dream of. Hell, I think even Adolf would be impressed.
These companies are the death
(lost the word, “courts”?)panels* that the Republicans cried fake outrage about when Democrats pushed the Affordable Care Act.Edit: thank you @DisguisedJoker@lemmy.world and @neidu3@sh.itjust.works
I think the term you're looking for is "death panels ".
Yes, but these ones are for-profit, see?
They are killing people on an industrial scale
It is impossible to accurately quantify how many deaths and human years lost can be directly attributed to Brian Thompson. UnitedHealthcare themselves may have some data but there are also indirect deaths and shortened life spans as a result of denied or delayed treatment.
Yeah, we can determine a floor but no upper limit.
If I drive my wife to the hispital instead of taking an ambulance becsuse of the worry about cost and she died on the way it would be due to the industry but wouldn't be counted against them in any statistic.
Or the people that don't seek care at all because they know the care isn't affordable. Folks with and without insurance die from treatable, non diagnosed diseases simply because they can't afford the routine checkups that could have caught the issue in time.
Worth mentioning (even though yes the post asks specifically about deaths) - the harm caused is far greater than just the deaths that needn't have happened.
The amount of chaos and misery inflicted on the suffering as they and their families have to fight the insurance companies while trying to fight whatever illness...these companies make the worst moments of people's lives much, much worse. The deaths are just the tip of the iceberg, truly.
The kind of information you're looking for, are in the databanks behind the closed doors of said company. They're the record holders. And prying that kind of information out from them isn't going to go as smoothly, not without breaking laws of confidentiality.
If the government cared, they could compel them to be transparent about this stuff but…
First order, 2nd order or third order becomes an issue as you point out, gun deaths assigned to Winchester or to the shooter or to the Governments who allows legislation for it to happen ? ? Another example, cigeratte smoke, contact from particulates on residuals left on inanimte objects (3rd order) kills thousands of people, whose "fault"? Should you approach anyone seen smoking and rightly accuse them of manslaughter for third order impacts ? Or just shoot them becase it's a "greater good" ?
I read an article once on how much Artic ice the average American melted annually though car emissions, how many do they kill through car manslaughter vs car pollution, is that then treated like gun deaths? Assigned to Ford or Toyota, or to the individual ? What about voters who choose not to elect politicians who then support car use reduction via public and alterate transport even if they dont drive themselves ?
No train driver delivering inmates to Auswitch killed anyone but we hold them somewhat responsible, not the company making the trains not those building the trains.
What about those working in ammunition factories suppying Israel ? Vicarious liability is a thing. Just rhe CEO ?
Is the wife who shoots her abusive husband responsible? What about the "terrorist" from Afghanistan who had their family whiped out by a US combatant and bombs a Mall in the US ? Revenge, or justice, or ? Should the US Army be held responsbile for it ? The Government? the voters ?
I don't think it's a slippery slope, I think it's impossible to calculate and i don't think theres any solution. I do think a bunch of people will hold wildly differing opinions eg i think the Unabomber was right and justified and Manson was wrong ... for another example. Was a terrorist like Washington right ? Only becase he won.
Yes, of course we can estimate it. We can just guess, that’s estimation. From there, it would have to come along with clues, or metrics, though. At that point, that’s when the real problem emerges: each company has a completely different impact on the planet, economy, culture, etc.
So, in other words, you can’t proceed with a single model, and therefore the models are difficult to compare with one another in terms of their accuracy.
It’s almost better to, instead of trying to measure each company (depressing, time consuming, complex) just come up with a threshold of what constitutes too much death. Then it becomes clearer that the problem is that we’re looking for a certain tally to determine if a line has been crossed or not, when we already know the answer:
One preventable death is enough to warrant a major response.
No amount of bureaucracy or legislative tissues can change the fact that it’s morally wrong to broker death for profit. Scale of profit doesn’t matter, plausible deniability doesn’t matter. It’s the end of someone’s life for money. Either it is okay, or not.
We often get caught up in the numbers because they introduce a debatable, grey terrain where the gravity of what we’re really discussing isn’t as hard to face. But it’s the trolley problem, and ultimately most of the actions we do in the interests of debating it just serve the purpose of letting us talk and ignore the lever. Meanwhile the trolley barrels on.
Well put
I'm not sure how you would do it, but I'm pretty sure that whatever number you come up with can safely be tripled.
Big companies become like alien organisms that are embodied in big buildings and employ human beings as blood cells. They are predators that consume human life energies.
Are you planning something special? :D
No, indirectly everyone's responsible. CEOs are just doing their job and they answer to the board, the investors, and the law.
CEOs are just doing their job
So where the guards at Auschwitz, they had families to support, acted lawfully etc.
Is everyone equally responsible though? CEOs would have intimate knowledge of their business model, and power to change it. Otherwise they aren’t doing their job.
The CEO hate around here is childish. If the CEO doesn't do what the board of directors wants, he's fired. And the investors can fire the board. And next I'll explain how golden parachutes actually work.
OTOH, I have zero problems with targeting healthcare CEOs. None. Zip. Zilch. NADA. They know the evil shit they signed up for.
If the CEO doesn’t like hurting vulnerable people they can find another job. They don’t have to do it.
I am not following?
the Adjustor deposed a high ranking officer within the cartel structure and people are cheering.
Not that Brian the parasite was merely a "division" CEO too
I do agree they all deserve it tho sure... but we can't openly say that in civil society.