• t�m@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I wish the law got rewritten for companies so that it’s more of revenue + assets of the top level execs personally + the company as well. I know it isn’t going to happen, but I could dream.

      • Doom4535@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Honestly executives and board members who receive performance bonuses and golden parachutes should carry extra liability, such that these perks can be denied or even clawed back (and used to help the damages) when their decisions have these sort of outcomes. Nothing wrong with making more when things go well, but if you’re going to take a larger piece of the pie, then you need to be prepared to take a smaller piece when things go wrong (aka, cut executive pay before layoffs, etc.).

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So they spent $400m to save money? How many decades until they break even? Imagine what good that money could have done.

    • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Given that medicaid costs something like 880000 million dollars, I can pretty much promise that it saved money if it was denying people en masse.

      The whole healthcare system private and public is corrupt and lining the pockets of the wealthy at scale. All the middlemen are leeches from the insurance companies, to the “service” companies that clean hospitals, nursing homes, to the medical supply companies that charge egregious prices.

      It doesn’t matter if the healthcare provider is nonprofit because all the other ancillary services make loads and loads of cash… which means medicare/medicaid and all private insurances end up spending tens of thousands of dollars per patient, or more. Turns out… private health insurance profits are regulated to a percentage of money spent on treatments…more spend = more potential profits. It’s a balancing act of raising insurance subscription prices and raising treatment cost negotiations so that they hit that percentage and maximize profit per year.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well no. They spent 400 million dollars and got a buggy system that routinely dropped people, assigned benefits to the wrong place, failed to load required data, and so much more. Medicaid isn’t concerned with saving money.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This isn’t about Medicaid. This is about conservatives constantly looking for their bogeyman.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You think the Tennessee government told Deloitte to to give them a fucked up system?