This is an excellently written comment, thank you!

but in fact the lawsuit appears to condemn their “anti-consumer tactics” while seeking damages from their “materially false and misleading” statement to investors in January.

I’m going to have to argue a bit here because you’re describing the legal case correctly, but the legal case is not the same as the reality.

Healthcare investors are fully aware that they profit over denying claims. That is their business model. They make money by denying claims. They are invested in profiting by denying as many claims as possible. Sure, publicly they will condemn “anti-consumer tactics”, but at the same time they’re lining their own pockets with the profits of those tactics.

The “misleading” statement by Healthcare United was that the profit would continue to be the same. Because claims would be denied at the same rate. Why was the statement misleading? Because claims were not denied at the same rate, more claims were paid out than before.

The medium article is sensationalized, but it’s also reading between the lines of the lawsuit. The investors are not stupid. The investors know full well that you cannot maintain the same profit if you raise your expenses. Profit = revenue - expense. Denying fewer claims raised the expenses. To be mad that profit didn’t stay the same, they are actually mad that claim denials did not stay at the same rate.

I guarantee you this lawsuit is not about improving healthcare and getting ordinary people the care they need. This is just another game of rich people making money.

SO, Blackrock is suing because “the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing ‘the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve’ its earnings goals.”

The “anti-consumer tactics” would be denying coverage on providing care. So, United Healthcare care was providing more care, and making less profit as a result.

Now I think the lawsuit is aimed at the earnings goals itself, and the communications around expenses, not the expenses themselves. “Too Much Care” is reductive, sensationalized, but it’s not outright incorrect.

Remember that privatized healthcare is inherently broken, because your profit model depends entirely on denying people coverage.

Which part of it is fake?

What’s the Russian bot agenda here? Make Blackrock look bad?

Not nearly enough tugging of braids :d

Famously he declared that slavery was justified because it was necessary to create the US:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53550882

By the same contrived logic

No, those are absurd statements with no logic.

See how pointless such arguments are?

Yours are, mine isn’t.

You could try actually addressing what I say instead of making absurd statements and then acting like you making absurd statements is proof that my statement is absurd.

Okay well you didn’t have to lie and say it’s included when it isn’t included.

If you follow that line of reasoning:

Because we can’t stop Israel without violence, any call to stop Israel is a call for violence against Israel.

And violence against Israel is banned.

So stopping Israel is banned.

So the rules enforce allowing Israel to continue a genocide.

The rules are pro-genocide.

Isn’t the IDF Israel’s regular army?

Nope. Nope. Nope.

https://jewishstudies.washington.edu/israel-hebrew/civil-military-relations-in-israel-politics-state-society/

Can you quote the specific part of the text that bans defending the IDF?