Comment on BlackRock is Suing UnitedHealth for Giving “Too Much Care” to Patients After the CEO was Murdered

• cypherpunks@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Which part of it is fake?

  Here is an excerpt of the CNBC article about it:

  On Dec. 3 — a day before Thompson was fatally shot — the company issued guidance that included net earnings of $28.15 to $28.65 per share and adjusted net earnings of $29.50 to $30.00 per share, the suit notes. And on January 16, the company announced that it was sticking with its old forecast.

  The investors described this as “materially false and misleading,” pointing to the immense public scrutiny the company and the broader health insurance industry experienced in the wake of Thompson’s killing.

  The group, which is seeking unspecified damages, argued that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing “the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals.

  “As such, the Company was deliberately reckless in doubling down on its previously issued guidance,” the suit reads.

  The company eventually revised its 2025 outlook on April 17, citing a needed shift in corporate strategy — a move that caused its stock to drop more than 22% that day.

  The Medium post’s headline is not entirely false but its framing is sensationalist clickbait and misleads the reader: “BlackRock is Suing UnitedHealth for Giving “Too Much Care” to Patients After the CEO was Murdered” gives the incorrect impression that this lawsuit is demanding UnitedHealth go back to providing less care, but in fact the lawsuit appears to condemn their “anti-consumer tactics” while demanding damages from their “materially false and misleading” statement in January.

  source

  • rocket_dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • Sal@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    As far as I can tell, this is the legal document associated with the lawsuit: …courtlistener.com/…/gov.uscourts.nysd.642027.1.0…

    The most significant component of this claim is not the lawsuit itself (examples of frivolous lawsuits are common), but that BlackRock is the one suing. BlackRock doing this is the important and remarkable claim here.

    I see no obvious connection between Roberto Faller and BlackRock. To me this looks like a frivolous lawsuit issued by a random inconsequential individual. So, then, framing it as BlackRock suing is blatant misinformation.

    I could be missing something here, perhaps there is indeed a BlackRock connection that I was unable to identify. But that Medium article is certainly not explaining the connection. The CBS article does not mention BlackRock.

    If there is no connection to BlackRock, then adding “BlackRock” to the title is not click-bait! It is a blatant lie.

    source
• jballs@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Not OP, but I revisited the article after your question on their behalf. The biggest gripe I can find is the headline mentions they’re suing for United providing “Too Much Care” in quotes. It’s mentioned in quotes later in the article as well, which would make you think that is mentioned either in the lawsuit itself or in the original CBS article referenced by this article.

  I’m too lazy to check the entire lawsuit, but checking the CBS article I didn’t see anything at all that mentioned “Too Much Care”. So yeah… OP got down voted a bunch, but they might have a point. This article does seem to be a bit inflammatory and is making claims that don’t seem to be backed up by the source articles.

  source

  • rocket_dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      a parasite company of another parasite company.

      source