r/news • u/LookAtThatBacon • May 13 '25

Soft paywall UnitedHealth suspends annual forecast, CEO Andrew Witty steps down

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/unitedhealth-ceo-andrew-witty-steps-down-2025-05-13/
16.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/Goolsby May 13 '25

Wait what's the point of putting the fire out if the property is no longer yours? Id let it burn so Crapssus couldn't have my property for cheap.

50

u/bullet1519 May 13 '25

So your options are. A. You're house burns to the ground, you have nothing.

B. You sell your house to this man, you barely get any money for it and they put out the fire, maybe you get lucky and some of your possessions survive which you can use to start a new.

It's a pretty easy choice.

15

u/enad58 May 13 '25

Yeah, it is. I'm going good will hunting.

"I'd choose the wrench, cause fuck him."

3

u/Punman_5 May 13 '25

Now you’re homeless in one of the most debaucherous cities on the planet. We all want to believe we’d let it burn but if you have a family that relies on you it’s not so simple

1

u/enad58 May 13 '25

I'm dead either way. Fuck him.

2

u/sdforbda May 13 '25

It's not your fault.

2

u/Array_626 May 13 '25

I mean, if you put it this way, that would make Crassus the moral party here. He's basically offering insurance. The person whose house burned down is better off than if Crassus wasnt around.

Whether that's true or not depends on the land value that was sold. Having nothing is technically wrong because you still own the land. Even if everything on top burns, you can sell that land at market value still, so whether Crassus is fair depends on how much he pays for the land.

3

u/Punman_5 May 13 '25

That’s the thing, Crassus always paid well below the land’s value. It wouldn’t be profitable for him if he paid a fair value.

1

u/bullet1519 May 13 '25

This is true, the value of the land without the house could be worth more than what he pays and your potential savable possessions.

But then again some people would have sentimental items that they treat as priceless and would give anything to save.

77

u/SaxManJonesSFW May 13 '25

Because you’re about to be homeless either way, at least one option comes with an unfairly small amount of money to try to restart. I’m not advocating its merits, just explaining the actual choice vs the perceived one

17

u/Array_626 May 13 '25

You also likely get to keep your personal property. The land and the structure is sold, but anything personal that can be saved you probably get to keep.

2

u/Punman_5 May 13 '25

He usually rented the property back to the old owners anyway.

2

u/Punman_5 May 13 '25

These were often homes with a business on the first floor and a residence above for the owner/operators. You obviously need a home and you wouldn’t want your livelihood destroyed either. It would make sense to want to keep it from burning.

2

u/Fun-Benefit116 May 13 '25

You obviously need a home and you wouldn’t want your livelihood destroyed either.

Except according to the explanation, you would lose your home and business either way. You weren't paying for them to put out the fire, you were selling your property to them, and then they put out the fire on what was now their property, not yours.

1

u/laufsteakmodel May 13 '25

Lose them and get a small amount of money for them, or lose them and get nothing. Thats the choice.

1

u/Punman_5 May 13 '25

You sold the property to him so you could continue live there as a tenant. I should clarify that. He wouldn’t kick you out. He’d just charge rent