Even more so when that person later loudly proclaims that they never made such a request, even when provided with written proof.
I can of course not say whether the people currently working at Twitter did warn that the recent measures could have such major side effects, but I would not be surprised in the slightest, considering their leadership's mode of operation.
Even as someone who very much detests what Twitter has become over the last few months and in fact did not like Twitter before the acquisition, partly due to short format making nuance impossible, but mostly for the effect Tweets easy embeddability had on reporting (3 Tweets from random people should not serve as the main basis for an article in my opinion), I must say, I feel very sorry for the people forced to work at that company under that management.
I worked in the games industry for a while, and came to understand how they could spend so much money and so much time, and yet release a game where even basic functionality was broken. It's exactly this sort of extreme schedule pressure that, ironically, makes a huge morass where changing one thing breaks 10 other things, so progress grinds to a halt.
This is like a case study in what happens when you fire everyone except the sycophants and yes-men.
I only feel sorry for remaining non-yes-men twitter employees who might still be there because for whatever personal reasons they're in a precarious economic situation where they can't quit (H1B?) or are tied to the company for healthcare coverage (Thanks, America, for being the greatest country in the world) because they can't afford any other health insurance option.
If an affordable or free healthcare option was offered on top of making employer provided healthcare illegal, then I completely am behind your idea.
It's already a bunch of private companies.
> These private companies would drive up the cost even more.
Other way around - by having to actually directly compete for customers, instead of just having to convince a few large corporation prices would go down, not up.
Although we really should not ignore that insurance companies are not the drivers of higher costs, it's health care providers that do that.
It's enjoyable to blame insurance companies, but the reality is their profits are capped by law - they are not the problem. Dr.'s will have to take a pay cut, and there will have to be mass layoffs, there's no other way to reduce costs.
Health insurance profits are capped only as a percentage of premiums collected, not a fixed dollar amount cap. The rule is you must pay out 80% of premiums collected, everything else is OH&P.
Turns out, if healthcare costs go up, then premiums go up. If premiums go up, then insurer profits go up.
Healthcare providers and health insurers have an aligned perverse incentive to have healthcare cost as much as possible, since that is what increases their profits.
This isn’t a hard relationship to uncover if you are familiar with the insurer profit cap portion of the ACA and also how money gets made.
OK, I can agree with that - but it doesn't change my point that cost reductions need to start with providers, NOT with insurance companies.