We have record amounts of people ill, a massive part of this is being unable to see a GP.
High-profile killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
It is a weird take, because in any insurance plan your premiums are used to pay others as well as your own claims.
Unless they don‘t buy insurance at all.
True enough. There is some high quality detective work being done on Twitter.
It would be truly absurd if they now come out and say that the man pictured without the mask is no longer the suspect, but we do live in strange times, so maybe it's possible.
So you're saying running an insurance company is the same as a sweatshop or trafficking women? Insurance companies also provide a service to millions of people, which, given there isn't wide ranging public insurance, people would not have without.
Am I saying the CEO was a good person? Absolutely not, I'm sure he could have done some small changes for the company to try and increase the claim acceptance rate. Does he deserve to die because the health system is fecked up? Feck no, there are more evil people running the health care industry.
Regarding the last line, like I asked, would anyone advocate for the killing for a claims investigator or underwriter who have rejected claims/policies based on conditions? The CEO doesn't even make a decision in the rejection of small level claims, which would effect the poorer individuals.
What "we" are you talking about. Speak for yourself. And did you put your thumb in your mouth while fantasizing about "gunning down" people like an 11 year old?
What a trainwreck of a post. Shooting people to promote a more empathetic society, are you Otto from A Fish Called Wanda?
oh come on
UHC has had far more influence over the dystopian nature of the US healthcare system than literally any other company - in large part because CEOs like this dude kept making executive decisions to pay off politicians to allow for ever more creative price gouging and wealth extraction from the general public.
And who do you think is chiefly responsible for this?
Anyway, why is everyone assuming it a fact that he was killed by someone disgruntled or angry over health care insurance? Just because it makes sense for us as a surrogate revenge fantasy against systemic injustice?
We know nothing about the murderer nor his motives.
We know nothing about the murderer nor his motives.
Deny?
Which means?
you're right it could be anything really
maybe he cut someone off in traffic, we shouldn't jump to conclusions
We also can’t rule out that he meant to pull his phone out and take a photo
There was a book written about the health care insurance called something like those three words. i think one of the words is different. If you google it.
Not saying it is not a likely motive. But we still don't know, do we?
those words line up remarkably similar to a nefariously run insurance companies strategy to deny claims to me
I disagree and I think it is beyond any reasonable doubt when you weigh up all the variables
Right, thanks, I did. Reports seem to vary about the exact words.
Fair enough. I was just a bit wary of pages upon pages of discussion about the morality of political assassination and righteous vigilantism when it seemed to me we don't really know what happened.
Not that I haven't had fantasies of capitalist villains being shot myself, but I realize that actual real life assassinations tend to be mob hits or some such stuff more often than done by gentle, empathetic people like you and me who just can't take it any more..
Though I might underestimate how low the bar for getting and shooting a gun is in the US, being from Germany. I might also underestimate, though of course I know about it from reports, the extent of emotional and existential devastation caused by the depravity of the US health system.
The politicians who decide not to change anything about it. You can argue about lobbying but again that's the job of the CEO, it's capitalism, they have to make money. The job if they politician is to help his/her constituents but they clearly don't care about them.
Like I said before, killing CEOs won't change anything about the system. Continue to take glee in it though.
Humour me here but also perhaps a murderer of, I dunno, a man in the streets...
The cognitive dissonance of some of you feckers is remarkable.
Also, why stop at CEOs? The CEO only rose to that level because they were, in theory, the most competent at their job. I say kill everyone that works at an insurer - just because they’re not as competent at climbing the hierarchy doesn’t mean they don’t also deserve to be mercilessly assassinated. No moral or decent person would take that job, right?
Do you think you’re clever when you write this because you sound really dumb
But surely there are ways to make money and be profitable while not absolutely selling your soul.
How good’s the internet. Random guy disagrees with opinion, calls guy dumb online without engaging with any points made
You’re just writing words without thinking about how silly they sound.
If it's possible then why not. Anything but mindless bland discussion.
They aren’t born into that job. They take a scumbag job. That should weigh heavy on their conscience.
Actually I was quite considered with my previous post. Obviously there’s a degree of exaggeration - I’m making a fecking point. But I’m genuinely curious about what the line is. At what level are you no longer culpable?
Are you though?
@nimic
There’s a pretty consistent theme of points I’m making which is actually very pleasing.
And every single time I actually engage with the point being made. I’ve no idea what point you think you’ve made here, but nice to know I’ve got a fan hehe
There’s a pretty consistent theme of points I’m making which is actually very pleasing.
And every single time I actually engage with the point being made. I’ve no idea what point you think you’ve made here, but nice to know I’ve got a fan hehe
Yep, they are.
In this thread, maybe? I haven't really been following along. But it's a bit rich to complain about people rudely not engaging your points when you yourself have a history of making snide remarks that don't relate to the discussion in any meaningful way. And honestly, if you're going to be sniping at people in your posts, they're entitled to attacking your tone - no matter how consistent your arguments are.
Oh I’ll definitely call out moronic opinions but every post you’ve cited, ironically, falls within a thread where I well and truly have engaged with the broader discussion at hand. It’s actually beautiful that you quoted those because I feel vindicated. I’ll cop the snide tone but you can’t accuse me of just having a dig and going on my merry way
You're not a drive by poster, I'll hand you that.
State of the art AI deployed to hunt terrorist who assassinated CEO that controlled the country’s healthcare system.
Surely that’s a Phillip K Dick novel…
Does no one have any personal responsibility for their actions?
Individual claims deciders and the doctors insurance companies keep on tap to deny claims? Just doing a job and following orders. The CEO? Powerless in front of the shareholders. Individual shareholders? Powerless in the face of the collective faceless mass of other shareholders. Structural reality all the way down, no individual responsibility.
You can apply this same logic to proactive mass murder too. Troops following orders from generals, appointed by the ruler, ruling with the consent of the people. Happily, no one is responsible for a war crime.
So, "shoot" the system, or respect that everyone doing this evil is just helpless and powerless. When you apply "just helpless under larger structural whims" to a CEO, that's absurdity.
When an addict stabs someone for drug money, they are operating under an unimaginably strong constraint. When a poor person does the same, they are operating under a much stronger material constraint than the CEO. What do we think of their personal responsibility?
I checked the thread a bit, with your point about the slippery slope, bringing up fossil fuels, and @neverdie about how we use oil...
I do think there is a very annoying leftist tendency to say "40 corporations are responsible for 80% of emissions" or something like that, which is obviously BS. If an oil company responsible for (making these numbers up) 6% and car company responsible for 4% went away, emissions wouldn't go down by 10%, people would still want to drive. Combatting climate change requires a change at the very end of that line.
But that's not all these companies do!
Oil companies commissioned research on climate change in the 80s, found exactly our reality, covered it up, and lobbied and bribed to help stop government action on it. Car companies lobbied and bribed for the US govt to spend billions on highways, degrade existing pedestrian and public transport infrastructure, and oppose new ones. CEOs made these choices. And when a person chooses to drive, he is making that choice in the world shaped by those companies.
I think you underestimate the power lobbying holds.
The system is in place because the money makes sure the system stays in place.
Obviously assassinations shouldn’t be celebrated in a healthy society but this celebration isn’t the disease it’s the symptom of the parasitic industry.
its easy for you to take the moral high ground when you haven’t been through the hardships people go through due to these companies..
Go read some stories, maybe then you’ll understand.