High-profile killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
Deny the claims, defend your position, depose the medical experts.
Well duh, of course the politicians should go too. But acting like they aren't working hand in hand is naive.
Also again, UHC is quite literally the root cause of so many issues with the US system. Beyond the fact that commercial insurance is allowed to exist, the biggest problem currently is the vertical integration that UHC pioneered when they created Optum plus the PBM cartel they've formed with ESI and Caremark.
That would be even funnier if that ended up being the motive
No one becomes a national-level lawmaker without a lot of money to finance their campaigns, and most are getting it from sources with strings attached. Therefore I reject and deny your claims to absolve blame. Though I agree with you that the occasional yeeting of an insurance CEO isn't gonna change the system.
This is quite something.
100%
You are a very strange fellow.
Certainly wouldn’t deny that. Takes one to know one, right?
Weird post to use as evidence though.
I suddenly want to watch Mr. Robot again.
Ooh. Another Twitter zinger!
Are you consciously trying to be a dumb annoying internet debater stereotype, or does it just come naturally to you?
I knew when I saw your name it would be a ripper. Have a good Sunday mate
People are looking at the problem the wrong way.
Unscrupulous CEO's are not the problem. They're the symptom of the problem.
Like every other thing that eventually died off due to morality issues through the relevant bills being passed (Slavery, Kids working in factories, workhouses, child conscription, naval piracy, state sanctioned kidnapping and privateering etc etc etc), the change will only come from good governance and policy at the state level.
People always have been, remain so, and always will be greedy cnuts. It's up to the legal and governing system to mitigate that as much as possible.
Unscrupulous CEO's are not the problem. They're the symptom of the problem.
Like every other thing that eventually died off due to morality issues through the relevant bills being passed (Slavery, Kids working in factories, workhouses, child conscription, naval piracy, state sanctioned kidnapping and privateering etc etc etc), the change will only come from good governance and policy at the state level.
People always have been, remain so, and always will be greedy cnuts. It's up to the legal and governing system to mitigate that as much as possible.
It was partly a genuine question. It's a phrase you'll never ever encounter in the real world, but see relatively often by certain people on the Internet. It's not a good comeback, it's not funny, it's not clever, so what is it that motivates you and your like-minded internet debaters to say it? I would actually like to know.
I feel like violence may have played some small part in the dissolution of slavery.
And there may have been a little bit of direct labour action to force better conditions in factories.
Yeah, but with Citizens United the interests that want the awful systems and practices to stay in place are legally allowed to buy elections, and they are really effective at getting the masses to vote against their interests. With the currently elected government, supreme court and media landscape, I have a really hard time seeing things in the US gradually bending towards justice. In fact, I think the opposite is more likely. Just taking one of your examples, child labor, it actually seems like the US is sliding backwards on that. Similarly, you can argue that the US prison system borders on slave labor, and you could go on. So, when the system will not produce fair results for people, these reactions are bound to happen.
This is not to say that CEO murder will solve anything though. Just a my prediction that the US isn't trending for the better, and that we could see more events like this in the coming years.
Not making a comment on the CEO here but didn’t quite a few of these (particularly slavery, naval piracy and privateering) involve quite q lot of violence on the road to stopping them?
I miss the Wenger smilie.
I miss the Wenger smilie.
Edit: hang on, I put in
Code:
:houllier:not
Wiki:
:wenger:If I don't start raping, someone else will do it, If I don't start killing, someone else will do it.etc...
What an absurd racionalization
So a CEO is trapped? then don't be a CEO. Is not ok to kill a CEO because if he doesn't do what the board says he will be fired and anyway someone else would do but is ok to kill politicians because...like they can't be fired (voted out)? because no one else can substitute them?
What a big pile of bollocks
The civil war was a direct outcome of legislation.
Slavery wasn't ended by anti-slavers going around plantations and murdering the owners. Bonda-fide vigiliante actions on a singular level doesn't work. It takes mass systemic change whether through group action (which may include violence) or the political pressures of legislation.
Man’s got that Jeremy Meeks rizz.
I'm not saying violence isn't a solution, but it only works when the violence is enacted by state precedence.
The Atlantic slave trade between Africa and Americas wasn't ended by idealistic sailors and captains going around doing vigilante work, but with parliament passing acts that gave the Royal Navy power to enforce (through violence, or threat of violence).
No, but it didn't hurt. John Brown didn't end slavery, but he certainly played his part in bringing about the conditions that made it possible.
I am fascinated by the social response this case has provoked, and I have attempted to have (mostly - I’ll cop some of the criticisms of snarkiness) fruitful conversations.
I have put about 5 comments in here attempting to understand certain opinions. I was surprised to see someone pick out old comments from a bunch of disparate threads. ‘Nice to see I have a fan’ is a light hearted response to that. It’s not that offensive (or original I’ll grant but so what?). If I’m guilty on this occasion of trotting out a banality then so be it.
I’d actually rather discuss what has happened in NYC. It’s way more interesting than this shit. Do you have an opinion on that?
Yeah, i'm not arguing that the CEO being murdered here deserves any sympathy (hint, he's a prick), but he's a symptom of a system that enables him and allows him to be able to do the things he does.
Rather than trying to go around killing all these CEO types, the better solution is to prevent the CEO from actually being able to do the things he/she does.
This is a hilarious line. “Is it not okay to kill a CEO…” - obviously it’s not?! What on earth is going on
Sure, I don't think the solution is individually killing every CEO, and that's honestly not what anyone in here is arguing either. But I think this is actually a good example the impact a single act like this can have. It's triggered (or highlighted) a public conversation about these insurance companies and the American health care system in general. Will it on its own lead to anything concrete? No. But it sure seems to have displayed the cracks forming.
most people agree with that I think
but a system has been created to prevent any realistic chance of that happening
both political parties are complicit so nothing can be done at the ballot
the only somewhat realistic option is some sort of ground roots protest, which will no doubt get the grifter-for-hires chomping at the bit to convince the general public those people are terrorists/wokes/unamerican or whatever the case may be
Thousands of shootings happen everyday in the states but the FBI get involved in this one? High profile should not be the main reason for the FBI getting involved. It should be based on threat level.
What? US averages 53 firearms related deaths a day, and more than half of them are manslaughter and/or legally justified.
It's very obviously someone noticing your general tone, and doing a one minute word search, so your surprise is a bit strange. It could be a complete unfamiliarity with how forums and comment histories work, but you trotting out a stereotypical internet debater response clashes with that. And that's the thing, it's not a banality, it's something only a certain weird type of internet debater says. I've got one here, so I'm asking - again - why? It's sarcastic, but it's not funny or clever, so you're presumably not trying to make a joke or impress. You're somehow trying to make fun of the person you're replying to, but the attempt is so bad, so what can the rationalisation be? Is it as simple as "haha, you have noticed me"?
No, I have no opinion to share with you on any current event.
But I don’t typically post like an ‘internet debater’? I’m not sure what you actually mean but I barely use social media and don’t comment anywhere else but here. I usually try to have fairly substantial chats on this forum. You handpicking that sentence is weird for this reason.
And I’ve bolded part of your response - my answer is yes. Is that so odd? I post in bursts and have just started posting again. I was surprised
Yes, it's odd, which is why I asked.
Take it to PMs, that's a bit too meta for the rest of us.
This argument that says how can we hold indjvidual cogs within a system personally responsible when they are merely a one cog that answers to bigger cogs, and how can we ever draw a line on which cogs get held responsible when each cog is connected to the next, is fecking weak.
There is very famous historical precedent that shows we can acknowledge that a system is wrong but also acknowledge individuals within the system as being morally and/or legally accountable.
The last I looked, a CEO is pretty far up the chain. And their responsibility and culpability for exploitative practices is going to be bigger than the minimum wage employee downstairs in the mail room. Making these distinctions is quite possible.
There is very famous historical precedent that shows we can acknowledge that a system is wrong but also acknowledge individuals within the system as being morally and/or legally accountable.
The last I looked, a CEO is pretty far up the chain. And their responsibility and culpability for exploitative practices is going to be bigger than the minimum wage employee downstairs in the mail room. Making these distinctions is quite possible.
What a completely brainless moral abdication.
Slave plantation owners weren't the problem they were symptoms of a system.
Idi Amin's generals weren't the problem they were actually victims to the systems.