High-profile killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
Maybe if I hit rock bottom. My life is fairly comfortable right now and I don't feel like blowing that up but maybe I'd feel differently if that weren't the case.
People are talking about capitalism and the system with reference to the insurance companies and their way of business. Why don't we apply that same logic to this killing? Is this not just a natural consequence of late stage capitalism?
This system is brutal to the people at the bottom and it's only getting worse. Meanwhile the people at the top are only getting richer. The worse the inequality gets, the more desperate people are going to become. I'm honestly a little surprised this doesn't happen more often. Especially now it's so easy for us to see exactly who it is that's benefitting the most from the fecked up system we live in.
People have a choice what industry they go into. If you go into an industry where you are literally knowing you have to withdraw life saving medicine for profits - people will deservedly hate you.
A modern day sweatshop using child labour and a brothel trafficking women, will also have the same profit considerations. You can't justify a business or their practices based on target aims. And you can't justify the actions of a boss in any of these organisations with profit motive. And you can't defend the boss based on their position in the corporate heirarchy.
Judge these people on the decisions and actions they make. There is every reason to expect that the CEO in this case directly contributed to decision making that greatly harmed many people. And just because there might be people with even greater responsibility for harming people, doesn't mean you can't hold those with less responsibility, responsible for their actions.
Many atrocities could be framed as stemming from systemic issues, that doesn't mean that individuals don't also carry individual guilt for their role in the system.
The reason your post is so shit is because it assumes killing CEOs will achieve a more empathetic society. It obviously wouldn’t.
I have weird morality because I don’t exactly agree this dude necessarily deserved to be gunned down in the streets? Outstanding
I'm sorry but history does not support this. Every right we enjoy today was taken by force. We've allowed the elite to monopolise violence and exploit us beyond anything remotely sustainable. The only way to reverse course is to show the ruling class that there are consequences to their evil actions.
Are you a pacifist then?
No. Are your opinions shit and illogical? So far, yes
Without redress across many nations, in time, it will happen. And a lot worse than that. There are two options. Either you redistribute wealth through one economic program or another (you might have a boom of sorts which is something akin to the industrial revolution which addresses much of this - or not); or, without redress, people will suffer only for so long and then you will see something start to emerge and it will either swing left or right. The states, generally, will use every measure they have (they already are and have been for a long time) to try and make it swing right (as a contingency).
Same old story. Capitalism, as I said, is a system of human farming. It is a murderous system too. But is any given CEO capitalism? No.
80% of OECD nations own something like 15-25% of their nations' wealth. That's what this system does. It enriches a very few and impoverishes a very many. It is the death of capitalism we are witnessing, not its late stage. There is nowhere for it to turn.
So if you're not a pacifist, you must think violence can be used in certain situations.
The weird morality is that you don't think it's justifiable in this situation, against a man that benefits immensely from other people's suffering and is in fact incentivised to increase that suffering if it leads to more profit.
I always think about this on daily basis. I especially hate violence but something had to be done and its increasingly apparent. What did they expect pushing people to that extent? They will make am example of these incident no doubt but im not so sure if i want him to be caught.
Incrementally, that isn't entirely true. Many rights won were absolutely won by both force and what's more, the threat of force. It is the second which is, in many ways, far more scary to any ruling class than the first. The first will be filtered through their own, intentionally set-up, propaganda machines and will divide people on the issue. The second can happen at any moment and if large enough you don't even need to fire a bullet. It just sweeps the entire thing away.
Consider the USSR's downfall. It was mostly without a bullet. It had become internally totalitarian (without doubt). So there are examples of liberties won without force. But the threat of force, if the USSR clamped down, was not something they were willing to consider. Where that did happen, the clamp downs, the regimes were overthrown almost instantly (Romania).
Strike action and pacifist forces also played massive roles in rights won. And not that long ago. Of course it's a mix, but it isn't always "force". In the "murder them" sense.
I suspect the only person that thinks it’s ’weird morality’ (strange term btw?) is you. Was he a greedy bastard that prioritised wealth above all else? Likely. Was he also probably a ruthless prick? Yeah, there’s a good chance. Did he work for a deplorable entity? Yes. And did he deserve to be gunned down in the streets? No.
I get that it looks like two different people in those pictures, but if that was the case, wouldn't they have easily tracked down the smiling guy and corrected it?
Don’t be silly. It’s only the Twitter sleuths that are qualified to crack this one. Not the law enforcement agencies.
The guy is likely responsible for millions of deaths/lives ruined but you think he gets to hide behind just doing his job?
I’m slightly curious about when the executions end? Obviously fossil fuel CEO’s are next for the guillotine. When you look at the contribution that airlines make to climate change - which kills many multiples more people than insurance guy - they should be in the crosshairs as well. Car manufacturers too. Cigarette companies too, obvs. And let’s be honest those tech companies have blood on their hands too.
I never understood the logic of blaming big Oil, or big Tobacco (except when they were guilty of lying, as per big oil: the first knew what was happening to the climate in the 60s but hid it; the other, famously, knew that they added carcinogenics to their tobacco to make them intentionally more addictive). But the broader point is one of hypocrisy. People use oil/gas/smoke/fly/drive and so on and then point the finger at the ones who produce the stuff they use. Don't use it. I have more respect for a person not using any of these products and complaining, entirely without hypocrisy, than the ones who do use them, all the time, yet think they are not part of the problem.
It is slightly different for the US health insurance industry. You don't have a choice and they do kill people with their policies. Arguably worse than all the above just for that reason: there's no choice, and they feck you over, to your deathbed, intentionally.
His murder is a direct consequence of the failure of the democratic/capitalist system, to hold those enriching themselves abusing the system at great cost to society, accountable.
Pass some of Bernie Sander‘s proposals, and that company can‘t operate that way, it‘s that simple.
Violence happens when there is no recourse using other means.
This murder has gotten more attention and effect regarding claim denials than anything else.
Pass some of Bernie Sander‘s proposals, and that company can‘t operate that way, it‘s that simple.
Violence happens when there is no recourse using other means.
This murder has gotten more attention and effect regarding claim denials than anything else.
Fair point in that the people who give money to those insurers shouldn’t share any responsibility for what those corporations end up doing. But surely the idea that this guy deserved to die because his business practices cause death and misery equally applies to the CEOs who knowingly make climate change worse, for profit.
I don't believe the man deserved to die (deserved to be murdered). Cannot comment. I don't think murdering those CEOs will help either. You have to completely change the societal structures. Murdering is going to put you on a losing foot because the press apparatus is intentionally owned by an incestuous relation between oligarchs and the state. They will make you out to be a lunatic in every news report and paper. If it's a group thing, then you get put on a terrorist list. And so on. It just won't work. And for moral reasons I don't think it's right anyway.
I'm against the death-penalty.
Scenario: person, let's pretend we know this one actually is guilty, murdered a person.
Response: Murder the murderer? That makes no fecking sense at all. And you get it wrong more often than not anyway.
It's just immoral. You don't meet immorality with immorality.
Look at Malcolm X. Never murdered anyone. But if you read the press reports of the time you'd have had him down as a devil (without listening to him). That's how these apparati work. And it's entirely intentional. Same with MLK, people just forget it happened because he has a day named after him.
^ As succinct as it gets.
Last edited:
It should be possible to recognize that some good has come from this murder (for example, bringing the immorality and disfunction of the US healthcare system into the spotlight) without endorsing more of the same.
I'm willing to bet that most people that are hoping for more killings like this are opposed to the death penalty. They are against the state having the power to end a life, but are not opposed to vigilantes doing it, so long as the victim is sufficiently vile. It's morally inconsistent at best.
I'm willing to bet that most people that are hoping for more killings like this are opposed to the death penalty. They are against the state having the power to end a life, but are not opposed to vigilantes doing it, so long as the victim is sufficiently vile. It's morally inconsistent at best.
Murder, not an execution.
Although, maybe executions for ceo's or directors of companies with certain business practices might reign them in and bring about a more just society
Central Park is quite large.
And it really has no bearing on the point I was making. If the two people pictured aren't the same, surely the guy without the mask would have come forward to clear himself? Or at least not be on the run, so he could be found by the police.
I love this thread
Exactly. "CEOs are just doing their job, blame politicians"
Sure, but "talented" CEOs have used their companies’ clout to rig the system with lobbbying and the like. Heaving it all onto politicians isn’t fair either in that sense. They can’t do anything if they don’t stay in office, and you need to raise a ton of dough for reelection.
Not to mention, does the electorate not get any share of the blame? They’re not exactly booting out these politicians.
I don’t care if it makes me come across as a callous, shitty human being: I’m fine with C-suites getting a wake-up call. Huge companies have been robbing people blind, contributing to large amounts of death and destruction, and sooner or later redirecting anger towards poor people and immigrants will stop working and we’ll break the guilloutines out. Seems to be the way the pendulum swings, and it’s about bloody time IMO.
I think there is a greater chance of enacting change through killing more CEOs than there ever is from waiting for the Democratic party or Republicans to advocate for a humane health care system.
Whether the potential ends would justify the means is a different question. As is questioning if the people would have the stomach for more killings. I suspect there is a limited appetite.
Whether the potential ends would justify the means is a different question. As is questioning if the people would have the stomach for more killings. I suspect there is a limited appetite.
I can't celebrate that a man was killed, shot in the back with no warning. However, he did choose to go into that line of work and stay in it. He was under investigation himself I believe for trying to make even more money. He placed lining his own pockets over the morality of his work. His family now suffer for that.
It's no good saying that a comprehensive free (or virtually free) at the point of delivery health service is unattainable, because lots of countries offer just that. Yes, we all pay in via taxes, according to our income. Some people who pay in little or nothing may end up getting lots of money spent on their healthcare. But that's the only way to do it.
However, I can't see how the American system could be redesigned to offer that, with a mixed free and private sector (with the free sector offering perfectly good care, but not in plush surroundings or in private rooms and with longer waits for non-urgent care, as in many European countries). There are too many vested interests and too many billionaires already involved in the American model, and those are the people who have the money and influence to effect change. I mean, look at how Musk has been able to position himself following the recent election, simply by throwing money around. He's now walking the American corridors of power.
There also seems to be a mindset of "I'm not paying for someone else's healthcare", as if that's some kind of slide into communism. It's not, it's a move towards compassion for other people. A society that stresses individual rights over the common good will always end up in a bad place, eventually.
It's no good saying that a comprehensive free (or virtually free) at the point of delivery health service is unattainable, because lots of countries offer just that. Yes, we all pay in via taxes, according to our income. Some people who pay in little or nothing may end up getting lots of money spent on their healthcare. But that's the only way to do it.
However, I can't see how the American system could be redesigned to offer that, with a mixed free and private sector (with the free sector offering perfectly good care, but not in plush surroundings or in private rooms and with longer waits for non-urgent care, as in many European countries). There are too many vested interests and too many billionaires already involved in the American model, and those are the people who have the money and influence to effect change. I mean, look at how Musk has been able to position himself following the recent election, simply by throwing money around. He's now walking the American corridors of power.
There also seems to be a mindset of "I'm not paying for someone else's healthcare", as if that's some kind of slide into communism. It's not, it's a move towards compassion for other people. A society that stresses individual rights over the common good will always end up in a bad place, eventually.
Once again you’re ignoring the really important issue here. The opportunity to tweet gotchas online.
America, to me, seems the least stable democracy of all the democracies (traditionally considered as such). It is so uneven and the people who need to correct it have no self-incentive to do it: they are taught, from the earliest age, to worship wealth. The "prosperity doctrine" is one example of complete fecking nonsense. That's a large part of people justifying billionaires when they cannot even get insulin without being bankrupt.
Without necessary housing, healthcare, and education, publicly provided, and to a standard which is Necessary (not some shit services many Western states offer as throwaways to the working classes), you do not have a state at all. You have grounds, depending on how much these three diminish, for revolution.
Without necessary housing, healthcare, and education, publicly provided, and to a standard which is Necessary (not some shit services many Western states offer as throwaways to the working classes), you do not have a state at all. You have grounds, depending on how much these three diminish, for revolution.
Tend to agree with you. However, the NYPD isn’t exactly known for acting smart or competent and deserve next to no good will.
Would the NYPD be in charge of this investigation? It’s so high profile you’d imagine some fairly serious agencies are involved.
It is better than shooting up schools. If it redirects that phenomena to CEOs, then it might actually have done some good (from within a false state economy/society). There is the copycat phenomena in the US when it comes to these shootings. I can definitely see more down the line. Take some insane person, maybe not even affected, directly, by insurance policies. Instead of looking at a school as a target they might choose Wall Street. Given all else being "=" (equally false) this is definitely a better outcome (if it were to happen).
The tweet only mentioned the NYPD. So I assumed they were.
Probably not insured to carry out the investigations.
They’re the schmucks sweeping a massive park, looking for a backpack (and eventually finding it) I was more making the general point that the brains behind the investigation overall are bound to be reasonably skilled at the job of investigating a murder. More skilled than the authors of all those terrific zingers on Twitter, even.
yeah same and most people would probably agree at this point
$20bn is huge amount of money but in the context it's not a huge expense, in my view
the benefit to the country both economically and otherwise of having a system that works that well would be enormous
the British healthcare system is a bottleneck for the economy (and also one of the reasons I won't live there)
Middle aged dad in Ireland - I have the upmost faith in the boys in blue. Their singing of Galway Bay gives me the confidence they will catch the killer.
Average NYPD Officer(One hand currently trapped inside a donut vending machine) - How about we use those duh duh duh computers! The suspect looked white but but how true is that really. Also anyone else know where I put my gun ?
Average NYPD Officer(One hand currently trapped inside a donut vending machine) - How about we use those duh duh duh computers! The suspect looked white but but how true is that really. Also anyone else know where I put my gun ?
Uh, the CEO of UH plays a huge role in lobbying and shaping political opposition to universal Healthcare. He is absolutely just as responsible for all the negatives of the US system as any politician. No moral or decent person would take that job just like no moral or decent person would choose to be a serial killer.