This is the most Lemmy ass thread imaginable. A bunch of terminally online tech geeks going philosophy 101 to boost their own ego, by attaching themselves to someone who is and was willing to actually do something.
Shit posters came out in force to support the anti hero to let the regime whores and their owners know where we stand…
Thoughts and prayers denied…
Lemmy is super tame compared to reddit. Surprisingly tbh
I love this “greater good” end-run-around the law that we follow as members of society; like premeditated murder of a soulless CEO is somehow okay.
How is ambushing ever not weak and cowardly? Swords at dawn if you’re going to make it personal.
This is not how we solve this. Killers are tried and punished in accordance with laws we all agree on, here.
Removed by mod
What you’re missing, I think, is that ambushing isn’t weak or cowardly. It’s just setting up the most favorable conditions for the “fight” as possible.
If you’re engaging in an unbalanced war, and anyone targeting a rich target would be since the ability to hire security means you’ll be going against superior numbers from the beginning, you use the tactics available to you.
You may or may not agree that it’s a war. You might not agree that the shooter is justified. But the shooter most likely is at war in their mind, or (assuming it is part of things) someone that hired them does.
We aren’t allowed to duel, and someone challenged to one has no obligation to agree to it. You can’t usually even make the challenge without running into legal barriers. You send a letter to someone saying “hey, let’s have a sword fight”, expect a knock on your door. It simply isn’t an option. You can’t even arrange trial by champions, where you would face off against a chosen opponent and the other person would be bound by the outcome.
Again, regardless of whether or not you agree or like it, class warfare can be literal, at least in the minds of the people willing to wage such a war. Further, when one person uses their weapons to cause death and misery to non combatants, you can’t be surprised when those non combatants find weapons of their own and fight back any way they can.
That’s the thing you’re missing. From the state of mind of the populace, the CEO I question has a track record of causing death and misery by using the weapons of wealth and power. This means that the question isn’t one of peace time, it’s a question, for that frame of mind, of using the best tactics to achieve a goal.
Like it or not, the shooter achieved the goal of disrupting the machinery of that company, at least temporarily. They achieved the goal of making it known that wealth is not bulletproof, which is a very strong idea when the populace feels disempowered. That isn’t cowardice, that’s just good tactics. It may or may not end up being good strategy, but only time can show that.
If people are in a state of war, and I promise you that a shit ton of people do view the current assault on humanity by financial means as war, then ambush is a perfect tool for asymmetric warfare. It’s a tool to magnify your forces.
Oh so this will save thousands of lives then? And here I thought they just hire a new CEO while making their services worse to fund the bonuses for the new one. Silly me.
Blue cross just backflipped on time limits for anaesthesia, so
I hear we produce a lot of bullets compared to the number of MBA’s out there
Yeah, and they’re mostly bought by bootlickers.
And now security services
This hit is probably more about a “pound of flesh” than saving (future) lives. (Source: pulling theories out of the air)
Not immediately, but hopefully the next CEO will learn a lesson from this and have more consideration on how the company affects people’s lives. I feel like CEOs of large corporations have lost the fear of the masses because they think they’re powerful. But they’re not, they just have a lot of money, a bullet can still kill them.
First time seeing a CEO get replaced for whatever reason?don’t worry, we’ve all been there.
If it was a random death you might have a point. I would still say it makes sense that people would celebrate the death of a villain, but that’s beside the point.
This was an assassination, a message on its own even if there weren’t literal words carved into the casings. This may well give a person about to make an inhumane decision on behalf of a company’s bottom line pause. It’s a reminder that those decisions have real consequences, even if not always legal ones.
Lmao, you honestly think any executive heard any message other than ‘i need to spend more on corporate security and body guards’?
Yes, I do. Sure they’ll do that, but I think they’ll have a tiny bit of second guessing. Would certainly be more impactful if this was a trend rather than one off.
They’ll pause to call up more private security to keep themselves safe while they raise your premiums even more.
A Christmas Carol was just a story, not reality. You’re not going to scare CEOs into doing the right thing, especially not with threat of death.
Would their security have good insurance? Cause otherwise that’s another potential gunner.
The rich are far more of a coward than your giving them credit to be. They are only so evil because of the lack of consequences, not in spite of.
yes, which is why threats that are backed up with actions are far more persuasive.
More private security means more people in their vicinity with guns. Hope none of those people has a loved one murdered by these assholes. Statistically that seems unlikely, and finding good security will get harder if demand spikes that much.
Maybe. You seem to be very certain about how each of these individuals thinks, which is not a level of confidence I often reach with my own opinions.
Well I guess we should just start killing people we don’t like just in case it makes the world a better place then, right?
Cause that seems to be the theme of your lack of confidence positions.
Not at all. I said that now this has happened, the humans actually in charge of the decisions which inspired it might adjust their cost/benefit calculations. I didn’t say it was right, I said it’s understandable why people would celebrate it and I said there’s a chance it will have an actual impact.
I’ll leave you and your straw man to discuss further; you’ve got more of an argument with him than you do with me.
Ah, so lack of solid opinion is your defense of your support of random killings. You don’t actually support it because you don’t support anything… but you don’t mind if someone else supports in just in case it might help you in the long run.
You’re a professional bystander, someone who hopes someone else does all the hard work in making your life easier.
They will adjust their cost/benefit analysis - of their personal security.
Do you have a solution to help the situation, or do you just like to complain?
If I don’t have a solution, I have to agree with murdering people?
That’s like if, in order to drive down the price of diapers I just started killing babies, then when you said that was evil and ineffective I just responded with, “oh yeah, well do you have a better idea, or are you just here to crap all over mine?”
All that said, yes, I do have plenty of common sense suggestions for reforms to the healthcare system that don’t involve me murdering someone in cold blood, as it turns out.
Improving health coverage is theoretically possible, and later on they may get better, but the only things that will improve are a few blue states and even then it’s just small changes.
So dreams of large non violent change are as futile as the murderous rage. Best one can do is make more money or move to a better area or immigrate.
I wasn’t saying that, I was just asking what your solution was. I’ve seen a lot of people complaining about healthcare and going the doomer route that nothing can be changed, everything will always be awful, just shut up, accept it and die.
So, what’s your suggestions?
The issue is you’re telling people not to complain in response to someone saying “randomly murdering United Healthcare workers is ineffective and evil.” It’s an implicit approval of the murder, even while acknowledging that it won’t change anything. It’s a pretty rough look, even if that’s not what you intended.
But, for suggestions that might work, get involved. Campaign for stricter regulations on the insurance industry. Call your congressional representatives. Run for office and work your way up the system, or become friends with someone who is and help them on their campaign. There’s any number of ways to make a difference that are better than shooting a man in the middle of the street.
There’s any number of ways to make a difference that are better than shooting a man in the middle of the street.
Are they really? How many people have been doing those things for decades with very little to show for it? How much campaigning can a parent paying for cancer treatment for their kid be reasonably expected to do? How many generic responses from representatives not listening to the concerns of their constituents should we trudge through?
Whether or not this shooter was motivated by the reasons we’re all assuming is pretty irrelevant at this point. The simple fact that we’re having this discussion at this scale demonstrates that people do not believe that the things you mentioned will improve things, and I think that’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the situation we find ourselves in. Maybe vigilante action is not the answer but I think it’s pretty clear that the usual responses you’re giving are not resonating with people. Decision makers need to change that perception if they want to prevent people from looking outside the system for answers.
First, I think you’re completely underplaying all the huge gains people have made over the years by doing exactly what I’m talking about. Especially at the state and local level.
But yeah, if you think I’m defending the system as perfect and unflawed, of course not. Of course most people don’t want to have to dedicate their life to fixing the system. Of course they have other priorities. Kids, illness, etc.
And of course killing a man in cold blood is easier than spending years or decades fighting for the change you want to see.
But I’ve seen change accomplished by people who believe in the law and civic order. I’ve seen people make the system work. It is possible.
It’s not easy. It requires someone to basically make it their life, and that’s certainly not for everybody. But it can be done. And if you’re at the point where you’re throwing your life away by shooting a man in the middle of a NYC street, there are better ways to use your life than that.
One quibble, this guy wasn’t a worker, he was the boss. The decision maker.
Have you done any of the items in your second paragraph? If so can you share how it’s gone and what you judge the impact has been?
Sure, but he’ll be replaced by another boss. Then another. How many should be assassinated?
I have. I’ve worked on a campaign for my local congressperson (at the time) whos platform I believed in. I met them through the campaign and got to know them personally. They won and are still serving in Congress today, and have done a good job over the years in my opinion (though I’ve since moved states and lost contact).
It was shockingly easy to get involved. Literally just approached them when they were starting up their campaign and asked to help. I knocked on doors and helped at campaign events, and I like to think that my contributions (and those of people like me) helped to get them elected.
And, as I say, they were someone that I had the personal cell number of and could contact when I had concerns.
- this will save precisely zero lives
- you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
- insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
His wife said on the news that he loved life…
Just his own
you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
Yes, it’s a shame the system failed to deliver justice. The solution isn’t that justice shouldn’t be served, it’s that the system needs to be fixed so people like this
are killed lawfully and by the stateare not in a position where they profit off of human misery.If he was no longer a threat, I’d endorse rehabilitation, the last emperor of China, who collaborated with the Japanese in WWII ended up living out his years working menial jobs and making real connections with people.
this will save precisely zero lives
Not if it starts a movement
It is not just this one life
See above
an insurance company that never denies any claims
Ideally that’s called free universal healthcare, which we should have
insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
Insurance companies in other countries survive just fine by paying out what they are expected to. Only in America is insurance as screwed up as it is.
allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public
Are you proposing to not allow people to voice support for the murder?
You can’t be serious 😂
Number 3 is the best argument for national insurance. (Saying public might imply it’s tradable, this isn’t what I’ve meant)
Health care is not compatible with the free market as health care is logically something people would pay anything for.
The health insurance industry is an abomination. It’s completely across the purpose of keeping a population healthy to try to extract and concentrate wealth out of the process, and they’re dug in like a tick.
National insurance denies claims all the time as well in some form.
Not to the extent of UHC
Do you have detailed numbers or just a feeling?
UHC covers far more people than most national systems despite not being national (I’m sure china is bigger, but most countries have much smaller populations). National systems often have ways of saying “that isn’t covered” that mean the claim isn’t even attempted. there are many different national systems with different rules. There are lots of other complications here that need to be studied in depth.
I think you’re getting this kind of backwards. Individual claims aren’t denied under universal healthcare. It’s not opaque like a private insurer. Specific procedures are the thing not covered, and that becomes part of a national legislative/policy discussion.
What is the difference if you need a treatment you cannot get
The fact that the system is transparent, that every one is denied in a way that is public knowledge, makes the system much easier to change. It’s not directly comparable to the opaque way that US insurance companies deny claims, and the way you said “often have ways” implies the same level of subterfuge.
I feel like you also missed the other commenter’s point entirely. No one makes comparisons on raw numbers, that would be silly. But the rate at which UHC denies claims is likely greater.
Somebody posted a graph of the stats in another thread, and there was a great follow-up by somebody who had worked in claims at another company about just how bad those stats really were.
The national average for denied claims is 16%. UHC denies 39% of claims. The real kicker here, as they pointed out, is that this is after appeals. They worked at some branch of Blue Cross, which sits at 17% of claims, and said how most claims that are appealed are approved and that the vast majority of those that are denied are things like chiropractors putting in claims for procedures that end up being malpractice or stuff where the paperwork was wrong. Basically, if you get something denied by insurance, you’re almost guaranteed to get it approved after an appeal. They said that for UHC to hit the numbers that they do, they would effectively have to deny almost every claim that they get that isn’t a routine medical visit like an annual physical.
Wish more people talked about reform than violence tbh. Thinking about leaving lemmy since associating myself with some people here makes me sick
Tbh this is the logical end-state of a poorly-regulated for-profit healthcare system
Yup!
Man, people really think this is actually going to change things and it’s hilarious.
Well, hilarious in that I have to laugh to keep from breaking down in tears. On one side you have people who will do anything to squeeze every last penny from our quickly decaying corpses, and on the other we have a bunch of people who did little more than bitch and moan until someone does something drastic and ultimately futile in which case they… mostly continue to sit back and watch while assuming everything is somehow magically going to fix itself for them.
It depends on how many people succeed in offing CEOs quick enough before the state clamps it’s power down. The state reacts relatively slowly so hopefully a lot more copycats (or our smiling hero) get a few more names off the list to really make a fucking point.
The state is gonna respond with more dystopia.
Things might change if murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system becomes the standard in America. But one outlier incident won’t change anything.
G4S and Securitas will make a fortune off security services for execs.
Knowing their hiring standards it sounds like a job there would be a ridiculously easy way to get privileged access to these people. Nah they’ll use higher quality than that.
Yeah but are other rich people staffing this corpos or just more plebs???
Asking for friend ;)
Invest now! Wooooo, capitalism baby!
murdering the CEOs of every company that puts evil into the system
How would that work, in practice? Who decides which companies are putting evil into the system? Who decides which CEOs to kill? Why not kill the board of directors and VPs as well? Why not kill the nurses and doctors who refuse to treat a patient unless they have health insurance? Why not kill the investors that provided the funds? Why not kill the politicians who made the laws? Why not kill the people who voted for those politicians?
Yeah, that’ll definitely work.
Yeah you’re right, CEOs should just be able to destroy the lives of Americans without any repercussion and anybody who tries to do anything about it is bad and wrong. Man, thank you for showing me my error! You truly are the only intelligent person here. You are the chosen one.
The argument to ask who casts justice and decides the barrier is a legit one. You are using a strawman argument against him by saying they are in favor of allowing destruction of the lives of Americans happen. Such tactics are mostly used by populists and we do not need to stoop to such levels
anybody who
tries to do anything about itperpetrates an extrajudicial contract killing is bad and wrong.FTFY
Go ahead and do anything you want, nobody is stopping you. Protest, boycott, don’t pay your bills, be my guest. But when you use a silenced handgun to shoot a man in the back who had not been convicted of any crimes, you are unequivocally bad and wrong.
The false dichotomy in this conversation is insane. What in your addled brain indicates to you that I was suggesting that CEOs should be able to ruin people’s lives without repercussions? You don’t need to be particularly intelligent to understand that anonymous masked gunmen assassins are a bad thing, it’s common fucking sense.
The judicial system is designed to favour these people. It has already failed, and cost countless lives. You’re suggesting something that is already in place and failing at a catastrophic level. I’m not going to sit here and pretend you have some kind of greater intelligence or moral high ground for pushing an idea that is proven to not work and costing endless human suffering. That would be fucking idiotic.
Again, false dichotomy. Your logic makes no sense.
The judicial system is not perfect, we can at least agree on that. But that does not necessarily indicate that the system has totally failed; it’s far more rational to assume that the system should be reformed.
But sure, let’s go along with your first wild assumption and agree that the system has failed and must be replaced. Your second wild assumption is that the best way to replace the judicial system is by hiring masked men to assassinate CEOs.
If that’s not your assumption, than I don’t understand why you’re supporting it. You could have been like okay, this obviously isn’t a good way of dealing with things, but it does raise a discussion about the inability of the legal system to appropriately punish CEOs. But instead, you didn’t bother, you just went right ahead and said this seems like a great alternative to the judicial system, we should keep doing this. Absolutely unhinged
When they deny and delay healthcare they’re extrajudicially killing people and murdering them first is self defense.
How’s that boot taste?
It doesn’t create good outcomes directly. It’s indiscriminate, highly subject to individual biases and extremely destabilizing to society. It’s definitely not a good thing if it keeps happening over a long time.
But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence. Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.
But when the workers and the owners are fighting at a large enough scale (beyond one or two murders), it forces the government to come in and mediate between the two sides. They must reach a compromise in order to quell the violence.
This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale are you alluding to? That hasn’t ever occurred in America. What usually happens is that people vote, and that’s what causes the government to act.
Which means the owner class has to give something up in exchange for the worker class to stop the violence. It’s how we got unions and worker protections when voting and political pressure failed. It’s never the right answer, but at some point it’s the only answer left.
We got unions and workers protections because of voting and political pressure. The modern framework of labor rights in the US was almost entirely created by FDR, who was swept into office by an overwhelming majority of voters as a result of the Great Depression. He passed a ton of legislation as part of the New Deal and utilized political pressure on the Supreme Court when they tried to strike down the legislation. It was strengthened and expanded by JFK and LBJ, two more presidents who were elected with strong mandates from the American people.
There is no scenario where gunning down healthcare CEOs applies any sort of political pressure to anyone. I know that it feels like it means something to the common person who doesn’t understand much about the functioning of government or business. But I can promise you that it means very little to the people with the power to make decisions, aside from reminding them of the necessity of private security.
This has never occurred historically. What historical period of workers and owners fighting at a large scale
The battle of cripple creek involved shootings and dynamite explosions between workers and mine owners and was only stopped once the governor stepped in and helped negotiate a compromise.
I wasn’t trying to imply anything close to a full on war, but violence was a lot more common in early clashes for worker rights. Protests and strikes much more frequently were backed by violent behavior including several deaths.
As you go back further in history, essentially everything was decided by violence. But the balance of power has shifted with the rapid advance of technology. Violent behavior is less likely now than ever to make a difference, in my opinion.
And also that’s not what this is. There wasn’t any manifesto, there wasn’t any protest, there weren’t any unions going on strike. It was just one man gunning down another man in cold blood. To what end?
I feel like you are thinking about this wrong. From where I sit I think it’s more likely that you’re expanding the target list than helping put the brakes on this kind of vigilante behavior.
You aren’t wrong in a lot of what you’re saying though. Street justice rarely stays just for long. This may also be an isolated incident. However, some kind of pushback against this system is inevitable. If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety, and to be honest I don’t think meaningful change is possible until they are. Strikes, sit-ins, and protests have only ever been effective when paired with the implied threat of physical violence if demands are not met. Greed needs to be deincentivized in one way or another. Governments and corporations don’t seem interested in making that happen so action like this seems increasingly likely to me.
I don’t have any aversion to physical violence, if it is directed towards a rational goal with defined objectives and limits to its usage. This is an example of the opposite, an arbitrary and chaotic usage of violence that only serves to exacerbate social dysfunction.
If the people you listed don’t help improve the situation then yes, they probably should be worried for their safety
I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society. There is no line that you can draw between yourself and people [who] don’t help improve the situation. We are all, by definition, a part of that group, for as long as it takes until the situation does improve. And that’s why I’m trying to explain that this kind of action is taking all of us further away from whatever improved version of society you envision.
I listed everybody. Every single human being on this planet is, in some way, responsible for the current state of society.
Being intentionally obtuse doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Your average person, especially those in other countries, don’t view themselves as responsible for healthcare costs in America. Whether or not that is technically true is irrelevant as their contribution is not nearly as important as the others on your list. Take away the line about voters and maybe the doctors and nurses, though some would likely disagree with that part, and you’ve got a pretty accurate list of the people most responsible for the situation. They oversee these systems and are therefore seen to be responsible for associated outcomes.
I’m not being intentionally obtuse. I’m trying to open your eyes to the fact that there is no list that can be drawn up. It’s an impossible task to separate human beings from the conditions of their environment. The system is inherently flawed, it doesn’t matter who becomes the CEO, they are all incentivized to follow the same playbook.
What you suggest has been tried countless times in the past. When you remove the people occupying positions of power, others just take their place. You’re ultimately advocating removing individual human beings, when you should be advocating changing the system entirely. Instead of trying to overthrow and take over the system that exists, you should be trying to escape the system and build something better.
We could start with health insurance and pharmacy benefit manager companies, and then we can move onto “defense” contractors. If that’s not enough we can then move onto real estate investment companies and if there’s still time to make an even stronger point we can go after the greedflation grocery conglomerates. If that’s still not enough there’s the technofascists running the big tech companies and spying for the government. There’s plenty of targets out there who have it coming and I hope none of them every sleep peacefully again.
Good luck with that, Rambo
Laughs in French revolution
Well sure, if we just kill everyone we don’t like, clearly things will magically get better.
How do we define that, though? Cause every decision made will make someone unhappy, no matter how much good it might do. Are you going to step up and decide what’s right or wrong?
This isn’t a “Is killing a person that insulted you right or wrong?” moral conundrum, it’s a “If you could kill Hitler after he had started exterminating people, would that be right or wrong?” moral conundrum.
Most people who would say “it’s the wrong thing to do” for the first one would say “it’s the right thing to do” for the second.
Mind you, the really right thing to do on the situation with this CEO would have been for the State to do its fucking job and protect the people from mass murderers like him, but it refuse to do so, hence here we are in a bad situation.
EXACTLY. These guys are trying to pose this conundrum in such a ridiculous disingenuous way. Like “if we allow someone to kill a person who has systemically killed untold numbers of people then what’s next, killing a baby?!” its absolutely baffling how these people think that’s an argument based in any level of reality or logic.
It was a bit messy for the French but they haven’t had a king since.
Already have. I think killing CEOs who contribute to endless human suffering is right, and defending those people from those who’s lives they’ve ruined unjustly is wrong. Next question.
Yep. It’s pretty simple and straightforward.
kill everyone we don’t like
Kill people who purposefully, pointedly, and knowingly cause harm, human suffering, and sign death warrants for people who could have otherwise survived. Robbing life and money from families whose kids or parents need treatment, and sending these people into bankruptcy. Or straight-up denying life-saving treatments.
And these people know they’re killing people, but they don’t care because they’re making so much money off of it.
So no. It’s not “everyone we don’t like.” It’s people who purposefully profit from doing harm at the cost of human lives.
Yes, it’ll change things like the French Revolution did, where it kept going and going, executing more and more people who had less and less to do with it, finishing with Robespierre, who argued against executing people at all.
Yes, we can’t afford to lose any CEOs because it might cause innocent people to be killed. Meanwhile those CEOs are stacking bodies through negligence and folks like you want to defend them. You just confirmed how you’d steer the trolley.
When the laws don’t apply anymore, the law of the jungle will catch up to you.
You mean the law of the strong against the weak? We’re not winning that battle. We can’t even agree to vote consistently, much less in our best interest. What makes you think we can all agree on who’s the right person that needs killing?
I never said the right people are going to get killed. People are just going to get killed in chaos, sometimes its aligns with the goals of others. This sucks.
CEOs are already killing innocent people en mass. If you have a more effective way of doing things at this point I’m all ears.
Voting works, when people actually do it. It doesn’t work fast, but it works better than random killings.
And in the mean time while you go around shaming people for not voting endless human suffering will continue to happen because you think vigilante justice to right the wrongs in our society is more wrong than just letting the elites continue to stamp on the necks of the people.
Random?
Voting works, when people actually do it.
🤡
The justice system should cast justice, and for that we need political pressure and reform. Self justice is not right in that way
The justice system should cast justice
Indeed, but it has failed to do so and now millions of people are suffering.
So it needs to be changed politically. If the people actually voted in their interest there would be no problem. If they vote against themselves they are at fault themselves. Thats how democracy works, even if its sad
Y’all had 35+ years to do it the right way. Too late, we’re gonna do it the hard way now.
It might not change anything but it certainly raises spirits
Well it’s a good thing people are happy with the continued state of affairs where nothing has fundamentally changed!
It’s the only thing that’s ever changed things. Nonviolent movements are great but behind every successful one there is a separate violent movement forcing power to the table. The myth of successful nonviolent movements has been propagated as another tool of control.
Poorly regulated economy really
Capitalism really
Which is why I predict events like this are about to become a lot more common.
of a *general oligarchy
All lives are sacred? Tell that to the healthcare industry in the USA, it is a massive shit show and an out of control dumpster fire. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the USA is directly related to healthcare. Someone buy the shooter a ticket to Brazil or a decent country without extradition to the USA. The health insurance companies has more blood on their hands.
This isn’t a trolley problem. Killing CEOs is not going to save any more lives or “fix the system” in any way.
There’s no guarantee that the new CEO will be better or worse, and if they feel threatened enough they’ll just hire security.
The secret service can’t even be 100% effective, and most would be assassins have been remarkably incompetent. Trump still got hit.
That fat sack of trash did not get hit by a bullet.
It was ketchup on his hands!
That’s more believable than the pageantry we witnessed.
eat the rich
Anyways, I started blasting.
This isn’t technically the trolly problem, sorry to be pedantic. But the trolly problem is not in the deaths either track would cause, but in the decision to actively pull the lever and make yourself responsible for the outcome. Inaction means allowing what will be to be.
Eg, if the train is heading towards three people, and you can pull the lever to send it towards one, congratulations, you saved two lives. BUT you just made yourself responsible for the murder of one. Whereas before, you would not have been responsible for the death of the three.
Doesn’t matter how dressed up the problem is, involvement means making yourself responsible for murder.
In choosing to do nothing, you still made a choice, which arguably makes you responsible for those deaths too. That’s why the trolley problem is such a great morally ambiguous thought experiment.
… do you think killing a few CEOs is going to stop the shitty healthcare system we have? It’s nowhere near that easy to fix this broken system. There are thousands of MBAs just waiting in the wings to take over and do the exact same things.
It’s not a solution, it’s a reaction, and it doesn’t fix shit. Just escalates an already volatile situation.
do you think killing a few CEOs is going to stop the shitty healthcare system we have?
Even if it doesn’t, what is there to lose?
Your humanity.
You know, the thing you’re claiming the CEO doesn’t have
👏
10/10 retort, well played
Is it really more human to quietly accept a society where there are frequent go fund me’s for kids with cancer?
France survived the Reign of Terror.
People survive lots of heinous shit, that doesn’t mean it helps.
Modern France is better than monarchist France.
Built on the blood of the Terrors, executing many innocent people, including the man who was against the executions in the first place, Robespierre
“Against” > “For”
Mostly due to the efforts of a lot of people working to make things better through political and social action.
But hey, they had that one time where they killed a bunch of people, that must have been the reason their lives are so much better. Clearly
Non violent action has never brought power to the table without a separate violent movement adding pressure. Not even Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King.
It only took a couple more civil wars, thousands of political arbitrary executions, 2 empiralist dictatorships and 2 monarchies to get a stable democracy about a century later.
Yup. Better take the long view.
Semi-stable based on recent events.
Unstable government but still functioning as intended, no one has a clear majority in the parlement so a government who doesn’t talk to everyone is going to get trashed and that’s what happened. This was very democratic.
The US doesn’t have a parliament. Neither party talks to everyone. There are women and ethnic minorities in Congress, which is definitely not what was originally intended.
This thread is about France, so I was talking about the current French situation.
Time to get started then.
No, they could stack the bodies of executives high enough to build a retaining wall, and the current system will still refuse to learn any fucking lessons. Our country has an extreme addiction to profits over people.
The solution is single-payer not-for-profit nationalized health care. The stuff that mature, rational nations do as a matter of daily routine.
Socialism is not a dirty word. We need to learn that lesson, first.
Unfortunately, the new administration will make things much worse. And the incompetent reality show cast of an administration will blame Biden and the “deep state” for all the misery and suffering they cause. And the morons in the Cult of 47 will believe them.
The USA is more broken than a folk hero with a gun can fix. Though, at least he has us all talking about it.
I honestly cannot believe how fucking stupid the reaction to this has been. I did see that reddit reacted similarly, so at least y’all are on par with the average redditor when it comes to intelligence. It relieves me to know that this is less an issue with Lemmy extremism and more an issue with basic reasoning skills.
How about you name one single human being, not even thousands, who has benefited from this contract killing? Whose life has been saved by “pulling this lever”? Explain yourself.
It helped my mood considerably. Stress can be deadly.
It worsened my mood drastically. So that seems like a net negative so far.
Collaborationists don’t count.
Do you have a job? Live in a house? Have any family or friends? Do you eat food?
Unless you answer no to all of these questions, I unfortunately must inform you that you too are a collaborationist.
Actually don’t bother, the fact that you’re using the internet already proves that you are.
You can participate in the system without a being a bootlicker, boy, take notes ;)
How so?
That is such a lazy bullshit argument. “You have to exist in the system as it is now, so you can’t possibly oppose that system”. There is a difference between doing what you must to survive in a system, and opposing efforts to reform that system.
That is such a lazy bullshit argument. “You have to exist in the system as it is now, so you can’t possibly oppose that system”. There is a difference between doing what you must to survive in a system, and opposing efforts to reform that system.
It’s just the inconvenient truth. You are all so desperate to prove that you’re opposed to the system, because deep down you know that you’re a part of it. None of us can escape this guilt.
I’m also desperate to prove that I’m opposed to the system, but unfortunately I’m intelligent enough to understand the difference between a rational attempt at reforming the system, and random acts of violence that actually cause the system to become even more dysfunctional. I can’t naively cheer on this stuff like you, because I understand how futile and counterproductive it is towards the end goal of reform.
Honestly, I suspect many you gave up on changing anything for the better a long time ago. Now you just want to watch the world burn. I still have hope and determination to change things, and for that I get called a collaborationist and bootlicker by edgelord keyboard warriors. Oy vey!
It’s just the inconvenient truth. You are all so desperate to prove that you’re opposed to the system, because deep down you know that you’re a part of it.
Shifting goalposts. You have not addressed my criticism of your goofy point here. Oppressors, collaborators, and rebels all have to exist within the systems that exist, and that has nothing to do with each group’s intentions for the future of that system.
None of us can escape this guilt.
The assignment of moral culpability is reliant on the ability of a person to make a choice. When I pick up my prescriptions, that has no impact on whether or not little Billy gets his heart operation. No choice I could make would impact that, except through my political activity or, failing that, through some sort of violence.
Deontological Ethics (you decided to debate morality with a Theology BA) is the dominant system in the West, and it does not put any moral requirement on agents to actively oppose injustice. I personally reject that system, but it is dominant in the Abrahamic religions. Collective responsibility is not incompatible with this system, but has been almost entirely rejected in Christian traditions, the only real exception being original sin.
I personally subscribe to a mix of different utilitarian systems, and utilitarianism has no concept of collective moral responsibility. It would also not require someone to refrain from living or functioning in an imperfect society. If becoming a hermit and living off your own garden won’t help, then there is no obligation to do so.
I can’t naively cheer on this stuff like you, because I understand how futile and counterproductive it is towards the end goal of reform.
I certainly don’t claim perfect knowledge, but I feel confident in saying that I’m far from naive. I think I have a better understanding of both the morality and the politics than you do. Politically speaking, the kinds of reforms required to fix our healthcare system are far greater than anything ever achieved without at least a credible threat of violence.
The amount of wealth opposing us is nearly unfathomable, and it has control of the media, what’s left of our educational system, and the means to spy on our communication. An uninformed democracy is no democracy.
On top of that, we now have a fascist executive with both the legislative and judicial branches under his thumb. If we somehow manage to oust the fascists, it will be almost impossible to keep the neoliberals from regaining power. As we are seeing in France right now, Neoliberals greatly prefer losing to a fascist over losing to a socialist/progressive.
There is no plan of action that gives us a violence free route to an equitable healthcare system for at least the next 50 years. Violence won’t be sufficient on it’s own, but it will be necessary. Public support for this shooter actually decreases the amount of actual violence that might be otherwise required.
I still have hope and determination to change things, and for that I get called a collaborationist
No, I didn’t call you a collaborationist because of your hope and determination. Hope and determination are great, but aren’t worth much without a viable plan of action. We have tried all the “right” things for decades and have only lost ground. Maybe it’s time to move on to the “next” thing.
Your demand for a civil approach is literally what collaborationists have always done. We aren’t going to win by limiting ourselves to a system designed by our adversaries to keep us from winning. I know you found comfort in the idea that history is over, but that’s just not the case. I wish it were.
Killing a CEO is still doing nothing about the deaths caused by the insurance industry. How would it save lives of people harmed by privatized healthcare? If anything, it makes that anti-private-healthcare crowd look like a bunch of murderous zealots and will drive away any sympathy, making the problem worse. See: effect on indian raids on views of Native American rights, effect of Hamas attacks on views regarding Palestine, etc.
This is more like you let the train go and kill 5 people, or you pull the lever and kill one person, but that track loops back around onto the same track and kills the 5 people anyway, and then keeps going and kills 5 more people just tied on the part of the track the train already passed.
Let’s be real, many would pull the lever anyway because they just want to feel like they did something about it.
If it goes off the rails, yeah I agree with you – it’s gonna turn the CEO assassins into a group of murderous zealots.
If it’s used sparingly and effectively, well… uh, didn’t the IRA boost Sinn Fein’s popularity which led to the Good Friday agreement?
No
Killing the evil fuck doesn’t save any lives. The board (?) still had the meeting he was on his way to and they are still going to continue to deny basic human rights to the people who pay them for it.
The reality is that this is just yet another sign of immaturity and arrested development. I forget where I first heard it but… folk been watching WAY too much Steven Universe and similar warm and cozy shit. They think that by always taking the high road they are better people and the world will be a better place because if you do the right thing everyone else will.
When the reality is that people like the dead fuck prey on naivety like that.
If we ever find out who did it we are sure to find out they are also a pretty monstrous person. But, as satisfying as this has been, it changes nothing.
The reality is that this is just yet another sign of immaturity and arrested development. I forget where I first heard it but… folk been watching WAY too much Steven Universe and similar warm and cozy shit. They think that by always taking the high road they are better people and the world will be a better place because if you do the right thing everyone else will.
I’m confused, didn’t you just agree that killing him has no effect? If so, why are you seemingly condemning the people who are condemning the people who are celebrating the killing?
I can assure you that I have no illusions about the brutality of human existence, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t oppose senseless violence when I see it.
Its the idea that “Oh, they are a human being with loved ones just like you”. When the reality is that he was a leech upon humanity who caused internally measured suffering and death. And his family benefited from that.
But, because the power of friendship and candy cane sandwiches, he is still a human being and we need to feel bad. It doesn’t matter how many people they murder for a buck, they are still a person and you are the bad person for not feeling bad for their death.
Its the idea that “Oh, they are a human being with loved ones just like you”. When the reality is that he was a leech upon humanity who caused internally measured suffering and death. And his family benefited from that.
He literally was a human being with loved ones just like you and me. The fact that the vast majority of people seem incapable of perceiving that reality is absolutely horrifying.
A leech is a leech. A human being is a human being. If you refuse to recognize the difference, you’re just as evil as anyone else. You don’t know anything about him or his life, which is why it’s so easy for you to dehumanize him. I wonder if you would feel the same if you had been there on the sidewalk and watched him gasping for air as he bled out. I wonder if you would feel the same if you had attended his funeral. I would hope not, but I’m honestly not sure anymore, my faith in basic human empathy and decency is somewhat shaken of late.
I’m not even saying that you need to feel bad. I’m just saying that people shouldn’t be supporting senseless gun violence and extrajudicial murder, no matter who the victim is. It’s like supporting genocide, or chemical weapons. This kind of shit isn’t good for anyone, and if you don’t understand that you’re a fucking idiot.
Got it. Being amused at the death of someone who has immensely profited off the death and suffering of others is genocide.
Thanks for the demonstration of what I was talking about, I guess?
You’ve immensely profited off the death and suffering of others. Every single amenity of modern life that you possess came at a cost. Whatever nation-state you reside in waged countless wars to secure the resources you now enjoy. Everything that you eat and drink is provided to you courtesy of a chain of exploitative corporations that are doing catastrophic damage to the planet and human lives. Everything that you have ever done, including breathing, has exacerbated climate change. Every time you have paid your bills and taxes, you have continued to support this exploitative system. You are actively ruining this planet for untold future generations simply by continuing to selfishly remain alive and being too cowardly to rebel in any meaningful fashion against a system which you clearly understand to be violent and destructive. Shame on you.
Luckily, I don’t advocate for murder under any circumstances, because I am not a monster.
He literally was a human being with loved ones just like you and me.
I don’t make millions off of denying life saving healthcare to millions of people, which I think is more important than having loved ones. The worst atrocities are committed by people with loved ones.
They are still horrible people and the world is better off when they die.
Actually its closer to capital punishment. of course it isn’t good for anyone. but you know what else is even worse for everyone? the policies this man personally implemented unnecessarily causing death, pain, and hardship to millions. which hilariously is more similar to your examples of genocide/chemical weapons.
he is the type of person you remove (with prejudice) from your environment asap.
I’d encourage everyone to be careful with this type of thinking, because I’m seeing it a lot. Characterizing situations as having only two unpleasant options (“two tracks” in this case) is a classic strategy to rationalize violence. Gangs use it, terrorist groups use it, and even governments trying to justify wars use it (e.g. remember Bush’s “You’re either with us or against us”).
It’s a textbook false dichotomy, and it’s meant to make the least unpleasant option presented seem more palatable. This situation is not as simple as “either you’re in favor of insurance companies profiting off of denied healthcare of millions or you’re ok with murdering a CEO”
Problem is that all the other tracks can’t be switched to.
Well, in the total picture the best option of all would be Justice System which is Just and hence stop people causing massive numbers of deaths for profit, which is not what we have (especially in the US) and is even getting worse.
Ultimately all Just venues (I was going to say “non-violent”, but “lawful” violence is still “violence”, so even in a Just system, Force would still be used on the ones profiting from mass deaths) seem to have been closed in the last couple of decades.
The more options get closed, the more people will only see as options to either meekly accept the death of a loved one (or oneself) due to the actions of the people leading Health Insurance companies or vigilante vengeance, since the State has over the years removed itself from enacting Justice against the wealthiest in society, which would’ve been the best option of all (not least because it prevents the deaths of both the victims of guys like this CEO and of guys like the CEO)
Indeed, dichotomies presented in arguments are more often than not false, but sometimes they’re true.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing that it’s a false dichotomy, but do you have viable alternatives?
I don’t presume to have the answers, but there are plenty of alternatives if we’re comparing them to murder in the street.
I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies. It happens all the time, and the more people that know about it, the better. (They rely on people being unfamiliar with how they operate)
Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It’s a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we’ve come close at least twice in recent history.
I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies
That’s a bandaid solution at best.
Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It’s a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we’ve come close at least twice in recent history.
This country couldn’t even turn down the guy paraphrasing Hitler, whose promised to finish gutting the ACA. The chances of us seeing universal healthcare through “the right way” isn’t good.
The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people and hoping for the best, not to solve healthcare reform in a Lemmy comment section.
The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people
And that point is undermind by those ways not being viable.
You’re entitled to that belief, but I’ve seen the first one work in my field firsthand, as I said. We’ve also seen universal work in multiple countries, and I’m optimistic we’ll see ultimately see it in the US too.
No one is questioning whether it’ll work. We know it works. We’re questioning America’s ability to actually pass it into law. Which doesn’t look good (especially as many other countries are slowly eroding their own universal healthcare options as the capitalist class manages to nibble away at it). And in that sense, we’ve been moving backwards
No I think most of us recognize there are a lot of other tracks out there. It’s just we’ve tried most of the other tracks (protests, voting, thoughts and prayers, etc) and most of them haven’t made anything better. So… there are only a couple of tracks not tried yet. But already this one sure has made way more waves than 99% of protests ever have.
If a significant portion the US population went on general strike, things would change quickly.
The other option, which is slower, is to build up alternative systems in a network of mutual aid, like cooperatively owned insurance, businesses, housing, energy systems, etc. Essentially slowly replace the state with hundreds of interconnected coops.
I agree with you but we’re too divided to go on a general strike. Stochastic terrorism against the rich? Now we’re talking.
If a significant portion the US population went on general strike, things would change quickly.
This requires people willing and able to do so. Considering most Americans live paycheck to paycheck I don’t see this as real and viable currently.
The other option, which is slower, is to build up alternative systems in a network of mutual aid, like cooperatively owned insurance, businesses, housing, energy systems, etc. Essentially slowly replace the state with hundreds of interconnected coops.
This issue i see with this approach is that some people will always try to be the opposite and we end up in a stalemate. Also, people can be ignorant and not even understand that there is something that needs to be done. There’s so much misinformation in the world today.
This requires people willing and able to do so. Considering most Americans live paycheck to paycheck I don’t see this as real and viable currently.
I can’t dispute that. More of the US workforce would need to unionize for it to be possible.
This issue i see with this approach is that some people will always try to be the opposite and we end up in a stalemate. Also, people can be ignorant and not even understand that there is something that needs to be done. There’s so much misinformation in the world today.
I think if it reached a certain point of popularity, it would become so self evident of its benefits for the working class that it would snowball. But it would take a lot of education and time.
If we look at how Spain was able to have a libertarian socialist revolution, it apparently took 75 years of steady education (some through independent ferrer schools) and organizing before the populace as a whole was educated enough on the concepts and practiced enough through militant unionization to finally attempt a mass resistance movement.
I suspect the U.S. higher literacy rate combined with the internet may reduce the time needed.
Union activity has existed for decades and this utter failure of the social contract has been going on just as long. The unions only fought for themselves (understandably) while non union workers were manipulated by media to be against unionization. That’s unlikely to change in any meaningful way anytime soon. We’re too divided, too manipulated, and most importantly it takes too long when people have already been suffering for decades. I see this going the route of stochastic terrorism. This guy fired the first shot of a lopsided future (current?) war.
Whilst I can’t disagree with what you say, and I’m glad you’ve pointed it out, I’d include one caveat. “If” capitalism is heading towards an even more extreme iteration of itself then, perhaps, the (currently false) dichotomy you mention may come to exist. I kinda hope we don’t end up in such a binary struggle but… humans. Shrugs broadly.
Well I’m open to other ideas but I haven’t seen any viable ones yet.
tldr: one idea would be challenging their ability to hide behind licensed MDs who are paid to shoulder liability
This is actually my field, and I’ve spent countless hours of my life arguing with these insurance companies on behalf of patients they’ve denied, (losing more often than I’ve won, but you have to try). They suck.
When they’re being exceptionally unreasonable, the bridge-burning hail mary I would throw would be threatening the license of the provider that denied the appealed claim. It has worked a surprising number of times.
Most people don’t realize that it’s not just paper-pushers at insurance companies who are denying claims. Those folks can routinely deny things that policy excludes, but if it’s a judgement call or a challenge that their policy isn’t meeting medical necessity, they hide behind doctors on their payroll who are putting their license on the line when they have to say that the insurance company is justified. Those individuals can be reported to their licensing board or even sued. Short of voting in universal healthcare one day, I think this is the most direct route to challenge this nonsense.
How do lay people being denied coverage find out who their “doctor” is to go after their license?
Sounds like a lot of paperwork and waiting around and sick people don’t have a lot of time for that. A bullet is faster.
I appreciate your measured takes and inside point of view, more of both are always welcome (not that you need my invitation lol, you’re basically famous around here).
The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I’m not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don’t blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.
Our institutions no longer fix our problems, and that’s growing worse, not better - the deck is getting stacked more and more heavily against us as time goes on.
I’m not advocating mass violence. What I am saying is that executives who create conditions like these, for people suffering under an increasingly-dysfunctional and hopeless system like this, should absolutely expect their lives to be in danger on the daily - out of just pure pragmatism. I’m not putting a value judgment on that, I’m saying it is flat out inevitable.
CEOs frequently measure any and all human events as costs to be managed. Especially these insurance executive pieces of shit. I don’t see why a certain number of fairly predictable CEO murders resulting from their hideous behavior should be any different.
The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I’m not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don’t blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.
Relevantly, I think this also makes a good argument that “how we solve things” as a society is as important the problems we’re solving. When our institutions are weakened or bypassed (through corruption, lobbying, or vigilantism), it’s destabilizing and leads to bigger issues. I hate how much power insurance companies have over care too, and I get it, I just want to urge everyone to be cautious about this familiar type of language that tries to frame violence as the “only remaining option”. It’s almost always pure rationalization coming from people’s anger rather than truly being our only option.
I just want to urge everyone to be cautious about this familiar type of language that tries to frame violence as the “only remaining option
This gets harder and harder to deny when we’re still talking about most of the exact same issues that have gotten worse, not better for almost two decades. How many elections and protests and awareness campaigns and volunteer drives are people expected to do with no meaningful progress?
At some point it starts to simply feel like a parent telling their child ‘not now, later’ over and over again with zero intention of ever actually doing anything. No where in life are you allowed to infinitely delay with no progress (especially to your boss at work), so why should the public accept the same?
Three decades! Three! Not two! I’m 35 and had a sick parent growing up. This has been my entire life, my parents fighting with these ghouls until eventually my father died from lack of proper care.
That’s a great point. And truly, it speaks to what may be the root of the problem - skin in the game. Skin in the game shapes how we solve problems. When leaders make it plain they have none, people notice and reasonable problem solving falls apart.
At some point, I personally blame Jack Welch at GE decades ago for pioneering & normalizing this (thanks Behind the Bastards) - companies shifted from prioritizing outcomes for stakeholders to only prioritizing outcomes for shareholders. Historically I think that was because better outcomes for all stakeholders was seen as the primary driver of better outcomes for shareholders. Jack Welch realized they aren’t nearly as coupled as everyone thought - over the short term only, a crucial distinction! To be fair, someone else would have, too, if he were never born.
For an example, he pioneered the tactic of closing profitable manufacturing plants that were not as profitable as he wanted - and despite the net loss of profit, and the sudden deep trauma to a town full of human lives - investors liked it. It’s the origin of “line goes up”.
Oversimplifying a complex issue of course because I don’t want this to get any longer, but that behavior really does make two different systems of inputs and outputs that are often in competition with each other. One system for investors, and one for everyone else. And a growing number of people see it, see the different outcomes, and are rightfully enraged.
With that said, angry people are easy to manipulate and abuse, which is counterproductive and bad, and I’m not so much disagreeing with you as offering another point of view. Cheers!
Yup, I think we’re totally on the same page here.
Fuck yeah behind the bastards out in the wild!
Also… anyone know of Jack Welch’s whereabouts these days? For you know …reasons…
Derail the train
I believe that is in process.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Always two, there are.
I want to live in a world where profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes. The third option here is that CEOs be paid less and be held accountable by their employees similarly to a democracy. But that means changing the system - which won’t happen until the CEOs are convinced the system doesn’t work. Right now, we regular folks are the only ones for whom the system doesn’t work. This uncertain future for CEOs is load sharing.
profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes.
Give them actual golden parachutes and they get both.
Don’t want to be too much of a downer, but if enough rich folk decide the system does not work for them. These rich folks will fight to change the system to function more like China and Russia. Where the peons have limited political expression and swift removal of ‘subversive’ speech.
They tried to silence people with social media. I’m banned on every major platform for being anti capitalist anti imperialist anti fascist and pro murdering health insurance CEOs (ok, that’s a new one years after being banned, but my sentiment has always been there).
They can’t stop the fediverse. They can’t silence us like they used to.
Look at the events of the past few years, and especially the past few months in the US, and tell me that they’re not already trying to do so.
Actually, ya. That is on point.
Precisely. The last few months have been nothing but trolley problem after trolley problem because rich people are never held accountable.
You’re absolutely right and I’d argue it boils down to the fundamental error in OP’s shower thought:
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track. It just adds another dead body to the pile.
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track
Why wouldn’t it, though? Every CEO makes a profit/loss calculation in their head. Now they’ve got one more potential entry in their loss column. We’re not talking about saving lives already taken by UHC, but future lives that other CEOs might cost.
We all know that the death of a CEO is a blip in the actual day to day operations in the company. The teams and departments will continue operating as before, and the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
After all, if they’re already doing cost/benefit analysis with human lives, what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses, and then try to recover their costs through the business (including through stinginess on coverage decisions or policies).
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
The key word there is ‘remote likelihood’. My point was that if it goes from ‘remote’ to ‘possible’ or ‘likely’, then it will start getting factored into decision making.
what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses
Unlike fines, which can be passed off as a cost of doing business, their lives are irreplaceable. And once the logic has been hammered into their heads, it can start influencing their decisions.
There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They won’t. Anyone who has a semblance of belief that their decisions in the job might actually cause their own death just won’t do the job. Instead, it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
And once they’ve internalized the idea that any decision made by any one employee of the company, including their predecessor CEOs, can put them in danger, it’s pretty attenuated from the actual decisions that they themselves make.
It’s a dice roll on a group of people, which isn’t enough to influence the individuals in that group.
it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
Who then get removed from society
It’s a dice roll on a group of people, which isn’t enough to influence the individuals in that group
Depends how many dice you roll. That’s my point. If you roll enough dice, it can start affecting decisions.
This is ludicrous. A person faced with unpopular decisions that might send assassins after him is going to make himself harder to assassinate, not less hated.
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
That only remains true so long as this doesn’t turn into a copycat situation, which it very well might given how numerous the people with motives are, how easy it is to get guns in this country, and how fervently the people of this country are supporting the gunman.
There’s a lot of other tracks out there that haven’t been taken, such as our government regulating health insurance in the form of single payer so this doesn’t happen, or our government using its justice system to go after it’s worse actors, but no, shareholder value comes first (even when shareholder value requires murder).
So this is the track we’re on and I fully fucking support it and hope he’s just the first of many to meet this well deserved fate.
Fuck around find out. We’re the most armed population on the planet and you think they’re gonna continue to get away with this shit? The public is united across the political spectrum in their support for this guy getting shot. I hope his ilk never sleeps another peaceful night again. I’m just surprised it took this long. I hope there are copycats.
These people killed my father. I am living for this right now. If I had less to lose and more skills to do it I’d be copycatting it myself and taking one for the team. These people need to die. They’re overdue to meet their makers and account for the mass deaths they’ve caused and profited from!!! via capitalism.
FBI: I’ve got an alibi, I was at work.
