Out of 169
Out of 169
You're viewing a single thread.
What did Brian Thompson do/fail to do that makes this statistic his fault, and for death to be the morally justified consequence?
Edit: I'll reframe this as a statement. Celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson and especially advocating for more acts like it is abhorrent behaviour.
Yes. We are advocating for more acts. Because their acts have not changed. That's how cause and effect works.
And advocating for an increase in morally unjust acts is abhorrent behaviour.
Argh, can't downvote this one because the statement is true even though it doesn't apply to the situation being discussed.
Why not? Context matters. If I just replied to you with "Ten is less than twenty", you should be downvoting it, truth or not!
Of course it does.
This abhorrent behavior that folks are supporting on the left is fairly similar to the rights support of Kyle Rittenhouse's abhorrent behavior
Kyle Rittenhouse's murder was in defense of himself, after he placed himself in a position to defend and support store fronts in another state
Luigi Mangione murder was on the offensive due to the assumed corruption of the health care system and how that personally negatively impacted his life
But the CEO was doing his job, the best he could. True
Is the left going to start attacking everyone they perceive as negatively impacting their lives? Are they going to start killing cops, teachers, and doctors? Doubtful. Killing a cop isn't going to fix a corrupt system and rarely can you point at a cop and directly correlate their decisions and actions to negatively impacting tens of thousands of individuals. Killing a teacher or a doctor wouldn't make sense because these workers actions are largely on rails. They can only do so much until they run out of funding or time. Which is similar to the CEOs role. The major difference is that the CEOs have a lot more perceived autonomy. When they have to make a decision of general wellness for the majority vs record profits and they choose record profits due to academic training, pressure from peers, and legal reasons demanding profits for the stakeholders it exposes that the system is failing the majority of people. This directly leads to eating the wealthy because there must be some way to improve the situation that's tried and true
I'm not sure what the right perceives as go time to start taking action to protect themselves from oppression. I witnessed 09-11 as a child. That made sense why we went to war. Since then, seen lots of growing rage and shouts against oppression but I've been struggling to understand why from the rights perspective but it makes sense from the left perspective
This is a crazy post. To clarify, there is a propaganda campaign that is pushing Brian Thompson as an everyday man, doing his best for his employees and stakeholders. The goal is to humanize him and make the logical leap that by killing Brian Thompson that the crazy leftist will start killing anybody just doing their job that they disagree with
He made at over 10 million dollars last year, just from his employment as CEO
"Anyone who makes 10 million dollars as an insurance CEO should be extrajudicially murdered" is the actual unhinged take.
You're right
What would you do with 10 million dollars a year?
Personally, I'd start as many businesses as possible with a focus on quality and a place employees take pride in working for
With 10m in hand, I'd be able to invest 2-4m and fully replace my current salary. If it helps, I make around 200k a year. I already have a car for myself and spouse. I got a house, I'd pay that off. From there, it's a good question. I'd really like to work somewhere people take pride in. At this point, it seems like I'd have to enable such an experience
If you can't answer the 10m dollar a year question, then I got an easier one. What would you do with 400k a year?
What would you do with 10 million dollars a year?
Apparently get murdered in the street while folks like you cheer for more.
You think none of the decisions of the CEO of UHC affected this statistic at all? I feel like there's a LOT of UNC policy that he was involved in that results in worse healthcare in the US, including but not limited to "AI" for denials.
I don't think we have a uniform moral calculus, but my personal one doesn't justify the death penalty in this case. I can imagine a moral calculus that does though: hours of excess suffering caused > expected lifespan = death penalty.
I can imagine someone justifying murdering someone who looked at them funny. So what?
I don't think you have engaged with any of my arguments. I'm going to block you for a couple of weeks.
Your arguments:
- Asking me if I believed something I didn't say.
- Telling me that you have the mental capacity to imagine someone justifying something heinous.
Gee, what a shame it will be to be cut off from such a mastermind.
If a gun is just a tool and the man who weilds it is responsible for the actions of said tool then tell me why should a person who weilds a tool that murders over 50,000 people shouldn't be responsible for those murders?
The difference between what they allege Luigi did as opposed to that other shit stain is that the shit stain directly profited from murdering those people, and Luigi is alleged to have done it out of retribution.
United Healthcare's profits were around 16+ billion a year in 2024. So let's say it was only 10 for his 20 years. They would mean Thompson made $200,000,000,000 off murdering over 50,000 people. Not even the devil murders people for money.
Allege? LOL
If a gun is just a tool and the man who weilds it is responsible for the actions of said tool then tell me why should a person who weilds a tool that murders over 50,000 people shouldn't be responsible for those murders?
I mean, off the top -- intent.
But let's break this down. Be specific and map the killer, the gun, and the action of pointing and shooting with intent to kill onto your comparison of Brian, this "tool", and the actions he took with it.
United Healthcare's profits were around 16+ billion a year in 2024.
And how much did they take in from premiums in 2024? How much of what they took in did they pay out to claimants?
The intent was to deny healthcare to enough people to make higher profits. The intent of privatized healthcare is not to save lives but expense them. There is no moral or ethical reason to tell an ER surgeon you will make more money the more surgeries you deny, so why would it make any more sense for the insurance companies to be deciding what procedures should or should not be funded. The only times a procedure should be denied is if there is a limited supply of something, say heart transplants. Even then, it should never be up to the insurance companies, it should be up to the doctors determining the best odds and usage of the shortage to save as many lives as possible.
The intent was to deny healthcare to enough people to make higher profits.
Explain how you think that works.
For profit industries are required to put out projections for growth. Those projections are what intices investors to buy their stock raising demand/value. If you do not hit those growths the company will be seen as failing and investments will slow. There are a couple ways insurance companies can increase revenue, one is raising premiums which will often price users out of purchasing coverage and therefore they would potentially lose revenue to other companies or simply by more of the population not having insurance. The other way is to insure people at the same rate, but limit their plans coverages and slowly take out bits and pieces upping copays here, lower maximum coverages, but standardly they want to avoid raising the deductible as it will turn away people from signing up. Kind of like shrinkflation if you will, but for insurance. Then they "had" to get more competitive, and they found that they can just deny coverage on situations and users often can't afford to fight these denials, so they make more money off denying them then they do fighting court cases against the few that can, also they can just give in settle and pay for those who do try to take them to court. Paperwork paperwork paperwork, 6 months later it didn't get approved still. Since they are a for profit company, they are held accountable by their shareholders. Which means they can actually be sued by their own shareholders if they don't show they are doing everything they can to make the bottom line go up. Does Charlie need the $65,000 treatment vs the $14,000 treatment, shareholders say $14,000. He has higher odds of survival on the $65,000 treatment, and will have a better quality of life, no thank you. Line needs to go up. So Charlie dies on the table because that $41,000 was needed to be thrown into our $16 billion profit for the year. Or you know, maybe Charlie died because he had to wait those 6 months for approval for the treatment and by that time his issues had progressed to a point that made his chances much lower.
For profit healthcare is not for the health of the people.
That's an interesting little fantasy that's brings us nicely back to the question you dodged, since you're clinging again to this $16B number:
And how much did they take in from premiums in 2024? How much of what they took in did they pay out to claimants?
Not a fantasy, it happens all the time. As for how much they "paid out" is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much Apple pays for their products. The point is simple. For Profit healthcare is just that, for Profit. Not for Health. Anyone with a moral compass would want a For Health, healthcare system. Profits should never be put above lives. The reason why Americans pay more than twice what Canadians pay and have to do so out of pocket while having a lower ranked healthcare system on many metrics is because of that for Profit system.
Your question is to put simply, How much of the people's money did they give back to the people when they needed it? And the answer is always, less than the people paid in. If the number is less than what people paid in, there should never have been a single denial or wait period.
Not a fantasy, it happens all the time.
Source?
As for how much they "paid out" is irrelevant.
Huh? It's extremely relevant... The claim is that people are paying their premiums and then having their claims denied while the insurance company pockets the difference...
And all of that is cute, but you've still failed to map your comparison to murder with a gun to prove that it was morally justified to murder Brian Thompson. Are you gonna get to that part ever?
I mean, off the top – intent.
I realize this was just the first point, but as an aside, where do you stand on the concept of "just following orders"? Does merely doing a job make someone neutral, if they have no bad intent? Or is someone just doing their job therefore partly responsible for its impact, since they are a necessary part of the process, and complicit in it?
Conceptually I think we should and do treat it differently from causing harm actively and intentionally. But of course they shoulder responsibility.
Thanks, I agree
Benefiting from a system that exists to hurt others so people like him can benefit from it.
I wish people like you weren't so eager to go to bat for your oppressors. Do you think Brian Thompson would ever ask about why someone did something to you that you didn't like? Or was he too busy having fun with your money?
Benefiting from a system that exists to hurt others so people like him can benefit from it.
Means I can justifiably murder you? You're advocating for the extrajudicial murder of all ~440,000 UHC employees?
I think they misspoke by saying “benefiting from” rather than something like “actively leading and pushing for.”
Anybody who is able to read these comments has incidentally benefited from some human suffering somewhere, thanks to systems put in place and often obfuscated by others. That is in no way equal to going out and actively harming people yourself.
It’s part of the reason that “cutting the head off the snake” is a common phrase. Like if somebody wants to see Putin killed because of what he’s doing to the world, that does not mean they want to see every Russian he forced into that military wiped out at the same time.
going out and actively harming people yourself.
The killer actively caused harm. At best, Brian benefited passively from other people suffering. He did not actively go out and harm anyone. That's the reason there's even a debate to be had.
Anybody who is able to read these comments has incidentally benefited from some human suffering somewhere, thanks to systems put in place and often obfuscated by others. That is in no way equal to going out and actively harming people yourself.
It's a gradient, not 2 distinct groups. The nuance is the point.
It’s part of the reason that “cutting the head off the snake” is a common phrase. Like if somebody wants to see Putin killed because of what he’s doing to the world, that does not mean they want to see every Russian he forced into that military wiped out at the same time.
Sounds like the actual "head of the snake" is the lawmakers, not the CEO benefit from those laws.
They started it
Who's they?
Capitalists
Exactly
Celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson and especially advocating for more acts like it is abhorrent behaviour.
No, it is not. The owning class must be pressured into respecting us more than profits. By any means necessary. The government and police will not stop mass social murder, so we must do what we can to save lives.
The only reason to avoid advocating these acts is that this style of PotD-like adventurism generally isn't a sustainable tactic, compared to the power of building a mass movement.
Be specific. Talk about Brian Thompson, not the nebulous "owning class".
He allowed an ai to refuse up to 95% of claims leading to likely thousands of deaths.
So yeah. He should have died. As should others, for the same reason. Evil people don't deserve to live. End of story.
What a bold claim! Obviously you have a source for that, right?
Oh wow. Literally 5 seconds of googling. You're intentionally ignorant. You're not discussing anything in good faith. You really cannot be this dumb.
So this was obviously just projection:
You're intentionally ignorant. You're not discussing anything in good faith. You really cannot be this dumb.
Do better.
Did you link the wrong article? Nowhere in there does it say anything resembling what you claimed...
Check out page 21 of the source linked below, the original claim is a quite a bit off, but United Healthcare did implement an AI system that increased overall denial rates, especially in the category of post-acute care (the kind of stuff people need after a major procedure to safely recover).
the original claim is a quite a bit off
What an understatement.
No. Brian Thompson is not special, they are just one of many, and that is the point. These are systematic problems, not an individual moral failing of one CEO or one corporation.
So you advocate for the murder of all ~440,000 UHC employees?
No, that's why I talked about the owning class. Their socio-economic class has a different relationship to businesses than the worker class. Furthermore, the vast majority of the 440,000 employees are not in an executive role (and able to decide what work the corporation does) nor do most have the financial freedom to choose a more ethical job (there are only so many jobs available that pay enough to support a family, most of which are just in other for-profit companies beholden to the same rules of competition under capitalism).
And, as I said before, I don't advocate for assassination as a tactic, for strategic reasons:
The only reason to avoid advocating these acts is that this style of PotD-like adventurism generally isn’t a sustainable tactic, compared to the power of building a mass movement.
I do celebrate Thompson's assassination, but I don't advocate copycats.
Celebrating the murder is advocacy.
He led an enterprise with the goal and the result of making a bit more money by ending and ruining numerous lives. And he made it the most extreme case of such an enterprise.
And yes, when somebody has a life threatening or disabling condition, and their established medical provider prescribes the best standard of care, and the money guy says “nope I don’t think you need that, denied” they are actively doing harm to numerous people for a small monetary return. That is evil.
It is LAWFUL Evil, however. Yes, just like in D&D, but it is an apt description for many real people. Genuinely bad people can appeal to the “rule of law” just as easily as genuinely good people when it suits them.
It is not an accident, or an unforeseen consequence, or even negligence. It is an intentional decision to harm others in order to make a bit more money than he would otherwise.
Compare with something like a drunk driver. They are generally looked down upon, and if somebody drives into a tree at 100mph with a BAC triple the limit, not many people outside their own family will shed a tear for them. But that does not mean those people support the death penalty for DUI convictions. If the driver kills somebody else and lives, then maybe it turns into negligent homicide. They get a pretty bad punishment because their actions can directly be proven to have caused an innocent death. And it may have been predictable, but it wasn’t intentional.
Brian Thompson set policies that caused many orders of magnitude more death and suffering than any drunk driver could hope to. And more importantly, his plans were to continue doing more of the same. So it’s not a question of what punishment he deserved, but of preventing future death and suffering. You know, the #1 thing that makes homicide justifiable.
However, having “the law” on his side, there were legal and corporate structures in place to insulate his decisions from the direct 1:1 cause and effect tied to each individual death and to each individual day of suffering. That gets him off the hook legally, but in no way does it do so morally.
I used to think more like you. Surely since the rule of law is the ideal, we should choose that side of any argument like this. But I have seen too much bad shit done by people whose primary skill is arguing in bad faith to make horrible things sound palatable. The law is not divinely inspired, it is written by humans. And sure, most of us will agree that people can get it wrong. But it is even more important to recognize that laws can be created with malicious intent as well.
And I will not be blocking you, because I would like to hear some of your actual thought process and hopefully not a low effort quip or just crickets.
He led an enterprise with the goal and the result of making a bit more money by ending and ruining numerous lives.
He led an enterprise with the goal of making money by offering healthcare insurance. Unless you're a mind reader, then your assumption that he wanted it to be earned specifically by ending and ruining lives is conjecture.
the money guy says “nope I don’t think you need that, denied”
"I don't think you need that" is not a valid reason for rejecting a claim. They cannot simply say no without providing a reason.
they are actively doing harm to numerous people for a small monetary return
How does that work? Where does this return come from?
They get a pretty bad punishment because their actions can directly be proven to have caused an innocent death. And it may have been predictable, but it wasn’t intentional.
Who doles out this punishment?
Brian Thompson set policies that caused many orders of magnitude more death and suffering
What policies are those? Be specific.
However, having “the law” on his side, there were legal and corporate structures in place to insulate his decisions
Which decisions are those and what laws helped insulate them. Be specific.
I used to think more like you. Surely since the rule of law is the ideal, we should choose that side of any argument like this.
I do not think the rule of law is ideal. I think there are tons of laws on the books that are immoral. I also notice the killer didn't target any of these lawmakers.
I also don't care about Brian Thompson as a person, I don't care that he's dead either.
In fact, I think it's possible to have a situation where vigilante justice is morally justified.
This is not one of those cases.
The insurance companies control our healthcare system. He controlled an insurance company. Get it yet?
Be specific. What exactly did he use this control to do?
You're not getting away with this
With what?
Reframe, it's an expression of how powerless everyone feels that they are willing to support murder as it starts to become the only option that still holds a chance of change. Not the plebs fault, we're literal swine.
Don't worry, you're clearly not engaging in good faith and have been blocked so I won't see which dumbass logical fallacy you pick for your reply.
I'm asking you to justify why it was morally good to murder Brian Thompson and to encourage more, similar acts.
Edit: I love all the people failing to make a case and then immediately blocking. It perfectly illustrates the exact kind of willful ignorance and bloodlust I'm talking about here.
No one needs to justify its morality, quit being such a boot licker.
So you're proud of being ignorant and immoral. At least you're owning it.
So much for blocking me, huh?