They have caught the insurance killer.

[Tank]

That about sums up the American nightmare

[Dark Lightning]

I consider myself fortunate that I'm a member of an HMO that is pro-active with my health care. I only complained once, and that employee still hates me. See to it that I'm denied treatment and find out. 

[billy rubin]

the important question to ask is where this will lead.

1 will we see the mainstream corporate vilification of this guy, and a quick trial and punishment?

2 will we see the popular target of psychos switch from school shootings to CEOs?

3 will we see american business recognize that it needs to be more socially responsible?

which is likeliest?

i vote 1 is likely.

2 would be great.

3 is not going to happen.

[billy rubin]

in related news

https://abc7.com/post/unitedhealth-group-ceo-andrew-witty-says-americas-health-system-is-poorly-designed-response-brian-thompson-murder-nyc/15656649/

Our role is a critical role, and we make sure that care is safe, appropriate, and it's delivered when people need it," said Witty in a video message obtained by CNN. "And we guard against the pressures that exist for unsafe care or for unnecessary care to be delivered in a way which makes the whole system too complex and ultimately unsustainable. So we're going to continue to make that case."

witty is thompsons replacement.

he hasnt got the message yet.

[Tank]

Too many people value money/power over people. Put them in an exploitative environment and they will flourish.

[billy rubin]

until the rest of the people decide that the exploiters are better off dead.

we re apparently there, right now.

[Asmodean]

well, is it time to talk about the politics? i have some questions, some rhetorical.

...and The Asmo will be pleased to do His best - sometimes rhetorically.

a man was murdered on a new york city sidewalk. approximately one new yorker lies dead on the sidewalk every day. why has this death received this much attention? he was a multi-millionaire health care company CEO.

this individual immediately got a $60 000 reward offered by the Government for apprehension of the killer. why was his death worth so much reward money? nobody else in NYC gets this attention.

This one is pretty easy. Not every life is equal to another in its worth to the society it's in, nor is one murder equal to another. Police may concentrate more on child-, cop- or wealthy-person killers than they do on, say, gangbangers gang-banging each other. There is a gradient in-between.

the killer was apparently motivated by a dislike of the health care system in america. he has received public adulation for the killing. why?

there are legal, politica,l and moral rules that state that killing someone is wrong. people are saying this killing was not wrong. how is this reconciled?

I think the answer to both points is [possibly-wanton] hypocricy. "It's wrong to kill, but if it's someone I happen to despise, then they've got what was coming." It's broadly the same thing as "It's wrong to spend so much tax payer's money on bullshit causes - except my own." Life is full of such examples of people elevating their own emotional baggage to override their stated moral imperatives. some even choose to justify it behind a veneer of thought process.

are there social contract contradictions involved in this event? is it never okay to kill someone, or are there situations where it is sometimes okay to kill someone?

That depends. Are you speaking aspirationally or realistically? Realistically speaking, a lot of people are perfectly OK with killing other people under the "right" circumstances. similarly, a lot of people would kill under the right circumstances, even if they considered the act of killing wrong as a matter of principle.

which arguments for and against justifying this killing are valid, and which are not?

Example for: "He needed killing." An argumetn that the victim was a net-drain on or a net-threat to their community or society. It's not unlike the citizen's arrest version of death penalty. It's a valid argument as it identifies a problem and a functional solution.

Example against: "He was a net contributor." This is pretty much the opposing argument, that may go along the lines of "This guy paid more taxes in a year than his killer did in a lifetime." I'm not going too much deeper into this one - it's just the reversal of the former. Equally valid, though with regard to a different set of variables. ("Wrong solution to wrong problem")

There are also moral arguments to be made this way and that, but them's been with us since time itself gave us the ability to reason, I suspect.

im curious. ive thought a lot about this killing, and i have decided that i do not condemn the killer, and would nullify any prosecution of him should i be called to be on his jury. in other words, i consider the death of this healthcare businessman to be a justifiable homicide.

I like to think that in that situation, I would make as impartial a decision as I could based on the facts presented at trial. But then, I suspect I would be a very "flowchart justice" kind of juror regardless.

[The Magic Pudding..]

im curious. ive thought a lot about this killing, and i have decided that i do not condemn the killer, and would nullify any prosecution of him should i be called to be on his jury. in other words, i consider the death of this healthcare businessman to be a justifiable homicide.

I like to think that in that situation, I would make as impartial a decision as I could based on the facts presented at trial. But then, I suspect I would be a very "flowchart justice" kind of juror regardless.

A person should not kill is a broadly accepted principle, obviously.
Of course it isn't a binary right or wrong thing, there are legal, moral/philosophical exceptions.

I'm not convinced a moral/philosophical exception is justified, I find the death to all CEOs and billionaires echo chamber juvenile and stupid.  I'm ignorant of harm done by the US health bizes though, and why there are no OK ones, how about a not for profit? but that would have to have a CEO of some sort, who'd by definition deserve to die.

He might not deserve to go to hell but he needs to go to jail, you don't let a person hunt down a person, kill them without a legal justification and go free, it's not a fun place to go.

(assuming proven guilt)

[billy rubin]

in my opinion, my country is approaching a bastille moment.

like it or not, true or not, a large proportion of people no longer consider themselves to be partners in a mutually-beneficial economic system. this obtains in health care, housing, financial security, and many other aspects of my country's society.

when a large enough proportion of the people no longer see themselves as equal beneficiaries of their social contract, they will re-write the social contract to reflect their own needs. it doesnt matter whether its legal, or is "morally right." it will happen regardless.

murder is technically wrong,  but i cant find it in me to give a rats ass about the death of this millionaire. at $14 million dollars per year, he was making $7000 per hour.

 Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

im more interested in whether his death will result in significant change in the lives of the many millions of people who have never received $7000 per hour, or even enough to graduate from working full time while still sleeping on their parents couch.

[billy rubin]

in other news

CEO sympathizer https://imgur.com/gallery/hvNH8mt

[Tank]

That was bizarre.

[billy rubin]

welcome to the monkey house, tank.

which side of the bars on you on?

[Anne D.]

I think it must be truly hard for those in Europe (and Australia) in countries with a public health care system and some modicum of a social safety net to truly understand how bleak the US system is if you are poor or lower middle class. I really think you just can't comprehend life here for huge swaths of the US population. That's what accounts for the reaction to the United CEO's death.

[Icarus]

 Sufficiently Well done explanation Anne.

Our health care system is overrun with abject unfairness.  Much, not all, of it is a result of the unbridled greed of our insurance companies and pharmaceutical houses.

Someone please explain why one of the pharmaceutical manufacturers can charge me $680 for a months supply of meds for my mild OPD, but manage to have it delivered for 20 dollars when routed through the appropriate channels. Something is amiss here..........Less fortunate people do not have access to that advantage.   

[Asmodean]

im more interested in whether his death will result in significant change in the lives of the many millions of people who have never received $7000 per hour, or even enough to graduate from working full time while still sleeping on their parents couch.

The many millions? I would be willing to bet that the answer to that is "no."

The murder suspect? Well... If convicted, he is looking at some lifestyle changes.

Friends, family, etc..? Depends on who.

As an aside, it is expensive to build a house properly, and so it is expensive to buy a house. When it comes to rental spaces, the price is a matter of supply and demand. What on Earth do you want from the housing market? It costs money to have things like roof, walls and plumbing. A lot of money, in fact. Over in my general area, some fifty-sixty years ago you could build a house and live in it. If you built that same house today, it would likely be classified as a shed or non-living space. So, add some requirement creep to the general price creep and there you have it. Only around 2-3% of the local property sales are within the debt-up-to-your-eyeballs range of a average Norwegian nurse. The rest are without. For many people, if they want to own something, they would have to buy an older property somewhere outside the main population areas and transportation routes. That, or make more money or get together with someone and co-own. That's what it is.

Similarly, there are places in the United States where you could get a house (And by that, I don't mean some ruin with mold growing on lead-painted asbestos) for, say, 50K. Central San Francisco is probably not it, so if you choose (or for some reason have to) to live there, then be prepared to multiply that by a hundred or several. And yeah, that probably does mean bunkin' with mum until you are 40. cost of doing business. for you and mum both, likely as not.