The same "internet sleuths" who have had a 0% success rate in this kind of thing? He is probably more likely to get caught now that they're not involved and adding confusion by accusing innocent people.
This reminds me of Ken McElroy [1], murdered in broad daylight with ~40 people present yet no witnesses.
Did this CEO deserve to be shot in the back? No, and vigilantism shouldn't be celebrated. Instead we should invest time in understanding why our laws and society structure allows (even promotes) the kind of corporate exploitation of the public that is enough to drive someone to murder.
> Instead we should invest time in understanding why our laws and society structure allows (even promotes) the kind of corporate exploitation of the public that is enough to drive someone to murder.
We already know the answer to why. Its because corporate exploitation of the public is profitable. The US could at any time switch to a universal health care system like just about every other industrialized nation and the entire claim-denying middle-man financial parasite insurance model would evaporate.
I am beginning to doubt we are going to make much of dent. Some one recently told me ecologists and biologists don't frame it as exploitation when they talk about predator-prey or parasite-host relationships. I really didn't know how to respond to that.
I think we are able to kind of reduce the exploitation A BIT, via social norms and culture. And that too only in regions where resources are abundant and the environment isn't too chaotic.
> Instead we should invest time in understanding why our laws and society structure allows (even promotes) the kind of corporate exploitation of the public that is enough to drive someone to murder.
What are you talking about? Isn't blatant corporate greed simply the product of the societal and financial culture that the country is practically built upon?
If you insist on playing naive, let me spell it out for you.
1. A corporation's main aim is shareholder value increase, at any cost that is a) legally permissible b) doesn't kill the company. For what its worth, #1.a is also negotiable now, see 2.2 below.
2. In order to ensure this:
2.1 They pay political campaigns to get the politicians in power so that those politicians can shape the laws in their favor.
2.2 They employ ex-government officials to incentivize them to be not too harsh with the corporations during their tenure at the government - you don't bite the hand that will feed you once you retire from your current government job.
2.3 They pay lobbying groups to influence the laws the politicians will make (most are already bought (see #2.1) but it is so much cheaper to lobby compared to the outsized payout that spending a bit more for maximum support is a no-brainer).
3. In order to maximize shareholder value, they need to maximize their profits. If denying claims helps them do it, they will do so. Who will stop them? Politicians? See #2 above.
4. How do politicians ensure they can enable #1?
5.1 By making it legal for corporations to pump cash via PACs and super PACs so that #2.1 can continue.
5.2 By pushing extremism (left or right) and polarize people into groups. It is easy for sharks to feed if the herring move as a group. How can they do it easily? Technology companies with the power of internet enable it greatly (they are also companies after all, see #1).
6. The cycle continues and worsens and people keep getting squeezed until someone says fuck it and does something like the event this thread is about.
re: citizen's united. something i've been thinking about lately, with the latest rise of gen x tech power: elon musk et al (andreesen, thiel, david sacks, etc) got extremely lucky with timing. the 90s internet boom and all of the tech that came after allowed them to become very rich, thanks also to the zero interest rate policy of the 2010s. combined with the timing of citizen's united, you now have elon musk who reportedly donated $250 million to the trump campaign and is now reaping those rewards.
That is basically point #7: Why even have the politicians as middle-men? Use wealth-porn via short-attention-span media to build followers out of money-worshippers and use that clout + money to directly be part of the executive. Why even bother with lobbying groups when you can write the law yourself by being in the same room where it will be passed?
So, my sibling took a Constitutional Law class once. And they were telling me that the lecturer was saying that there is one major factor underappreciated in current law: Dueling
The US system is one that is set up under a very different cultural system than what we currently have (in many ways). But one important release valve that the first generation had was duels. If you were being a shithead over and over, you'd be killed. Maybe not by the first duel, or even the fifth duel. But your luck would run out eventually.
Now, these days, we know that duels are just crazy, and the social effects of them are dumb. But we've also gotten rid of the shaming and shunning effects that came after them. Something else (white/blacklists, anti-NETTR, an anti-trolling league, etc) should come out to replace and gain these functions again. Our system really only works if done in good faith and requires an extra-judicial method of enforcement.
What if our system is so corrupt that legal investigation and lobbying becomes restricted to a domain in which it can no longer benefit the people?
We have hundreds of analyses already and millions of hours poured into understanding this situation -- the corporate power structure and the unrestricted capitalistic growth of technology. Should people analyze until they are blue in the face?
At some point in many societies, a point of revolution happens because there is no other reliable option, and when such a thing happens, it overrides the morals of the majority simply because those morals only exist to keep a society functioning. But what to do when it no longer can function?
The American goverment frequently decides who lives and who dies and who to kill at war. When that sort of violence flows downwards to those who threaten the existing power structure, it is called policy. When the people take arms against corruption, it is called immoral violence and you bought right into it.
Am I the only one who thinks he wasn’t killed by a resistance hero? Wasn’t he supposed to testify the next day? All this “deny defend depose” thing is a distraction, so that the masses cheer, all the while the man was probably killed right before the only time he would have actually crossed his overlords.
The simple explanation, and one that encapsulates the entirety of the necessary elements, is that someone’s significant other died, and that someone believes that if she had been allowed for some treatment, the outcome would have been different.
This is a story that , justly or not, unfolds hundreds if not thousands of times a day.
It’s not the first time, and won’t be the last, that the affected person has the right combination of dark triad traits and appropriate experiences to make personal vengeance a viable response.
As someone who recently lost their spouse of 16 years to cancer, I can say that in the right circumstances this might be an understandable, if not justifiable, response to that kind of stress.
I’d rather take the Occam’s razor approach here instead of the conspiracy theorist one.
Health care execs are always under litigation. They are the named officers of their corporate units and therefore the legal representatives of their entities.
Private health care aggrieves hundreds to thousands of people a day. It’s rather someone who lost a loved one or who is in financial distress due to decisions made by this corporation than some deep dark conspiracy.
One thing that doesn't factor into this argument is the professional nature of the hit — how he managed the gun, the silencer, the messages on the bullets, the getaway, and the precise reconnaissance that allowed him to know exactly where his target would be at that exact moment.
That doesn't align with the characteristics of a typical personal vendetta.
At the rate insurance companies hurt people, it's likely they've hurt professional assassins, special forces people, etc. It doesn't have to be a hired hit to be professional in execution.
I knew a person who went on a personal vendetta against his old boss. The set up he did was very elaborate, including making it look like he went on a hiking trip the weekend he murdered the ex-boss. Unfortunately for him he was a prime suspect because their well-known beef.
Don't underestimate the amount of thought someone truly resentful will put to this kind of action.
The video shows the gun malfunctioning repeatedly and the shooter having to clear those malfunctions by racking the slide. That's likely caused by a poorly-installed silencer. Hardly professional.
The batting average betting against conspiracy theories lately is not very good.
> thousands of people a day
and this virtually never happens. Sure, on one side, it's bound to happen eventually, but from the other, "aggrieved loved one" is in good cover if you need that guy dead.
The guy had a silencer, is that a normal thing for a regular guy in New York to have? That and how it was carried out does make me think that it could be someone who is already out of the law.
Looked like a custom weapon to me, which would be a smart move to avoid being traced, also explains the jamming. Custom silencers can cause a semi-auto to jam if the tolerances are crap, but a completely custom, say 3D printed gun, might jam from any number of issues...
Very VERY rare B&T Station VI similar to a WWII british spy gun. Complicated high maintenance two-stage suppressor. Like using a Bugatti to run him over.
I think someone speculated it was a Station Six because of the look of the gun and the newsmedia ran with it.
The shooter is not twisting a pulling a welrod style action, they’re racking the slide every time because of the cartridges lack enough power to fully operate the gun’s action with the suppressor attached.
You are severely underestimating 3D printed firearms, unless you are saying it must be entirely, 100% 3D printed. PSR on YouTube is an interesting channel to skim through.
Speaking to someone with decades of 3DP experience and much longer with firearms... I do agree its unlikely, but seen a number of home made silencers cause jams just like I see in the video. He also marked the rounds, if he scored them, their weight is also off/likely also caused burs... many possible reasons why the gunman experienced jams...
Breaking news, a so called suspect has been apprehend and a 3D printed gun was found.
“He was in possession of a ghost gun that had the capability of firing a 9-mm round and a suppressor,” NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said at a Monday press briefing, adding that the piece “may have been made on a 3-D printer.”
Authorities know that the killer arrived in New York ten days beforehand, they know he left on a greyhound bus bound for Atlanta. They don’t know his identity or current location.
My immediate thought was of oligarchs falling out windows in Russia but something more mundane like him being a risk to a criminal outfit is more likely.
Making it look like a populist vigilante to the point of staging a performative message would be a good way to confuse and throw the investigation.
That is a really depressing read. A person shot and killed in cold blood, and these online heros pretty much condone it. This will be awful for his family.
It sounds depressing if you take it as just a murder. But it is much more than that: it is one possible step in violent protest against the corporate control and subjugation of thousands of human lives through their medical care. Undeniably, corporations have emerged as the dominant threat to communities and people by becoming experts and exploitation due to their power and assymetry of information.
What kind of society would we create if legitimise murder of citizens because another citizen disagrees with them?
We invented rule of law and the ballot box to protect ourselves from each other. Yes it may be inefficient and may produce results we don't like, but once it becomes ok to murder people you disagree with, that legitimises killing anyone.
I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t be condoning murder but consider that the rule of law and ballot box are not effectively preventing healthcare costs from being a leading cause of bankruptcy, drug addiction / homelessness (read through the fentanyl stories and note how many started with a car crash or workplace injury with medication and physical therapy cut off before the patient was fully recovered), and people dying or having life-altering conditions because they couldn’t get the care they needed earlier. We can’t just say murder is wrong while refusing to do anything about a system which reliably produces large numbers of deaths annually because the alternative would be lower profits.
Put another way, how many Americans have cheered seeing Batman tackle an industrialist who killed a fraction of the number of Americans who die because they can’t get adequate healthcare? I strongly agree that gunning people down for perceived injustice isn’t anywhere we want to be but that means we have to actually fix the problems. Here’s a survey which found 34M Americans know someone who died because they couldn’t get healthcare, and 58M couldn’t get medication they needed – those numbers are very high if you want a peaceful society:
Quite the opposite. They’re explicitly not condoning:
> Another popular TikTok sleuth, thatdaneshguy [said] that he wouldn’t try to identify the killer. “I don’t have to encourage violence. I don’t have to condone violence by any means. But I also don’t have to help,” he said.
Inaction can be condoning in some cases. If there is an element of duty it certainly is. But if volunteers choose not to volunteer in a specific situation that’s their right.
Maybe (and I think you're likely right, or at least, that they don't think it was an evil done in the world) - but if they do, they're not saying so and not condoning it.
It can be hard to ascribe values when someone abstains.
Question: is it depressing, or is it a wake up call for just how much the average American hates health insurance executives?
There seem to be a few people online who mirror your sentiments about being shocked, what defenders of the crime would call pearl clutching. I'm fascinated.
From my perspective, the idea of a vigilante being so burned by health insurance companies he tracks down and kills the CEO is not a shocking premise _at all_. Yet some (particularly health insurance industry workers / professionals on LinkedIn) are so shocked by this that it makes me wonder if there's an insulated echo chamber effect going on here.
It's a classic Robin Hood kind of hero, an established trope that everyone likes. I don't get how anybody can be surprised by this happening in a country which is obsessed with comic books and made hero movies it's main cultural export.
I mean - this is the country that literally has a whole Amendment in their Constitution dedicated to the right of the people to shoot other people, and which defines that capacity for popular violence as a necessity for a free state. The archetype of the hero patriot "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" goes all the way back to the guy who made that quote.
And I would bet money (if I had it) that a significant number of people expressing outrage over this were defending Kyle Rittenhouse and that guy who shot climate protestors in Panama, or making excuses for the killings of Jordan Neely and George Floyd, or gleefully hoping Trump would send troops in to shoot BLM protestors in the streets.
Because the "problem" here isn't the normalization of gun violence or the lionization of such violence as heroism - that's been normal for centuries, it's an intentional design feature of the American system. The "problem" here is that gun violence was being used on the wrong kind of people, and creating the wrong kind of hero.
In the full quote Jefferson argues that arms are necessary to preserve a spirit of rebellion. I wouldn't ascribe it as inherently linked to any particular cause.
I can give you an ex-insiders perspective. There tends to be a bit of a divide in the people who drift into staffing these companies. Most are highly intelligent, and at least have an appreciation for the logistics behind the business process. There's going to be a functional piece somewhere sitting in the midst of the datasets, and making the best decisions possible. The dividing line I personally witnessed though was the finance first vs. patient outcome first people. The patient outcome first people tend to congregate in areas like CS, clinical, QA, compliance, etc... They realize it's a complex space, a lot of data to sift through and learn from, but are constantly working to make sure people ultimately get what they need.
The finance first group are sort of the opposite. They're doing everything they can to target Fraud/Waste/Abuse, not necessarily to the exclusion of patient outcome, but the priorities are 100% different. The problem is the output of their analysis tends to turn into inputs for the Prior Auth, formulary management, and claim denial logic, which, lets call that what it is: population scale social engineering to the end of nudging people to save money for the company.
The "surprised pikachus" are probably the finance first/raw number crunchers who have never had a number bite back in their life. The people who are actually concerned with patient outcome already know exactly what's going on, and are completely unsurprised.
It's really Upton Sinclair's wisdom at work: It is hard to get a man to understand that which his salary depends on him not understanding.
> Question: is it depressing, or is it a wake up call for just how much the average American hates health insurance executives?
Americans dislike the American health care system as a whole, but actually tend to like their particular insurance company and doctors.
I checked United on the ACA marketplace in my state and United is rated 4 out of 5 stars, which is the same as pretty much every other offering except Kaiser (5 out of 5) and new plans that have not yet gotten ratings.
This is not actually surprising because most people only actually use their insurance for routine things like physicals, vaccinations, lab tests, common illnesses like flu, physical injuries like sprains and broken bones and household cuts and burns, and fairly common prescription drugs.
Even the most extreme cost cutting insurance company is usually going to pay for those without question.
(not American here, but curious about the situation because healthcare is broken in so many countries).
Money is a weapon of vote too, if you don't subscribe to UnitedHealthcare, in the long run the corporate should eventually disappear as a whole no ?
If you dislike Uber, then don't buy Uber.
In Switzerland they have such capitalistic system where you can pick your private insurance provider. So the most expensive / worse ones, gets less revenue.
In France, they have a socialo-communist monopoly, no choice, only one choice, and you have to be happy with it, no matter what.
I guess that's the main promise of capitalism; voting with your money (money that is supposed to come proportional to your efforts, though it is warped by crime, cryptos, inheritance, etc).
For example, if you stop buying meat, and convince others to stop buying meat, then there will less people investing into meat.
EDIT: Users explained (thanks!) that it was not really a free choice.
Voting with your money works in a fair market for competitive goods and services, but health insurance is neither competitive nor a direct service, and it's also not a fair market (in the USA at least).
In the USA, most health insurance plans are through private companies that have group plans with employers.
This is a terrible system, because many employers just want to check the box of offering plans, so do not negotiate good plans for their employees (the best / most profitable companies might have good health insurance, but most not so much).
It also very famously ties your health insurance status to your employment status, which gives a whole tone to the American discourse of labor laws. People are desperate to keep their jobs to keep their medical coverage.
The US gov is trying to make it more competitive with healthcare.gov, which really only highlights how bad the situation is (you're hard pressed finding a healthcare marketplace plan for less than 200$/month without income tax credits).
So the average American is stuck with plans they didn't negotiate for, with limited options for choosing better plans, and insurance very often deny coverage / include hidden fees / are generally inept at providing any type of service beyond taking your money.
There's no way to vote with your wallet, when everyone in the business seems to be a crook at worst and an uncaring suit at best.
I asked this one and it's not a choice many people get to make, it's an insurer provided through your employer. If you want to choose an alternative you wont be getting group rates and the emplyer contribution so you'll be paying much more (such that it is not a viable option for most people). They exist not because they are good, but because they're a cheaper option that satisfies some legal checkboxes.
> Money is a weapon of vote too, if you don't subscribe to UnitedHealthcare, in the long run the corporate should eventually disappear as a whole no ?
The problem is often that there is no really good option. And in places like Switzerland, there is often much more regulation to prevent all options from becoming bad. For example, the E.U. has many consumer rights laws that the U.S. does not have.
The problem is unregulated capitalism. At a large scale, over time, people will find ways to take advantage of the system and exploit the people due to their greedy nature. And insurance is an industry that naturally tends to that end without regulation.
In no place does unregulated capitalism give good results at scale.
I start to get it, reminds me of airline (delayed/late flight) regulations. E.U. is so much in advance in that (maybe sometimes too much, like the water bottles).
>In France, they have a socialo-communist monopoly, no choice, only one choice, and you have to be happy with it, no matter what.
It sounds very offending to my anarcho capitalistic world view, where poor people should suffer more than I do, but does it actually produce more suffering than US or less?
If you don't pay taxes it's an incredibly great value and offering.
This is why if you are poor France and can get state help is an excellent choice.
Once you start to pay taxes, or you fit in-between the criterias for eligibility to state help, the costs are much higher than in the neighboring Switzerland for example.
What about the many thousands of families who have been forced into bankruptcy or have had loved ones die due to actions he's ultimately responsible for? I don't think there's anything wrong in having zero sympathy. It strikes me as a very human reaction.
Yeah sure, please post this another 386 times for all the other times non-millionaires died in NYC in 2023. Also for when they killed Bin Laden and Hussein.
Never mind the tens of thousands of people that the CEO killed by wrongly denying claims. I won't condone it, but in the big picture the shooter saved lives.
There will just be a new CEO who will continue those same practices. How can this possibly be misconstrued as something impactful upon the broken system
This killing can signify that people are starting to be more willing to change the system through tactical violence. And:
(a) If more CEOs are targeted, it will modify their behaviour, and make them more likely to tone down their ruthlessness.
(b) There is already a lot of news coverage and attention on the horrific nature of U.S. healthcare. If some policies change more rapidly, then I think some might consider this killing an effective action in saving hundreds of lives.
I’ve got news for you, even in countries with socialized healthcare, not all treatments are automatically approved or approved in a timely manner. There’s ALWAYS a cost-to-benefit ratio that is considered, and it doesn’t always work out in the patient’s favor. I suppose we’d cheer the murder of say the UK’s equivalent of this CEO as well?
Does the UK's guy implement policies like mandatory first pass denial to encourage attrition, or try employing blackbox AI models to the task of denying care, and attempting to mathwash?
I've worked in the space. Most people don't care about denials that are reasonable. I.e. escalation through "lets try these first drugs" when there isn't an established history of use. Ruling out less expensive problems before approving the most expensive operation. Thise aren't generally issues.
It's capricious denials happening over and over and over again, despite well established case history. Denials that clearly don't make sense. Prior Auths being used as financial "nudges".
That type of thing can screw right off. It's why I left the space after it proved absolutely impossible to get through to people that these measures were costing the lives of our customers. I bloody tried; and in the end, left for the sake of keeping what was left of my soul intact.
As far as I'm concerned the industry has made their bed. They can now sleep in it.
It's not simply approval or denial. In the US, you can still get health care for conditions the insurance company decides to deny payment for after the fact. The "insured" is then financially ruined. This is so exceedingly common in the US. It's far, far, far, far, far, far, far less likely to be financially destroyed by a health issue in the UK or any other industrialized nation.
That's not correct. In countries with real health care, all treatments that are listed for an illness are always approved. There just is no denial process that could block e.g. a cancer treatment. A doctor diagnoses it and decided the treatment, the insurance pays and has no say in the matter.
So it basically appears that for every $1 us customers pay to United Healthcare, $0.75 goes to medical providers, $.21 to running the business, and $.04 to profit.
Those numbers don’t seem like gouging to me, what do you think?
The real enemy here is the regulatory capture of the health industry preventing competition.
$3,000 a night for a hospital bed, $350,000 a year on average for a doctor, and double profits being made by pharma and medical devices companies. Abolish the patent system, allow unlimited new doctors to train instead of a specific number of annual seats, and reduce the regulations on building and operating hospitals and prices will fall.
Currently we give 27% of US GDP to doctors and hospitals.
> The real enemy here is the regulatory capture of the health industry preventing competition.
Yeah, the enemy is the industry players, who we are talking about. The industry players are the ones who institute the regulations that have captured the industry, and they don't cease to exist after deregulation. Unless your deregulation proposal also includes regulation of their ability to expand, you're just giving them more power to do regulatory capture.
They get even richer by creating new hospitals that now cost less to build and hiring physicians (and PAs, NPs, RNs, and so on) whom they can now pay at lower rates.
And then, because they have been lobbying this whole time (unless deregulation means regulating lobbying?) they have just done reg 2.0... regulatory capture but it uses AJAX
People are greedy in every industry. In industries without regulation, high levels of competition keeps prices low and quality high. Once we deregulate, entrepreneurs like me will start health care companies to compete with the old players, and we can bury them or force them to vastly improve their services and reduce prices.
> It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.
Are you implying the CEO is a victim of the system? If so he decided to further victimise dozens of thousands further, just like a murderer-robber is also a victim of the system, nonetheless their lack of morality made them perpetuate the system's violence.
He is just another drone responding to the market signals and the incentives are structured in a way to select for this kind of behavior. Yes, he can very well be morally corrupt, but it's not the point.
Hence why I've been a heavy critic of ideologues spewing about capitalism without ever considering how we should imbue morality into an amoral system.
Being morally corrupt is kinda the point, less educated people manage to maintain a sense of morality while living under this system, they aren't rewarded for it but still have character enough to not be corrupted. His choice of participating on a clearly immoral scheme is conscious, responding to the incentives comes from a failure of character.
Why exactly is the current system set up the way it is by politicians? I can think of at least one former politician who now sits on the board of a healthcare provider, it's a little dirty. Corporations lobby politicians all the time, maybe they should lobby for more regulation and consumer protection. You might say it's in everyone's best interest.
> It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.
The system wasn’t set up by accident but at the specific behest of the affected companies. When the prospect of Medicare for all was being discussed a decade and a half ago, look at where all of the money decrying it as socialism came from, and who was funding the politicians talking about things like “death panels”. That proposal was estimated to cut U.S. healthcare costs almost in half, which sounds great as a consumer but represents hundreds of billions annually which is not generating profits for the insurance industry and large providers.
The exact same story played out in 1993 when President Clinton tried to pass healthcare reform, down to the year-long advertising campaign featuring actors pretending to be normal people concerned about bureaucracy which only made sense in a parallel universe where people weren’t having even worse experiences with private bureaucrats every day.
In this particular instance I think it's less a question of virtue and more the issue of internet sleuths having an intimate understanding of the power of the internet and fearing the backlash that will be visited upon them if they participate in finding the murderer. It's a form of self-censorship.
> It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.
Now that's a strawman. No one believes the CEO should be a sacrificial lamb. But I think many do believe that his killing is justice and may even effect some change due to an intense investigation into American health care.
Has there ever been another case like this? I remember some acts in the past where someone was murdered and the general public consensus (even juries) were like yeah, we'll allow it.
TikTok has their own understanding of democracy, defending certain ideas (e.g. Russia in Romania), but at the same time, Twitter also has a certain view (like Donald Trump).
My apologies for the lack of understanding. I am completely ignorant of everything TikTok. Personally, I am already easily distracted/side tracked and I don’t need another thing to keep me on my phone.
My comment was made on the side of the public majority, be it meat space or the ether, holding little regard for a man who’s responsible for policies that have denied care that they payed for. Believe it or not, actions have consequences.
As to comment on “TikTok sleuths”: I would doubt their prowess and abilities to maintain any level of professionalism. They are on a website that is targeting your short term attention span. Long, drawn out, in depth analysis and (what is it) 1 minute max length videos don’t seem a positive mix. Just as I am now, I would assume they are merely speculating. This just seems like another “we did it Reddit!”.
Distributed search through multiple contacts does not always provide tangible evidence. I, personally, would not take random sources over first hand evidence. A thousand monkeys on type writers and only a dozen providing credible information.
Have you ever noticed the large amount of people that will take an influential persons word at face value? What ever happened to trust but verify.
Multiple sources makes the water muddy. With the large amount of people with easily influenced opinions, quick to judgement, I do not see any value in this approach.
If you look through old logs of a certain bulletin board how many did you see providing useful information? The 80/20 rule applies to this.
Hello pessimizer! Please get yourself a few romanian tik-tok accounts, browse as a young man, and you will see what relentless propaganda has been produced. I am sorry this information, ie. the videos, are not widely available on the internet. (like most of the good useful information, if I may add)
Disgusting. Everyone has the freedom to say what they think. Justifying extra-judicial murder because of policy difference shows that you have no principles, and only go along with what will keep you popular with your tribe.
Everyone celebrates "justice" against the "bad guys" via vigilante violence until they are next against the wall.
The guy probably knew he was a pencil pushing mass murderer of sorts; doesn't mean he should be shot by vigilantes, but in modern society it seems you get away with this (boeing ceo, this guy etc) if you trust on the system as 'he is just maximizing profits, great US company, we are the greatest country because of people like this blah blah' (until it's your mother or sister or whatever ofcourse).
You don't have to justify anything by not wanting to help catching the killer though; it's their choice.
I have never been in this situation (not allowed here), but as I said before, I find the restraint amazing; if a family member would have paid for 30 years in some insurance and then gets denied because some AI said no, I find it hard to imagine this type of vigilante stuff is so rare. And the ceo really knows this is happening so he should go to jail, at least. Not just a slap on the wrist.
If you ever happen to talk to normal people you realize people already feel very much "against the wall" when it comes to healthcare. People die everyday because their claims are denied. I am curious what you think the more rational way to be is in this world. The play of life and death is already our theater, but we are just supposed to take it I guess, never give it out.
> I am curious what you think the more rational way to be is in this world.
I think there's a general sense among the owning class (who largely inherited their ownership from their daddies) that the only rational and moral response for somebody who can't pay their societal rent is apoptosis.
Worse than people dying, even more common a single health event can literally bankrupt a family. This happens every day, all day. 41% of Americans have some sort of health care debt. Over 3 million Americans owe more than $10,000 in medical debt. The average American can’t swing an unexpected $2000 expense, imagine how destructive this is, and what is it for? Record profits for insurance companies?
Starting with I don't condone violence. But it is kinda pathetic that police forces, especially the NYPD which has billions of dollars in budget and countless years of experience, need to reach out to tiktokers who do this as a hobby for help training.
