- cross-posted to:
- luigimangione@lemmy.world
- actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- luigimangione@lemmy.world
- actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
This is the truth. My aunt comes to my third world country to treat her teeth. And for her is cheaper to come, pay the plane, pay the treatment, stay some days and return, thant to pay the same treatment in the US
And as a Canadian, I hear Americans talking about how we wait so long for care.
We do, but not for anything that is life threatening.
I don’t mind waiting for an x-ray for something routine if some kid needs an x-ray to figure out if his skull is cracked or something.
I’m an American and a regular appointment is still likely a couple months out because of insurance.
So much better!
My response to wait times is to train more doctors, nurses and lab techs. Denying poorer workers from having access to healthcare so that wealthier people don’t have to wait is cruel and a banal evil.
You will not find any disagreement by me.
Rest assured, that’s just rhetoric peddled by and for useful idiots to “justify” why things shouldn’t change.
useful idiots
Am I wrong, or is it cruel for these people to say “I don’t want everyone to get the healthcare they need because then I might have to wait when I need something” ? I keep mulling it over and this reasoning strikes me as a complete disregard for the well-being of others… Which is such a boring manifestation of evil
oh yea, emergencies, cancer diagnosis usually doesnt wait that long in EU too, just regular appts. even in the states if your own "state subsidized healthcare, you can also be waiting months or even almost 6 months for a appt, secondly you will also encounter rude employees that just hangs up on you too. i was in an insurance based medical facility/hospitals, its barely occupied most of the time, so i think the insurance just like justfying the increasecost of the insurance by building unnecessary facilities, before 26, my previous insurance was doing just that and still doing to this day.
also some insurance in general are allergic to older people too, they price them out, they have no need to “drop people from thier insurance” , when they can just price them out, this also helps them skew results like denials or getting terminated from thier insurance.
All good points.
I would, 100% of the time, rather live under a social triage of conditions, where those who have the most need, get the most and most immediate care. If I’m not going to die from my medical issues, I can wait.
From your description and what I understand of it, American medical triage is less about who needs the most care, and more about who has the most money.
I’m a first aid trained person. Changing the way people get triaged for what their issue is… That’s a good way to get people killed.
If US Health Insurance companies are so great at the service they provide, why don’t they take their business internationally? All these other countries must be so exasperated with their useless, inadequate federal healthcare programs.
Oh, wait, they’re not.
It’s kinda funny living in Japan. We are all legally required to carry health insurance. It’s available (income-based) from the govt, though many companies provide it as well paying half or more. Most of us who grew up in the US are talking about how cheap it is and most of the Europeans and Canadians are talking about how expensive it is (often about the point-of-service cost (30% of bill for most, though much cheaper than prices in the US) though some also the insurance). We also have out-of-pocket max (monthly cap, I think), and spending over 100k in a year opens up tax deductions (think of that like $1000 in USD/EUR for how it feels to spend that; the exchange rates are obviously different).
Jeez I’m lucky the deductible is yearly here in NL, last few years Ive blown through it in January alone.
That’s basically the worst of all the developed countries with some developing countries doing better than us.
If you look well there are good health providers in south America.
I vote for giving Luigi the Death Note
he would be more akin to PUNISHER? the death note drove the “user” insane.
Did he save it tho?
Nazi US seems pretty unsaved to me, right now 😌
Of course, this is a joke and I know you/he mean “he who trys saving his country…” and I know that is a Trump quoteSir this is a Wendy’s.
😄 you are absolutely right, sorry!
Free Luigi!
Canada is number 32. Maybe the US should become Canada’s fourth territory. We should talk to Premier Trump about it.
69
Nice
Kinda flabbergasted it ranks that high.
If you have decent insurance, it’s ok. The problem is it either ties you to your job and/or is very expensive. People fall through the cracks.
The US contains some of the best cancer research centers in the world, most of which are non profits. On top of this you genuinely can buy the best care if you can afford it, as top talent across the world go to the US to get rich if they’ve lost all their morals.
It’s just everyone except the super rich and people with rare cancers that might someday affect rich people that can’t get care without bankruptcy and have to use enshittified hospitals.
alot of that talent in stem research comes from people immigrating here too, now that is being threatened i suspect they will go to EU, australia for thier work. i cant say the same for people going through school to TRYING to get into he field(which is a different set of problems)
We just want to keep it on the funny sex number so we actually had to suck a little bit more when we rose to 68th.
STFU!
No u
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.
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.
I see nothing from you but arguing in bad faith.
Cool opinion. Nice way to avoid actually engaging with what I said.
To be clear, you haven’t actually said anything.
Ridiculous. Of course I have. Don’t play dumb.
No, you haven’t. I’ve looked.
Perhaps you could point me at a comment you’ve made where you put forth an argument or defended a point. Be specific, please.
You replied to it:
Celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson and especially advocating for more acts like it is abhorrent behaviour.
Does that just not show up for you? Maybe check your Lemmy settings.
It really sounds like an opinion and doesn’t really take into consideration both sides of an ethical or moral situation. So you’ve put forth an opinion, yes. You have not crafted an argument nor defended it.
As you say: do better.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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?
They started it
Who’s they?
Capitalists
Exactly
That’s nice. We will be over here being abhorrent then. Kindly fuck off.
No thanks, you can fuck off though.
What drives you to defend UHC CEO?
Can you be specific about what you think I’m defending here?
Sure. You changed your question into a statement, so this helps give a better idea about your feelings towards Brian Thompson
Given
Celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson and especially advocating for more acts like it is abhorrent behaviour.
Why do you believe this is abhorrent behavior? Are there times when you support this behavior?
Why do I believe celebrating and encouraging an extrajudicial murder is abhorrent? Is that really what you’re asking me?
Sure seems like it. If you were Luigi Mangione, what would you have done differently?
You should also Luigi anyone you know who voted for Trump. They are directly responsible for everything currently happening and do not deserve to feel safe.
Edit: Sorry I have no sympathy/empathy for those that voted for Trump. They knew exactly what they were voting for and now we all have to pay for it. They don’t care if people die as long as they get what they want. Fuck em.
We can’t really be mad at them. They have been manipulated into the beliefs they think are their own. Oh and their IQ is far below average.
We should focus on killing rich people and/or redistributing their wealth.
Define rich.
Don’t ask for things you won’t do yourself, you look like a fool
Too bad I have to have plausible deniability.
Free Luigi
Not nice.
