Basically the title.
I'm seeing people praising this Luigi dude. However, I cannot think of a time in history when it became popular to advocate murdering people in the streets that wasn't followed by leftists committing mass atrocities.
All I have seen is an increase in advocacy for murdering white men, right wing ceos, our future president, and anyone seen as wealthy.
I am struggling to see how anyone is reconciling being right wing with the complete disorder and moral failing that murdering random people in the street would involve.
This isn't some issue that is bridging the gap with the left. They want you dead too. They will celebrate your death as well.
This is an example why I think we will never ultimately win because the right is so quick to adopt the ideas of the left.
So please give me an example in history where this hasn't led to bad examples.
To further illustrate my point. Look at the difference in media coverage. We know more about Luigi than the Nashville shooter or Crookes and one murdered a bunch of children and the other shot the president.
Yet we know Luigis social media, his goals and motivation, his childhood and every single picture meant to make him look cool.
Frankly, the reason you aren't seeing much condemnation of Luigi is because of who he killed.
If he killed a CEO of a power company, telecom company, restaurant chain, or basically any other business you wouldve likely seen a lot more condemnation and things would be more split.
But this guy was head of united Healthcare, which is infamous at this point for being an awful insurance company....potentially one of the worst. And its an industry that directly profits off of human misery. Not in the roundabout sense, but in the literal and direct sense as they have every incentive to deny coverage (that you paid for), and virtually no punishment for doing so.
You'd struggle to find people that are sympathetic of that business when frankly, that business is so damn corrupt that it really is one of the few things that all sides universally agree is evil, even if they disagree with how to replace it or fix it.
Yeah, this isn't a just another case of 'rich man bad'. It would be the same if someone did that to the CEO of Blackrock, Larry Fink.
Pretty much. If there was a mass culling of shady billionaires, only congress would sweat it.
I don't like Walmart either, but when I see videos of people shamelessly shoplifting from there, I don't find myself supporting the shoplifters.
UHC led the industry by around double in first-round denials. 32%, last figures I saw. How many of that 32% never challenged the denial?
Sorry, but this is a retarded leftist emotional appeal that makes no sense. Insurance companies profit the most when they never need to pay out. In their ideal world, you buy health insurance and never get sick, happily going about your life in perfect health.
You getting sick and being miserable is outside of their control. The worst you can say is that they profit off a false sense of security that they will help in the case you become miserable.
The industries that actually profit off human misery are ones like lawyers and journalists. FFS, you can more convincingly argue that surgeons profit more from human misery. They need actual sick people to make money. Insurance companies don't. They just need healthy people who are afraid of becoming sick someday.
That is not to absolve them of awful practices, failure to pay claims, lousy coverage, etc. But how about we deal in facts? Wrongly denying coverage is, at worst, theft and fraud. But the condition running its course is the normal state of things. They don't profit by making you more sick than you would have been in their absence.
They profit by taking your rainy day fund and not giving it back when you need it. If you've been paying $8,000 a year for twenty years and your health insurer denies your claim, that's $160,000 plus interest that you would have had available to pay for your own medical treatment had they not ripped you off.
Nothing you said is wrong. They still don't "directly profit off of human misery." If they take steps to increase your misery, they don't make more money. If you don't experience any misery, it increases their profit.
I'm not even saying they don't cause misery. All I'm saying is "directly profit off human misery" is nothing but an emotional appeal for arguing at stupid people.
Sorry man but that was extremely convoluted.
You admit he's right about taking people's money for nothing, you admit they're profitable, you even admit they probably cause misery... yet they don't profit off misery? Something ain't adding up chief
By denying claims that have merit they are essentially committing fraud. The entire insurance industry has been perverted into a middleman for the pharmaceutical industry and not actual catastrophic care, and they use that to deny claims for actual emergencies while they drive up the prices for regular medical service.
All of this is actually enabled by government regulation. Unethical, anti-consumer business propped up by government corruption in a corporate oligarchy is evil.
And cheering the death of evil people is neither left nor right wing inherently.
Legal and moral are not the same thing. Rule of law is better than anarchy but that doesn't make that law morally correct or uncorrupt.
Congratulations on having the most retarded take I've seen so far.
Let me guess, "health care is a human right," even though if you were living in isolation, there's no one you could force to care for you. It still must somehow be an inherent part of existing as a human, right?
No dumbshit, gettting what you paid for is a right though. Do you know how much health insurance costs?
People living in isolation aren't paying for insurance and not getting covered. Your spastic rambling wouldn't make sense even if I was the person you just made up. How fucking stupid are you?
Holy shit dude, just take the L and move on.