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.
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
I don't understand why people are struggling with this. I don't know if I should go with analogies or make it more abstract or what because it's simple as anything.
If you pay them and never get sick, it maximizes their profits. If your misery causes them to profit, how can their most profitable outcome be the one where you have zero misery? Conversely, you being as sick as possible is the biggest threat to their profits.
A sick person for whom they cover nothing is exactly as profitable as a person who doesn't suffer at all. The misery does not drive profit. It is the opposite of pharma, where they need you to be sick to profit.
Insurance doesn't profit from misery. It profits from a lack of misery. They want you to be healthy, they just don't want to pay for it.
And this is the guy hitting me with the "How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning" meme.
The mechanical process of profit, in the smallest possible scope, is not an accurate description of health insurance or why people pay for it. If a lack of suffering was profitable, and suffering went away, would they continue to be profitable? Of course not. It would just stop existing. Clearly this is not a useful analysis.
Insurance only exists in the context of a collective of payers, across a period of time, where the reality is that some suffering is guaranteed, but nobody can flawlessly predict, who, when, and how. This is the smallest possible scope to describe health insurance.
In that context, the only reason people pay for health insurance is because they'd rather not suffer, and it's the most (if not only) practical means to alleviate it. Take away the alleviation but keep their money, and you're left with a company that profits even more by stealing your means of not suffering. And that's a painfully roundabout way of saying "They profit off of your suffering."
The insurance company has no control over whether you get sick, and thanks to Obamacare they can't deny you coverage if they think you'll get sick. But they can deny your claim and increase profitability that way. What SturmMilfEnthusiast already said, just in a different way.
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.