Thanks for the answer. It's rare to hear such views in a right-wing space. For me, it's been impossible to figure out what's true because every source is biased, either for or against the American health care system. And I don't want to say without knowing (like most people in Europe) "we are better because we is us".
But what you describe sounds like a systemic problem, not something for which an individual is culpable. He may have been a cog in a bad system, but does that lessen guilt for someone who kills the guy - someone who wasn't even personally a victim of that system? I'd be all sympathy if it were someone whose wife died because of a denial for cancer treatment (if that is even possible) - even if the action itself is still wrong.
Is it also not dangerous to say that murder may be more OK if the guy you kill is a 'bad guy' - even if doing completely legal things?
Good points all around. To to answer your questions, yes it’s wrong and creates a dangerous precedent (as we saw last week).
The CEO symbolized all that was wrong with the health care system in the eyes of many. And they had the highest % of total denials at 33. People no doubt die from these denials, or after a lengthy appeals process. So people (especially on the left) felt justified in his killing.
But, as you know, it didn’t solve anything. Healthcare is still f*cked and now insurance is digging in its heels. And we discovered later that he wasn’t all that bad. He was trying to fight investors (who later sued United) demanding more denials and less customer service support
Because I’m still torn on the issue & I don’t see this in black and white terms. Bad, expensive insurance full of denials is literally killing us or driving us into bankruptcy and suicide. So I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often.
Thanks for the answer. It's rare to hear such views in a right-wing space. For me, it's been impossible to figure out what's true because every source is biased, either for or against the American health care system. And I don't want to say without knowing (like most people in Europe) "we are better because we is us".
But what you describe sounds like a systemic problem, not something for which an individual is culpable. He may have been a cog in a bad system, but does that lessen guilt for someone who kills the guy - someone who wasn't even personally a victim of that system? I'd be all sympathy if it were someone whose wife died because of a denial for cancer treatment (if that is even possible) - even if the action itself is still wrong.
Is it also not dangerous to say that murder may be more OK if the guy you kill is a 'bad guy' - even if doing completely legal things?
Good points all around. To to answer your questions, yes it’s wrong and creates a dangerous precedent (as we saw last week).
The CEO symbolized all that was wrong with the health care system in the eyes of many. And they had the highest % of total denials at 33. People no doubt die from these denials, or after a lengthy appeals process. So people (especially on the left) felt justified in his killing.
But, as you know, it didn’t solve anything. Healthcare is still f*cked and now insurance is digging in its heels. And we discovered later that he wasn’t all that bad. He was trying to fight investors (who later sued United) demanding more denials and less customer service support
But if so, why don't you think that people should not throw the book at LM?
Or did you mean: not more than you normally would at someone who murdered in such a way?
Because I’m still torn on the issue & I don’t see this in black and white terms. Bad, expensive insurance full of denials is literally killing us or driving us into bankruptcy and suicide. So I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often.
I was surprised that more people did not go after urinalists who made it their job to try to destroy people's lives.
(Not advocating for it.)