Luigi Mangione - Suspect Apprehended in Health CEO case.

Nano said:
The weird thing though is that even though they seem to be united in their condemnation of this particular insurance company they still don't seem to want free, universal healthcare. They just want the insurance system to be better/fairer. It's madness.
Click to expand...
The majority yes, although if you couch universal healthcare as a national insurance the majority back it, as soon as you tell them it's socialised they recoil.
 
red_harrington said:
You are jumping to conclusions here.

It is possible that UH took on insurance cases that included sick or vulnerable people that other insurance companies wouldn't touch.

It's also possible that their premiums were very low, so the poorest and therefore most vulnerable people were those that signed up. The policies themselves may not have covered everything that they were expected to cover, I'm sure there's a lot of fine print to go over that went unnoticed.

In other words, you get what you pay for.

I wouldn't be surprised that the insurers with expensive policies pay out a lot more than those with cheap polices.

BTW I am not condoning their practices or the system, it's a **** system we all know that, just looking at a wider perspective.
Click to expand...
You are the one clutching at straws here. They are the biggest employer insurer in the US, nothing to do with size of policy claims this has impacted big and small insurance claims. There are letters from Drs doing the rounds where they are begging united health for anti nausea medication for a child going through chemo as the UH rejected it as not necessary for his treatment. A effing child! They did not change their stance fyi.

The systematic denial of claims is likely a feature and not a bug.
 
Their whole business model is to deny people coverage at first and make them fight for it by paying more. They then use the savings to pay their dividend.

They quite literally screw people over for profit.
 
JonnyHistory said:
The point islmos

The point is your suggestions where illegal or impractical for those impacted. They are all examples of political violence also albeit not as high up the totem pole as murder. They have no recourse, this is why America outside the billionaire class is fairly united in their sympathy for the gun man.

They have no political help in taking on the companies, they have reached a point of desperation and the populace in erica have said yeah good for you and I can understand exactly why that is.

Again not condoning murder but I certainly understand the motivation and see how it could be a net positive long term for this issue in th
Click to expand...

A strike is not violence
Hacking is not violence
A sit in is not violence

Shooting someone is.


What are you talking about?
 
king_hellfire said:
Was murder an important part in winning the vote? no.
Click to expand...
Randomised violence is OK, directed violence not so much?

It's a tricky balance. I can guess that if for example I had watched a child of mine suffer through the intransigence and inhumanity of an insurance company I might well be feeling a little murderous. Am I praising the action of this guy? No, but I can extrapolate a series of circumstances where I might feel pushed to act similarly.
 
I'm sorry but I cannot unsee this guy as one of Tony Soprano's guys beating up someone because the take is too low.
 
Muttley said:
Randomised violence is OK, directed violence not so much?

It's a tricky balance. I can guess that if for example I had watched a child of mine suffer through the intransigence and inhumanity of an insurance company I might well be feeling a little murderous. Am I praising the action of this guy? No, but I can extrapolate a series of circumstances where I might feel pushed to act similarly.
Click to expand...
But, would you shoot him in the back, or look him in the eye before shooting him?
 
JonnyHistory said:
I don't think people dispute this, however, given the misery medical debt causes millions of Americans it is easy to understand the support this man has garnered. Additionally, what choice do Americans have given democrats and republicans unwillingness to take the insurance companies on in any meaningful way? Sometimes the nuclear option is all people have left!

Look at the hanging of Musilini! Where those people wrong for taking the law into their own hands after years of abuse from his regime?

Life is not black and white and sometimes political violence is the only way people have to fight back and make people take notice.

The victim is responsible for 10s of thousand of deaths and even more bankruptcies all in the name of profit, hard to have sympathy for a person who lives a life without care for their fellow human beings.
Click to expand...
Or look at the cheauchesqu’s (spelling)
 
newyddion said:
One healthcare company reversed its plan to put a time limit on anaesthesia..

So the CEO who made that decision knew that it was immoral otherwise he would have changed his mind on the back of this.

The law needs to protect people from these sorts of inhumane activities.. but I think the emphasis maybe on protecting CEOs from these sorts of vigilante attacks. I wonder what the reaction to tgat will be..

Perhaps the bubble has burst? No
More deification of the super rich, the cold blooded and greedy.
Click to expand...
Maybe if they do the former, the latter follows
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top