3 ms·

If they manage to catch this guy, it would be fascinating to watch jury selection. Trying to find people who haven’t been fucked by health insurance will be nea

If they manage to catch this guy, it would be fascinating to watch jury selection. Trying to find people who haven’t been fucked by health insurance will be near impossible. I would bet he walks regardless of evidence.

OutOfHere 2y ago
But juries have been brainwashed into believing that they don't have the right of jury nullification of a case, whereas in truth they have always had this implicit right.
slibhb 2y ago
> Trying to find people who haven’t been fucked by health insurance will be near impossible What world do you live in?
- berbec 2y ago
  America
- wholinator2 2y ago
  I'll add my voice and say you must be pretty damn privileged, either in health or money, to have never experienced a loved one or yourself being actively degraded and attacked by the insurance state. The people on the phone are nice, but the company would rather you died, sorry. Also, for you to state such a question tells me you're not only privileged, but completely unrecognizing of that privilege, attributing incredible luck to some kind of innate power, or just very unempathetic or un plugged in to the reality of the people at Starbucks, or target, or anywhere else that people serve you. They denied one third of every claim sent. Even indirectly, just the culture change of doing that has and will undoubtedly kill thousands of people who are afraid or helpless to even try to use this evil system.
nemo44x 2y ago
I was thinking about that earlier - I'm not sure they could find 12 jurors to convict the guy.
stevenwoo 2y ago
I was filtered for this by questionnaire when I served jury duty earlier this year when I was asked if it was ever okay to break the law and why. The prosecution prolly never selects anyone who answers yes to this. There was a murder trial I was not selected for then some weird civil action in Santa Clara county. I was also eliminated from the jury pool in San Mateo county when I said I would not automatically assume a police officer was telling the truth.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > I was also eliminated from the jury pool in San Mateo county when I said I would not automatically assume a police officer was telling the truth. This seems like a good reason to start “creatively interpreting” these questionnaires. Like, maybe I automatically assume they’re telling the truth until I notice a whole bunch of inconsistencies and start applying my critical thinking skills. The question just asks about my initial assumption.
tzs 2y ago
It might not actually be that hard. First, they could just end up with a panel the is full of older people. Remember, once the average person in the US hits 65 they are eligible for Medicare. Medicare users tend to be pretty happy with it. 80-90% satisfaction rate, 90+% rate its performance positively, around 95% are satisfied with the quality of care, and few report problems with access to care. Even if they remember being not happy with an insurance provider before they switched to medicare they are old enough to have probably had several insurance providers and will probably remember good ones too. Second, there are a lot of people who even if they are at a provider that likes to fuck people have never been fucked themselves. A lot of people only use their health insurance for routine physicals, routine lab tests, routine vaccinations, and the kinds of things that even the most fuck-inclined companies don't usually fuck with like getting treatment for physical injuries.
xboxnolifes 2y ago
I think it wouldn't be too difficult. The Jury would be 20-30 year olds who haven't yet had to deal much with health insurance. Or people who aren't insured / avoid doctor visits and are roughly neutral. Or people who complain about insurance, but also blame the people who take advantage of the system for their insurance costs going up. Or people who have good insurance paid for by their employer.

OutOfHere 2y ago

But juries have been brainwashed into believing that they don't have the right of jury nullification of a case, whereas in truth they have always had this implicit right.

slibhb 2y ago

> Trying to find people who haven’t been fucked by health insurance will be near impossible What world do you live in?

berbec 2y ago
America
wholinator2 2y ago
I'll add my voice and say you must be pretty damn privileged, either in health or money, to have never experienced a loved one or yourself being actively degraded and attacked by the insurance state. The people on the phone are nice, but the company would rather you died, sorry. Also, for you to state such a question tells me you're not only privileged, but completely unrecognizing of that privilege, attributing incredible luck to some kind of innate power, or just very unempathetic or un plugged in to the reality of the people at Starbucks, or target, or anywhere else that people serve you. They denied one third of every claim sent. Even indirectly, just the culture change of doing that has and will undoubtedly kill thousands of people who are afraid or helpless to even try to use this evil system.

nemo44x 2y ago

I was thinking about that earlier - I'm not sure they could find 12 jurors to convict the guy.

stevenwoo 2y ago

I was filtered for this by questionnaire when I served jury duty earlier this year when I was asked if it was ever okay to break the law and why. The prosecution prolly never selects anyone who answers yes to this. There was a murder trial I was not selected for then some weird civil action in Santa Clara county. I was also eliminated from the jury pool in San Mateo county when I said I would not automatically assume a police officer was telling the truth.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> I was also eliminated from the jury pool in San Mateo county when I said I would not automatically assume a police officer was telling the truth. This seems like a good reason to start “creatively interpreting” these questionnaires. Like, maybe I automatically assume they’re telling the truth until I notice a whole bunch of inconsistencies and start applying my critical thinking skills. The question just asks about my initial assumption.

tzs 2y ago

It might not actually be that hard. First, they could just end up with a panel the is full of older people. Remember, once the average person in the US hits 65 they are eligible for Medicare. Medicare users tend to be pretty happy with it. 80-90% satisfaction rate, 90+% rate its performance positively, around 95% are satisfied with the quality of care, and few report problems with access to care. Even if they remember being not happy with an insurance provider before they switched to medicare they are old enough to have probably had several insurance providers and will probably remember good ones too. Second, there are a lot of people who even if they are at a provider that likes to fuck people have never been fucked themselves. A lot of people only use their health insurance for routine physicals, routine lab tests, routine vaccinations, and the kinds of things that even the most fuck-inclined companies don't usually fuck with like getting treatment for physical injuries.

xboxnolifes 2y ago

I think it wouldn't be too difficult. The Jury would be 20-30 year olds who haven't yet had to deal much with health insurance. Or people who aren't insured / avoid doctor visits and are roughly neutral. Or people who complain about insurance, but also blame the people who take advantage of the system for their insurance costs going up. Or people who have good insurance paid for by their employer.