5 ms·

> But that did not stop social media commenters from leaping to conclusions and from showing a blatant lack of sympathy over the death of a man who was a husban

> But that did not stop social media commenters from leaping to conclusions and from showing a blatant lack of sympathy over the death of a man who was a husband and father of two children. The journalists' tone and choice of words here, which I've italicized, isn't helping the overall feeling many Americans have of "the people running the show have active and unceasing contempt for us", which of course is what's driving the "torrent of hate for health insurance industry" that this article sets out to document. I'm sorry, but where do these writers get off wagging their fingers and tut-tutting people who'd prefer not to spend their neurons on sympathy for someone at the helm of an inhuman system? The point's already been made, but plenty of monsters are husbands and fathers.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I dont find the "lack of sympathy" to be an issue. What I do find disappointing is the lack of concern over people being gunned down in the street, and the not so subtle glee some people are expressing. Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. It isn't healthy for a society and doesn't lead to progress.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >What I do find disappointing is the lack of concern This is (was) the CEO of the largest health insurer in the country which has shown a lack of concern for paying out insurance or securing data both private and medical. Their data leak this year is second only to National Public Data's leak (also this year) of practically every single SSN on the planet and arguably worse because their leak also contains medical data. Murder is never okay, but this guy is also about the most unsympathizable man in the country.
  - defen 2y ago
    > this guy is also about the most unsympathizable man in the country. There's no way that is true. It's only remotely possibly true if you're only talking about people who at least nominally obey the rules and laws of society. You don't actually think that he was worse than a murderer, or a rapist, or a child abuser, of which we have many, many thousands in this country.
    - justinclift 2y ago
      > You don't actually think that he was worse than a murderer ... The difference in opinion might be many people considering the guy himself to be a murderer, and not just of one or two people?
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic." -Joseph Stalin https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00010383 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...
      - defen 2y ago
        I recognize a distinction between a premeditated direct intent to kill someone, and whatever it was this guy did. If you have different values then you might not.
        DrillShopper 2y ago
        I do recognize a distinction as well - what this guy did was worse. Don't get my wrong, shooting someone in broad daylight is a bad thing and I will agree that we shouldn't encourage it. In this case I don't have any sympathy for the victim. There's a difference there - I recognize that the assassin is wrong but that's orthogonal to my sympathy (or in this case, lack of) for the victim. What the CEO did was worse. While someone who premeditates a murder clearly has knowledge of and familiarity with the person being murdered the CEO does not have that for the deaths that are a result of denying care. They feel almost clinical to him, numbers on a balance sheet to be weighed against the bottom line. It's textbook banality of evil - the deaths he was responsible for were just the cost of doing business, and what a business it is.
        2y ago
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Like I said, I dont think it is about sympathy, but not wanting to live in a country where people are murdered in the street. That is the part that is disgusting and dangerous.
- justinclift 2y ago
  > Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. Sure. That includes the US health care system too. The company that person was the key decision maker for has apparently been murdering people for years legally. So, karma?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    No, I disagree. We have a system of laws and courts to decide what is criminal. People should not kill law abiding citizens they disagree with because everyone has a different opinion.
    - justinclift 2y ago
      > We have a system of laws and courts to decide what is criminal. Good when it works, but what happens when it fails?
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        yeah, blood in the street and mass death and destruction. Everyone killing everyone.
        giardini 2y ago
        Jumped the shark there, dude! But some of these posts are hilarious over-the-top horseshit. Seriously... Get a grip. For all we know the shooter was pissed b/c his girlfriend was banging the health insurance executive while babysitting for him! [I would loooove for HN to have optionally-visible meta-threads, so onlookers like me could sit in the gallery, drink a beer, joke and remark about what is posted w/o affecting the stream of thought. Now back to y'all...]
        justinclift 2y ago
        Actually, that'd indeed be pretty funny at times. ;)
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  People only care about this because of who he was If this were you or I it would be a segment on the 6 o'clock news and a cold case
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I actually think the murderer would have been found and either arrested or killed for resisting arrest by now, were that the case. That the murderer, who killed someone in literal broad daylight on the sidewalk of one of the biggest cities in the world, is still on the loose speaks volumes to me about all sorts of things.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      It speaks volumes as to how incompetent the NYPD is. NYC is one of the most policed cities with the most cameras constantly watching people, and the fact that a crime like this can happen in broad daylight and the perpetrator can remain a ghost is an indictment of that whole dystopian atmosphere and system
      - hirvi74 2y ago
        I feel a sense of hope in a weird way. Maybe we are farther away from living in "1984" or "A Brave New World" than I previously felt?
- totetsu 2y ago
  In a society where democratic tools no longer function effectively—due to capture by concentrated powers—people often feel powerless to address systemic harms. I can understand how the only power an individual can have in that situation is something like murder.. but it’s making many assumptions.. like this person really was working as an individual from moral grounds in the interests of majority of society.. and that we can trust this moral judgement to and individual, as in today it might be an arguably utilitarian good but tomorrow it might be a cultural or religious thing.. will this action really would have any positive affect on healthcare results for many people, or change any behaviors of people in power apart from getting more security guards..
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think most people are confusing captured democracy for the fact that the actual voting population is split on issues once people step outside their bubble.
  - valval 2y ago
    Democracy in the US works quite well, although it is a shame that your guy lost.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. It isn't healthy for a society and doesn't lead to progress. I guess the American revolution didn't lead to progress then. Or any of the other revolutions, many of which had assassinations. And murder is not being endorsed. Putting an end to it is.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    This is one of those things we state as a normative absolute in general society and you usually only see the nuance (or how it’s basically just a polite lie, in some cases) in relevant college classes or spaces dominated by certain kinds of professionals and nerds (the kind who took those college classes, usually).
tptacek 2y ago
There's a distinction to be drawn between challenging norms of discourse like not speaking ill of the dead, and actively cheerleading murders, like "we should boycott Starbucks for providing evidence about the murderer to police", or Taylor Lorenz calling for the assassination of Anthem's CEO by name.
- vundercind 2y ago
  The incoming President told his supporters that if he lost they’d still have to the option of shooting his opponent, when he ran in 2016. Instead of being ejected from politics forever by an outraged public, he went on to win that election. Then another one more recently. What’s this norm you mention?
  - tptacek 2y ago
    I don't understand why you think pointing to another odious person rebuts my argument.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      Another extremely popular person. Who violated that norm on camera and had it broadcast all over the place. And remained extremely popular. What norm?
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I don't think you understand me. I'm not saying people are taking to fainting couches over norms violations. They're reacting to people like Taylor Lorenz literally calling for the assassination of people by name. In my case, past that, for Lorenz doing so based on a comically flawed understanding of what her target was doing.
        vundercind 2y ago
        I’m saying not-cheerleading-murder isn’t exactly a firm norm here anymore. Not even among the elites.
onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
> I'm sorry, but where do these writers get off wagging their fingers and tut-tutting people who'd prefer not to spend their neurons on sympathy for someone at the helm of an inhuman system? And what exactly is your solution? Healthcare should be a charity from the rich? It should be nationalized, and somehow magically all the problems go away?
- jjj123 2y ago
  You’ve got the answer right there. It should be nationalized. And a major reason it will never be nationalized is because of lobbying by health insurance corporations.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Well that and people finding the idea repellant and voting against it.
    - jjj123 2y ago
      Medicare for all is actually a very popular policy, with majority approval (across people who identify with both parties). M4A is nationalized health insurance if not quite nationalized healthcare, but the point remains that the only reason we don’t have major steps in this direction is because of people in power who will not let it happen.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        No, it isn't. Like many other things, it's only popular in opinion polling, not at the ballot box.
        jjj123 2y ago
        Yes. My point is exactly that. People want nationalized healthcare, but once there’s layer upon layer of media propaganda and power plays by the donor class of both parties, the people don’t end up voting for (or don’t have the option to vote for) their own interests.
gerdesj 2y ago
I'm terribly sorry, but all of your italicized fragments, taken in isolation, do paint a stark picture of the murder of a person. You might have beef (or whatever you call it these days) with his job and industry but in the end a man was murdered. You may not like and "hate" seems appropriate to describe how you feel about a legitimate industry in the USA. Your issue is with a deeply embedded part of the US experience - health insurance, and not with this man. Please attack the industry that you hate and not the individual ... who was murdered. That is what the journos are doing.
- cocacola1 2y ago
  > Please attack the industry that you hate and not the individual ... who was murdered. That is what the journos are doing. Depending on the shooters motivation, I think they're of the opinion that the time for dialogue has passed.
  - gerdesj 2y ago
    I wasn't talking to the shooter. Given your spelling of dialogue, I think it's unlikely we'll ever really understand the shooter's motivation.
bodegajed 2y ago
Unfortunately, it is the same system where journalists have bills to pay and mouths to feed, and their wages comes from advertising of these Fortune 500 companies.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"The point's already been made, but plenty of monsters are husbands and fathers." For example, the ones establishing and profiting from so-called "social media" at the expense of organisations that employ journalists. Advertisers choose between supporting organizations that employ journalists versus supporting ones that do not, the ones profiting instead from the "torrent of hate". NYT has plenty of paying subscribers; it is not 100% dependant on ads, unlike "social media", generally. Indeed "the people running social media have active and unceasing contempt for us". They prefer computers over people. Surveillance over sympathy.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I dont find the "lack of sympathy" to be an issue. What I do find disappointing is the lack of concern over people being gunned down in the street, and the not so subtle glee some people are expressing. Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. It isn't healthy for a society and doesn't lead to progress.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>What I do find disappointing is the lack of concern This is (was) the CEO of the largest health insurer in the country which has shown a lack of concern for paying out insurance or securing data both private and medical. Their data leak this year is second only to National Public Data's leak (also this year) of practically every single SSN on the planet and arguably worse because their leak also contains medical data. Murder is never okay, but this guy is also about the most unsympathizable man in the country.
- defen 2y ago
  > this guy is also about the most unsympathizable man in the country. There's no way that is true. It's only remotely possibly true if you're only talking about people who at least nominally obey the rules and laws of society. You don't actually think that he was worse than a murderer, or a rapist, or a child abuser, of which we have many, many thousands in this country.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    > You don't actually think that he was worse than a murderer ... The difference in opinion might be many people considering the guy himself to be a murderer, and not just of one or two people?
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic." -Joseph Stalin https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00010383 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...
    - defen 2y ago
      I recognize a distinction between a premeditated direct intent to kill someone, and whatever it was this guy did. If you have different values then you might not.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        I do recognize a distinction as well - what this guy did was worse. Don't get my wrong, shooting someone in broad daylight is a bad thing and I will agree that we shouldn't encourage it. In this case I don't have any sympathy for the victim. There's a difference there - I recognize that the assassin is wrong but that's orthogonal to my sympathy (or in this case, lack of) for the victim. What the CEO did was worse. While someone who premeditates a murder clearly has knowledge of and familiarity with the person being murdered the CEO does not have that for the deaths that are a result of denying care. They feel almost clinical to him, numbers on a balance sheet to be weighed against the bottom line. It's textbook banality of evil - the deaths he was responsible for were just the cost of doing business, and what a business it is.
        2y ago
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Like I said, I dont think it is about sympathy, but not wanting to live in a country where people are murdered in the street. That is the part that is disgusting and dangerous.
justinclift 2y ago
> Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. Sure. That includes the US health care system too. The company that person was the key decision maker for has apparently been murdering people for years legally. So, karma?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  No, I disagree. We have a system of laws and courts to decide what is criminal. People should not kill law abiding citizens they disagree with because everyone has a different opinion.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    > We have a system of laws and courts to decide what is criminal. Good when it works, but what happens when it fails?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      yeah, blood in the street and mass death and destruction. Everyone killing everyone.
      - giardini 2y ago
        Jumped the shark there, dude! But some of these posts are hilarious over-the-top horseshit. Seriously... Get a grip. For all we know the shooter was pissed b/c his girlfriend was banging the health insurance executive while babysitting for him! [I would loooove for HN to have optionally-visible meta-threads, so onlookers like me could sit in the gallery, drink a beer, joke and remark about what is posted w/o affecting the stream of thought. Now back to y'all...]
        justinclift 2y ago
        Actually, that'd indeed be pretty funny at times. ;)
DrillShopper 2y ago
People only care about this because of who he was If this were you or I it would be a segment on the 6 o'clock news and a cold case
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I actually think the murderer would have been found and either arrested or killed for resisting arrest by now, were that the case. That the murderer, who killed someone in literal broad daylight on the sidewalk of one of the biggest cities in the world, is still on the loose speaks volumes to me about all sorts of things.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    It speaks volumes as to how incompetent the NYPD is. NYC is one of the most policed cities with the most cameras constantly watching people, and the fact that a crime like this can happen in broad daylight and the perpetrator can remain a ghost is an indictment of that whole dystopian atmosphere and system
    - hirvi74 2y ago
      I feel a sense of hope in a weird way. Maybe we are farther away from living in "1984" or "A Brave New World" than I previously felt?
totetsu 2y ago
In a society where democratic tools no longer function effectively—due to capture by concentrated powers—people often feel powerless to address systemic harms. I can understand how the only power an individual can have in that situation is something like murder.. but it’s making many assumptions.. like this person really was working as an individual from moral grounds in the interests of majority of society.. and that we can trust this moral judgement to and individual, as in today it might be an arguably utilitarian good but tomorrow it might be a cultural or religious thing.. will this action really would have any positive affect on healthcare results for many people, or change any behaviors of people in power apart from getting more security guards..
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think most people are confusing captured democracy for the fact that the actual voting population is split on issues once people step outside their bubble.
- valval 2y ago
  Democracy in the US works quite well, although it is a shame that your guy lost.
vouaobrasil 2y ago
> Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. It isn't healthy for a society and doesn't lead to progress. I guess the American revolution didn't lead to progress then. Or any of the other revolutions, many of which had assassinations. And murder is not being endorsed. Putting an end to it is.
- vundercind 2y ago
  This is one of those things we state as a normative absolute in general society and you usually only see the nuance (or how it’s basically just a polite lie, in some cases) in relevant college classes or spaces dominated by certain kinds of professionals and nerds (the kind who took those college classes, usually).

tptacek 2y ago

There's a distinction to be drawn between challenging norms of discourse like not speaking ill of the dead, and actively cheerleading murders, like "we should boycott Starbucks for providing evidence about the murderer to police", or Taylor Lorenz calling for the assassination of Anthem's CEO by name.

vundercind 2y ago
The incoming President told his supporters that if he lost they’d still have to the option of shooting his opponent, when he ran in 2016. Instead of being ejected from politics forever by an outraged public, he went on to win that election. Then another one more recently. What’s this norm you mention?
- tptacek 2y ago
  I don't understand why you think pointing to another odious person rebuts my argument.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Another extremely popular person. Who violated that norm on camera and had it broadcast all over the place. And remained extremely popular. What norm?
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I don't think you understand me. I'm not saying people are taking to fainting couches over norms violations. They're reacting to people like Taylor Lorenz literally calling for the assassination of people by name. In my case, past that, for Lorenz doing so based on a comically flawed understanding of what her target was doing.
      - vundercind 2y ago
        I’m saying not-cheerleading-murder isn’t exactly a firm norm here anymore. Not even among the elites.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago

> I'm sorry, but where do these writers get off wagging their fingers and tut-tutting people who'd prefer not to spend their neurons on sympathy for someone at the helm of an inhuman system? And what exactly is your solution? Healthcare should be a charity from the rich? It should be nationalized, and somehow magically all the problems go away?

jjj123 2y ago
You’ve got the answer right there. It should be nationalized. And a major reason it will never be nationalized is because of lobbying by health insurance corporations.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Well that and people finding the idea repellant and voting against it.
  - jjj123 2y ago
    Medicare for all is actually a very popular policy, with majority approval (across people who identify with both parties). M4A is nationalized health insurance if not quite nationalized healthcare, but the point remains that the only reason we don’t have major steps in this direction is because of people in power who will not let it happen.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      No, it isn't. Like many other things, it's only popular in opinion polling, not at the ballot box.
      - jjj123 2y ago
        Yes. My point is exactly that. People want nationalized healthcare, but once there’s layer upon layer of media propaganda and power plays by the donor class of both parties, the people don’t end up voting for (or don’t have the option to vote for) their own interests.

gerdesj 2y ago

I'm terribly sorry, but all of your italicized fragments, taken in isolation, do paint a stark picture of the murder of a person. You might have beef (or whatever you call it these days) with his job and industry but in the end a man was murdered. You may not like and "hate" seems appropriate to describe how you feel about a legitimate industry in the USA. Your issue is with a deeply embedded part of the US experience - health insurance, and not with this man. Please attack the industry that you hate and not the individual ... who was murdered. That is what the journos are doing.

cocacola1 2y ago
> Please attack the industry that you hate and not the individual ... who was murdered. That is what the journos are doing. Depending on the shooters motivation, I think they're of the opinion that the time for dialogue has passed.
- gerdesj 2y ago
  I wasn't talking to the shooter. Given your spelling of dialogue, I think it's unlikely we'll ever really understand the shooter's motivation.

bodegajed 2y ago

Unfortunately, it is the same system where journalists have bills to pay and mouths to feed, and their wages comes from advertising of these Fortune 500 companies.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"The point's already been made, but plenty of monsters are husbands and fathers." For example, the ones establishing and profiting from so-called "social media" at the expense of organisations that employ journalists. Advertisers choose between supporting organizations that employ journalists versus supporting ones that do not, the ones profiting instead from the "torrent of hate". NYT has plenty of paying subscribers; it is not 100% dependant on ads, unlike "social media", generally. Indeed "the people running social media have active and unceasing contempt for us". They prefer computers over people. Surveillance over sympathy.