8 ms·

That is a really depressing read. A person shot and killed in cold blood, and these online heros pretty much condone it. This will be awful for his family.

by pipes 2y ago

peepeepoopoo93 2y ago
[flagged]
- phinnaeus 2y ago
  There will just be a new CEO who will continue those same practices. How can this possibly be misconstrued as something impactful upon the broken system
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    This killing can signify that people are starting to be more willing to change the system through tactical violence. And: (a) If more CEOs are targeted, it will modify their behaviour, and make them more likely to tone down their ruthlessness. (b) There is already a lot of news coverage and attention on the horrific nature of U.S. healthcare. If some policies change more rapidly, then I think some might consider this killing an effective action in saving hundreds of lives.
    - oulipo 2y ago
      Yes, and a few days after the assassination, another competing healthcare company dropped a controversial rule they were going to enforce So it kind of worked
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        It absolutely worked.
      - vouaobrasil 2y ago
        Which company? Do you have a source?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - oulipo 2y ago
    Well at some point if all the CEOs get killed they won't find a new one to take the lead...
  - pixxel 2y ago
    At least they’ll think twice about walking the streets. They can hide in their castles.
- xienze 2y ago
  I’ve got news for you, even in countries with socialized healthcare, not all treatments are automatically approved or approved in a timely manner. There’s ALWAYS a cost-to-benefit ratio that is considered, and it doesn’t always work out in the patient’s favor. I suppose we’d cheer the murder of say the UK’s equivalent of this CEO as well?
  - salawat 2y ago
    Does the UK's guy implement policies like mandatory first pass denial to encourage attrition, or try employing blackbox AI models to the task of denying care, and attempting to mathwash? I've worked in the space. Most people don't care about denials that are reasonable. I.e. escalation through "lets try these first drugs" when there isn't an established history of use. Ruling out less expensive problems before approving the most expensive operation. Thise aren't generally issues. It's capricious denials happening over and over and over again, despite well established case history. Denials that clearly don't make sense. Prior Auths being used as financial "nudges". That type of thing can screw right off. It's why I left the space after it proved absolutely impossible to get through to people that these measures were costing the lives of our customers. I bloody tried; and in the end, left for the sake of keeping what was left of my soul intact. As far as I'm concerned the industry has made their bed. They can now sleep in it.
  - op00to 2y ago
    > not all treatments are automatically approved It's not simply approval or denial. In the US, you can still get health care for conditions the insurance company decides to deny payment for after the fact. The "insured" is then financially ruined. This is so exceedingly common in the US. It's far, far, far, far, far, far, far less likely to be financially destroyed by a health issue in the UK or any other industrialized nation.
  - onli 2y ago
    That's not correct. In countries with real health care, all treatments that are listed for an illness are always approved. There just is no denial process that could block e.g. a cancer treatment. A doctor diagnoses it and decided the treatment, the insurance pays and has no say in the matter.
vintagedave 2y ago
Quite the opposite. They’re explicitly not condoning: > Another popular TikTok sleuth, thatdaneshguy [said] that he wouldn’t try to identify the killer. “I don’t have to encourage violence. I don’t have to condone violence by any means. But I also don’t have to help,” he said. Inaction can be condoning in some cases. If there is an element of duty it certainly is. But if volunteers choose not to volunteer in a specific situation that’s their right.
- pipes 2y ago
  Pretty much weasel words way of saying they aren't helping because they agree with the killing.
  - vintagedave 2y ago
    Maybe (and I think you're likely right, or at least, that they don't think it was an evil done in the world) - but if they do, they're not saying so and not condoning it. It can be hard to ascribe values when someone abstains.
zmgsabst 2y ago
Live a thug, die a thug. He made his money killing and maiming people. Why would people mourn his death? — why would people be motivated to find his killer? Criminals kill each other every day.
hcta 2y ago
They have each made the individual choice not to invest more effort in solving the case, the same as you have probably done.
rafterydj 2y ago
Question: is it depressing, or is it a wake up call for just how much the average American hates health insurance executives? There seem to be a few people online who mirror your sentiments about being shocked, what defenders of the crime would call pearl clutching. I'm fascinated. From my perspective, the idea of a vigilante being so burned by health insurance companies he tracks down and kills the CEO is not a shocking premise _at all_. Yet some (particularly health insurance industry workers / professionals on LinkedIn) are so shocked by this that it makes me wonder if there's an insulated echo chamber effect going on here.
- Muromec 2y ago
  It's a classic Robin Hood kind of hero, an established trope that everyone likes. I don't get how anybody can be surprised by this happening in a country which is obsessed with comic books and made hero movies it's main cultural export.
  - krapp 2y ago
    And guns. I mean - this is the country that literally has a whole Amendment in their Constitution dedicated to the right of the people to shoot other people, and which defines that capacity for popular violence as a necessity for a free state. The archetype of the hero patriot "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" goes all the way back to the guy who made that quote. And I would bet money (if I had it) that a significant number of people expressing outrage over this were defending Kyle Rittenhouse and that guy who shot climate protestors in Panama, or making excuses for the killings of Jordan Neely and George Floyd, or gleefully hoping Trump would send troops in to shoot BLM protestors in the streets. Because the "problem" here isn't the normalization of gun violence or the lionization of such violence as heroism - that's been normal for centuries, it's an intentional design feature of the American system. The "problem" here is that gun violence was being used on the wrong kind of people, and creating the wrong kind of hero.
    - pixxel 2y ago
      [flagged]
Muromec 2y ago
Welcome to Kali Yuga. World wars, dictatorships, plagues and political repressions and assassinations are fashionable again. Looking back at this time we will just say "yeah, these were the different times" and shrug.
chris_wot 2y ago
Seems like nobody condoned it, but nobody was interested in helping either. Not helping is not condoning. Are you helping sleuth for his killer?
vouaobrasil 2y ago
It sounds depressing if you take it as just a murder. But it is much more than that: it is one possible step in violent protest against the corporate control and subjugation of thousands of human lives through their medical care. Undeniably, corporations have emerged as the dominant threat to communities and people by becoming experts and exploitation due to their power and assymetry of information.
- pipes 2y ago
  What kind of society would we create if legitimise murder of citizens because another citizen disagrees with them? We invented rule of law and the ballot box to protect ourselves from each other. Yes it may be inefficient and may produce results we don't like, but once it becomes ok to murder people you disagree with, that legitimises killing anyone.
  - pixxel 2y ago
    > disagree This word is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. A parasite was terminated.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    There are always exceptions. This is an extreme case.
  - acdha 2y ago
    I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t be condoning murder but consider that the rule of law and ballot box are not effectively preventing healthcare costs from being a leading cause of bankruptcy, drug addiction / homelessness (read through the fentanyl stories and note how many started with a car crash or workplace injury with medication and physical therapy cut off before the patient was fully recovered), and people dying or having life-altering conditions because they couldn’t get the care they needed earlier. We can’t just say murder is wrong while refusing to do anything about a system which reliably produces large numbers of deaths annually because the alternative would be lower profits. Put another way, how many Americans have cheered seeing Batman tackle an industrialist who killed a fraction of the number of Americans who die because they can’t get adequate healthcare? I strongly agree that gunning people down for perceived injustice isn’t anywhere we want to be but that means we have to actually fix the problems. Here’s a survey which found 34M Americans know someone who died because they couldn’t get healthcare, and 58M couldn’t get medication they needed – those numbers are very high if you want a peaceful society: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-couldn-afford-treatment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tjpnz 2y ago
What about the many thousands of families who have been forced into bankruptcy or have had loved ones die due to actions he's ultimately responsible for? I don't think there's anything wrong in having zero sympathy. It strikes me as a very human reaction.
mcphage 2y ago
> This will be awful for his family. I think we will find that first it was awful for the killer’s family.
capitantrueno 2y ago
Yeah sure, please post this another 386 times for all the other times non-millionaires died in NYC in 2023. Also for when they killed Bin Laden and Hussein. https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/ https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/
giardini 2y ago
The real questions are: - Did Starbucks bill Thompson for his drink before the shooting? - If so, did they refund any charge (since he presumably did not pick up the drink)? - Can Starbucks legally refund money to a credit card account knowing the account owner is deceased?

That is a really depressing read. A person shot and killed in cold blood, and these online heros pretty much condone it. This will be awful for his family.

by pipes 2y ago

That is a really depressing read. A person shot and killed in cold blood, and these online heros pretty much condone it. This will be awful for his family.

peepeepoopoo93 2y ago

[flagged]

phinnaeus 2y ago
There will just be a new CEO who will continue those same practices. How can this possibly be misconstrued as something impactful upon the broken system
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  This killing can signify that people are starting to be more willing to change the system through tactical violence. And: (a) If more CEOs are targeted, it will modify their behaviour, and make them more likely to tone down their ruthlessness. (b) There is already a lot of news coverage and attention on the horrific nature of U.S. healthcare. If some policies change more rapidly, then I think some might consider this killing an effective action in saving hundreds of lives.
  - oulipo 2y ago
    Yes, and a few days after the assassination, another competing healthcare company dropped a controversial rule they were going to enforce So it kind of worked
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      It absolutely worked.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      Which company? Do you have a source?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- oulipo 2y ago
  Well at some point if all the CEOs get killed they won't find a new one to take the lead...
- pixxel 2y ago
  At least they’ll think twice about walking the streets. They can hide in their castles.
xienze 2y ago
I’ve got news for you, even in countries with socialized healthcare, not all treatments are automatically approved or approved in a timely manner. There’s ALWAYS a cost-to-benefit ratio that is considered, and it doesn’t always work out in the patient’s favor. I suppose we’d cheer the murder of say the UK’s equivalent of this CEO as well?
- salawat 2y ago
  Does the UK's guy implement policies like mandatory first pass denial to encourage attrition, or try employing blackbox AI models to the task of denying care, and attempting to mathwash? I've worked in the space. Most people don't care about denials that are reasonable. I.e. escalation through "lets try these first drugs" when there isn't an established history of use. Ruling out less expensive problems before approving the most expensive operation. Thise aren't generally issues. It's capricious denials happening over and over and over again, despite well established case history. Denials that clearly don't make sense. Prior Auths being used as financial "nudges". That type of thing can screw right off. It's why I left the space after it proved absolutely impossible to get through to people that these measures were costing the lives of our customers. I bloody tried; and in the end, left for the sake of keeping what was left of my soul intact. As far as I'm concerned the industry has made their bed. They can now sleep in it.
- op00to 2y ago
  > not all treatments are automatically approved It's not simply approval or denial. In the US, you can still get health care for conditions the insurance company decides to deny payment for after the fact. The "insured" is then financially ruined. This is so exceedingly common in the US. It's far, far, far, far, far, far, far less likely to be financially destroyed by a health issue in the UK or any other industrialized nation.
- onli 2y ago
  That's not correct. In countries with real health care, all treatments that are listed for an illness are always approved. There just is no denial process that could block e.g. a cancer treatment. A doctor diagnoses it and decided the treatment, the insurance pays and has no say in the matter.

vintagedave 2y ago

Quite the opposite. They’re explicitly not condoning: > Another popular TikTok sleuth, thatdaneshguy [said] that he wouldn’t try to identify the killer. “I don’t have to encourage violence. I don’t have to condone violence by any means. But I also don’t have to help,” he said. Inaction can be condoning in some cases. If there is an element of duty it certainly is. But if volunteers choose not to volunteer in a specific situation that’s their right.

pipes 2y ago
Pretty much weasel words way of saying they aren't helping because they agree with the killing.
- vintagedave 2y ago
  Maybe (and I think you're likely right, or at least, that they don't think it was an evil done in the world) - but if they do, they're not saying so and not condoning it. It can be hard to ascribe values when someone abstains.

zmgsabst 2y ago

Live a thug, die a thug. He made his money killing and maiming people. Why would people mourn his death? — why would people be motivated to find his killer? Criminals kill each other every day.

hcta 2y ago

They have each made the individual choice not to invest more effort in solving the case, the same as you have probably done.

rafterydj 2y ago

Question: is it depressing, or is it a wake up call for just how much the average American hates health insurance executives? There seem to be a few people online who mirror your sentiments about being shocked, what defenders of the crime would call pearl clutching. I'm fascinated. From my perspective, the idea of a vigilante being so burned by health insurance companies he tracks down and kills the CEO is not a shocking premise _at all_. Yet some (particularly health insurance industry workers / professionals on LinkedIn) are so shocked by this that it makes me wonder if there's an insulated echo chamber effect going on here.

Muromec 2y ago
It's a classic Robin Hood kind of hero, an established trope that everyone likes. I don't get how anybody can be surprised by this happening in a country which is obsessed with comic books and made hero movies it's main cultural export.
- krapp 2y ago
  And guns. I mean - this is the country that literally has a whole Amendment in their Constitution dedicated to the right of the people to shoot other people, and which defines that capacity for popular violence as a necessity for a free state. The archetype of the hero patriot "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" goes all the way back to the guy who made that quote. And I would bet money (if I had it) that a significant number of people expressing outrage over this were defending Kyle Rittenhouse and that guy who shot climate protestors in Panama, or making excuses for the killings of Jordan Neely and George Floyd, or gleefully hoping Trump would send troops in to shoot BLM protestors in the streets. Because the "problem" here isn't the normalization of gun violence or the lionization of such violence as heroism - that's been normal for centuries, it's an intentional design feature of the American system. The "problem" here is that gun violence was being used on the wrong kind of people, and creating the wrong kind of hero.
  - pixxel 2y ago
    [flagged]

Muromec 2y ago

Welcome to Kali Yuga. World wars, dictatorships, plagues and political repressions and assassinations are fashionable again. Looking back at this time we will just say "yeah, these were the different times" and shrug.

chris_wot 2y ago

Seems like nobody condoned it, but nobody was interested in helping either. Not helping is not condoning. Are you helping sleuth for his killer?

vouaobrasil 2y ago

It sounds depressing if you take it as just a murder. But it is much more than that: it is one possible step in violent protest against the corporate control and subjugation of thousands of human lives through their medical care. Undeniably, corporations have emerged as the dominant threat to communities and people by becoming experts and exploitation due to their power and assymetry of information.

pipes 2y ago
What kind of society would we create if legitimise murder of citizens because another citizen disagrees with them? We invented rule of law and the ballot box to protect ourselves from each other. Yes it may be inefficient and may produce results we don't like, but once it becomes ok to murder people you disagree with, that legitimises killing anyone.
- pixxel 2y ago
  > disagree This word is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. A parasite was terminated.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  There are always exceptions. This is an extreme case.
- acdha 2y ago
  I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t be condoning murder but consider that the rule of law and ballot box are not effectively preventing healthcare costs from being a leading cause of bankruptcy, drug addiction / homelessness (read through the fentanyl stories and note how many started with a car crash or workplace injury with medication and physical therapy cut off before the patient was fully recovered), and people dying or having life-altering conditions because they couldn’t get the care they needed earlier. We can’t just say murder is wrong while refusing to do anything about a system which reliably produces large numbers of deaths annually because the alternative would be lower profits. Put another way, how many Americans have cheered seeing Batman tackle an industrialist who killed a fraction of the number of Americans who die because they can’t get adequate healthcare? I strongly agree that gunning people down for perceived injustice isn’t anywhere we want to be but that means we have to actually fix the problems. Here’s a survey which found 34M Americans know someone who died because they couldn’t get healthcare, and 58M couldn’t get medication they needed – those numbers are very high if you want a peaceful society: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-couldn-afford-treatment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tjpnz 2y ago

What about the many thousands of families who have been forced into bankruptcy or have had loved ones die due to actions he's ultimately responsible for? I don't think there's anything wrong in having zero sympathy. It strikes me as a very human reaction.

mcphage 2y ago

> This will be awful for his family. I think we will find that first it was awful for the killer’s family.

capitantrueno 2y ago

Yeah sure, please post this another 386 times for all the other times non-millionaires died in NYC in 2023. Also for when they killed Bin Laden and Hussein. https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/ https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/

giardini 2y ago

The real questions are: - Did Starbucks bill Thompson for his drink before the shooting? - If so, did they refund any charge (since he presumably did not pick up the drink)? - Can Starbucks legally refund money to a credit card account knowing the account owner is deceased?