4 ms·

Complications: The Ethics of the Killing of a Health Insurance CEO

3 points by chimpanzee 2y ago

BMc2020 2y ago
last sentence: But we may yet get to the point where it becomes clear that the government will never be willing or able to regulate these industries in the ways that morality requires and that the people demand. So then what?
- jmward01 2y ago
  It is easily arguable that the US just voted, with a clear majority, to continue to support the policy makers directly responsible for keeping this system in place. The government is doing what we are asking for and we are arguably getting exactly what we deserve. I look around the US and I see a lot of people point fingers and saying 'its their fault' but the truth is pretty clear to me. It is our fault. You want to get the government to change? Vote. Convince your neighbors to stop voting against their self interest. If healthcare is so evil then look at who voted for the current system and vote them out. Write to your reps and tell them that their support of this system is unacceptable. Get informed and look around the world at what works and encourage adopting that. Figure out why people are not voting in their self interest and lobby to change that. When I look at the US I keep thinking the same thing over and over again, all people are created equal but some (companies) are more equal than others. Get mad that the corporate freedom of speech is more equal than yours and vote out people that try to increase company influence.
  - BMc2020 2y ago
    We tried voting... Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 United States presidential election...On September 26, 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate majority leader George J. Mitchell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_19...
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  Reading nexus, Yuval Noah talks about these things. He establishes a hirarchy of checks and balances well functioning democracies have, but conviniently stops at the media and how they can cover stuff like this. The natural next step would be civil disobedience, which should be the point where law makers swiftly takes things seriously as not to have a society go from a democracy to an anarchy.
billy99k 2y ago
It's not a 'moral debate'. One side is insane for thinking it's justified to kill someone over perceived injustices. I saw this lunacy for years on the left. I'm just glad America finally woke up and voted it out of our government in November.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Perhaps you’re confusing candidates? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-01/don-t-normalize-trump-s-threats-of-violence https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-01/don-t-... | https://archive.today/kFDNO https://archive.today/kFDNO
  - billy99k 2y ago
    No. You are the one confused. So a 3rd-hand conversation that was most likely a joke is compared..to..actual..murder? More insanity. You do realize Lefists tried to murder president trump three times and it's been memory-holed. Right? Throughout history, leftists have always been the violent ones...and currently, it's no different.
    - chimpanzee 2y ago
      > Throughout history, leftists have always been the violent ones This is an obvious and shameless lie.
    - quantified 2y ago
      One attempt definitely by somebody, once probably by somebody, no shot fired but no better explanation for stalking with a weapon. "Third" time not. 2nd Amendment Trump supporter arrested for carrying in a more highly-armed place. Please don't fall into their victimhood narrative. Please don't misrepresent. Truth is bad and good enough. Yitzak Rabin was not killed by a leftist. America was not freed from England by petition.
jmward01 2y ago
This line of argument appears to ignore the morality of acting rationally. No matter how repugnant its actions appear to be, UHC is acting rationally when it squeezes more profit from people. It is even acting rationally when it denies claims fraudulently knowing that the penalty is less than the profit. Calling it immoral when they don't do the 'right thing' is the real problem. Think of this from another direction, do we want a company trying to define what actions are 'right' and 'wrong' and then follow them? Because that is what we are doing when we argue that they shouldn't take every possible step to make a dollar. A company's only incentive is profit so allowing them to change the rules in their favor is the only irrational, and therefore immoral, action that has been made, and that action was taken by society, not UHC. We should assume that any company will, and should, take the most profitable move. Asking that they make any other move is to ask them to act irrationally and that is immoral. In short, I argue it is moral to act rationally, that society sets the framework for commerce and and that it is irrational, and therefore immoral, that we give them any voice or influence and further that it is irrational and immoral to have delegated the definition of what are 'good' or 'bad' actions to companies. That means that the only real argument that UHC is immoral is that they, or any company, makes an effort to change the rules or guide legislation. Or put even more bluntly, society is to blame here, not UHC, so any argument that violence against UHC by an individual is justified is misplaced.
- chimpanzee 2y ago
  > UHC is acting rationally when it squeezes more profit from people A company is not acting rationally if it knowingly and willingly creates enemies that can and will act against it. “Unless it is more profitable to do so because…” Rinse and repeat.
  - jmward01 2y ago
    Yes, that calculus is probably happening right now, but my point was that we are to blame for this so violence against UHC is unacceptable. I see people that are mad at healthcare, and I am one of them. The industry is clearly evil, but we let them get there. We voted in the people that enabled them, that allowed lobbyist to wield influence in changing regulations. We voted in people that opposed the obvious solution of universal healthcare that works orders of magnitude better in nearly every other country out there. UHC is an evil company and their acts are despicable, but the system we keep voting in demands that a company like them will exist. If UHC disappeared today there would be a new company just as bad to take its place very quickly. Even if UHC were to be well regulated, the rest of the healthcare system in the US is just as bad. My core point is that we are to blame so, yeah, get mad but get mad at the actual source of the problem. Vote against people that help this industry. Write your reps. Tell people that they are stupid for voting to block universal healthcare and support those that do support it. Get mad at fake news sites that confuse and lie about this issue and tell people they are harming themselves and others by listening to them. We are to blame and we are the ones that need to change.

3 points by chimpanzee 2y ago

BMc2020 2y ago

last sentence: But we may yet get to the point where it becomes clear that the government will never be willing or able to regulate these industries in the ways that morality requires and that the people demand. So then what?

jmward01 2y ago
It is easily arguable that the US just voted, with a clear majority, to continue to support the policy makers directly responsible for keeping this system in place. The government is doing what we are asking for and we are arguably getting exactly what we deserve. I look around the US and I see a lot of people point fingers and saying 'its their fault' but the truth is pretty clear to me. It is our fault. You want to get the government to change? Vote. Convince your neighbors to stop voting against their self interest. If healthcare is so evil then look at who voted for the current system and vote them out. Write to your reps and tell them that their support of this system is unacceptable. Get informed and look around the world at what works and encourage adopting that. Figure out why people are not voting in their self interest and lobby to change that. When I look at the US I keep thinking the same thing over and over again, all people are created equal but some (companies) are more equal than others. Get mad that the corporate freedom of speech is more equal than yours and vote out people that try to increase company influence.
- BMc2020 2y ago
  We tried voting... Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 United States presidential election...On September 26, 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate majority leader George J. Mitchell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_19...
tossandthrow 2y ago
Reading nexus, Yuval Noah talks about these things. He establishes a hirarchy of checks and balances well functioning democracies have, but conviniently stops at the media and how they can cover stuff like this. The natural next step would be civil disobedience, which should be the point where law makers swiftly takes things seriously as not to have a society go from a democracy to an anarchy.

billy99k 2y ago

It's not a 'moral debate'. One side is insane for thinking it's justified to kill someone over perceived injustices. I saw this lunacy for years on the left. I'm just glad America finally woke up and voted it out of our government in November.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Perhaps you’re confusing candidates? https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-01/don-t-normalize-trump-s-threats-of-violence https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-01/don-t-... | https://archive.today/kFDNO https://archive.today/kFDNO
- billy99k 2y ago
  No. You are the one confused. So a 3rd-hand conversation that was most likely a joke is compared..to..actual..murder? More insanity. You do realize Lefists tried to murder president trump three times and it's been memory-holed. Right? Throughout history, leftists have always been the violent ones...and currently, it's no different.
  - chimpanzee 2y ago
    > Throughout history, leftists have always been the violent ones This is an obvious and shameless lie.
  - quantified 2y ago
    One attempt definitely by somebody, once probably by somebody, no shot fired but no better explanation for stalking with a weapon. "Third" time not. 2nd Amendment Trump supporter arrested for carrying in a more highly-armed place. Please don't fall into their victimhood narrative. Please don't misrepresent. Truth is bad and good enough. Yitzak Rabin was not killed by a leftist. America was not freed from England by petition.

jmward01 2y ago

This line of argument appears to ignore the morality of acting rationally. No matter how repugnant its actions appear to be, UHC is acting rationally when it squeezes more profit from people. It is even acting rationally when it denies claims fraudulently knowing that the penalty is less than the profit. Calling it immoral when they don't do the 'right thing' is the real problem. Think of this from another direction, do we want a company trying to define what actions are 'right' and 'wrong' and then follow them? Because that is what we are doing when we argue that they shouldn't take every possible step to make a dollar. A company's only incentive is profit so allowing them to change the rules in their favor is the only irrational, and therefore immoral, action that has been made, and that action was taken by society, not UHC. We should assume that any company will, and should, take the most profitable move. Asking that they make any other move is to ask them to act irrationally and that is immoral. In short, I argue it is moral to act rationally, that society sets the framework for commerce and and that it is irrational, and therefore immoral, that we give them any voice or influence and further that it is irrational and immoral to have delegated the definition of what are 'good' or 'bad' actions to companies. That means that the only real argument that UHC is immoral is that they, or any company, makes an effort to change the rules or guide legislation. Or put even more bluntly, society is to blame here, not UHC, so any argument that violence against UHC by an individual is justified is misplaced.

chimpanzee 2y ago
> UHC is acting rationally when it squeezes more profit from people A company is not acting rationally if it knowingly and willingly creates enemies that can and will act against it. “Unless it is more profitable to do so because…” Rinse and repeat.
- jmward01 2y ago
  Yes, that calculus is probably happening right now, but my point was that we are to blame for this so violence against UHC is unacceptable. I see people that are mad at healthcare, and I am one of them. The industry is clearly evil, but we let them get there. We voted in the people that enabled them, that allowed lobbyist to wield influence in changing regulations. We voted in people that opposed the obvious solution of universal healthcare that works orders of magnitude better in nearly every other country out there. UHC is an evil company and their acts are despicable, but the system we keep voting in demands that a company like them will exist. If UHC disappeared today there would be a new company just as bad to take its place very quickly. Even if UHC were to be well regulated, the rest of the healthcare system in the US is just as bad. My core point is that we are to blame so, yeah, get mad but get mad at the actual source of the problem. Vote against people that help this industry. Write your reps. Tell people that they are stupid for voting to block universal healthcare and support those that do support it. Get mad at fake news sites that confuse and lie about this issue and tell people they are harming themselves and others by listening to them. We are to blame and we are the ones that need to change.