4 ms·

Two considerations make this different: * The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp. * The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ong

Two considerations make this different: * The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp. * The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians.

Miner49er 2y ago
> The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians. It's violence either way, you just find it a more acceptable violence.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Those military targets on the cards were fully expected to do their greatest effort to kill or neutralize the card issuers and the card holders. Should I expect these CEOs to do the same thing?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Statistically, denials of medical care are highly likely to have killed more Americans than the ~2k Americans killed in Iraq by enemy fire over a ~20 year period.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      By that logic every health care system in the entire world has has killed countless people. Further, under the zero-sum logic you offer here, every doctor that has ever overbilled RVUs is an accomplice to murder.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > By that logic every health care system in the entire world has has killed countless people. Probably, but motive matters in “killed” versus “murder”. I’m much more inclined to be mad about profit-driven medical decisions of this nature.
        tptacek 2y ago
        If motive matters, none of these people have killed anybody.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        I’m… not sure we agree on that.
        tptacek 2y ago
        This doesn't seem like so much a difference of opinion as of fact; when an insurer denies someone coverage, they aren't motivated to kill that person, nor is that their intent. Like health insurance administrators in every system in the world, they're required to make decisions about who gets what, and that implies that some people won't get what they want. In fact, by the logic you're using, administrators in the NHS are far more culpable than US insurers, since they issue categorical denials they know with certainty are going to result in preventable deaths; an insurer can at least tell themselves they're conditioning coverage situationally and based on effectiveness. Would you like some specific examples? I think this "health care" "murder" thing is just a really bad analogy and people should stop using it.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        A hit man is motivated by profit. Not personal dislike of the person, but it’s still a murder. I have a hard time seeing “we can boost profits by fighting claims until sick people give up” as all that dissimilar. The NHS admins aren’t getting bonuses for boosting share prices.
        tptacek 2y ago
        A hitman is motivated to murder and has that intent. Insurers are motivated to eliminate waste, which is absolutely rife in the US health care industry; insurers are getting continually worked over by hospital chains, which take in something like 9 times as much money as insurers and have 3-5x their profit margins. I don't think the analogy is salvageable. Even if the point I just made wasn't true (it is), you'd have run aground on the distinction between wanting and intending to kill someone and not. But the flaws run much deeper than that. Respectfully, you should stop saying this.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp. Whole bunch of "captured + executed/died in prison" on that list. The goal wasn't to give them a hug. > The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?
- stickfigure 2y ago
  > The goal wasn't to give them a hug. Just because we sometimes execute criminals doesn't mean there's something wrong with WANTED posters. > Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents? If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward. Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward. Throughout the Iraq and Afghan wars, we deemed combat actions by insurgent groups to be terrorism, even if entirely against military targets. Hell, the guy who threw his shoe at Bush got three years in jail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_i... > Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up? I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr.
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      > I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr. You are naive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volo... Considering how famously paranoid Putin is, I doubt the Ukrainians get much opportunity. There's not a doubt in my mind they would take it if they could. What are the Russians going to do, invade?
spencerflem 2y ago
What do you think they WANTED to do to them?
- undersuit 2y ago
  What do YOU think they wanted to do to them?

Miner49er 2y ago

> The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians. It's violence either way, you just find it a more acceptable violence.

carlosjobim 2y ago
Those military targets on the cards were fully expected to do their greatest effort to kill or neutralize the card issuers and the card holders. Should I expect these CEOs to do the same thing?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Statistically, denials of medical care are highly likely to have killed more Americans than the ~2k Americans killed in Iraq by enemy fire over a ~20 year period.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    By that logic every health care system in the entire world has has killed countless people. Further, under the zero-sum logic you offer here, every doctor that has ever overbilled RVUs is an accomplice to murder.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > By that logic every health care system in the entire world has has killed countless people. Probably, but motive matters in “killed” versus “murder”. I’m much more inclined to be mad about profit-driven medical decisions of this nature.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        If motive matters, none of these people have killed anybody.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        I’m… not sure we agree on that.
        tptacek 2y ago
        This doesn't seem like so much a difference of opinion as of fact; when an insurer denies someone coverage, they aren't motivated to kill that person, nor is that their intent. Like health insurance administrators in every system in the world, they're required to make decisions about who gets what, and that implies that some people won't get what they want. In fact, by the logic you're using, administrators in the NHS are far more culpable than US insurers, since they issue categorical denials they know with certainty are going to result in preventable deaths; an insurer can at least tell themselves they're conditioning coverage situationally and based on effectiveness. Would you like some specific examples? I think this "health care" "murder" thing is just a really bad analogy and people should stop using it.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        A hit man is motivated by profit. Not personal dislike of the person, but it’s still a murder. I have a hard time seeing “we can boost profits by fighting claims until sick people give up” as all that dissimilar. The NHS admins aren’t getting bonuses for boosting share prices.
        tptacek 2y ago
        A hitman is motivated to murder and has that intent. Insurers are motivated to eliminate waste, which is absolutely rife in the US health care industry; insurers are getting continually worked over by hospital chains, which take in something like 9 times as much money as insurers and have 3-5x their profit margins. I don't think the analogy is salvageable. Even if the point I just made wasn't true (it is), you'd have run aground on the distinction between wanting and intending to kill someone and not. But the flaws run much deeper than that. Respectfully, you should stop saying this.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp. Whole bunch of "captured + executed/died in prison" on that list. The goal wasn't to give them a hug. > The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?

stickfigure 2y ago
> The goal wasn't to give them a hug. Just because we sometimes execute criminals doesn't mean there's something wrong with WANTED posters. > Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents? If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward. Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward. Throughout the Iraq and Afghan wars, we deemed combat actions by insurgent groups to be terrorism, even if entirely against military targets. Hell, the guy who threw his shoe at Bush got three years in jail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_i... > Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up? I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr.
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    > I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr. You are naive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volo... Considering how famously paranoid Putin is, I doubt the Ukrainians get much opportunity. There's not a doubt in my mind they would take it if they could. What are the Russians going to do, invade?

spencerflem 2y ago

What do you think they WANTED to do to them?

undersuit 2y ago
What do YOU think they wanted to do to them?