3 ms·

If someone shoots some more CEOs, they'll have a change of heart. (A lot of people are going to be very mad at me about this comment, without having the awaren

If someone shoots some more CEOs, they'll have a change of heart. (A lot of people are going to be very mad at me about this comment, without having the awareness to understand that this is the inevitable conclusion to, "You wanna play rough, ah?!"ing people's access to life-saving treatment. Please grok that we can preclude any more assassinations by cutting profits and letting people get the care they need.)

bentt 2mo ago
If it were only the CEOs that were at fault you might have a point. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans benefit from this system and the leaders are accountable to them - the shareholders, employees, and on down the chain. Congress is our only hope, along with a president who signs reform.
- root_axis 2mo ago
  The people are in charge of congress, and they consistently show they do not support socialized healthcare systems. It will never be a politically viable path for the u.s, regardless of the economics. Even if it somehow passed, opposition would quickly sabotage and dismantle it. Obama had a generational mandate and couldn't even pass a public option which, is far more moderate than a single payer approach. Even the abomination of the ACA that actually got signed into law was subsequently gutted to the bone in the following years. There is room for more tweaking, but the system we're living with now is pretty close to what most voters prefer.
mft_ 2mo ago
You’re right. Two related observations: 1) In the immediate aftermath of Thompson being shot, policies were deliberately briefly softened. Anecdotally, people were helped to live longer by this. It didn’t last long. 2) The response to Thompson’s assassination was the closest I’ve seen to a class consciousness almost forming in the US, as people from across the political divide who had suffered at the hands of the healthcare insurance companies found common ground.
nijave 2mo ago
I'm skeptical. It will be cheaper to hire a couple security guards and buy a couple armoured cars then turn away profits. The reaction was short lived while the insurance companies figured out how to bolster security and return to the usual. Look at what's happening in California with the proposed wealth tax. >Page’s co-founder, Sergey Brin, has poured at least $45 million into the Building a Better California Super PAC specifically dedicated to blocking the tax
- Glyptodon 2mo ago
  So I think the wealth tax is different. The reason more CEOs getting shot might make a difference is that many CEOs care about status and being able to mention it in the right places. Historically many people love it so much that they call themselves CEOs and Presidents of companies that are small businesses. If these same people can no longer be open about their role and status, which they value, there will be some kind of change. I'm not sure what it is, but security guards don't restore their freedom to feel thoughtless about their role and lifestyle. Whereas with taxes... Maybe some people brag about dodging them or their suspect filings that get them big refunds. But they're mostly not public and not tied to identity the same way. And even the wealth tax isn't remotely the same as the public being vocal at large. For it to be comparable we'd have to have modern highwaymen and Robin Hoods somehow stripping the wealth, not the tax man. Because the weight of any changes or perceived need to change come from the social burden that public violence would create in the shooting case. And that doesn't seem to exist near at all with the wealth tax.
- goodmythical 2mo ago
  >It will be cheaper to hire a couple security guards and buy a couple armoured cars This is still a possitive outcome brought from the presence of a threat to their lives. Not as positive as the healthcare thing, but it's still jobs and a "tax" in that they are forced to purchase the vehicles which do have to be built and driven by someone not in their tax bracket.
sghiassy 2mo ago
If people voted for universal healthcare we could get it done. The issue is that there’s a sizable, significant voting population that votes against it
- devilsdata 2mo ago
  My question is why a sizeable portion of the American (and greater Western) public seemingly votes against their interests?
  - looksjjhg 2mo ago
    Stupidity https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA
  - simpaticoder 2mo ago
    The people who vote are old. The median age of primary voters is 65, regular voters 54. This is why you get a gerontocracy - old people vote for their interests, and young people don't vote. It's also probably why the median age of politicians has risen to 58 and 66 in the house and senate, respectively. With an 80-year-old president. The solution is to have both a) mandatory voting and b) a voting holiday. This is done in many other democracies around the world, and it works. Personally I would prefer term limits and age limits for congress, the president, and federal judges. Diane Feinstein, Ruth Bater Ginsberg died in office. Mitch McConnell is working on it. We have age limits for lots of professions that require high performance - political leadership should not be an exception. But of course to make any of these changes young people have to vote, but they're mostly busy being poor and doomscrolling to block out the pain.
  - kulahan 2mo ago
    A few things. -The US has had a lot of success by letting businesses run pretty free. This has produced some of the largest and most powerful companies on the planet. -The conservative party traditionally has been suspicious of a powerful, centralized government -In the US, there is a common thread of "government workers are impossible to fire" as well as a common thread of "government moves at a snail's pace". In light of just that, there are many people who would prefer that healthcare is run by a private industry, as private insurers are enormous companies in the US. Everyone knows Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, or Kaiser Permanente. Many people give a benefit of the doubt that companies are doing things efficiently. Additionally, health insurance companies in the US have a requirement to spend a certain % of their revenue each year on medical care, and will sometimes send out small refunds when they simply cannot suppress costs in certain other regions of the company enough to keep their spending at the right rates. Beyond this, states may provide additional benefits, and many do (some with the help of federal funding, even). You may find someone in one state where they are suffering greatly, while someone in an identical economic situation in another state is not suffering at all. It's easy to convince the first man to vote for a better healthcare situation. It's hard to convince the latter. I could go on for ages, but this is getting long. There are like a billion reasons.
hammock 2mo ago
How do you typically react when right wingers make similar comments about what they see as overreaching government?
- frmersdog 1mo ago
  I acknowledge their bloviating as I would a tough-talking teenager: with a wariness respectful of their capacity for violence, paired with an understanding that, 9 times out of 10, they're not going to do jack shit. Probably important to point out here that leftists are looking to see a threat to a corporation's leadership change the behavior of a corporation, whereas right-wingers are looking to see a threat to a government's leadership change everyone's behavior ("overreaching government" in a democracy being the will of voters). They're not the same thing.
- goatlover 1mo ago
  They've lost all credibility under Trump with the massive amounts of overreach. It becomes apparent they only care when the other party is seen as overreaching.

bentt 2mo ago

If it were only the CEOs that were at fault you might have a point. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans benefit from this system and the leaders are accountable to them - the shareholders, employees, and on down the chain. Congress is our only hope, along with a president who signs reform.

root_axis 2mo ago
The people are in charge of congress, and they consistently show they do not support socialized healthcare systems. It will never be a politically viable path for the u.s, regardless of the economics. Even if it somehow passed, opposition would quickly sabotage and dismantle it. Obama had a generational mandate and couldn't even pass a public option which, is far more moderate than a single payer approach. Even the abomination of the ACA that actually got signed into law was subsequently gutted to the bone in the following years. There is room for more tweaking, but the system we're living with now is pretty close to what most voters prefer.

mft_ 2mo ago

You’re right. Two related observations: 1) In the immediate aftermath of Thompson being shot, policies were deliberately briefly softened. Anecdotally, people were helped to live longer by this. It didn’t last long. 2) The response to Thompson’s assassination was the closest I’ve seen to a class consciousness almost forming in the US, as people from across the political divide who had suffered at the hands of the healthcare insurance companies found common ground.

nijave 2mo ago

I'm skeptical. It will be cheaper to hire a couple security guards and buy a couple armoured cars then turn away profits. The reaction was short lived while the insurance companies figured out how to bolster security and return to the usual. Look at what's happening in California with the proposed wealth tax. >Page’s co-founder, Sergey Brin, has poured at least $45 million into the Building a Better California Super PAC specifically dedicated to blocking the tax

Glyptodon 2mo ago
So I think the wealth tax is different. The reason more CEOs getting shot might make a difference is that many CEOs care about status and being able to mention it in the right places. Historically many people love it so much that they call themselves CEOs and Presidents of companies that are small businesses. If these same people can no longer be open about their role and status, which they value, there will be some kind of change. I'm not sure what it is, but security guards don't restore their freedom to feel thoughtless about their role and lifestyle. Whereas with taxes... Maybe some people brag about dodging them or their suspect filings that get them big refunds. But they're mostly not public and not tied to identity the same way. And even the wealth tax isn't remotely the same as the public being vocal at large. For it to be comparable we'd have to have modern highwaymen and Robin Hoods somehow stripping the wealth, not the tax man. Because the weight of any changes or perceived need to change come from the social burden that public violence would create in the shooting case. And that doesn't seem to exist near at all with the wealth tax.
goodmythical 2mo ago
>It will be cheaper to hire a couple security guards and buy a couple armoured cars This is still a possitive outcome brought from the presence of a threat to their lives. Not as positive as the healthcare thing, but it's still jobs and a "tax" in that they are forced to purchase the vehicles which do have to be built and driven by someone not in their tax bracket.

sghiassy 2mo ago

If people voted for universal healthcare we could get it done. The issue is that there’s a sizable, significant voting population that votes against it

devilsdata 2mo ago
My question is why a sizeable portion of the American (and greater Western) public seemingly votes against their interests?
- looksjjhg 2mo ago
  Stupidity https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA
- simpaticoder 2mo ago
  The people who vote are old. The median age of primary voters is 65, regular voters 54. This is why you get a gerontocracy - old people vote for their interests, and young people don't vote. It's also probably why the median age of politicians has risen to 58 and 66 in the house and senate, respectively. With an 80-year-old president. The solution is to have both a) mandatory voting and b) a voting holiday. This is done in many other democracies around the world, and it works. Personally I would prefer term limits and age limits for congress, the president, and federal judges. Diane Feinstein, Ruth Bater Ginsberg died in office. Mitch McConnell is working on it. We have age limits for lots of professions that require high performance - political leadership should not be an exception. But of course to make any of these changes young people have to vote, but they're mostly busy being poor and doomscrolling to block out the pain.
- kulahan 2mo ago
  A few things. -The US has had a lot of success by letting businesses run pretty free. This has produced some of the largest and most powerful companies on the planet. -The conservative party traditionally has been suspicious of a powerful, centralized government -In the US, there is a common thread of "government workers are impossible to fire" as well as a common thread of "government moves at a snail's pace". In light of just that, there are many people who would prefer that healthcare is run by a private industry, as private insurers are enormous companies in the US. Everyone knows Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, or Kaiser Permanente. Many people give a benefit of the doubt that companies are doing things efficiently. Additionally, health insurance companies in the US have a requirement to spend a certain % of their revenue each year on medical care, and will sometimes send out small refunds when they simply cannot suppress costs in certain other regions of the company enough to keep their spending at the right rates. Beyond this, states may provide additional benefits, and many do (some with the help of federal funding, even). You may find someone in one state where they are suffering greatly, while someone in an identical economic situation in another state is not suffering at all. It's easy to convince the first man to vote for a better healthcare situation. It's hard to convince the latter. I could go on for ages, but this is getting long. There are like a billion reasons.

hammock 2mo ago

How do you typically react when right wingers make similar comments about what they see as overreaching government?

frmersdog 1mo ago
I acknowledge their bloviating as I would a tough-talking teenager: with a wariness respectful of their capacity for violence, paired with an understanding that, 9 times out of 10, they're not going to do jack shit. Probably important to point out here that leftists are looking to see a threat to a corporation's leadership change the behavior of a corporation, whereas right-wingers are looking to see a threat to a government's leadership change everyone's behavior ("overreaching government" in a democracy being the will of voters). They're not the same thing.
goatlover 1mo ago
They've lost all credibility under Trump with the massive amounts of overreach. It becomes apparent they only care when the other party is seen as overreaching.