US Health Care system has failed America (The Brian Thompson CEO Assassination)

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

That is the consequence of screwing over tens of thousands of customers, that ended up losing their lives, since the insurance they paid for would not cover their life saving operations.

With this opinion in mind, do you think you are better than him?

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Horrible comparison. Not even in the same ballpark.

Only because you agree with one and not the other.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Wow, you have solved all the US health insurance issues! Now why didn't anyone think of this before?

Actually, John McCain had a very good, market based solution, that addressed the real cost issues. But the left rejected a true solution.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

How does it feel to simp for billionaires, over the average North American? I mean what kind of tool insinuates "it's their own fault for getting cancer!'  It's not like the people have much of a choice in choosing the right provider, since across the board, the industry is predatory.  Once again, when literally 99% of North America is cheering on the guy who shot the evil CEO, that should be an direct indictment against the greedy and predatory health insurance companies.

You are one of the only people defending these policies.  It just goes to show how out of touch you are with the average person. 

No one is saying it is their fault for getting cancer (thaough some cancers are a result of individual action, just like heart disease and diabetes). However, pointing to other options that are available isn't wrong minded. It is the opposite, really.

People usually over state support for what ever they support, and that is you here. It would be safe to say that well under half of the country feels that this guy deserved to die. What is more troubling is that more than 1% do think he should die. You should look deep in your heart and ask yourself if you like who you've become.

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's actually not required to render judgement on his personality.

Sure Im fine rendering judgment on his actions and anyone else enabling the kind of harmful amoral BS.

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The French Revolution was a bloody failure

Two steps forward, one step back. France never returned to its pre-revolution system.

But more to the point, guillotine references are simply a reminder that when pushed to extremes of desperation by societal elites such as with the US healthcare industry, even the non-violent moderate population at large will start to eagerly support reciprocal violence against those responsible.

If the political system for decades enables and empowers these kinds of companies to profit off of people's death and misery, then the people will inevitably support options beyond the political system.

Edited December 7, 2024 by Matthew

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, Matthew said:

 Two steps forward, one step back. France never returned to its pre-revolution system.

But more to the point, guillotine references are simply a reminder that when pushed to extremes of desperation by societal elites such as with the US healthcare industry, even the non-violent moderate population at large will start to eagerly support reciprocal violence against those responsible.

If the political system for decades enables and empowers these kinds of companies to profit off of people's death and misery, then the people will inevitably support options beyond the political system.

Ok to all of this, but you can distinguish yourself from the masses by emphasizing an ethical and not reactionary response. Or even, if possible, change the conversation by making an inciteful comment or suggestion, that indicates engagement and real participation.

But as you say you are free to comment in any way.

[Matthew]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

you can distinguish yourself from the masses by emphasizing an ethical and not reactionary response.

It's perfectly ethical to have solidarity with the millions being ruthlessly exploited by these corporations. The reactionary response would be to support the status quo under the guise of liberal due process etc. If the goverment isn't going to ever go after these turds then I will cheer on anyone who does.

[Matthew]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Sorry, but I'm downvoting all the people that justify taking a father and husband away from his family because you don't like his business practices.

Yes, give me those delicious downvotes. Interesting how killing people by denying them the medical coverage they paid for is just a normal business practice to you.

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, Matthew said:

It's perfectly ethical to have solidarity with the millions being ruthlessly exploited by these corporations. The reactionary response would be to support the status quo under the guise of liberal due process etc. If the goverment isn't going to ever go after these turds then I will cheer on anyone who does

I disagree. There are lots of people on here who call for violence the end of days etc etc, etc etc etc.  It's cheap talk as far as I'm concerned. Again. You are free to do it.

[cougar]

7 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

............ because you don't like his business practices.

🤣

If his business practice was killing and hurting people, he got what he deserved.

Are those cowboys in the movies murderers for shooting down the thugs?

Now the thugs wearing suits and ties think they have created the perfect system to provide them complete immunity for their crimes and are shocked and feel cheated when someone resorts to the old days methods.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

They have no moral values because they reject God. If you don't have God as the determiner of what is good and right, then morals are subjective. If morals are subjective, then you can justify anything you like. Then morals can flow with what ever the emotion of the moment is and what feels good becomes what is right.

 

Well whether or not you need god to have morals maybe an issue of some contention, but one thing is certain, regardless of the source if you don't have morals that are consistent society devolves into a chaotic state that does great evil. This is always been true in history and in fact some researchers have noticed a correlation. It basically goes that a group of people with common morals get together and start a country, country grows and becomes great, life gets easy and everybody loses their morals and within one generation of that the country completely falls into decay and becomes a shadow of its former self.

The left has no more about use. And what inevitably happens is they will pull everybody down to their level, where people will say what's the point of me having morals if they don't i'll just do what I like.

And then the murders will really start

[Five of swords]

On 12/5/2024 at 12:17 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that applauding a cold-blooded murder is ever a moral choice 

 

Then you can't do politics. Without cold blooded murder, power doesn't exist.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

That is the consequence of screwing over tens of thousands of customers, that ended up losing their lives, since the insurance they paid for would not cover their life saving operations. 

So again if I feel that for example the first nations have been unfair to Canadians burning all those churches you're fine with me putting a bullet in a few of their heads and will accept that as a reason to make changes of some sort?

 

SIgh.  You're a drunk loser lefty with no morals or understanding of any concepts Beyond your own selfish feelings. You pretend to care about other people suffering because it covers up the fact that you are a self obsessed loser.

But you're an excellent example of what the left is these days. Which is why the united states appears to be pulling to the right.

Have another drink you'll feel better. 🙄🙄

[NAME REMOVED]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So again if I feel that for example the first nations have been unfair to Canadians burning all those churches you're fine with me putting a bullet in a few of their heads and will accept that as a reason to make changes of some sort?

 

SIgh.  You're a drunk loser lefty with no morals or understanding of any concepts Beyond your own selfish feelings. You pretend to care about other people suffering because it covers up the fact that you are a self obsessed loser.

But you're an excellent example of what the left is these days. Which is why the united states appears to be pulling to the right.

Have another drink you'll feel better. 🙄🙄

I love you too, sweetheart.

[User]

Same type of people:

OMG Rittenhouse is a vigilante murderer who should be behind bars!

Also

Hell yeah, this United Healthcare CEO deserved to die and be murdered on the street!

 

[NAME REMOVED]

17 minutes ago, User said:

Same type of people:

OMG Rittenhouse is a vigilante murderer who should be behind bars!

Also

Hell yeah, this United Healthcare CEO deserved to die and be murdered on the street!

 

Rittenhouse clearly acted in self defence. The first dude had done 10 years in prison for molesting two children, and was chasing him down, and lunged at him. Rittenhouse fired in self defence.

When the mob began chasing him, he stumbled after a man threw a punch that grazed him. A tall black dude then attempted a flying kick, but did not follow through, as Rittenhouse had fired a warning shot in the air. At that point, a man rushed at him, and attempted to hit him on the heard with his skateboard.

Rittenhouse shot him in the chest, and the man died instantly. Finally a man with a glock, tried to rush in and shoot Rittenhouse. He shot off the man's bicep, incapacitating him.  It was marksmanship that would have made an infantry leader proud. 

He deserved to be acquitted.

Edited December 8, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[Hodad]

9 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

They have no moral values because they reject God. If you don't have God as the determiner of what is good and right, then morals are subjective. If morals are subjective, then you can justify anything you like. Then morals can flow with what ever the emotion of the moment is and what feels good becomes what is right.

 

So true. If you have a god in your life you things like the crusades, the inquisition, the troubles, 9/11, etc. all become moral. Like magic. He works in mysterious ways.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

I love you too, sweetheart.

If you were capable of loving anybody including yourself you would have sobered up by now

[gatomontes99]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

So true. If you have a god in your life you things like the crusades, the inquisition, the troubles, 9/11, etc. all become moral. Like magic. He works in mysterious ways.

Nope. Being Christian doesn't make you perfect. Just the opposite. But the compassion doesn't change even if you do stray off course.

[Matthew]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are lots of people on here who call for violence

There is a difference between calling for violence and viewing a violent act as justice. Do you think the rebels who just violently overthrew Syria's Bashar Al Assad are immoral murderers or is it ok to fight against a violent dictatorship?

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Matthew said:

There is a difference between calling for violence and viewing a violent act as justice. Do you think the rebels who just violently overthrew Syria's Bashar Al Assad are immoral murderers or is it ok to fight against a violent dictatorship?

Well armies aren't armed citizens shooting people in the back.  I don't want to start parsing where murder becomes war, becomes self defense.

 

 

 

[gatomontes99]

16 minutes ago, Matthew said:

There is a difference between calling for violence and viewing a violent act as justice. Do you think the rebels who just violently overthrew Syria's Bashar Al Assad are immoral murderers or is it ok to fight against a violent dictatorship?

No. Justifying a murder is calling for violence. Just like those that lamented that the Trump's shooter didn't do better were supporting more attempts.

The CEO may not have been a good person in your view, but he wasn't a theocratic dictator that committed thousands and thousand of autrocities and sought extermination of people because of their religion.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

There is a difference between calling for violence and viewing a violent act as justice. 

Sort of, but it's not what you think.

1. Calling for violence is justifying the future use of violence, and
2. saying that what happened is ok is 'justifying the past use of violence', which is in turn justifying the future use of violence. 

Get it? By justifying the murder of this CEO you're justifying the murder of the next CEO. 

The only way that you were technically correct is that in the second instance you just said "viewing" a violent act as justice, which implies thinking it but not saying it out loud in any way, shape or form.  

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. Justifying a murder is calling for violence. Just like those that lamented that the Trump's shooter didn't do better were supporting more attempts.

The CEO may not have been a good person in your view, but he wasn't a theocratic dictator that committed thousands and thousand of autrocities and sought extermination of people because of their religion.

Absolutely. If you condone a murder you are calling for violence. You're saying that such violence is acceptable and legitimate. 

The left started to go off the rails with this whole punch of Nazi thing, where they pushed the idea that anyone you didn't like or you felt was right wing was okay to punch them. 

Now they've escalated to "shoot an executive". The left are violent hate filled bigots

And they all seem convinced that this person was shot because they were somehow a bad person. We don't even know why he was killed. For all we know it's because other board members had him killed because he was arguing for giving people better service

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well armies aren't armed citizens

Yes they are.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

shooting people in the back.

Yes they do, if they can.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't want to start parsing where murder becomes war, becomes self defense.

That's your and my privilege, as people who presumably aren't facing severe oppression.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

The CEO may not have been a good person in your view, but he wasn't a theocratic dictator that committed thousands and thousand of autrocities and sought extermination of people because of their religion.

Simple math tells us that

• "amongst the tens of thousands of legitimate health claims which are denied, the resulting lack of medical treatment results in deaths in at least some instances"

If that's even just 3 times a year, that makes way more than 3 people who would be extremely angry, to the point where they would be violent. 

For every person that dies as a result of a denied claim there's at least one dad, brother, father, son, friend, or spouse who ends up being enraged. Maybe the average is 5? Who knows, but at the end of the day, denying legitimate claims = generating violent hatred. 

So the CEO may not have intentionally murdered people, but if people feel like "he put corporate profits ahead of the life of my _________, and now that person is dead", he bears the brunt of the exact same level of hatred.

If this murder is at all related to his job - which might not be the case because people kill other people for a lot of reasons - then it's likely due to the denial of a claim that was believed to be legitimate. That's the only scenario where responsibility falls in the CEO's lap.   

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Justifying a murder is calling for violence

Calling for violence is calling for violence. For probably 99.9% of people there is a point at which they will view an act of violence as morally justified (execution, war, uprisings, self defense, etc). Approving of those acts does not equal a blanket call for violence.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Matthew said:

 

 

That's your and my privilege, as people who presumably aren't facing severe oppression.

I don't want that. That's exactly what it is for us: entertainment 

You want to do something helpful?  It's not hard to give back. You just have to be part of a public. Stay informed and contribute positively. 

That's your only obligation. 

 

In return you get to live here, and you get privileges like chuckling about class warfare...

 

 

Edited December 8, 2024 by Michael Hardner