And? The Republicans are blatantly horrible and regularly support policies that hurt and kill large numbers of people. Those would just be a few more corpses to add to the pile.
Yeah this logic is so tortured that it makes the Inquisition seem like a day at the spa. And not on hot rocks or with deep muscle massage.
Let’s assume that the Lancet opinion piece “estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives” is correct. It might be.
Thompson as an individual, or in his role as CEO of UHC, was not the cause of our country’s lack of universal healthcare and his murder is not “understandable” because he is responsible for thousands of deaths.
Now while I personally believe that all deserve access to healthcare, and lives can be saved with equitable access to it, those who disagree with me, those who have voted against such plans or for representation that would vote against them, even those who hire lobbyists to argue against them out of self-interests, are not guilty of killing thousands (so therefore are understandably targets for execution by vigilantes.)
And why aren’t they guilty? If they voted to support something then they are responsible for the foreseeable results of that vote.
By your logic somebody who votes for a war bears no responsibility for the resulting deaths.
Actively blocked, not opposed. Deaths are a direct result of their actions, not their passiveness. Of course it includes all active Republicans.
What @Der_Trihs said
Also, in this case there is the issue of not only profiting for denying service; but also actively, as a corporation (and there is no evidence that Thompson as CEO was opposed to what his corporation did and does), lobbying to keep an asinine system that cuts the lives of many. But that is ok because it is a good investment for them. /s
Nice racket.
Especially in the context of the very elderly, how does one measure saving lives when everyone dies eventually? Wouldn’t it have to be something more like measured or estimated man-years added?
I have a serious and somewhat dumb question:
Are you folks arguing over whether United Healthcare’s policies can be held responsible for any deaths, or just over the magnitude of those deaths? I’m a bit lost on that, at this point.
Sudden cold chill. Where is that draft coming from? Oh. It’s from that huge gaping hole of excluded middle!
Sheesh.
Yes. If I vote for someone who does something that causes harm, even vote specifically in support of the policy that you believe causes deaths, even donate and advocate for the policy, I, and everyone who voted similarly, and those who did not bother to vote against, bear some share of moral culpability. Same in the case of against a policy that would save lives.
Is that the level of any of us killing people, murder if not for its legality? A “type of mass murder”? And action that should make my execution something understandable to celebrate?
Because yeah pretty soon there would be many more than “a few more corpses to add to the pile.” Lots of Democrats who aren’t fans of any specific universal healthcare plans that have been floated too. Pretty much a solid majority of the country by that token would be “understandable” targets for execution.
This seriously is a very dangerous line of thinking. Speech and advocacy to convince the public and lawmakers to decide on or against a particular course of action is not murder even if taking or not taking the action ends up resulting in excess deaths.
Unless of course the form of advocacy is coming up behind a person thought of as a face of an industry and killing them with a ghost gun. Yeah that is murder. And murder as a means of advocacy for social or political change is terrorism.
Their figure is their estimate per annum They also have figure in years of life lost or gained.
Yeah I think their analysis is crap but that is immaterial. Accepting it as a basis for thinking of the victim as guilty of mass murder is obscene even if the analysis was spot on.
Both. The repeated statement as fact was that he was responsible for mass murder, thousands of death. The fact is that there is evidence of any deaths. The argument is that financial stress caused and delays had to cause some deaths, but zero evidence actually of any at all. The one death we have good evidence of is his.
Yet more young adults feel his murder was at least somewhat justifiable than do not.
Again, I would agree with you, if it wasn’t for that “insignificant detail” that we are discussing groups that worked also in the past and the present day to keep the status as it is.
Only if your cause is unpopular with the wealthy, powerful and right wing. You can murder people all you like for causes they support and it’s not “terrorism”. And of course you can murder people to prevent change and it’s not “terrorism”. As the old line goes “‘Terrorist’ is what the big army calls the little army”.
Perhaps more important, when you make it clear that no change is possible by non-violent means, you tend to get violence. So it frankly it doesn’t matter if it’s “terrorism” or not, all saying that does is make people wonder if terrorism is such a bad thing after all.
I’ve seen claims that the federal charges are the result of “pressure” from insurance company executives, with the obvious implication that the feds weren’t going to bring charges until the oligarchs forced them to. I haven’t found any confirmation in mainstream media (which, to be fair, isn’t necessarily an indication of falsehood in a case like this), but has anyone else read about this?
(This is often accompanied by the claim that some top DOJ officials worked in/for the industry before, but I’m not sure how much relevance I put into that as an indication of corruption or bias.)
Did they? UHC seems not to have donated as much to republicans as they did Harris. So, now you have to show UHC actually pushed hard to get rid of Universal health care. And Thompson seems pretty politically neutral.
Prove it.
And we have gotten so far astray from the original claim, the goalposts have been moved back into the stands. The original claim was the Thompson denied claims which led to unnecessary deaths. Then that his company -UHC did.
Now it is that by simply existing UHC blocked Universal health care from happening in America, thus deaths.
Note- at no time recently was there any serious congressional push for a Universal health care plan. The Dems knew they didnt have the votes. The republicans - not the health industry- would torpedo it by any means necessary. UHC opposition was never needed, and from what I can see- didnt even happen.
It’s all the same thing. Blocking UHC is directly tied to keeping the profits rolling, same as denying claims. There are no goal posts being moved. Insurance companies kill people because to make money, it is that simple.
You keep making that claim, but so far, it’s been fact free. Can you prove UHC blocked a Universal health care measure? When?
You mean the voters who voted against Bernie in the primaries?
This is ridiculous, if you need me to prove insurance companies spend massive amounts of money lobbying against universal health care you are not arguing in good faith.
Why should they? I mean, until there is a chance one might pass. Can you show me where UHC recently did so? I provided a cite listing their contributions for you, Why spend $$ on something that wont happen?
So yeah, prove it. For UHC. And or Thompson.
What DrDeth said.
I am arguing in good faith. I just see the issue differently, because I want a universal system with choice between payers, as in Germany and Switzerland and the Netherlands. It requires the Democrats getting back in power, but is otherwise far more realistic, for the U.S., than single payer.
In Massachetts, 1.8 percent were uninsured in 2023, less than in any other state. Just four years before, in 2019, 2.9 percent there were uninsured. At this rate, they could get to universal coverage next year.
Insurance companies there must then be really worried about how close the state is to getting universal coverage.