I was thinking about crossing the street. But, there is a large, fast truck sitting there that revs its engine loudly any time someone moves toward the street, obviously indicating that it will run down anyone who tries. There are people here who are doing their best to prevent street crossings and saying that we should not consider approaching that dark, scary place over there. In other words, lobbying is still lobbying even if it is not “active”.
Yes, and Vladimir Putin said that he supported Ms Harris. Politics is strategic.
“They.” As noted that “they” was the industry when the man who was executed, now apparently justified for the crime of industry lobbying for against something you and I supported, was in High School.
What “they” did then, does not excuse the bloodlust or even rationalization and excuse making for it, that has accompanied this man’s murder.
And yes. They have supported it once the reason for them to oppose it was removed, and would continue to support more universal enrollment in their plans, as long as it continues to bring them a profit margin. Which it does. They are not currently against universal coverage. They would be against any expansion of it being not using them. And against the regulation and oversight that MUST be in place.
As it is usual from talking points coming from the right, that line depends on a lot from the weaponization of a straw man.
No, no one here is saying that it was justified, only that it is really asinine to ignore that the current situation does lead to many dying unnecessary, and if you think about it, so it was Thompson’s death, if the corporations that fought to prevent change in healthcare would had done the ethical thing and stop funding efforts to prevent change, this would not had taken place.
Both Thompson’s death and more than 40,000 non-customers and a good number of customers a year.
There aren’t enough roll eyes to suffice for that rhetorical approach. No these are not talking points from the right. The subject of his execution for alleged crimes and the public response to it is not a straw man. It is in fact exactly what is going on by my own independent observation and the main subject. If you want to pretend that something else is going on here, enjoy your delusion.
You’re really bootstrapping here. Please show me here or anywhere I have ever said that this was a basis to justify this man’s murder. You won’t find it, because I don’t believe that. I think you will find I am quite an advocate of leaving these things to the legal system.
“They” is a useful pronoun to use when talking about a collective of individuals or companies. I will continue to use it in that context.
However, I can simultaneously understand – but not agree with – this sentiment:
And you can go ahead and continue to pretend it isn’t a factor.
Given that you tried to dismiss my opinions as repeating talking points from the right, I think you may not be on firm ground about who is trying to insult instead of debate.
Honestly I don’t understand what “bootstrapping” means in this context.
But you are part of a conversation in progress. One that has at first claimed that the … satisfaction … so many have with Thompson’s execution is … understandable … because he is a murdering thousands every year by way of denials … to because he is part of a for profit system that frustrates many … and that it is part of a revolution where people are being radicalized against the overlords … to the latest, the context that lobbying was brought up … that for profit insurance companies lobbying is, or was? It keeps moving … an impediment to universal healthcare coverage which would save thousands of lives a year, therefore he is guilty as the cause of those thousands of deaths a year. That IS how insurance lobbying was brought into this thread.
A man was murdered. The person who murdered him was either doing so with a sane intent to terrorize people who work in the industry into change and to use a violent act to gain attention to a cause (domestic terrorism) or much more likely to me, he is a psychiatrically broken individual. He certainly did not suffer from lack of care due to denials by UHC himself.
Neither of those are things deserving of applause from an SNL crowd. Neither of those should have so many young adults in particular approving of the killing. No matter how horrible or powerful insurance companies are.
The strawman is justifying those reactions, that satisfaction with , approval and understanding of, a murder being done, by discussing the lobbying efforts of an industry decades ago.
The blaming his death on the lobbying done by insurance companies in the past, that his death is their fault? They made Mangione do it? Wow.
The applause is the bootstrapping. I do not applaud it, and you cannot find anywhere that I did. To imply that simply by employing the term, “they,” I am part of the applause section is bootstrapping.
We’re all quite clear on your perspective. Repeating it over and over is not more persuasive.
I am very distressed at the extent to which we (collective pronoun, “we,” used to describe our society in general, not you and me in particular) have forfeited our faith in our legal system to deal with these crimes. But I recognize that it is so, even if I hate it. We are heading into a state of anarchy, I fear. This is true whether I like it or not. And it doesn’t make me part of the problem to acknowledge this.
Your interpretation that I am claiming that you personally are applauding is your misread. To reflect back at you, please show me where I claim such. You are however commenting upon a conversation in progress in which an estimate of deaths due to a lack of universal healthcare were cited as the deaths Thompson was responsible for. Apparently because insurance companies are allegedly preventing such by lobbying against it, a claim that needed no citation and the question of was arguing in bad faith. Which then became that “they” had successfully lobbied against the public option decades ago.
That part, that morphing a claimed citation of deaths he was responsible for, into an offhand, well “they” lobbied against something decades ago… that is your contribution. If it was not intended to be part of that conversation why offer the comment in the discussion? Just free association of bad things about the healthcare insurance industry through history?
You keep implying that this homicide arose in a vacuum. It didn’t. Things the industry lobbied against decades ago were a contributory factor, like it or not.
You want to ignore this. I don’t. It doesn’t mean I support the result, only that I acknowledge it is part of the problem we face today.
I strongly disagree. This murder was not a response to frustration over denials. My take is this is a man who had been functional and who psychiatrically broke after he developed chronic pain which was briefly improved after major surgery only to recur possibly worse, and who the became delusional, idealizing the Unabomber, and glomming onto healthcare as that what was in his recent experience.
His psychosis was not the result of insurance lobbying. His pain was not the result of insurance companies. His finding the Unabomber manifesto to read was not because of Thompson.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said in your post.
However, you’ve repeatedly implied that I and others support his actions because we recognize that some people support Thompson’s killing by making the leap you describe. That’s where you’re getting it wrong. Just because we see the nexus of these events doesn’t mean we support them. And we aren’t going to fix it by ignoring this fact.
That is not what Me and many others are saying, the point is like this: a long time ago, the ferry lobbies opposed the making of a bridge in San Francisco Bay. They succeeded for a while, but after some deadly ferry disasters, government was convinced to change and then the Golden Gate bridge did go up.
Now, would it be silly to point out that nowadays there are no ferry disasters in that part of San Francisco Bay? Would it be silly to point out that the bridge also did leave a lasting legacy that continues to enrich the lives of those who live, work, and visit the area? (This metaphor applies directly to this too, investments from other countries in the US are limited in part by the high cost of healthcare), quality of life and many other advantages besides getting more people to live longer.
The straw man points are just geared to ignore the change that is needed; and really, just dismissing research that points at how deadly is the status quo is underwhelming, when one considers other research that points to similar results.
Yes we diverge there. I personally see the the justification of that public reaction here more based on frustration with the history and limits of healthcare reforms and the problems of our system. The biggest cohort cheering the murder or at least feeling it was at least somewhat justified is the young adult one though, the same group that shifted significantly Trumpward. I don’t think their support of the murder has much to do with healthcare at all. Many of them are not using healthcare at all. It is the broader anger in our society. The same anger that has people killing for less and less. The same that has Trump supporters cheering having targets on liberals.
The intellectualist explaining it as a result of lobbying decades ago, or anger at excess deaths compared to true universal coverage, or a rallying cry for single payer? Yes I disagree that those are the cause of either this murder or the support the murderer is seeing to any substantial degree. It’s just diffuse anger and seeing murder as a more normal or at least unremarkable reaction to getting upset.
Not healthcare, or even insurance per se, but the average person is, I think, getting fed up with corporate culture elitism in general. The reaction is broader than just this one issue.
It is one of the factors that, ironically, facilitated the rise of Individual-ONE as a major player. His supporters see him as a maverick poised to upend the elitist culture. And the Democrats have done nothing to mitigate the problems associated with elitism, so they are easy targets for the dissatisfied.
When a culture trends toward oligarchy, using rule of law to enforce the oligarchs’ will, anarchy looks like the only alternative. The elites themselves drive their own downfall, and cannot seem to help it. The cycle has been observed throughout history, and so far no one has found a practical way to break out of it.
Not quite the point that is made. Again, these are corporations that use money to gain access to power, so there is no talk about change. This an ongoing thing that has not stopped. And this is not saying it is the cause of this particular murder, it is a factor. A factor that would not be there if change was allowed to take place.
