I actually doubt anyone has ever confused a drug deal with a serial killing by mistake.
But whatever, maybe you think I’m arguing every decision and action must be perfect or otherwise nothing can ever be attempted. I’m not.
That’s an interesting assumption. What are you basing it on?
There’s an interesting political-intellectual divide I’m seeing a lot these days, where a lot of people seems to think the real world and its problems are a lot simpler than they actually are. Thus Pedro can’t understand why we’re all so appalled by his example, and (at the other extreme), Luigi can’t understand why shooting CEOs is not going to solve our healthcare problems.
{I realize that assumes he was trying to solve a problem rather than exacting venegeance or just crazy or some other motive, but certainly some of his supporters are expressing this sort of overly simple worldview.}
I think it many cases it’s not a belief that killing him is a good solution, or even a solution; just it’s the only “solution” that can even be attempted. Reform clearly simply won’t be allowed.
I’m sympathetic to that point of view, because I believe it’s true-ish: reform isn’t going to happen in our system. It’s just that murdering the villains isn’t going to result in fewer villains, as there’s an infinite pool of people who will make decisions in favor of money while conveniently ignoring the people who are ultimately paying for it.
But that’s the point about complex systems: merely considering financial implications will NEVER solve the healthcare woes, because finances are only a part of the picture. How healthy do we want people to be, and why? What is the point where we should deny care to people, and why? Those are the questions that don’t seem to be articulated.
I think the unarticulated answers are “they should be just healthy enough to work, and no more; if treatment is unlikely to result in a contribution to the economy, then we should deny them care.”
Only for the moderates; for the rest it’s “Whatever maximizes suffering and death”.
In the first place, that’s an incredibly naive take on the real-life impacts of gang violence. As puzzlegal pointed out, “gangbangers who wish to harm other gangbangers” are also responsible for a lot of deaths of nearby children and other non-gang members who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Even without taking into account the fact that since drug dealing isn’t actually a capital crime, we should not condone or ignore the murder of drug dealers.)
In the second place, I don’t know why you have this mistaken obsession with the idea that responsibly investigating the murders of both child sexual assault victims and drug-dealing gang members is somehow sending the message that the latter has as much social “worth” as the former. That’s completely irrational.
We can support the principle of equality before the law by taking all murder investigations seriously, without thereby advocating for the position that a criminal drug-dealing gang member is just as socially valuable or admirable as the more law-abiding members of society. You seem to have this notion that it’s somehow “coddling criminals” to recognize even the most basic human rights of criminals, such as equal protection under the law. That’s nonsense.
Yes, one of the reasons that “criminal drug-dealing gang members” are a problem is that they tend to make the neighborhood dangerous for a lot of innocent people. Like Sally. It’s important to investigate and prosecute those crimes not because our drug dealer is a valuable member of society, but because Sally is, and she should be able to live in peace
Well, they do lose their meal ticket, Now sure if they were even halfway careful, they should have enough socked away that standing in the Unemployment line is not a thing, but those people LOOOOVE money and less coming in is bad.
This is why many crimes come with added “special circumstances”. But those should be a matter of law, not one persons opinion. However of course the Chief of detectives or whoever has limited manpower, and they want cases closed, so unproductive cases are often dropped as 'cold cases".
That article does not seem to imply that. It blames more the replacement CEO, not the dead one.
One reason the police spend less time on such crimes is the "snitches get stitches’ meme- few if any witnesses will come forward, leaving the cops with not much in the way of a case.
More likely they just get handed the CEO position at another company and keep doing whatever they were doing.
Yeah, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows the “new” CEO wasn’t in there long enough to run the company into the ground. Must be why Wall Street reacted positively to his firing.
I will accept that as a definite possibility, but still the cite didnt imply it.
The CEO who just resigned, Andrew Witty, wasn’t new and wasn’t the replacement for the dead guy, Brian Thompson.
Witty has been the CEO of United HealthGroup, the overall holding company, since 2021.
Thompson was the CEO of UnitedHealth, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.
Witty was the public face of the company in the days following the killing. My recollection is he said some remarkably tone-deaf things.
Witt spoke in a leaked video that was supposed to reassure the employees. Two comments he made stuck out for me:
”… we guard against the pressures that exist for unsafe or unnecessary care to be delivered “
He went on to encourage employees to “tune out” criticism of the insurance company adding it “does not reflect reality.”
And another UnitedHealth story: reportedly, they paid nursing homes to reduce transfers of sick residents to hospitals.