So? That does not make the policymakers, who are controlling their system’s capacity, more moral than the late Mr. Thompson.
Web search shows there are 13.0 vascular surgeons per million population in the U.S., and less than half that (5.8) in Canada. It has been shown many times that surgeon supply creates demand. Unless you believe that Canada does less than half the essential vascular procedures, which I doubt, the U.S. needs to limit unwise procedures another way. The decision as to how many are admitted to residency programs sets a limit on how many procedures can be done in Canada.
I’m not saying the U.S. system is the best way to limit care. The Canadian system may be better! I’m just saying – don’t blame the inevitable gatekeepers.
@wolfpup and @PhillyGuy, you are getting really off topic. @PhillyGuy, this is a recurring issue with you. I’m tired of writing mod notes about it. Stay on topic. Next time you hijack, even if you’re not the only one doing it, expect an official Warning.
@ParallelLines tried to gently steer those discussing the merits of the US health care system to a more appropriate thread. I would heed his suggestion, if I were among you.
Whether one agrees with or not, I disagree with the article’s claim that “the logic is indefensible”. Of course the logic is defensible, “kill the person who is harming and killing other people” is an obviously defensible position to take for anyone not a complete pacifist. One can certainly argue that it’s a bad tactic, but that’s not the same thing.
It’s hard to take that assertion seriously give how it’s such an obvious class privilege argument. “It’s OK when the rich guy kills people wholesale, but not when a commoner kills them”
If the “elite” want to argue that killing is wrong, maybe they should practice what they preach.
Well that’s accurate, but my eyes tend to breeze over establishment media circle-wagoning, and pious intoning. Mainstream reporters don’t want to go there for good reason: they don’t want to blamed for fanning subsequent violence. We’re here to fight ignorance though, so carry on. I’ll add a QFT:
Still, one must consider “the market”. United Healthcare is a publicly traded stock, which means it is almost certainly included in the portfolios of numerous mutual funds; mutual funds support pension/retirement plans; hence, the profitability of UNH is, to some extent, tied to the well-being of millions of retired people. While the company has been fucking over people with health problems, their profitability has been contributing to the survival of a lot of people.
Yes, it is a problematic argument, but it is the reality of living in a “capitalist” system. There is a great deal of skimming going on before the revenue actually gets to the people who use it to live on, but everything is still tied to everything else. The company no doubt has caused a lot of suffering, but they have also (indirectly) helped other people get by.
Just like how organized crime supports the community by providing income to young men and their families. Sure, some kneecaps get broken from time to time, but that thug’s children benefit from his income.
Or, more accurately,
While the company has been fucking over people with health problems, their profitability has been from fucking over people with health problems.
It’s worse at doing that than the alternatives, it’s the equivalent of shooting three people, throwing a dollar to the fourth and claiming you’re the good guy because somebody else would shoot all four.
Historically, the problem with shooting people is that it’s mostly been the wrong people getting shot. Extremists shooting conciliationists (word?) like Abraham Lincoln and Franz Ferdinand. Now, if Kerensky had shot Lenin, Sun Yat-sen had shot Yuan Shikai, or Henry Tandey had shot Hitler, we might have gotten somewhere as a species.
Perhaps we are not as mathematically adept as Mr. Pump and thus can’t pin it down to three decimal paces, but we can make reasonably accurate estimates based on publicly known information about coverage denial rates, etc.
If it could be shown that the CEO implemented/demanded a policy of looking for ways to decline coverage that was in fact medically appropriate and covered by policies, and did so without breaking the law (thus, no judicial recourse), would that change anyone’s opinion of whether or not this was righteous?
Wealth distribution is much more skewed than income distribution. This article provides a superficial treatment of the subject:
The top 10% of Americans held 93% of all stocks, the highest level ever recorded.>
Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of Americans held just 1% of all stocks in the third quarter of 2023.
Though honestly, even if all of UHC was owned by retirement funds, I’d be dubious about your qualification. UHC appears to be the worst major player in the health insurance industry, one which has more than its share of bad actors. I seriously doubt whether the harm and suffering they cause is commiserate with the enhanced dividends they pay to their shareholders.
Is it a good thing - hypothetically - if those corporate actors who are the very worst, most rapacious, and immune in practice from criminal sanction are unable to saunter around in downtown Manhattan in bright blue business suits without fear of attack? Well, that scenario has its pluses and minuses. When Pinochet was arrested in Spain, it was noted that circumscribing the international movement of former dictators might send a helpful signal relating to what you can and cannot do with impunity.
The problem here is that irregular assassins are not the best or most accurate upholders of social norms, speaking generally. Though I can’t fault this particular guy’s choice of targets. I solemnly abhor his methods of course: he should have written to his congressional representative.
What should law enforcement do? I support them pulling out the stops on this case, notwithstanding my earlier comments. The rule of law is worth defending both in the abstract and because of the very real consequences suffered in its absence. This was a brazen attack that needs to be punished.
For the same reason that this murder has spawned at least three very active discussions on this board and created ongoing international headlines: this is a major news event that raises important questions in many different areas, and therefore has an extremely high public profile, which in turn places tremendous pressure on the NYPD and the FBI. It has nothing to do with the man’s skin colour or how much money he had.
He’s not just male, white and rich, he’s important too!
This whole thread reminds me of the character of Gilbert Huph, Bob Parr’s supervisor at Insuricare from The Incredibles:
I don’t wanna know about their coverage, Bob! Don’t tell me
about their coverage. Tell me how you’re keeping Insuricare in the black. Tell
me how that’s possible, with you writing checks to every Harry Hardluck and
Sally Sobstory that gives you a phone call.
This loathsome toad finally gets thrown through a wall when Mr. Incredible can’t take it anymore.
I am curious. What do you think a sternly worded letter to a member of Congress would have accomplished?
Due to recent political events, a lot of us have lost faith in the rule of law. It’s a great concept, but so far as I can tell the rule of law protects the powerful and just hammers the rest of us when we get out of line. I wish it weren’t so, but I’ve grown cynical these last few years.
A meme depicting a picture of a pensive Elon Musk: ‘When you spent billions and destroyed your brand to recreate 1930’s Germany and got 1780’s France instead.’
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time." -Frank Wilhoit (the composer, not the better known political scientist!), 2018 Link cite: The travesty of liberalism — Crooked Timber
FYI: Snopes got a report that the UHC website posted a job opening for their CEO. The story is false. (And wouldn’t a job like that usually be an internal promotion anyway?)
I had a visit with my oncologist today, and the NP agreed with me that UHC is one of the worst insurers out there.
