You’ll have to forgive me for not feeling sympathy when he oversaw UHC denying claims ten times more often than other insurers. How many families do you think experienced their own worst nightmares as a result of his actions?
He has teenage sons who are today experiencing the absolute worst nightmare of their lives. He has a family that will be shattered by this. This isn’t some game or a movie where the bad guys just lost. This is real life.
Sounds like what’s probably happening within dozens of families every day for people who have died because they were denied life saving coverage by UHC.
Being glad a bad person is gone isn’t being violent. This man chose to take part in what is widely known to be a predatory and sometimes lethal system that can literally place people into poverty. And he chose to take part in an integral way near the top of that structure. He helped perpetuate it from the top.
These are not good people.
The gunman was violent. Anyone that’s glad or indifferent is not.
It’s an interesting moral case. The current economic system rewards sociopathic wealth hoarding. How can we fight that? Is he an enemy combatant in the class war? I literally don’t know.
You think the successor will change shit? This has to be changed politically, not just to hope you have a keen CEO; If you don’t deliver financially shareholders will just replace you
Someone up thread brought up that someone in a position such as a health care CEO can cause a tremendous amount more of suffering than death row inmates might have caused. That is an interesting point.
It has also crossed my mind that if, once a week, the richest person on the planet were killed, eventually fear would outweigh greed, and remaining folks of extraordinary means would be likely to be pushed toward justice.
And yet…
I am not a killer. I live in a country where I don’t want to see the kind of assassinations I read about abroad. I want the rule of law to prevail. I’m cognizant that if a movement took off where powerful, “evil” people were killed, there would probably be an opposite reaction that could lead to snowballing violence.
Overall, this is a complex subject. Reasonable arguments can be made and supported by various ethical frameworks. I imagine good people are likely to experience cognitive dissonance when reading this news.
tl;dr murder bad, fairness & widespread prosperity good
also
We still have egalitarian-minded Americans with disposable income and free time who have not yet devoted those resources to agitating for change. I would imagine this factor, of potential opportunities not yet exhausted, diminishes the power of arguments for the righteousness of extrajudicial processes. (Most every night after work I choose to NOT devote my time to activism.) In contrast, if no free personhours remained not occupied by labor, sleep, or activism, I imagine vigilante behavior would be easier to defend in a debate.
The other post had it just as bad if not worse before it was removed entirely.
I tried to bring up the point that a system where we kill CEOs because we don’t like their business practices isn’t going to fix anything and the downvotes immediately poured in.
Either this is just the way that a lot of people on Lemmy think, or there’s some concerted effort/psyop trying to stir discontent among the users here.
For a bit there I was doubting if I even wanted to be associated with Lemmy anymore, but at least it looks like the mods have been cleaning up the worst comments.
deleted by creator
You’ll have to forgive me for not feeling sympathy when he oversaw UHC denying claims ten times more often than other insurers. How many families do you think experienced their own worst nightmares as a result of his actions?
Removed by mod
Sounds like what’s probably happening within dozens of families every day for people who have died because they were denied life saving coverage by UHC.
Being glad a bad person is gone isn’t being violent. This man chose to take part in what is widely known to be a predatory and sometimes lethal system that can literally place people into poverty. And he chose to take part in an integral way near the top of that structure. He helped perpetuate it from the top.
These are not good people.
The gunman was violent. Anyone that’s glad or indifferent is not.
Poor teen boys, what are they going to do without their evil oligarch father! :(
I wonder if he had life insurance, and whether it will pay out.
Policy doesn’t cover bullets as a cause of death. DENIED.
Removed by mod
Yeah, give the good guys guns so they can defend themselves from the bad guys with guns. This is literally your argument
It’s an interesting moral case. The current economic system rewards sociopathic wealth hoarding. How can we fight that? Is he an enemy combatant in the class war? I literally don’t know.
not really, sins of the father is a concept older than the bible
Removed by mod
You think the successor will change shit? This has to be changed politically, not just to hope you have a keen CEO; If you don’t deliver financially shareholders will just replace you
This is real life where a badguy just lost
How can you describe UnitedHealthCare’s practices as anything other than bloodlust? They fired the first shot in this war.
Someone up thread brought up that someone in a position such as a health care CEO can cause a tremendous amount more of suffering than death row inmates might have caused. That is an interesting point.
It has also crossed my mind that if, once a week, the richest person on the planet were killed, eventually fear would outweigh greed, and remaining folks of extraordinary means would be likely to be pushed toward justice.
And yet…
I am not a killer. I live in a country where I don’t want to see the kind of assassinations I read about abroad. I want the rule of law to prevail. I’m cognizant that if a movement took off where powerful, “evil” people were killed, there would probably be an opposite reaction that could lead to snowballing violence.
Overall, this is a complex subject. Reasonable arguments can be made and supported by various ethical frameworks. I imagine good people are likely to experience cognitive dissonance when reading this news.
tl;dr murder bad, fairness & widespread prosperity good
also
We still have egalitarian-minded Americans with disposable income and free time who have not yet devoted those resources to agitating for change. I would imagine this factor, of potential opportunities not yet exhausted, diminishes the power of arguments for the righteousness of extrajudicial processes. (Most every night after work I choose to NOT devote my time to activism.) In contrast, if no free personhours remained not occupied by labor, sleep, or activism, I imagine vigilante behavior would be easier to defend in a debate.
only reason he’s in the news is cause he’s rich
Removed by mod
The other post had it just as bad if not worse before it was removed entirely.
I tried to bring up the point that a system where we kill CEOs because we don’t like their business practices isn’t going to fix anything and the downvotes immediately poured in.
Either this is just the way that a lot of people on Lemmy think, or there’s some concerted effort/psyop trying to stir discontent among the users here.
For a bit there I was doubting if I even wanted to be associated with Lemmy anymore, but at least it looks like the mods have been cleaning up the worst comments.