UnitedHealth CEO shot (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

In the case of France, it took about 100 years after the French Revolution broke out to really get a republican-style system of government (Third Republic) the original revolutionaries wanted. I don't think you and others would have wanted to live through Robespierre's Reign of Terror where thousands of killed sometimes for "looking like a criminal" i.e. thought-crimes, "counter-revolutionaries", drowned in mass barges, mass shootings in front of adoring, cheering crowds, guillotining innocent French men, women and children and then allowing an enlightened depsot to take power who was territorially aggressive who set France at war with all of Europe for the next 25 years.

A lot of unnecessary dead bodies had to pile up to reach a more democratic France. You mention the 13th Amendment here in the U.S, well it took a century and several landmark SCOTUS cases along with a twenty year legal, political and sometimes police actions to force many Deep South states to end state-enforced segregation laws in schools, hospitals, private and public employment/institutions. Their were countless threats, bombings, public and private attacks on civil rights activists, organizations outside of bus stations, supermarkets, homes, businesses that made the process of desegregation/integration harder.

In the case of apartheid South Africa: yes, Apartheid is gone but SA still remains a deeply flawed, corrupt, extremely violent country and society in some respects and although Nelson Mandela was a great leader, many of his ANC heirs have not shown his same honesty, candidness, openness, and drive for a truly more racially-equal and just South Africa. Are they better then post-colonial Zimbabwe, Angola, or Mozambique? Sure, but those aren't exactly high bars of excellence to surpass.

And sometimes, you don't get a more democratic nation? You get the IRA/Sinn Fein, Red Guards, Belder-Meinhof Gang in West Germany from the late 60's-80's bombing, killing U.S. troops, kidnapping West German businessman and then killing them because they hate consumerism too much or _____ murdered person's parents were Nazis or former Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS soldiers.

I’m pretty sure you’re not advocating to keep slavery or apartheid or whatever monarchy/oligarchy is in place
So either your saying that the revolution needs to be more thorough- a ‘roots and all’ approach
Or
You’re saying that the Revolution needs to happen much earlier so the toxicity doesn’t spread faster than it can be pruned

Maybe you’re framing it as a trolley problem- pull the lever and send the train over these 5 CEOs or do nothing and let millions upon millions die

 

[B4YOU]

Kaiser is a non-profit, pro-Union service provider. UHC made 22B in profit last year. I have Kaiser. It's the cheapest HMO option and I've received zero pushback on seeing specialists.

 

[Saintman2884]

I’m pretty sure you’re not advocating to keep slavery or apartheid or whatever monarchy/oligarchy is in place
So either your saying that the revolution needs to be more thorough- a ‘roots and all’ approach
Or
You’re saying that the Revolution needs to happen much earlier so the toxicity doesn’t spread faster than it can be pruned

Maybe you’re framing it as a trolley problem- pull the lever and send the train over these 5 CEOs or do nothing and let millions upon millions die

I'm saying those revolutions you mentioned killed, murdered a lot of unnecessary people who didnt commit a crime and even if their ideals ended up working, that was also two hundred years later and who pays or has to answer that forking bloody bill where more good, innocent people die to realize this happier world and trust me, in the end, we will have to forking pay for it.

I'm also saying that the trolley problem will end up killing hundreds of thousands, in not millions more then just a bunch of dead CEO's and sometimes a worser system comes along that devours people like you along with it. You talk about it in the abstract like it doesn't mean anything or can't imagine your ideals being corrupted by somebody else, but it often has and likely would corrupt yours. It never ends or stops with just the people you hate or oppose once you're on top making decisions. If one isn't sober or honest enough to admit that, then nothing I can say will make them understand what I'm trying to say.

Their also was no revolution that ended Apartheid, no forceful military response, it was done at the ballot box that voted out De Klerk and elected Mandela's as SA's first multiracial president. Their was obviously a lot of tension, pre-vote, but at least South Africa didnt end up like some corrupt, broken regime like Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Mozambique. A regime that was more oppressive, violent, and corrupt then the one that preceded it. And while slavery was abolished after a million or so Americans died during the Civil War, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed and enacted through a democratic process.

Sometimes, democracy is slow and it isn't always perfect but meaningful reform and a more peaceful approach works better then piles of bodies and unrealized, distorted versions of utopian ideals take shape. I would mention HIS NAME, but that would be too easy and while its historically relevant, you're tired of hearing about his name or his former regime.

 

[Saintman2884]

I’m pretty sure you’re not advocating to keep slavery or apartheid or whatever monarchy/oligarchy is in place
So either your saying that the revolution needs to be more thorough- a ‘roots and all’ approach
Or
You’re saying that the Revolution needs to happen much earlier so the toxicity doesn’t spread faster than it can be pruned

Maybe you’re framing it as a trolley problem- pull the lever and send the train over these 5 CEOs or do nothing and let millions upon millions die

BTW, you mentioned France earlier: how are they doing right now? They just passed a no-confidence measure which means their political system is in a bit of free-fall where the moderates are being pushed aside by the left-wing and the far-right Fronte Nacional party led by the daughter of a notorious Nazi sympathizer/collaborator Marie Le Pen who very nearly won the French presidential elections last year (first round in fact). Because French politics is usually so chaotic and divided, that means either Le Pen or a coalition of left-wing parties are going to replace Macron since a majority of the French populace believes the moderates can't get the job done.

Marie Le Pen isn't like her hated father, she's more charismatic, comes across as more reasonable, sociable, not as openly radical or dangerous or immediately as fringe as her father did but if she were elected, she would cause more then solve a lot of France's problems, Guido. 25-30 years ago, Fronte National was just some fringe, far-right anti-immigrant party, now its one of France's biggest political parties or factions.

Same thing with AfD in eastern Germany, their the largest political party in the former GDR Germany, how long before that spreads to southern or western parts of Germany?

Indeed, Bernie probably was right in what he said about a month ago, although 20-25 years ago how could he have imagined it would be his ideas they hijacked or co-opted?

 

[Vega$$aint]

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I'm saying those revolutions you mentioned killed, murdered a lot of unnecessary people who didnt commit a crime and even if their ideals ended up working, that was also two hundred years later and who pays or has to answer that forking bloody bill where more good, innocent people die to realize this happier world and trust me, in the end, we will have to forking pay for it.

I'm also saying that the trolley problem will end up killing hundreds of thousands, in not millions more then just a bunch of dead CEO's and sometimes a worser system comes along that devours people like you along with it. You talk about it in the abstract like it doesn't mean anything or can't imagine your ideals being corrupted by somebody else, but it often has and likely would corrupt yours. It never ends or stops with just the people you hate or oppose once you're on top making decisions. If one isn't sober or honest enough to admit that, then nothing I can say will make them understand what I'm trying to say.

Their also was no revolution that ended Apartheid, no forceful military response, it was done at the ballot box that voted out De Klerk and elected Mandela's as SA's first multiracial president. Their was obviously a lot of tension, pre-vote, but at least South Africa didnt end up like some corrupt, broken regime like Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Mozambique. A regime that was more oppressive, violent, and corrupt then the one that preceded it. And while slavery was abolished after a million or so Americans died during the Civil War, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were passed and enacted through a democratic process.

Sometimes, democracy is slow and it isn't always perfect but meaningful reform and a more peaceful approach works better then piles of bodies and unrealized, distorted versions of utopian ideals take shape. I would mention HIS NAME, but that would be too easy and while its historically relevant, you're tired of hearing about his name or his former regime.

I assume you mean Stalin and not Jesus
KIDDING
But using Rumsfeld’s Known Knowns quadrant

A: Kill 5 CEOs and hopefully democracy is restored
B: Kill 5 CEOs and something just as bad takes over
C: Don’t kill CEOs and hope for democracy in 100 years
D: Don’t kill CEOs and get worse and worse oligarchy leading almost certainly to a way bloodier revolution

Since the US already has the democratic structure in place (vs the other worse case scenarios you offered)
A seems the most logical

 

[Saintman2884]

I assume you mean Stalin and not Jesus
KIDDING
But using Rumsfeld’s Known Knowns quadrant

A: Kill 5 CEOs and hopefully democracy is restored
B: Kill 5 CEOs and something just as bad takes over
C: Don’t kill CEOs and hope for democracy in 100 years
D: Don’t kill CEOs and get worse and worse oligarchy leading almost certainly to a way bloodier revolution

Since the US already has the democratic structure in place (vs the other worse case scenarios you offered)
A seems the most logical

I think Options A and B are probably the most logical, except I would imprison or ban the damned CEO's from ever doing business in medical industry again instead of kill. I realize you and others might disapprove, but we're not some medieval Islamic theocratic regime like Iran or Afghanistan, I'd like to think we're a little more civilized then them.

Option A seems more like an ideal way to solve it, while Option B seems more realistic as a solution although I would argue Options C or D are also realistic because while guys like Brian Thompson might get convicted or worse, you might be able to convict some of the lower-hanging mid-tier executives, the more obscure, powerful types are harder to put handcuffs on. You have to have a relentless, bulldog SOB prosecutor or AG who isn't afraid to step on toes like Robert Mueller to get convictions on these high-level criminals and sometimes, even they can be out-lasted or out-flanked.

I don't say that because I want to but lets face it, Guido, we have way too many hotheads in our society right now

 

[Mojomajik9]

You’re all going to look pretty silly when it turns out he was murdered not because of healthcare but because he was having an affair with another rich guy’s wife or involved in very shady business deals.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

You’re all going to look pretty silly when it turns out he was murdered not because of healthcare but because he was having an affair with another rich guy’s wife or involved in very shady business deals.

Keep it ambiguous- make both marital cheaters and corrupt CEOs look over their shoulders and anticipate bad consequences for their actions

 

[El Caliente]

Keep it ambiguous- make both marital cheaters and corrupt CEOs look over their shoulders and anticipate bad consequences for their actions

I’m just glad that light is being shed on how bad faith health insurance is.

LET THE REVOLUTION COMMENCE!

 

[NewOrleansFan]

How many people this guy indirectly killed? Tens, hundreds, thousands?
Bye..Felicia.

 

[Eeyore]

All that I see is pavement

 

[Sun Wukong]

You’re all going to look pretty silly when it turns out he was murdered not because of healthcare but because he was having an affair with another rich guy’s wife or involved in very shady business deals.

Rich people don't get murdered for those things.

But also, like I said earlier in the thread, his wife confirmed he had been specifically threatened multiple times and that her understanding of it was that it was something to do with denial of coverage.

There's no real mystery here aside from who the guy is.

 

[J-Donk]

Rich people don't get murdered for those things.

But also, like I said earlier in the thread, his wife confirmed he had been specifically threatened multiple times and that her understanding of it was that it was something to do with denial of coverage.

There's no real mystery here aside from who the guy is.

I don't understand the peril clutching in this thread.

This was psychopath on psychopath crime.

One kind, guns down a guy in the middle of a major American city. The other kills thousands to make a bigger bonus.

Who cares about any of these dudes.

 

[faceman]

Yeah, this guy was a piece of work

UnitedHealthcare CEO kept a low public profile. Then he was shot to death in New York

Brian Thompson led one of the biggest health insurers in the US but was unknown to millions of people his decisions affected.

apnews.com

Thompson also drew attention in 2021 when the insurer, like its competitors, was widely criticized for a plan to start denying payment for what it deemed non-critical visits to hospital emergency rooms.

“Patients are not medical experts and should not be expected to self-diagnose during what they believe is a medical emergency,” the chief executive of the American Hospital Association wrote in an open letter addressed to Thompson. “Threatening patients with a financial penalty for making the wrong decision could have a chilling effect on seeking emergency care.”

United Healthcare responded by delaying rollout of the change.