Out of 169
Out of 169
197 comments
-
Not a fantasy, it happens all the time.
Source?
As for how much they "paid out" is irrelevant.
Huh? It's extremely relevant... The claim is that people are paying their premiums and then having their claims denied while the insurance company pockets the difference...
And all of that is cute, but you've still failed to map your comparison to murder with a gun to prove that it was morally justified to murder Brian Thompson. Are you gonna get to that part ever?
-
Profit (or loss) is the difference between the total revenues of a business and the total costs of a business. And although this is a somewhat simplified view of the facts, the profit in this scenario is directly representative of the amount of money people paid into premiums that was pocketed by the healthcare corporation rather than being paid out in medical coverage.
It is impossible to be objective when it comes to ethical dilemmas (an inherently subjective matter), but let me leave you with a couple questions: How bad does a person’s actions have to be to deserve death? How many people do they have to let die for personal (or corporate) gains?
The blame for the numerous unnecessary deaths United Healthcare played a part in can obviously not be ascribed to one person, but Brian Thompson was at least complicit in all of those deaths. He was the one with a lot of the decision-making power in all of those individual situations, and chose to strengthen a system that causes so much suffering when we have plenty of examples of a better way to handle these problems.
-
And although this is a somewhat simplified view of the facts, the profit in this scenario is directly representative of the amount of money people paid into premiums that was pocketed by the healthcare corporation rather than being paid out in medical coverage.
I'll give you a hint, they paid out 80% of what they took in. Whether that's 1B or 16B, they paid out 80% of that.
How bad does a person’s actions have to be to deserve death? How many people do they have to let die for personal (or corporate) gains?
Certainly worse than "participation in a system that profits from people paying for healthcare". I'm asking you to provide a morally sound justification for this specific murder.
but Brian Thompson was at least complicit in all of those deaths
So was the desk worker in accounting. Are you saying it's good to murder them too?
-
80% paid out means 20% stolen.
So was the desk worker… Do they have the ability to make executive decisions for united healthcare? I think not.
-
80% paid out means 20% stolen.
I'm curious how you think a "free" healthcare system somehow operates without a budget...
Do they have the ability to make executive decisions for united healthcare? I think not.
They can't refuse to carry out work that contributes to these unjust acts? Shouldn't it be their duty to commit fraud against the company in favour of the client?
-
I think you may have missed the point, there are obviously costs associated with managing money (e.g. reasonable employee salaries), but “profit” should not come into play. As profit in this scenario is directly related to premiums paid to the provider that were not used to provide healthcare — the service those premiums were paid for.
That is a flaw in all “for profit” healthcare providers; however, policies enacted by Brian Thompson in particular as the Chief Executive Officer of United Healthcare made it one of the worst offenders.
Ethics are a very subjective measure, and I am not some kind of god that can say exactly what moral consequences resulted from the death of Brian Thompson, but the case for a justified murder here is very good under almost any philosophy most ascribe to.
As for your accountant, it may be possible to ascribe some of the blame of some deaths to them, but more likely than not, they are just a person trying to make it through the day at work, following orders from higher up. That obviously does not completely excuse them from their duties to their fellow man, but from what we know or can guess about this hypothetical person, they were not the ones making the decision to make the system actively worse for a majority of the people that they served. Brian Thompson did make those decisions, and from my point of view, got what he deserved.
-
So the CTO and CDO -- you'd like them to be murdered yeah? Since they would have been in charge of the infamous AI.
Who else in the C-suite would you like to be murdered?
What about presidents? VPs? Directors? Maybe just a light stabbing?
-
Punishment for abuse of power should be proportional to the power abused, these people had influence, but not as much as the CEO. Murder, or more aptly “assassination” is not something that should be taken lightly.
Does no one deserve death in your view? Or do only those that kill violently deserve death?
How bad does a leader have to be considered violent in your eyes? Would they have to command an army to kill innocent lives? Or do you think they would have to wield a gun themselves?
-
So the CTO and CDO? Murder, or no?
-
I don’t know much about them, and I am not for meaningless murder, so I would not support their deaths. I believe that you have missed a few questions of my own in your response, however.
Do you believe there are circumstances where someone can deserve death? And if so, what are those circumstances?
-
I don’t know much about them, and I am not for meaningless murder, so I would not support their deaths.
And you knew more about Brian Thompson before he was murdered? I don't buy it.
I believe that you have missed a few questions of my own in your response, however.
Didn't miss them, just not moving on from mine first.
Do you believe there are circumstances where someone can deserve death?
Of course.
And if so, what are those circumstances?
Not sure it's possible to give an exhaustive list. One example would be that someone has a gun pointed at me with clear intent to kill me. I would be justified in killing them before they can pull the trigger.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
197 comments