Most Americans blame insurance profits and denials alongside the killer in UHC CEO death, poll finds
Most Americans blame insurance profits and denials alongside the killer in UHC CEO death, poll finds
Most Americans believe health insurance profits and coverage denials share responsibility for the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO — although not as much as the person who pulled the trigger.
Summary
A new NORC poll reveals that most Americans blame both health insurance profits and coverage denials alongside the shooter for the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
While 8 in 10 say the shooter holds the most responsibility, 7 in 10 also attribute blame to insurer practices, reflecting widespread frustration with the U.S. healthcare system.
Younger Americans especially view the incident as stemming from systemic issues, such as wealth inequality and denial tactics.
The poll highlights ongoing public dissatisfaction with insurers and the challenges many face in obtaining coverage.
Alongside?
How about exclusively because of the profits and denials?
I suspect they constructed the survey to enable them to spin the conclusion away from that.
11% of those surveyed said the shooter carries NO RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL in the death of the CEO.
That is WILD to me. 11% to take that hard of a line? 0.0000% responsibility for the death of a guy you intentionally shot?
That's 1.2 people per jury.
Edit: my point is that it isn't the survey, it's the reporting.
Then it backfired cause it sounds like most americans feel like the killer has a point. Which is odd because very rarely americans agree on something that is correct.
and the ceos decisions in relationship to the policies that drive them. There certainly was a man present on that day that was responsible for the death but it wasn't the killer.
Alongside?
Heh. That was my thought, as well. I'm very aware of the ethical crimes committed, and who committed them.
I expect this trial will have a hot jury nullification discussion, at the very least.
Time for the people to start marching to DC like the ones before us did
MLK's era did not have CCTVs everywhere. His supporters did not carry cell phones that could be remotely activated and record video and audio. AI Facial recognition did not exist.
Misinformation that can be automated and spread faster than dissidents spreading their anti-governments rhetorics, did not exist. Government sockpupper internet accounts and astroturfing did not exist. Killer drones did not exist.
TLDR: If the monarchies of the world has access to our modern technology before the wave of revolutions started, we'd all be living in a world of absolute monarchies, with mass surveillance everywhere.
MLK’s era did not have CCTVs everywhere. His supporters did not carry cell phones that could be remotely activated and record video and audio. AI Facial recognition did not exist.
And this is a fairly generous (NPR-style whitewashed) reading of Hoover's deeply bigoted attitude towards civil rights leaders. The FBI spent much of its early existence stamping out nascent communist parties, labor movements, and civil rights organizations. To say the 1960s organizers weren't heavily surveilled or that city and state police as well as organizations like the Conservative Citizens Council and the Ford Foundation didn't work hand-in-glove with state agencies to spy and report on black civil rights activists is wildly ahistorical.
TLDR: If the monarchies of the world has access to our modern technology before the wave of revolutions started, we’d all be living in a world of absolute monarchies, with mass surveillance everywhere.
The absolute monarchies of the 18th and 19th centuries were heavily predicated on large networks of spies, public indoctrination against insurrection through the politically aligned churches, and cartels of merchant princes who dictated employment and property ownership among the working class.
Modern mass surveillance offers the ability for fewer people to police larger and potentially more restive populations. And it is undeniable that - particularly in the post-industrial world - we've seen successful mass indoctrination and suppression of division. But we also have a significantly larger professional police/military and an enormous outcropping of surveillance technology companies and contracting firms. A huge chunk of US GDP (around $1.4T/year) goes towards "national security" in the form of physical policing, military readiness, and public-sector surveillance. Another $47B goes to private security services in the US annually.
These are non-trivial sums that continue to escalate year-over-year as political and business leadership grow more paranoid and less confident of the future. Historically, empires like the Bourbon (French), Hapsburg, Solomonic, Incan, and Qing Dynasties had nowhere near the capital/labor to expend at this scale, yet managed far more exhaustive and oppressive regimes.
The modernization of individualized military capacity - the proliferation of modern firearms, the democratization of air power, the anonymous nature of mass communication and mass transit - has made policing significantly more expensive and less reliable. That's why colonial rule cracked up in the wake of WW2. That's why uprisings like the US Civil Rights Movement, the Cuban Revolution, the Indian and Vietnam Revolutions, and the mass labor revolts in Latin America were even possible after centuries of what amounted to chattel slavery.
Technology has improved our ability to find and kill singular individuals. But modern economics relies on a significantly large flow of unpoliced information and human action. Large populations, complex social patterns, and oblique methods of communication make policing harder than ever.
That's also why genocide is becoming an increasingly popular method for dealing with restive populations. Why bother trying to police German Jews or Mexican border workers or Gazan Palestinians when you can just wipe them off the face of the Earth?
Conditions are different, perhaps even more difficult, but that doesn’t make real change impossible.
Power wants us to believe it’s absolute and eternal, but it’s not. Every so often the mask of omnipotence slips to show that the people driving the train are just as lost as the rest of us.
Protesting is high-risk for the next four years. If you don’t already have a criminal background, you may be risking your employability. Learn the laws before you plan. If you’re protesting in DC for example, be sure to get a permit.
https://www.acludc.org/en/permits
The ACLU offers free, region-specific resources to help you remain within your First Amendment rights.
I don’t think marches or protests are particularly effective…
They aren't, that's why they're allowed.
Sometimes marches and protests encourage others who may be afraid to speak or act out.
Like actual protests? Or with a permit in designated protest zones out of the eyelines of those being protested aka masturbation?
The best thing for the system to protect itself is to frame this as a health insurance issue and not a unregulated capitalism issue.
That way it doesn't have to address the rampant corruption that allowed this particular industry to get to this point. Nor will it be forced to address the myriad of other industries that are just as predatory.
Owner class is not here to be making concessions.
They implemented surveillance and intelligence apparatus that are going to test here if plebs start asking for change.
Occupy never ended, this is another flair up like police brutality protests.
They are waging a class war, most of us are just in denial about it.
This article feels like a try-hard attempt by the rich to dissuade copycats.
I'm not buying it.
It feels like direct reporting of the results of a study to me. And the fact that even old people are acknowledging that inequality had a part to play is encouraging.
I appreciate the irony of the article thumbnail being a sign that says Mangione is innocent until proven guilty, while the article implies he’s the shooter several times.
(It’s kind of a fascinating study in the weaselly way that one can imply something without legal liability, if I’m honest.)
I’m not saying he’s not the shooter, but it’s very questionable how every media outlet seemingly forgot the word “alleged” exists. I can’t imagine any jury would be capable of giving him a fair trial.
He's gonna be able to fund a single payer program for the whole nation with the money he'll get from the defamation suit when he walks.
Of course it is coverage. Anyone with a brain cell would think that cause of the man getting shot is the cause of the man getting shot.
Why would anyone do this 🤡
Dear 1%
Raising the price of BBQ sauce will not stop us from eating you
Signed, The Poor
Idk, I'm just saying that things are tastier when they're expensive and I'm craving some rich pig on a stick drizzled with overpriced BBQ sauce.
Exactly! Finally someone else looked at this guy's unibrow. Last I remember it takes months to grow brow hairs.
It’s almost as if the people polled actually understand how nuance works- or at least enough to get how in a situation like this- both can be in the wrong.
It’s clear that no one from lemmy was polled.