Torrent of Hate for Health Insurance Industry Follows CEO's Killing

Post by justinclift » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 2:08 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #146

vundercind wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally everyone I know IRL was like, “nice. More please.” I was actually surprised and heartened to see the initial HN thread, even, was overwhelmingly supportive. This is top of my list for conversation topics to steer things toward when I’m around Republican relatives, so we’ll have something we can agree on. Law-abiding doesn’t mean much when you can kill lots of people for money and remain within the bounds of…

More please of what? Vigilante murders?

Post by tptacek » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 2:15 AM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #160

tptacek wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why are we putting jerseys on and taking the field against the insurers when virtually all of the actual money is going to providers? We could zero out all insurance costs, putting insurers into literal de jure indentured servitude, and get nothing more than a grocery store circular coupon discount on health costs, because insurers are not in fact where the costs are.

The entire health care system is broken but insurance companies tend to be the pain people experience so that's what people lash out at. But you don't expect someone dying from losing health care to shut up until they come up with rational cost management system? The point isn't that the average person needs to how to portion blame but that the health care system needs to stop treating people in the fashion it does.

Post by tptacek » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 2:16 AM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #161

s1artibartfast wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More please of what? Vigilante murders?

Compared to CEO's directing their companies to legally murder people ("law abiding citizens") instead?

Post by cocacola1 » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 2:19 AM UTC

gerdesj wrote: post #53

maybelsyrup wrote: post #22

> But that did not stop social media commenters from leaping to conclusions and from showing a blatant lack of sympathy over the death of a man who was a husband and father of two children . The journalists' tone and choice of words here, which I've italicized, isn't helping the overall feeling many Americans have of "the people running the show have active and unceasing contempt for us", which of course is what's dr…

I'm terribly sorry, but all of your italicized fragments, taken in isolation, do paint a stark picture of the murder of a person. You might have beef (or whatever you call it these days) with his job and industry but in the end a man was murdered. You may not like and "hate" seems appropriate to describe how you feel about a legitimate industry in the USA. Your issue is with a deeply embedded part of the US experienc…

Post by s1artibartfast » Fri, Dec 06, 2024, 2:22 AM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #158

s1artibartfast wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and mobbing often leads to mass deaths and people worse off than the state before. I dont think this is the straw that breaks the camel's back or anything. It just seems like one more incremental step in the wrong direction. Maybe I'm sensitive because I have been reading about the french revolution, and how mob rule lead to mass murder which left everyone worse off.

> mob rule lead to mass murder which left everyone worse off. From your point of view was the "everyone left worse off" a short term thing, or did it eventually come good for most, or something else?