Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hit men aren't what you think

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#101

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

someothherguyy wrote: post #50
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The shooter used a rare weapon with an integrated suppressor (or "Silencer" as the article indicates). A British made station six 9. Hilarious how bad this is. - No, it’s not the B&T. He racks it straight back, and releases to spring pressure. The Welrod/Six is twist and pull and push. It was a compact or subcompact, with either the wrong booster or no booster in a can - There is a puff of smoke per shot on the lef…

> It was a compact or subcompact, with either the wrong booster or no booster in a can Isn't this speculating as well?

It’s all speculation until we see the gun.

The point is to speculate with things that fit vs made up nonsense that is clearly untrue.

It looks like a full-size can and a subcompact to me. And I would know, because I own all those things and have used them in that configuration.

The problem I have is that anyone would PLAN on going in to a murder with no booster. Yes, it will likely work almost every time. But sometimes it won’t, and it will stovepipe, and the only way to fix it is to drop the mag out, clear, mag back in and rack.

I’m an expert, and I wouldn’t want to rely on that path.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#102

Post by nickff »

cogman10 wrote: post #99
nickff wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the lifeboat skipper picks up many people, but decides that picking up more would endanger the lifeboat itself? Asimov’s rules don’t work; that’s the whole point.

If you are to apply it the way health insurance works, the skipper is asking the drowning victims to give them all their money and then is deciding on who they rescue, mostly leaving the people far away to drown because that will have added fuel costs and they'd rather save that to go fishing on tuesday.

This analogy is already a stretch (I didn’t come up with it, was just responding to someone else), and you’re torturing it beyond reason.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#103

Post by avalys »

cdelsolar wrote: post #64
avalys wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this same logic, you are responsible for the death of every person who could have been saved by you donating all of your income beyond basic living expenses (your personal "profit", if you will) to pay for their medical care. You monster! How many people could you have saved! Instead you spend your money on vacations, television, computer games, music, movies, coffee, whatever. Oh, what's that you say? _You_ (who,…

This is a specious argument. A healthcare provider has a special responsibility because of the nature of their work. By definition, their role involves providing essential care to those in need. Their professional mission and the ethical codes guiding them (e.g., the Hippocratic Oath for physicians) emphasize patient welfare above all. An average person, while still morally capable of altruism, does not have a profes…

So you are subject to a looser standard of ethics and morality since you didn't go into healthcare, but you are entitled to demand that the people who did go into healthcare practice a higher standard of ethics than you would hold yourself to?

In that case, I don't care about your opinion very much.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#104

Post by kelseyfrog »

kube-system wrote: post #87
kelseyfrog wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a system is what it does. It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are.

> The purpose of a system is what it does. As if systems always do as intended? If that were the case, my code would never have downtime! The interactions between intent and results in any sufficiently large system is inherently complex.

That's the opposite of what the phrase means. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_w...

If a system constantly fails to do what it was intended to do, then we should consider that what it does in reality is its true purpose. Basically this is functional structuralism.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#105

Post by enoch_r »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #83
avalys wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

United Healthcare is a publicly-traded company which makes a 6% profit margin and pays a dividend, which means that those profits ultimately benefit people's retirement accounts, pensions and middle-class investments. The person who was killed made $10M last year, while UHC provided care to 52 million patients. So, the CEO was paid approximately $0.20 per patient treated last year. What part of all this do you believ…

The purpose of a system is what it does. It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are.

> It's functionally isomorphic to a black box where I make a deposit, every time it denies someone medical treatment I get back monetary reward and I can withdraw my deposit at any time. If we ask ourselves, "Should this black box exist?" I cannot reasonably expect people to say, "Yes." Yet, here we are.

I am honestly extremely baffled about what your mental model here is. When UHC doesn't deny a claim, who is paying for that treatment? You can't just look at one side of the ledger when deciding whether the system is doing good or bad! They deny some claims and they pay for others! You're leaving out the whole second half!

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#106

Post by cogman10 »

nickff wrote: post #98
cogman10 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do government healthcare ministers and other administrators responsible for single-payer systems deserve to die too? No, because as you point out there are legitimate reasons to deny coverage. However, when your competitors are denying at a rate of something like 10->15% and you are denying at 36%, that goes beyond just managing resources or fraud prevention. Your question is a false dichotomy. > What about legisla…

How can you simultaneously contend that United’s denials of coverage are responsible for killing people, and also contend that increasing healthcare spending wouldn’t save people?

You are using binary thinking. It's not a binary.

I can contend that United's denials are responsible for killing people because they are denying at 2x the industry average. To prove me wrong, you'd have to show that actually the rest of the industry isn't denying enough and that United has somehow stumbled upon the real rate of spurious insurance claims.

And for the 100% of money to healthcare that makes the assumption that we have that much healthcare need to spend that much money on. There are limits to needs which is why the argument you make is flawed.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#108

Post by drewcoo »

nickff wrote: post #34
itsanaccount wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know why I don't work for a trapping and pest control company? Because structurally they kill animals. They go around with tools of destruction and end the lives of animals. Its the function of their existence. Do you know why I don't work for a _for profit_ health insurance company, who's stated goals are explicitly to make profit by slicing out some amount of premiums that are not spent to provide healthcare in…

If your definition of responsibility is so broad, wouldn't every Head of Government for every country be deserving of assassination? Even more broadly, every police chief in every large city, along with all military officers, most mayors, governors, and premiers would also be 'natural targets'. This seems a bit drastic to me, is it your view?

> If your definition of responsibility is so broad, wouldn't every Head of Government for every country be deserving of assassination?

Chomsky would say "put to death, not assassinated."

https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#109

Post by nickff »

cogman10 wrote: post #106
nickff wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you simultaneously contend that United’s denials of coverage are responsible for killing people, and also contend that increasing healthcare spending wouldn’t save people?

You are using binary thinking. It's not a binary. I can contend that United's denials are responsible for killing people because they are denying at 2x the industry average. To prove me wrong, you'd have to show that actually the rest of the industry isn't denying enough and that United has somehow stumbled upon the real rate of spurious insurance claims. And for the 100% of money to healthcare that makes the assumpt…

Why is the burden of proof on me? You’re the one justifying a murder!

Also, I wouldn’t have to prove than increasing healthcare spending to 100% of GDP would be optimal, just proving that there is some incremental gain by spending a tiny bit more than is currently spent by a single-payer would justify the murder of one or more legislators (by your logic).

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#110

Post by avalys »

jonathanlb wrote: post #73
avalys wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

United Healthcare is a publicly-traded company which makes a 6% profit margin and pays a dividend, which means that those profits ultimately benefit people's retirement accounts, pensions and middle-class investments. The person who was killed made $10M last year, while UHC provided care to 52 million patients. So, the CEO was paid approximately $0.20 per patient treated last year. What part of all this do you believ…

Probably the part where people were denied care that they needed in order to provide profits and dividends to its shareholders.

1. Who decides what care is "needed"? Everyone is going to die eventually. I have a relative who believes they "need" ivermectin to prophylactically safeguard against contracting covid. Are insurance companies obligated to provide ivermectin to everyone who demands it, or should they apply some standard of efficacy and cost/benefit analysis?

2. Profits to shareholders and other people contributing their time and resources are also "needed", as without profits the only incentive to provide healthcare is charity, and charity has not proven to be an effective organizing principle to allocate the time and attention of millions of individuals in a complex society.

Post reply on HN