171–180 of 304 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I pay around $20k/year for health insurance for myself, my wife and my daughter. I need insurance coverage to save my life and it is denied and I die. Under what US Statute (any state or federal) can a prosecutor charge the people responsible for my death? surely on the system of laws and courts you say we have there is something… I’ll wait… also people should most definitely NOT kill law abiding citizens! we do have…
I guess this is the crux of it. The law does not hold anyone responsible for your death, and nobody is responsible for providing you life saving services. These are the laws that your fellow citizens have chosen and established.
killing CEOs is not the kind of violence any reasonable human being can condone, but people tragically affected by someone’s actions may not be all that reasonable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there is a lot of money behind that position.
Do you have an argument that would be persuasive to someone who doesn't believe the voters in every state where this was proposed were successfully hoodwinked by "money"?
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont find the "lack of sympathy" to be an issue. What I do find disappointing is the lack of concern over people being gunned down in the street, and the not so subtle glee some people are expressing. Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. It isn't healthy for a society and doesn't lead to progress.
In a society where democratic tools no longer function effectively—due to capture by concentrated powers—people often feel powerless to address systemic harms. I can understand how the only power an individual can have in that situation is something like murder.. but it’s making many assumptions.. like this person really was working as an individual from moral grounds in the interests of majority of society.. and tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to CEO's directing their companies to legally murder people ("law abiding citizens") instead?
How do you feel about murdering doctors who demand pay for treatment, citizens that vote against single payer, or people that fail to donate to your gofundme?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess this is the crux of it. The law does not hold anyone responsible for your death, and nobody is responsible for providing you life saving services. These are the laws that your fellow citizens have chosen and established.
you know, our history says that at times, injustices may need to be fought with a touch of violence… killing CEOs is not the kind of violence any reasonable human being can condone, but people tragically affected by someone’s actions may not be all that reasonable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we're going to fix this problem on HN, so I'm content just to point out that a lot of what people are saying about this situation is unfounded.
I don't either, but people feel this way about millionaires and healthcare execs for a reason, they're not just being cruel for the sake of it. Think about the reasons for it, and try to come up with a solution. That's a way more interesting discussion than getting mad about people being dumb on BlueSky or whatever.
Solutions? I'm worried that there aren't solutions. There are only bandaids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm certainly not going to valorize insurers, but I find it deeply frustrating the providers are getting a pass here. You can see it on this thread, where there are commenters expressing surprise that I'd even suggest providers are the primary beneficiaries of the current system.
But why are you bringing it up, tptacek? You’re even replying this to a comment that literally contains “I agree with you”. It’s like stepping between your friends complaining about jet lag to talk about how your corner bodega raised the price of bubble gum. If you just want to talk about providers then write a screed on it. People will comment their opinions on the subject you want to discuss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of Americans believe the Federal government should provide health care [1][2]. The current Democratic Party is essentially "Republican Lite", Republican with a happy face on it. Democrats as a whole are more interested in defeating progressives and leftists than they are in defeating Republicans. [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/468401/majority-say-gov-ensure-... [2]: https://thehill.com/policy/healthca…
This is issue polling. There are lots of problems with issue polling, but even when delivered well, the fundamental problem is it's not concrete . Poll people to see if they'd like the option to stop paying for health insurance: you'll get Assad numbers. Now write a ballot initiative for single payer, where customers see the tax price tag, and have to worry about losing their current private health insurance: the num…