371–380 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All that matters to the patient is that it worked.
Perhaps, but it may not actually work and there are trade-offs. For example if the treatment were $1T we obviously would not do it. How do we allocate resources? Who gets to decide? These questions don't disappear when you change policies, it's just the answers that change
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all it takes for a hung jury, yes. In which case the prosecution will have plenty of grounds to screen for that in the next trial, that next trial will happen, and then the guy gets convicted of first degree murder. Presuming he's found in the first place. There's no world in which all twelve jurors vote not guilty if the defendant is demonstrated to be the assassin beyond reasonable doubt. That simply won't h…
In the UK a few years back a statue of a slave trader was thrown into the river in Bristol, and the people charged were acquitted in what is commonly considered to be a case of jury nullificaiton. Now, it's definitely true that getting a jury to nullify a murder charge is significantly different, but I'd argue there is a lot more anger about the healthcare system and CEOs making huge profits from human suffering in t…
This is like if $billionaire announced that he will publicly generate a fair signed 32 bit number, and give a specific person a billion dollars if the number is exactly 1234567. It would be delusional to think that will happen, there's no world in which it will, and it won't.
People who think otherwise are ignorant of the process of jury selection, and how straightforward it is to find twelve citizens who don't want to spit directly in the face of the judicial process (and judge) and let a bloody-handed murderer off the hook because of feelz. They're unable to separate their social media fantasies from the real world.
If you sympathize with or outright support this, you are either clinically diagnosable as a psychopath or are under the sway of one or many.
If you are a psychopath yourself, your worldview is rejected in-full by anyone with normal psychology. Stuff your psychopathic attempts at persuasion.
If you are generally a normal person but found yourself swayed by the techniques of psychopathic people, many of whom exist in society's institutions and who do not have your best interests at heart, you should take some time, deeply rethink this, and then reject it.
If you do not reject this, ultimately, you belong on a number of watch lists, full stop, as you are a supporter of domestic terrorism that seeks to murder people in cold blood.
But reject it.
This pseudo-hysteria is a criminal trap, and beyond that its logic is complete nonsense.
If this man was guilty of anything, then the law would have held him accountable. He was not guilty in terms of how he delivered service, and anything further that he may have been guilty of his murderer deprived society of finding out. Officially, he's innocent.
Every time that a citizen is "removed" by psychopaths by reason of their perceived arbitrary complaints, immediately there is another person who meets the same or arbitrarily adjusted criteria. The criteria will be adjusted to target people. There will never be even-ground for the psychopaths, and their follower-victims, who are justifying this.
In this discussion, I was asked if the murdered CEO didn't share responsibility for the supposed fact that UH is "the hardest to deal with and rejects the most claims". For one second, let's ignore that denying claims is a part of the root health insurance business model that every single payer advocate wants: only to be run by the government. For one moment, let's ignore that the CEO did not invent the health insurance industry, nor is he responsible for its continuity. Let's assume that UH soon "reforms" and is no longer "the worst". Immediately, there will be a new "worst". Is the CEO of than new low ranker the next target? Now model this situation across other industries.
Brainless, soulless psychopaths do not serve logic, morality, nor society's interests. They serve their own bloodlust. Which can manifest in any number of ways, but sometimes it manifests in actual murder.
Stop being persuaded by their nonsense.
This is a crazy thread to have on HN. It's widely supportive of domestic terrorism and murder, seeks to perpetuate support for it, and the Mods should take it down. It's shameful, horrific shit and HN should be fully embarrassed to host it.
Let's be super-clear. If you sympathize with or outright support this, you are either clinically diagnosable as a psychopath or are under the sway of one or many. If you are a psychopath yourself, your worldview is rejected in-full by anyone with normal psychology. Stuff your psychopathic attempts at persuasion. If you are generally a normal person but found yourself swayed by the techniques of psychopathic people, m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
School shooters are universally condemned, as are egregiously brutal police. People of all classes sympathize with the victims. Nobody cheers on the school shooters.
They are definitely condemned but no real action is taken to solve the issue, that’s my point. So if they do something when a CEO dies then that’s the double standard.
What would taking meaningful action to solve the issue mean to you in each case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't get it, is the implication that it's too high? Too low? Really, I think dividends should be illegal; so it's too high. They distort the true market performance of a company by guaranteeing returns when the company might not actually be making those returns in a sustainable manner. > UNH took in 371.6 billion in revenue and made 23.14 billion in profit last year. "tens of millions" is a rounding error. "Tens…
>Really, I think dividends should be illegal; so it's too high. They distort the true market performance of a company by guaranteeing returns when the company might not actually be making those returns in a sustainable manner. Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders. I don't think either the anti-buyback…
Nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders at the expense of workers and customers, at least not as transparently as it is done now.
Wages have remained flat in the US for several decades now. It’s starting to have a real impact on the economic and social conditions of the country. “But what about the shareholders?” isn’t going to be a valid excuse to someone who pays for coverage against medical costs.
There is no economic system, or business model within said system, in which there is unlimited value to be transferred. Humans will assert their rights at some point or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK a few years back a statue of a slave trader was thrown into the river in Bristol, and the people charged were acquitted in what is commonly considered to be a case of jury nullificaiton. Now, it's definitely true that getting a jury to nullify a murder charge is significantly different, but I'd argue there is a lot more anger about the healthcare system and CEOs making huge profits from human suffering in t…
It's delusional to think you'll win Powerball just because you bought a ticket. But that's a case where the odds of _someone_ winning are reasonably high, due to the very large sample size. This is like if $billionaire announced that he will publicly generate a fair signed 32 bit number, and give a specific person a billion dollars if the number is exactly 1234567. It would be delusional to think that will happen, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Really, I think dividends should be illegal; so it's too high. They distort the true market performance of a company by guaranteeing returns when the company might not actually be making those returns in a sustainable manner. Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders. I don't think either the anti-buyback…
> Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders Nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders at the expense of workers and customers , at least not as transparently as it is done now. Wages have remained flat in the US for several decades now. It’s starting to have a real impact on the econ…
How can you return anything to shareholders that's not "at the expense of workers and customers"? Each dollar paid to shareholders is going to be one less dollar that can be paid to workers/customers, so almost by definition paying anything to shareholders is going to be at the expense of workers/customers. Is this supposed to be a thinly veiled attempt at stating marxist ideology?
>There is no economic system, or business model within said system, in which there is unlimited value to be transferred. Humans will assert their rights at some point or another.
The current share paid to shareholders is nowhere near "unlimited". In the US labor's share of GDP stands at just below 60%.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b2774f97-en/1/2/6/2/inde...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> kill one little insurance CEO and everyone loses their mind A narrow slice of social media is losing its mind. It’s New York. It’s unusual. But there are a lot of gun deaths in America every month.
The NYPD seems to be losing its mind over this too. You’re right, it’s not unusual. So not unusual that this wasn’t even the only murder in Manhattan that day. There was at least one other. Only one is getting a massive manhunt and media coverage for some reason.
Yes. It’s a lower Manhattan daytime shooting of a non-New Yorker. It’s where rich New Yorkers are. It’s where most New Yorkers are. It’s where most of New York City’s economy—including vastly most of its tourism—is. (And it will keep the media’s attention because the killer is photogenic.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Funny, because I often see people say have similar objections for buybacks. It seems like nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders Nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders at the expense of workers and customers , at least not as transparently as it is done now. Wages have remained flat in the US for several decades now. It’s starting to have a real impact on the econ…
>Nobody is happy with corporate profits returning to shareholders at the expense of workers and customers, at least not as transparently as it is done now. How can you return anything to shareholders that's not "at the expense of workers and customers"? Each dollar paid to shareholders is going to be one less dollar that can be paid to workers/customers, so almost by definition paying anything to shareholders is goin…
Hardly. The Friedman doctrine didn't exist prior to 1970; does that make every business venture prior to that a statist-collectivist enterprise? Are privately-owned companies the expressed goal of Marxism? Of course not.
The whole "if you don't have a bunch of free riders participating in an equities market, it's Marxism" bit is an intentionally obtuse argument.
> The current share paid to shareholders is nowhere near "unlimited".
Current schools of thought essentially dictate that management and investors treat that share as if it can be unlimited. Anything that could possibly limit returns (taxes, regulations, labor movements, consumer rights, etc.) is an externality or to be eliminated. Otherwise, it gets in the way of profit, and since most economist types have a limited ability to understand anything beyond the absolute simplest of abstractions, profit has to be the ultimate measure of social good. Therefore, those things stand in the way of social good.
> In the US labor's share of GDP stands at just below 60%.
We should make it higher.