UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

Are they? I thought homicides committed outdoors, with a gun, between people of no or distant social connection were basically unsolvable. Even for a rich white victim. Unless this guy dropped his wallet, used an exotic caliber, or is somehow connected to a prior threat, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is not found.

It's supposed to be a pretty blank check for critical bills, and this company does a bad job of fulfilling that.

> You can always decline the health insurance and pay out of pocket if you think it is a bad deal.

Ha. You could make this same argument about literal scam insurance that denies almost everything once your claims go above your payments. That's not a reasonable defense.

"No evidence" - if you can't avoid misinterpreting every sentence to go off on a rant, this thread is not worth continuing.

Insurance companies spent billions of dollars on advertisements against the ACA. This is public record. They did it because they opposed all of the good things the act required - such as prohibiting discrimination base on pre-existing conditions or demographics (other than age), requiring many basic procedures to be covered, bans on lifetime/annual coverage maximums, bans on dropping policy holders when they get sick, prohibiting copays on various services such as vaccines, requiring that insurers spend at least 80% of their premiums on health costs, a wide array of reforms to constrain costs, and so on.

> My point is that these rich bastards are playing by the rules the American citizens set up.

Mmmmmmm.... yes and no? Like it's cliche to blame everything on Reagan but the number of modern social ills that can be directly traced to the Reagan admin and the political movement behind it really does baffle the mind. Ills such as, for example:

- The deregulation of corporate finances, that permits the massive stock buybacks that allow corporations to kick absolutely stressful amounts of money to their shareholders and executives

- The tying of the hands of the FTC regarding anti-trust/monopoly regulation, which has led to the greatest era of corporate consolidation since Standard Oil, and all the problematic things that come with it

- The citizens united decision, which unleashed the ability for corporate America to pump shit fuck tons of money into political parties that would then work for their interests

- The repeal of the fairness doctrine, which let an entire wing of disinformation networks form and spread, masquerading blatant propaganda as news (sorry, "entertainment")

And like, you're right in one way, because the Republicans didn't come out to the American people and say "hey we want to enable corporations to rat fuck you for every dollar you have, along with every dollar you don't have, and to make them effectively the funding that both parties need to accept in order to have a snowballs' chance in hell of winning an election. Sound good?", obviously. But the various "mandates" that they've received from conservative voting blocs over the years are dubious as fuck, and if you scratch them just a little bit, you oftentimes find that their voters are so incredibly bullshitted at this point that they don't even truly know what the fuck they're voting for. Citation: literally in the last presidential race, there was a shit ton of people after the fact who both:

- Didn't realize tariffs would drastically increase the cost of goods in the United States, because exporters do not pay them, importers do (and in fact, if the rumors are to be believed, neither did their candidate)

- Voted for the party promising to repeal "Obamacare" despite receiving benefits from and in fact, needing the Affordable Care Act, not realizing that Obamacare is literally a made-up bullshit name given to the ACA by Republicans.

So like... yes, technically, the Republicans (and Democrats, make no mistake, their fingerprints are all over this shit too, just to a lesser degree) have built exactly the America that Americans want. However, it is impossible to fully divorce that from the just incredible amounts of propaganda Americans injest, both from the political parties who decide what is "feasible" to the corporate media.

Ok I see the final rule does add definitions of "personal collection," so that would cover me. "Occasionally," is not defined, so that's vague. What if I sell 5 at once? What if I sell 1 a week for 5 weeks, is that still occasional? Up to the ATF to decide.

After reading the affidavit, it was written before the final rule. The affidavit was written 3/6/24 and the final rule didn't take effect until 30 days after 4/10/24. How do you square that?

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/final-rule-definition-engaged-b...

From the affidavit:

"9. Your Affiant knows the term "dealer", as defined in Title i8 USC 921(a)(11) of the GCA, means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; or (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearrns or ofmaking or fitting special ba:rels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker"

Change of the rule:

"Section 12002 of the BSCA broadened the definition of “engaged in the business” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) to all persons who intend to “predominantly earn a profit” from wholesale or retail dealing in firearms by eliminating the requirement that a person's “principal objective” of purchasing and reselling firearms must include both “livelihood and profit.” The statute now provides that, as applied to a dealer in firearms, the term

“engaged in the business” means “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” However, the BSCA definition does not include “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C)."

This matters because his firearm sales weren't his livelihood and could be argued it was a hobby. He made, I believe, $250,000 working for the state of Arkansas as his livelihood.