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

91–100 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#91

Post by dtjb »

allturtles wrote: post #74
dtjb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the last 50 years, over 1600 murderers have been murdered by the state. It's a question of authority, not justification, and I think that's a much less meaningful distinction. The fact that there's so little sympathy for the death of a CEO who, in their view, callously discards human life tells us the authority is a much smaller dealbreaker than the justification.

> It's a question of authority, not justification, and i think that's a much less meaningful distinction. On the contrary, it's the crucial distinction. Without process and authority we have mob violence, vengeance killing, and vigilantism. Lynching, clan blood feuds, gang violence, all proceed from this same theory that "getting back" is more important than following the rules. In that world, Brian Thompson's killer…

seems like we're ok crossing the line of "some people need killing," we just have rules on who's allowed to do it and the paperwork needed.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#92

Post by dgfitz »

JamesBarney wrote: post #79
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the classic strategy of being vauge-but-clear with one's orders ("Can you deal with this?" "Your Honor, I didn't tell him to kill anyone!") but, disregarding that, it doesn't seem in the employee's best interest. Where does the assistant's $200k/year come from after that? What if the blackmail attempt is rebuffed and the now-former assistant becomes a target for their former employer's new assistant?

Most personal assistants are not going to go find an hire a contract killer for their 200k a year job.

I think focusing on the salary number misses the forest for the trees. The specific number isn’t the point.

“Everyone has a price” or something.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#93

Post by nickff »

itsanaccount wrote: post #53
nickff wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think in philosophy there's something to be said for the difference between action and lack of action when it comes to culpability. Is a surgeon responsible for not being good enough to save a persons life? No, I don't think so. Is a surgeon responsible for not being sober for a planned surgery? In our society, yes. I think a lot of responsibility is determined by mens rea, and when you run a health insurance compa…

You think this CEO had more 'mens rea' than a city police chief (or the other examples I listed)? The police chief is literally responsible for purchasing guns, distributing them to officers, and telling the latter to use the former to coerce people!

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#94

Post by nickff »

cogman10 wrote: post #70
slibhb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not a soldier or a serial killer. It's worse than both. How can you be so morally clueless? When an insurance company denies coverage, it isn't killing someone. It didn't make anyone sick. Rather, it didn't pick up the bill for their treatment. That may have been wrong, it may have been an evasion of responsibility, but it is not comparable to someone who goes around killing people . I have to understand co…

> it isn't killing someone. It is absolutely killing multiple people yearly. If I withhold water from someone dying of thirst, who I promised to give water to, who paid me for that water, I've killed them when they die. I may not have plunged a knife into their heart but they'll be dead all the same directly from my actions. If an insurance company does not pay for the medicine and treatments they say they cover, tha…

Every healthcare system (even single-payer) denies some care to some people; they do this because of limited resources, fraud risk, etc.

Do government healthcare ministers and other administrators responsible for single-payer systems deserve to die too? What about legislators who limit healthcare budgets to below 100% of GDP (which is to say all of them); should they be summarily executed?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#95

Post by allturtles »

dtjb wrote: post #91
allturtles wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a question of authority, not justification, and i think that's a much less meaningful distinction. On the contrary, it's the crucial distinction. Without process and authority we have mob violence, vengeance killing, and vigilantism. Lynching, clan blood feuds, gang violence, all proceed from this same theory that "getting back" is more important than following the rules. In that world, Brian Thompson's killer…

seems like we're ok crossing the line of "some people need killing," we just have rules on who's allowed to do it and the paperwork needed.

I don't know who "we" is in your comment, but the question of whether capital punishment exists or not is a totally different question from whether the rule of law exists or not. It's perfectly self-consistent to support the rule of law while believing that some of the rules are wrong (e.g. that the state shouldn't kill people as a punishment). In fact that's essential to the whole thing working, since there's no way everyone will agree on the best set of rules for society.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#96

Post by nickff »

cdelsolar wrote: post #69
slibhb wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not a soldier or a serial killer. It's worse than both. How can you be so morally clueless? When an insurance company denies coverage, it isn't killing someone. It didn't make anyone sick. Rather, it didn't pick up the bill for their treatment. That may have been wrong, it may have been an evasion of responsibility, but it is not comparable to someone who goes around killing people . I have to understand co…

Compare this to someone who controls the only available lifeboat while others are drowning. The person in control may not have pushed anyone overboard, but if they refuse to help—especially after taking on the explicit role of “we’re here to help if something goes wrong”—they carry moral responsibility for the resulting harm. Insurance companies are not random bystanders; they are paid entities agreeing to intervene…

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.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#97

Post by cogman10 »

nickff wrote: post #94
cogman10 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it isn't killing someone. It is absolutely killing multiple people yearly. If I withhold water from someone dying of thirst, who I promised to give water to, who paid me for that water, I've killed them when they die. I may not have plunged a knife into their heart but they'll be dead all the same directly from my actions. If an insurance company does not pay for the medicine and treatments they say they cover, tha…

Every healthcare system (even single-payer) denies some care to some people; they do this because of limited resources, fraud risk, etc. Do government healthcare ministers and other administrators responsible for single-payer systems deserve to die too? What about legislators who limit healthcare budgets to below 100% of GDP (which is to say all of them); should they be summarily executed?

> 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 legislators who limit healthcare budgets to below 100% of GDP (which is to say all of them); should they be summarily executed?

Again, false dichotomy. Primarily because it's not even provable that 100% of GDP going to healthcare would actually save more lives than 99% or 50%. Further, unless you have a very expansive definition of what healthcare means (food? housing? etc?) then putting 100% of the budget towards it would ultimately starve out necessary industries for life thus causing death.

The real question to ask is "Can an insurance company be moral if it denies legitimate claims" my answer to that is no. Pragmatically, I can excuse some of it to human error as that'll happen. People will die from accidents and that's just a part of life. However, let's not pretend that there isn't a massive incentive for these large companies to deny as many claims as possible with no market forces and few regulations to impede them.

A government denying a liver transplant to a 90 year old is quiet different from a health insurance agency blanket denying cancer treatment because it costs them too much money.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#98

Post by nickff »

cogman10 wrote: post #97
nickff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every healthcare system (even single-payer) denies some care to some people; they do this because of limited resources, fraud risk, etc. Do government healthcare ministers and other administrators responsible for single-payer systems deserve to die too? What about legislators who limit healthcare budgets to below 100% of GDP (which is to say all of them); should they be summarily executed?

> 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?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#99

Post by cogman10 »

nickff wrote: post #96
cdelsolar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare this to someone who controls the only available lifeboat while others are drowning. The person in control may not have pushed anyone overboard, but if they refuse to help—especially after taking on the explicit role of “we’re here to help if something goes wrong”—they carry moral responsibility for the resulting harm. Insurance companies are not random bystanders; they are paid entities agreeing to intervene…

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.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#100

Post by itsanaccount »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #86
itsanaccount wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theres not a flaw in the logic just because you dislike its conclusion.

[flagged]

> The flaw in your position is that the position necessitates the devaluing of life.

That does seem like the beginning of a slippery slope. Life is precious. Its a fair point.

My ask is does a society that allows for-profit health insurance companies to lobby our leaders, deny coverage in a game style system, directly depriving thousands of people of life... not also devalue life?

Personally I'm not actually a big moral crusader, but I do find ecosystems respond with a certain conservation of energy. When one person becomes in charge of such a large cog in a system that steadily devalues life, when they have implicitly promoted such a time of contempt, it seems immensely predictable that they themselves perish in that same ecosystem.

Post reply on HN