First, I have to disagree with your partner. There are, or at least have been, bad people. Not many – Hitler, Mussolini, Osama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin (dating myself); Valdimir Putin is on the doorstep. Beyond those, there are many, many misguided souls, but then, aren’t we all to some degree?
It’s not that we’re dumb, as you say, but a great many of us are easily deceived. Some even believe that insurance will pay out when they need it (and it’s not just health insurance – ask a typical home owner impacted by the Florida hurricanes in the past couple of years).
But you’re right; for unfathomable reasons, the raison d'etre of most of the uber-wealthy is to get richer by any legal means, and given their uber-access to law makers, that pretty much means any way they can. Ask me about the CEO of the electric utility in Tampa who retired with a golden parachute after killing five people with business practices they publicly stated they wouldn't use. This drive for more and more riches includes the vast majority of CEOs. (At least Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are putting *some* money into causes to help us in the unwashed masses.)
What most people don’t realize is that the industrial revolution that created the middle class is evaporating under the heat lamp of technology, and we are facing a future that looks a whole lot more like the fiefdoms of the Middle Ages than the Ozzie and Harriet prosperity of the mid-1900’s.
It will be interesting to see what happens, and if people start to question the status quo in coming years and coming elections. We know that the right-wing talking heads (paid by the uber-wealthy) will say, “everything is wonderful!” with Republican administrations, even as the middle class is eviscerated. One is reminded of the apocryphal story of the frog in a pot of water with the heat being gradually increased.
You point out several of Brian Thompson’s significant failings. Those don’t make him a bad person, or even wicked. If it weren’t him, if he said, “We’ve made enough money, we don’t need to try to make more,” his tenure as a US CEO would have been cut just as suddenly short as it was by a killer’s bullet, and the next up CEO would have done virtually the exact same thing.
But beyond the direct actions of the killer, his own failing that led to his death was the attitude of, “it can’t happen to me.” This isn’t so different than someone who says that they don’t worry about hurricanes in Florida, or earthquakes and wildfires in California, or say, a translator who suddenly finds that much of their previously paid work is now being done by Chat GPT.
The uber-wealthy will learn from this event, and further insulate themselves from the hoi-polloi. It remains to be seen to what extent others will take up arms against them, although I doubt that any good would come of it.
But don’t worry Sarah. We know that misery loves company, and I suspect you won't need a cadre of flying monkeys to have lots of company in the not-to-distant future. Until then, cherish what we have and the gifts we’ve been given, including living in a country that isn’t *quite* so dependent on technology. And realize that those who aren’t dealing well with the new realities are in the same increasingly warm pot of water that we are.
Well said, Scott. And of course you're right -- if he weren't trying to make ever-growing money for the investors, he'd be fired as CEO and not likely to get another similar position. It's just what you have to do if you want that job, and I've never known anyone fabulously wealthy to say "hmm, I guess I could make a little less and still be okay."
I don't think Sarah was rationalizing anything, Miguelitro. She, like millions of others, have been fustrated with health insurance companies. I have UHC and they are terrible, but when Medicare asks me to look at 71 other plans to compare, my eyes cross. It's ridiculous. Who can do that! So the first thing in my mind was that I understood where the killer was coming from, and it could be what we imagine we would like to do if it weren't wrong (a sin; a breaking of the law) and we had the courage (or rage). I didn't celebrate it, but I didn't shed tears either, like I do when I see a Palestinian child with her leg blown off. Yes, there needs to be regulation, and it needs to be enforced. And CEOs do make too much money. Do you think our next president will "regulate" that?
This was a cold blooded murder you are effectively rationalizing away. Why stop at this one company’a CEO? Why not off United’s other 140,000 employees? After all, they are complicit.
And why stop at United? Other insurance companies are more or less the same.
Indeed, why stop at insurance? As you point out, capitalism demands this behavior generally.
Perhaps Mao and Pol Pot and their ilk had a point when literally millions of “rightists” and bourgeois “running dogs of capitalism” were executed without any process whatsoever.
Not one person writing along the lines you have elected has even attempted to pin anything specific on this man. He is being crucified for a “sentiment.” In civil society, that is not the way things are done thankfully.
And no, the motive has not been established. The bullet casings might be a diversionary tactic employed by a highly competent killer. Any good detective knows that.
I’m sorry for the difficulty we all experience with the insurance industry, but regulation, not murder, solves problems. The people celebrating his murder don’t seem to understand the fragile line between the rule of law and some of the 20th Century’s living holocausts in the name of social justice.
Particularly this paragraph: “What we’re called to ask is why the murder of one man must be described as unspeakable violence, but the systemic denial of life to 100,000 people is an acceptable business practice. We’re called to ask why profiting from the denial of life earns a person millions while the people denied care ought to accept drowning in debt and disease. We’re called to ask why only certain lives are precious, and only in certain circumstances. Why does playing by the rules render someone innocent, even when the rules produce a stream of death and devastation?”
I repeat: "Not one person writing along the lines you have elected has even attempted to pin anything specific on this man." "Systemic denial of life": catchy phrase. But that is all it is. Support? I just can't climb on a mob bandwagon without knowing why I am there.
When your business plan is to deny claims and then people die sooner than they should, how is it not mass murder for profit? Mr United Healthcare got an extrajudicial execution for mass murder. 🤷🏼♂️
So, you're on board with the murder? Without process, why shouldn't you be next? Facts? Who needs 'em?
Insurance is a written contract. Disease, not insurance, killed these people. The relevant question is whether there were systematic breaches of contract. I'm open to the likelihood that there were. But nobody cares about relevance.
Sarah, I really encourage you to read this
https://open.substack.com/pub/extelligence/p/how-to-fix-us-healthcare?r=9oxmc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I will!
A quite sober and fair reflection. Thanks.
As much as I hate to admit it, I'm in agreement with Sarah, as are millions of Americans.
I think you should love being in agreement with me, Eduardo! :D
First, I have to disagree with your partner. There are, or at least have been, bad people. Not many – Hitler, Mussolini, Osama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin (dating myself); Valdimir Putin is on the doorstep. Beyond those, there are many, many misguided souls, but then, aren’t we all to some degree?
It’s not that we’re dumb, as you say, but a great many of us are easily deceived. Some even believe that insurance will pay out when they need it (and it’s not just health insurance – ask a typical home owner impacted by the Florida hurricanes in the past couple of years).
But you’re right; for unfathomable reasons, the raison d'etre of most of the uber-wealthy is to get richer by any legal means, and given their uber-access to law makers, that pretty much means any way they can. Ask me about the CEO of the electric utility in Tampa who retired with a golden parachute after killing five people with business practices they publicly stated they wouldn't use. This drive for more and more riches includes the vast majority of CEOs. (At least Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are putting *some* money into causes to help us in the unwashed masses.)
What most people don’t realize is that the industrial revolution that created the middle class is evaporating under the heat lamp of technology, and we are facing a future that looks a whole lot more like the fiefdoms of the Middle Ages than the Ozzie and Harriet prosperity of the mid-1900’s.
It will be interesting to see what happens, and if people start to question the status quo in coming years and coming elections. We know that the right-wing talking heads (paid by the uber-wealthy) will say, “everything is wonderful!” with Republican administrations, even as the middle class is eviscerated. One is reminded of the apocryphal story of the frog in a pot of water with the heat being gradually increased.
You point out several of Brian Thompson’s significant failings. Those don’t make him a bad person, or even wicked. If it weren’t him, if he said, “We’ve made enough money, we don’t need to try to make more,” his tenure as a US CEO would have been cut just as suddenly short as it was by a killer’s bullet, and the next up CEO would have done virtually the exact same thing.
But beyond the direct actions of the killer, his own failing that led to his death was the attitude of, “it can’t happen to me.” This isn’t so different than someone who says that they don’t worry about hurricanes in Florida, or earthquakes and wildfires in California, or say, a translator who suddenly finds that much of their previously paid work is now being done by Chat GPT.
The uber-wealthy will learn from this event, and further insulate themselves from the hoi-polloi. It remains to be seen to what extent others will take up arms against them, although I doubt that any good would come of it.
But don’t worry Sarah. We know that misery loves company, and I suspect you won't need a cadre of flying monkeys to have lots of company in the not-to-distant future. Until then, cherish what we have and the gifts we’ve been given, including living in a country that isn’t *quite* so dependent on technology. And realize that those who aren’t dealing well with the new realities are in the same increasingly warm pot of water that we are.
Well said, Scott. And of course you're right -- if he weren't trying to make ever-growing money for the investors, he'd be fired as CEO and not likely to get another similar position. It's just what you have to do if you want that job, and I've never known anyone fabulously wealthy to say "hmm, I guess I could make a little less and still be okay."
I don't think Sarah was rationalizing anything, Miguelitro. She, like millions of others, have been fustrated with health insurance companies. I have UHC and they are terrible, but when Medicare asks me to look at 71 other plans to compare, my eyes cross. It's ridiculous. Who can do that! So the first thing in my mind was that I understood where the killer was coming from, and it could be what we imagine we would like to do if it weren't wrong (a sin; a breaking of the law) and we had the courage (or rage). I didn't celebrate it, but I didn't shed tears either, like I do when I see a Palestinian child with her leg blown off. Yes, there needs to be regulation, and it needs to be enforced. And CEOs do make too much money. Do you think our next president will "regulate" that?
This was a cold blooded murder you are effectively rationalizing away. Why stop at this one company’a CEO? Why not off United’s other 140,000 employees? After all, they are complicit.
And why stop at United? Other insurance companies are more or less the same.
Indeed, why stop at insurance? As you point out, capitalism demands this behavior generally.
Perhaps Mao and Pol Pot and their ilk had a point when literally millions of “rightists” and bourgeois “running dogs of capitalism” were executed without any process whatsoever.
Not one person writing along the lines you have elected has even attempted to pin anything specific on this man. He is being crucified for a “sentiment.” In civil society, that is not the way things are done thankfully.
And no, the motive has not been established. The bullet casings might be a diversionary tactic employed by a highly competent killer. Any good detective knows that.
I’m sorry for the difficulty we all experience with the insurance industry, but regulation, not murder, solves problems. The people celebrating his murder don’t seem to understand the fragile line between the rule of law and some of the 20th Century’s living holocausts in the name of social justice.
I’ll respond to this more in detail later, but this other article on the issue I think says it much more eloquently than I’m able to: https://open.substack.com/pub/newmeans/p/whats-a-life-worth?r=14rio&utm_medium=ios
Particularly this paragraph: “What we’re called to ask is why the murder of one man must be described as unspeakable violence, but the systemic denial of life to 100,000 people is an acceptable business practice. We’re called to ask why profiting from the denial of life earns a person millions while the people denied care ought to accept drowning in debt and disease. We’re called to ask why only certain lives are precious, and only in certain circumstances. Why does playing by the rules render someone innocent, even when the rules produce a stream of death and devastation?”
I repeat: "Not one person writing along the lines you have elected has even attempted to pin anything specific on this man." "Systemic denial of life": catchy phrase. But that is all it is. Support? I just can't climb on a mob bandwagon without knowing why I am there.
When your business plan is to deny claims and then people die sooner than they should, how is it not mass murder for profit? Mr United Healthcare got an extrajudicial execution for mass murder. 🤷🏼♂️
So, you're on board with the murder? Without process, why shouldn't you be next? Facts? Who needs 'em?
Insurance is a written contract. Disease, not insurance, killed these people. The relevant question is whether there were systematic breaches of contract. I'm open to the likelihood that there were. But nobody cares about relevance.
Sounds like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Also a nice catchphrase, but quite a stretch.