306
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
306 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
60301 readers
2930 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
At the end of the day, I think the problem is that so many people don't identify Thompson as a killer. I think if more people saw Thompson as a killer, sympathy would be less controversial.
I don't condone vigilante murder, but this is a case where I think the calculus that Mangione did to conclude the benefits of his action outweigh the consequences was probably correct and that there wasn't a more reasonable way to address his grievance. And if you do something wrong and it turns out for the best, you still did something wrong, so get outta here ya little rascal and don't let me catch you again.
What do you do when the legal system accumulates errors in its operation further and further? There's no way, even theoretically, to fix that without breaking rules of that level.
The only difference between a vigilante and a murderer is state of mind. Luigi got it right. No dead bystanders. No redeeming qualities of his target, who is probably responsible for a far greater number of deaths. He put work into planning this and it shows, but he got really lucky, too.
If we had a bunch running around, we'd all be less safe. And a hell of a lot of them would probably target villains we don't all agree deserve it. So I don't condone it. But in this one case, I think it worked out.
How so?
There are only so many ways to increase profits in a medical insurance company:
Any CEO sees the same options, so killing one won't really solve anything. You get to send a very public message, yes, how likely is that to change something? Not very, especially with the incoming administration.
So to me, killing a CEO is very likely to result in either imprisonment and/or death and unlikely to directly cause change. It'll spark some discussion on the news, but is that really worth throwing your life away?
Maybe it was the best way he saw to bring immediate attention to his cause, but I don't think it's the best way to actually fix anything. He's a CS student, surely he could learn some hacking skills and access some internal communications that exposes illegal activity, no? That takes longer, but is probably more effective at actually sparking change than murder.
It would be swept under the rug, maybe get prosecuted and fined for q token amount.
There are three ways just off the top of my head that this improves the situation.
It puts fear into the people murdering the masses through policy, other CEOs might think twice now.
It makes people think and talk about this, and put the topic of healthcare CEOs being murderers into the public discourse.
It showcases that public support, actually bipartisan public support exists for positive change, it's just not on the ballot. Some smart politician might figure out how to ride that wave into office.
Will they though? Mangione is behind bars, the media has largely sided with the CEO, and other insurance CEOs are probably getting police protection. The net result is probably more spending on personal protection, video security, etc.
None of this is surprising, and AFAICT, nothing has changed. And I don't expect anything to change. He'd do far more good working for an insurance company and whistleblowing, hacking in from outside and exposing them, or any other number of things.
Are those benefits you mentioned worth throwing your life away for? I personally don't think so, at least not while alternatives exist.
It made another insurance company walk back terms that were going to set a limit on the amount of time surgeries could take or they wouldn't cover them. The company announced it the morning after and walked it back that afternoon.
I'm not sure it justifies things, or the cost this change came at, but it is prettt direct evidence of an insurance company thinking twice
Maybe in the short term, but they'll likely try something similar soon. The problem isn't the policy (which is bad), the problem is the timing. Once Mangione isn't in the spotlight, they'll probably try again.
I know "it will still happen later", but the fact that it didn't happen right now has already saved lives.
People sided with Luigi, and it showed that health insurance CEOs can be shot and killed relatively easily, and that it works in sending a message.
The police protection won't save anyone, but it will remind both them and the masses that this is something that can happen.
Some people did, but not everyone. We get the side from leftists here on Lemmy and other social media platforms that cater to young people on the left, but that's a niche within a niche.
Here are some stats from the Miami herald (media bias says center-left w/ high factual reporting):
This was on Dec. 13, just days after the murder.
It certainly sent a message, but that message was different for different audiences.
who's owns the media?
Lots of people...
lots of very very rich people
Hell, not even that many rich people any more due to all the consolidation.
But bro it is publicly traded company so if you got 401k, then you are likely an "owner" too🤡
It was step one, not intended to be the entire end-goal. The goal is to make it obvious that profits aren't the way healthcare should be done, as it is directly at odds with the purpose. Almost every other country in the world has removed profit from healthcare, or never added it in the first place. Even if you want to keep the rest of capitalism, it doesn't go here.
He definitely got the conversation started. He got alot of people to say out loud that "they kind of agree with him". And that is how change happens, when alot of people realise they were already thinking the same thing but didn't want to be the first one to say it. He opened the flood gates.
That may be, but my point is that the current state of healthcare costs in the US isn't "capitalism working as intended," it's a culmination of decades of interference resulting in a perfect storm of bad policy. For example:
And so on. A few simple changes would dramatically improve things IMO:
That won't fix all of our problems, but it should solve a lot of them. Medicare should exist for the uninsurable and the poor, the rest can get private insurance.
We should also discuss public healthcare as an option as well, but the above should fix a lot of the problems we have.
Problem is it wasn't illegal. So the law is no use here. So exposing the activities they are engaged in right in public is no use. It's like whistleblowing on Trump colliding with Russia. He did it right in front of everybody and got away with it.
Also, ultimately profits don't have to always increase. In fact, it's an impossibility over the long term without diversifying, and even then growth will slow. There's not a damn thing wrong with a business that consistently, reliably turns 1B into 1.1B (or whatever).
Maybe? I mean a life lived in misery isn't worth much. At the end of the day, only he can answer whether it was worth the cost, but the rest of us have the opportunity to build on the message he sent. Will we capitalize (lol) on that opportunity? Probably not, but Mangione was undoubtedly a spark. Eventually a spark will catch, but of course it's never certain who will get burned.
It would piss people off without pushing them to defend someone you murdered. In other words, the message is clearer.
We don't have receipts, so it doesn't hit as hard. Catching someone red handed doing what everyone already assumes they're doing is a much better call to action than just saying what we're all thinking.
They do if you want to keep your job as CEO, otherwise they'll replace you with someone who will chase profits.
I'm so unenamored with unfettered capitalism these days. This shit is unsustainable.
Afaict, the problem here isn't capitalism, but protectionism.
Laws limit how insurance companies can make money, so they use the tools they have access to. Likewise, we've prioritized employer sponsored insurance over customer selected insurance (government insurance is a separate beast), so insurance companies only need to impress HR, not end customers, and HR likes bullet points and lower costs, and don't care about fine print. It's the same reason why my employer sponsored 401k is more expensive than my IRA, despite offering fewer features. Employers don't have your interests in mind, they want to provide the cheapest benefits they can that attract the talent they need. Almost everyone would be better off if they shopped on their own, but that's not financially prudent because you'd have to forego tax benefits and employer contributions.
When you manipulate the market like this, this is what we get. Insurance is already pretty anti-consumer, and we've eliminated most of the little accountability insurance companies have to end customers. That's not how capitalism should work, and the solution is to either let capitalism work (remove insurance decisions from employers, let customers change, just like auto or home insurance), or to decide that insurance should be publicly funded. The current system is the worst of both worlds (government meddling and capitalist profit maximization).
Neither is solved by killing one of the players, that just makes the player a victim.