The shooter should spend the rest of his life in jail, but anyone losing sleep over this CEO being gunned down? — RogueAI

That is prima facie contradictory. "This crime deserves a maximum sentence, and also we shouldn't lose any sleep over crimes like this."

The shooter should spend the rest of his life in jail, but anyone losing sleep over this CEO being gunned down? I look at it like a mafia don getting assassinated. — RogueAI

I don't lose sleep over events like this. But that's sarcasm to say it.
In fact, the shooter and his supporters do not understand what causes the health care to skyrocket in price in the US. The insurance companies are not to blame for the high costs, and they're not to blame for denying this or that procedures. Tests, latest technology, astronomical hospitalization, all these contribute to the high costs of health care. And the general public do not bother to look at the charges that hospitals send to the insurance companies.

I refuse to allow a sociopath who committed first degree murder to have any voice or to shape the direction of any conversation regarding anything other than what sentence he deserves, with the objective of silencing him forever.

Let his actions be in vain, for nothing, just so he can die anonymously alone 50+ years later.

Whatever conversation needs to be had about whatever is going on in the world can arise as it would have anyway.

I don't lost sleep over the death of someone so distant, but I don't subtract sympathy based upon Brian Thompson's occupation or standing. That the shooter was also of privilege also doesn't subtract any sympathy by me. My lack of sympathy for the shooter is based upon him being a shooter.

What does infuriate me is any suggestion Brian Thompson deserved the death penalty from a deranged street murderer any more than other random person walking about.

Senator Fetterman said it well:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fetterman-blasts-liberal-magazine-calling-210015478.html

I know next to nothing about the CEO, but would I be right in assuming he probably bears responsibility for a fair few lives destroyed?

Now someone came along and destroyed his.

It's obviously not justice. It's what happens to people who play dangerous games.

The doctors refused to provide the care, not him. Why not kill them?

The problem with US healthcare is that insurance is unaffordable for many, not that the claims process for those insured is more burdensome than would exist in a nationalized healthcare system. It's not like nations with national free healthcare approve every procedure and efficiently provide service.

In fact, the reason the US has rejected public healthcare is due to fears of not being able to choose one's own doctors and having their healhcare decisions made by beurocrats.

I live in a country with nationalized healthcare and it's awful too, but perhaps that's just a question of who bears final responsibility.

Like I said, I don't know the details of this case. If the CEO was some form of paragon who did nothing to deserve such a grizzly end, then it's a shame.

Somehow I doubt that, though.

If one sets up an enterprise that's meant to ensure people's health, and one does a shitty job at it, one is destroying lives, and then someone might come along and destroy yours in revenge.

That's karma.

I live in a country with nationalized healthcare and it's awful too, but perhaps that's just a question of who bears final responsibility. — Tzeentch

While there's plenty we could do better in the Netherlands, describing it as awful is a gross exaggeration. Healthcare outcomes are still superior to 95% of other countries.

There's a simple two word term for such ridiculous stances: victim blaming.

You know the underlying psychological process is that people want to distance themselves form the victim due to fear of becoming a victim themselves. So they would never be a victim because:

1. they'd be nice and accept insurance claims
2. would not walk around at that time at that place
3. would not walk around alone
4. would pack a gun and shoot him first
etc.

It indeed says a lot about people blaming the victim and that's that they are fundamentally scared.

We just agreed on something. First sign of the apocalypse.

You know the underlying psychological process is [...] — Benkei

Psychologizing is easy, and so is projecting.

US has rejected public healthcare — Hanover

They have not done so. They haven’t been given the option.

Anyway, fuck this guy. I’m not in favor of murdering people you don’t like, but people are murdered every day— it’s only when it’s a rich dude that there’s a national manhunt. That’s what’s irritating.

The issue isn’t with the CEO, it’s with the corrupt, immoral, profit-over-people system that leads to his existence.

The issue isn’t with the CEO, it’s with the corrupt, immoral, profit-over-people system that leads to his existence. — Mikie

The issue is that there was a murder.

The healthcaee crisis is a non-sequiter to that.

The murderer did not address the issue, clarify the issue, or make the world in any way a better place.

My model for the shooter is Jacques 5, from A Tale of Two Cities. And him thus a symptom, not himself the disease but a consequence of it.

Or from Aristotle's Rhetoric:
"It may be just that A should be treated in a certain way, and yet not just that he should be so treated by B. Hence you must ask yourself two distinct questions: 1) Is it right that A should be thus treated? 2) Is it right that B should thus treat him? and apply your results properly, as your answers are Yes or No. Sometimes in such a case the two answers differ: you may quite easily have a position like that in the Alcmaeon of Theodectes:
"'And was there none to loathe thy mother's crime?' to which question Alcmaeon in reply says, 'Why, 'there are two things to examine here.'
"And when Alphesiboea asks what he means, he rejoins, 'They judged her fit to die, not me to slay her.'" (Rhetoric, 1397a, 28. ff.)

Or Clint Eastwood, "Ever notice how once in a while you come across someone you shouldn't have f**ked with?" (Gran Torino.)

I don't know who Luigi is as a person or what his exact motives were - and I suppose that will matter - but depending on those motives, I would not take it amiss if a jury in essence found that while he was fit to be punished, they not fit to punish him.

The world has in it people who under colour of "law" prey on other people, taking everything they can, even their lives. And if such predation should pry or break loose from common sensibility some victim who responds with a gun, we can turn to Matt 18:7:
"Woe unto the world because of offenses for it must needs be that offenses come but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."
And Psalm 19:9: "'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

To those who argue it's wrong to shoot someone, the quick answer and one that leads to a much closer look and analysis is, not always.

Is it possible other health insurance executives in the industry might reevaluate their companies' denials of coverage policies in light of the murder? If one thinks that every denial of coverage could result in one's murder, wouldn't that be an incentive to reduce those denials a bit?

It reminds me a little of how societies used to round up and behead monarchs who misbehaved.

Obviously that was extrajudicial, but at the same time, perhaps it is good that powerful people are reminded every once in a while that there a limits to how far one can push innocent people.

Admittedly, this is assuming the CEO was a crook. Maybe he wasn't, and this killer was just some deranged person. But that wouldn't make for an interesting philosophical discussion.

Health execs reckon with patient outrage after UnitedHealthcare killing

The murderer did not address the issue, clarify the issue, or make the world in any way a better place. — Hanover

Actually, I’m not sure about that. That sounds good— it’s what you hear all the time by guys like Josh Shapiro. It’s conventional and comforting. But there’s been a LOT of talk about the healthcare system this past week, and particularly the jubilant/indifferent response in many circles.

Whether that spotlight ends up making the world better, who knows. Imagine if it led to even something like a public option — that would be better indeed.

Is it possible other health insurance executives in the industry might reevaluate their companies' denials of coverage policies in light of the murder? If one thinks that every denial of coverage could result in one's murder, wouldn't that be an incentive to reduce those denials a bit? — RogueAI

Considering someone is immoral enough to kill someone else for only having allegedly denied a valid insurance claim, it is entirely possible that someone else will exercise the poor judgment to modify his claims processing based upon fear of murder. That is, sure, someone might make a bad decision. It happens all the time.

To the actual possibility that claims handling will be impacted by some murdering thug, that's pretty doubtful. The driver of corporations is profits and if claims payments are going to be increased, premiums will as well. What you make is the case for stricter police enforcement and greater protection of corporate decision makers if you actually believe decisions are now going to be made literally at gunpoint.

This idea of villifying corporations to the extent you actually believe the murder of their leaders is understandable and should give pause to reconsideration of current policy is a considerable part of the reason the left saw the election results they did. You can't expect to hold any moral high ground if you're going to insinuate that murder is an acceptable response to a health insurance denial and then somehow condemn the relative child's play of infractions committed by those across the political aisle.

That anyone has any hesitation to fully condemn the shooter and to refuse to use his actions to promote any outstanding agenda reveals someone just terribly misguided without any moral compass.

This is just to say that if rising heathcare premiums and increased healthcare denials lead to more murders, we don't need reduced premiums and higher claims approvals. We need more police and more jail cells. Whatever you might think of jails and law enforcement, consider yourself in the tiny minority if you think first degree murderers should be granted leniency.

Obviously that was extrajudicial, but at the same time, perhaps it is good that powerful people are reminded every once in a while that there a limits to how far one can push innocent people. — Tzeentch

You're arguing that this instance of first degree murder was perhaps good?

You're arguing that this instance of first degree murder was perhaps good? — Hanover

Yes, that’s exactly what we’re saying. If that’s too much for your delicate sensibilities and black-and-white “moral compass,” so be it.

As adults, however, it’s worth looking at the reasons why people do things. Even things we wouldn’t do and don’t agree with. Whether it’s the decisions of a leader of a business that is directly/indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, or a man who is more directly responsible for one death. Whether it’s Hamas terrorists or Israeli terrorists. Or United States terrorists.

Or we can be children and only do so when it’s our “side” doing the killing. Then, suddenly, the killing is more nuanced and done with the best of intentions.

No thanks.

so be it. — Mikie

Then it is.

Cool. Hope you grow up eventually.

We should all be hoping that this man’s death leads to something as good as a radical change in the US healthcare system— this way his demise wouldn’t be in vain. Or maybe even better gun control laws.

As for Brian Thompson the man— who knows? Probably was a nice guy. May have even disagreed with the BS system we have in place, but was hamstrung by it. His murder is in many ways a result of the corrupt, morally vacuous system he was a leader in.

You're arguing that this instance of first degree murder was perhaps good? — Hanover

Well, capital G 'Good' is a big word. Probably not that. It's not an example I would seek to emulate, or want others to emulate.

But when people play stupid games they win stupid prizes. Both people involved seemed to have won their stupid prize.

Maybe they can both serve as an example.

If you assume there’s no wrongdoing on the corporate side — which is obvious here — then there’s no need for nuance. It’s black and white: a business dude was murdered. Unacceptable.

Denying people medical coverage to further line your pocket— just fine. Why? Because it’s indirect. Or done with good intentions or something.

I'm just glad he was caught with no further incident.
Thank the people at the fast food for reporting to the authority.

The shooter spiraled down to nonsense due to the social media, ended up writing a manifesto.

That anyone has any hesitation to fully condemn the shooter and to refuse to use his actions to promote any outstanding agenda reveals someone just terribly misguided without any moral compass. — Hanover

Trump is the president elect. A wonderful magnetic pole for the calibration of our moral compasses.

Health Insurance CEO Reveals Key To Company’s Success Is Not Paying For Customers’ Medical Care
^{— The Onion · Mar 5, 2018}

That news site is satire, but who can tell the difference these days really?