this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
740 points (91.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

30038 readers
384 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.

It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn't save lives...people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.

Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 197 points 2 weeks ago (65 children)

Tbh this is the logical end-state of a poorly-regulated for-profit healthcare system

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 65 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Poorly regulated economy really

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 39 points 2 weeks ago

Capitalism really

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (64 replies)
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 163 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (34 children)

I'd encourage everyone to be careful with this type of thinking, because I'm seeing it a lot. Characterizing situations as having only two unpleasant options ("two tracks" in this case) is a classic strategy to rationalize violence. Gangs use it, terrorist groups use it, and even governments trying to justify wars use it (e.g. remember Bush's "You're either with us or against us").

It's a textbook false dichotomy, and it's meant to make the least unpleasant option presented seem more palatable. This situation is not as simple as "either you're in favor of insurance companies profiting off of denied healthcare of millions or you're ok with murdering a CEO"

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 113 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I want to live in a world where profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes. The third option here is that CEOs be paid less and be held accountable by their employees similarly to a democracy. But that means changing the system - which won't happen until the CEOs are convinced the system doesn't work. Right now, we regular folks are the only ones for whom the system doesn't work. This uncertain future for CEOs is load sharing.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 46 points 2 weeks ago

Precisely. The last few months have been nothing but trolley problem after trolley problem because rich people are never held accountable.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 23 points 2 weeks ago

profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes.

Give them actual golden parachutes and they get both.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Well I'm open to other ideas but I haven't seen any viable ones yet.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 48 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

tldr: one idea would be challenging their ability to hide behind licensed MDs who are paid to shoulder liability

This is actually my field, and I've spent countless hours of my life arguing with these insurance companies on behalf of patients they've denied, (losing more often than I've won, but you have to try). They suck.

When they're being exceptionally unreasonable, the bridge-burning hail mary I would throw would be threatening the license of the provider that denied the appealed claim. It has worked a surprising number of times.

Most people don't realize that it's not just paper-pushers at insurance companies who are denying claims. Those folks can routinely deny things that policy excludes, but if it's a judgement call or a challenge that their policy isn't meeting medical necessity, they hide behind doctors on their payroll who are putting their license on the line when they have to say that the insurance company is justified. Those individuals can be reported to their licensing board or even sued. Short of voting in universal healthcare one day, I think this is the most direct route to challenge this nonsense.

[–] Benjaben@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I appreciate your measured takes and inside point of view, more of both are always welcome (not that you need my invitation lol, you're basically famous around here).

The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I'm not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don't blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.

Our institutions no longer fix our problems, and that's growing worse, not better - the deck is getting stacked more and more heavily against us as time goes on.

I'm not advocating mass violence. What I am saying is that executives who create conditions like these, for people suffering under an increasingly-dysfunctional and hopeless system like this, should absolutely expect their lives to be in danger on the daily - out of just pure pragmatism. I'm not putting a value judgment on that, I'm saying it is flat out inevitable.

CEOs frequently measure any and all human events as costs to be managed. Especially these insurance executive pieces of shit. I don't see why a certain number of fairly predictable CEO murders resulting from their hideous behavior should be any different.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (32 replies)
[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 71 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

I see what you're getting at, but this isn't the trolley problem. The trolley problem is predicated on the idea that killing one will save many, but it's assumed that everyone involved is innocent. It's a philosophical question about moral choice; is inaction that allows many to die more moral than an action that directly kills one? If the one person being killed is somehow culpable for the deaths of the other people, that changes the entire equation.

Also, that's not even what happened here. One person was killed, but just as many people are going to die today because United Healthcare. No one was saved. Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets, that would change something, but one dead CEO isn't going to do anything.

(And, to any moderators or FBI agents reading this, I'm of course not advocating for that. Can you even imagine? The ruling class that has been crushing the American working class for decades suddenly getting put down like rabid dogs? With the very weapons that the gun manufacturers allowed to flood our streets in order to maximize their profits? Makes me sick just to ~~fantasize~~ think about it.)

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets,

How do you think it starts?

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago

...well, again, I definitely think that would be a bad thing. Truly terrible. Definitely wouldn't be happy to see the billionaire class living in fear of the people they're exploiting. Oh no. Stop. Police. Murder.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 60 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 57 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

Oh so this will save thousands of lives then? And here I thought they just hire a new CEO while making their services worse to fund the bonuses for the new one. Silly me.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 37 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

If it was a random death you might have a point. I would still say it makes sense that people would celebrate the death of a villain, but that's beside the point.

This was an assassination, a message on its own even if there weren't literal words carved into the casings. This may well give a person about to make an inhumane decision on behalf of a company's bottom line pause. It's a reminder that those decisions have real consequences, even if not always legal ones.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I hear we produce a lot of bullets compared to the number of MBA’s out there

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 46 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

This is America, so unfortunately gun crime is just something there's no fix for. 🤷

[–] parrhesia@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly did we check what he was wearing, maybe he was asking for it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JDTIV@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

The problem with the trolley problem is that this event isn't a trolley problem. Killing one CEO doesn't save lives, hell just be replaced and more guarded now.

We need proper reform and regulation.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It really is a real life trolley problem

Screenshot_20241205-205620_Firefox

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fleur_@lemm.ee 23 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

People in the comments seem to be arguing if this will or will not save lives. I don't really care if it does. I think it's ironic that there's a crowd of people arguing that human life is precious and we can't celebrate this guy's death when the guy in question is the antithesis of that philosophy; he dedicated his life to profiting off of the suffering of others. I'm glad to see him go. There are many more I wish would follow.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] palebluethought@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)
  1. this will save precisely zero lives
  2. you ignore the broader impact of allowing brazen broad-daylight murder to be endorsed by the public under any conditions. It is not just this one life
  3. insurance is a mess and I am sure this guy was a dick, and that UHC denies plenty of claims that should be accepted. But at risk of pointing out the obvious, an insurance company that never denies any claims will go bankrupt immediately, and would therefore result in many more deaths since nobody would be covered.
[–] Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world 69 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

Number 3 is the best argument for national insurance. (Saying public might imply it's tradable, this isn't what I've meant)

[–] bilb@lem.monster 29 points 2 weeks ago

The health insurance industry is an abomination. It's completely across the purpose of keeping a population healthy to try to extract and concentrate wealth out of the process, and they're dug in like a tick.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago

Health care is not compatible with the free market as health care is logically something people would pay anything for.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I mean, if this was some dictator of a poor country slowly squeezing his citizens for money so they were hungry, some dying of starvation, and had shitty infrastructure so he can jaunt off to holidays in his private jet and live in a mansion with private guards, nobody would be saying this guy deserved to live. But a CEO squeezing sick people and their families for money, actively shortening lifespans and QoL... he's fine, let him off the hook?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's more like "We found the guy pulling the lever on the trolley problem, only his trolley problem is 'people die or I get less money', and he has the trolley run over the people every time"

Unfortunately, there's a long line of twats behind him drooling over their chance to make the trolley run over human beings in exchange for money, so killing him doesn't really have the 'trolley running over people averted' effect that the trolley problem is usually based around. You're just punishing a shithead killer by killing him. Which, while hilarious, lacks the moral quandary that the trolley problem is meant to highlight, since no one is actually saved.

It's one of those things where the institutions of society can and must genuinely pursue the killer (albeit not at the level they actually are, expending a disproportionate amount of resources compared to if one of us commoners was killed), but if I saw the person who killed the CEO, I didn't.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It’s not a real life trolley problem, because there is no mechanism by which killing this CEO saves lives.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 weeks ago (23 children)

There is. There's reason to think the CEO was targeted specifically because of his shitty policies. If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.

(This is not a call for violence, and I am not advocating for it, this is answering a direct question about how and why the mechanic might exist)

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] WagnasT@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

CEOs have faced zero consequences for their actions, the people they've harmed have exhausted all reasonable peaceful options. This incident alone will probably not change anything for the better but if those in power have no fear of the masses idk what else they expect to happen.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 21 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

[off topic]

Back in the day, I heard a lecture on the tactics of terrorist groups.

The IRA was particularly effective in assassinations. People thought they had an vast army of trained killers on hand.

Actually, the number of shooters was small, maybe fifty in all.

What made them so dangerous was that they had a powerful 'rear echelon.'

When the shooter arrived in town, he'd have three or four drivers waiting for him, a choice of safe houses, and more than one doctor to go to if he were to be injured.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

The patterns of behavior between shareholders, boards of directors, and executives is what's killing people. The same role can be re-cast with different actors.

It's not that CEOs need to die, it's that that larger pattern of behavior that gets rich by killing people needs to end. Maybe this spooks other people who are part of that larger pattern into stopping, maybe it makes them do it more, stealthier, and with bodyguards. It's hard to say.

At the very least, we should all jump at every chance to help things without hurting anybody, wherever we do find it. "Necessary violence" comes with a big ol heap of plausible deniability, and it's a pretty big ask for somebody to handle it responsibly.

The justification will be alluring even in circumstances where it is not legitimate.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] db2@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

What do you call an American health care CEO dead on the street in Manhattan?

[–] Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com 55 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

A tragedy.

Have some simpathy for the poor bystanders that had to witness the horrible sight of an American Health insurance CEO...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 53 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Preventative services?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Multitrack drifting? I'm sorry someone had to say it. Eat the rich.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

No, they could stack the bodies of executives high enough to build a retaining wall, and the current system will still refuse to learn any fucking lessons. Our country has an extreme addiction to profits over people.

The solution is single-payer not-for-profit nationalized health care. The stuff that mature, rational nations do as a matter of daily routine.

Socialism is not a dirty word. We need to learn that lesson, first.

Unfortunately, the new administration will make things much worse. And the incompetent reality show cast of an administration will blame Biden and the "deep state" for all the misery and suffering they cause. And the morons in the Cult of 47 will believe them.

The USA is more broken than a folk hero with a gun can fix. Though, at least he has us all talking about it.

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’m of the opinion that shooting CEO’s that make decisions to deny insurance claims that cost peoples’ lives is the moral high ground.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›