Philosophers

Pacific Northwest Territories wrote:

So...

Anyone else happy what the shooter did?

I mean, despite the act, why does society condone Brian Thompson a civilian who had denied hundred of thousands as not a mass murderer?

His healthcare has declined, I fear

Pacific Northwest Territories asked, "Anyone else happy what the shooter did?"

I pay attention to theories of Darwin and the failure to being able to adapt to your species social structure is as good as any other reason to die. In that way, it was as natural as a death could come to a heartless person, a disgusting richy, in this case.

Coincidentally, a day before this happened, with an acquaintance, i attempted to conject how much the 99% would be helped if the 1% were..... gone..... and their wealth was spread evenly. It was a long conversation.

It is a very animalistic way to look at it, but i am hyena, hear me laugh. This is coming to you from the nation with the most integrity in the region, by the way. What does that say about the state of the world, not doing it sooner? The "moral" majority of the region seems to need to be tested with a poll. I will think on it.

Aktithropia wrote:

His healthcare has declined, I fear

Hospital out of network.

ER visit was non-emergent.

ER Doctor was out of network.

I don't remotely find it moral, ethical, or acceptable that a life was taken, regardless of how he operated in corporate America. The entire system is gamed, he played a role any other fool would have within the conditions which are already set, and remain bolstered by the extremes of a capitalist state. We could debate the ethics of this, rather than the actions of a murderer, that being an individual who killed another individual. The insurance CEO was on the other hand complicit in genocide of those too poor to buy the best insurance...

Sadly the market place isn't that great at removing those market players. We could argue either that private health insurance is unethical (I personally don't believe that it is, per se) or argue that the market forces do not merit the gold standards of capitalism. Here is a very different narrative and argument. The usual "noone should profit" from X Y Z is a little poor argument. The argument, advanced even by the best known neo liberals, that there are natural monopolies is just value laden silliness. The argument that health is a state responsibility is very late modernity and again value laden. Tbh the ethics aren't really clear cut here.

Anyway, we take Marxist materialist ethical view here. F**k the CEOs whose influence expands above and beyond a product, which healthcare does, water supply does, but so too does housing, basic transport, access to the local sweet shop (sidewalk, clothing, money, all speaking a common language....) Where does our regression end!!?? Being the most reductionist and cartoonist of this, do we nationalise everything and everyone? I dunno, the logic seems awfully flawed to me... and of course it does, because that is how I presented it.

Can we really say, in total confidence, that the CEO "enjoyed" his denial of healthcare? He had the convienece of hiding behind policy, people, systems, doctors whatever, and probably never in his life came into contact with a patient. That isn't to say he was a lovely chap, and he cried at every story as though in shock. But to say once we have systems which ration, as all systems have to, we hide behind beuracaritic mazes to sleep at night. We all do. In no way can we say, if we work in any sector, that we always met what we offered (prima facia), and in doing so, we almost always hid behind a system, and justified our actions accordingly. We do it daily, just not as high stakes as healthcare. Think of something as basic as time. Did you take that plate away and wash it? Or did you say i was busy and had to prioritise getting the children ready? We have a basic rule that plates need washed after use, and we use the system of another master to justify our actions, all in the process of how we ration time, effort, and outcome. An extreme example, absolutely, but an everyday example to illustrate this point. Of course, we wouldn't suggest that this example is unethical (or shouldn't anyway) as it does not violate our ethical assumptions. The opposite, in fact, would be true). Sadly, systems are manipulated to priorise the plate cleaning over childcare.

Really, the problem is this type of rationalisation as being unethical, not the symptoms it generates!

Telgan you make good points, as usual. I think many people online voicing their input on this think they are being rational but let emotions cloud the matter. Let's sort that out!

You are just a number (with a dollar sign) to these companies, and the CEOs are just an extension of the firm. This event was not about the life taken or the quality of his character- he's just a statistic. Either the first of more to come, or a change in corporate practices. Think of this CEO like one of many workers in history who had to die on the job to force regulation, safety measures etc. Those workers didn't deserve their fate, we (mostly) don't know their names, but modern times are slightly less brutal as a result.

Obviously, most executives will just pay more for private security instead of being less ghoulish. But if your job involves profiting off screwing people, you ought to be constantly looking over your shoulder. That's the tradeoff, get a real job if you can't handle it, fat cats.