What we know about CEO shooting suspect(bbc.com)
bbc.com
What we know about CEO shooting suspect
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9nxee2r0do
2,211 comments
This looks like a case of "suicide by revolution". Various media reports (including this one) suggest that he had a back injury in 2023, has not worked since 2023, started losing touch with friends in 2023, has been reading books about back injuries and chronic pain, etc. If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live. Likely he's been seeking medical treatment for his injury, his insurer is United Health, they've done nothing but "delay, deny, defend", he's already decided that he's better off dead, and he might as well take the CEO of the health insurer with him.
When I heard about the Monopoly money I wondered if it matched up with the amount of a specific denied claim.
> If you've ever known someone dealing with chronic pain, it can easily make you decide that you're better off dead than continuing to live
I'll confirm it for you right now. For me it's not just the back, it's areas along the entire spine. I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it. My lumbar spine has many herniations and "schmorl's nodes" (where it's chipping away at the actual vertebrae) in addition to clamping my nerve roots shut. I had emergency surgery in my neck in early 2018. Prior to the thoracic spine injury, I was in the best shape of my life; very muscular and healthy with a 6-pack like you see in Luigi's pictures.
It's been an absolute miserable experience for the last 8 years. Being gaslighted by doctors before and after my surgery didn't help. Insurance tried to deny my emergency surgery at first despite the fact I lost all sensation from the neck down almost overnight. When you're dealing with trauma and the system works against you, very dark thoughts start to form. I'm not going to say I condone what Luigi did, but if you think people go through these events and don't think those thoughts on many occasions, you're so very wrong. There's a HUGE range of emotions that comes with it all. Suicide was definitely one of them for a long time as well. I have a wife and kids though and do not wish to burden them further by adding to the list of problems. They're the only things that's kept me going strong this whole time.
I'll confirm it for you right now. For me it's not just the back, it's areas along the entire spine. I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it. My lumbar spine has many herniations and "schmorl's nodes" (where it's chipping away at the actual vertebrae) in addition to clamping my nerve roots shut. I had emergency surgery in my neck in early 2018. Prior to the thoracic spine injury, I was in the best shape of my life; very muscular and healthy with a 6-pack like you see in Luigi's pictures.
It's been an absolute miserable experience for the last 8 years. Being gaslighted by doctors before and after my surgery didn't help. Insurance tried to deny my emergency surgery at first despite the fact I lost all sensation from the neck down almost overnight. When you're dealing with trauma and the system works against you, very dark thoughts start to form. I'm not going to say I condone what Luigi did, but if you think people go through these events and don't think those thoughts on many occasions, you're so very wrong. There's a HUGE range of emotions that comes with it all. Suicide was definitely one of them for a long time as well. I have a wife and kids though and do not wish to burden them further by adding to the list of problems. They're the only things that's kept me going strong this whole time.
I'm sorry you've gone through that and I hope your condition improves. While I don't know the specifics of your case, in general there aren't a lot of real solid evidence-based medicine guidelines for treating back pain or injuries. Ask 10 different physicians and you'll get 10 different treatment plans. Surgery has made many patients worse in the long run. Obviously there are some traumatic injuries where emergency surgery is medically necessary, but for most patients the standard of care should be physical therapy first with surgery being a high-risk last resort.
https://peterattiamd.com/stuartmcgill/
https://peterattiamd.com/stuartmcgill/
You can't get approved for surgery without PT in many cases anyway, so by default, most people will have to undergo PT regardless. In a lot of cases, you still can't get surgery; insurance will request pain management via injections and stuff before approving surgery. In my case, I had to go through 6 weeks of PT, then insurance asked me to do another 6 weeks after the first 6 failed to produce benefits. PT accelerated my decline because they didn't understand the mechanics in my case, so it's not always beneficial either. Also some of those conservative treatments (injections) are still being denied by insurance. My dad recently went to get another series of injections and was denied because they didn't think it would be medically beneficial despite the fact that he improved significantly from the first set and it lasted over 6 months.
Unfortunately there's a huge variance in PT quality and skill levels, so just because 6 weeks of PT doesn't produce results doesn't necessarily mean that a different approach to PT wouldn't be better than surgery. Seriously, have you tried visiting a McGill Method Master Clinician? I would certainly try that before letting a surgeon cut on me. Watch the video I linked above and see if it might be relevant.
What sort of injections are you referring to? Corticosteroid injections can sometimes be helpful in the short term but clinical practice guidelines discourage prolonged use due to the risk of bone damage and other severe side effects. So insurers aren't necessarily wrong to deny payment for those.
What sort of injections are you referring to? Corticosteroid injections can sometimes be helpful in the short term but clinical practice guidelines discourage prolonged use due to the risk of bone damage and other severe side effects. So insurers aren't necessarily wrong to deny payment for those.
Spinal problems are definitely on the list why seemingly "not terminally ill" people might want to take the option of euthanasia. Healthy imbeciles will scream with outrage "it's a sin, one must keep them alive at all costs" but that's because it's not them tortured 24/7 but other guy. And people are able to do monstrous things to other people without as much as loosing a night sleep.
Overall, the options for severe chronic pain are: heavy painkillers, physical therapy, wait-and-see (hope they improve) and if not ... dignified exit.
If they improve it takes years. And painkillers are ABSOLUTELY a must during that time but the innocent monsters (largely the rest of the population that is) will cry out "opioid addiction!!!", cut them off and sadistically (in their mind, gently) advise to get over it.
I have no words how much I despise this world. It's all fine and dandy until you lose your health, afterwards you really see it for how it is.
Overall, the options for severe chronic pain are: heavy painkillers, physical therapy, wait-and-see (hope they improve) and if not ... dignified exit.
If they improve it takes years. And painkillers are ABSOLUTELY a must during that time but the innocent monsters (largely the rest of the population that is) will cry out "opioid addiction!!!", cut them off and sadistically (in their mind, gently) advise to get over it.
I have no words how much I despise this world. It's all fine and dandy until you lose your health, afterwards you really see it for how it is.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
As I get older, I understand this phrase more and more.
As I get older, I understand this phrase more and more.
I've learned that most people don't consider themselves to be "bad" or "malicious" overall. People will earnestly espouse opinions of arbitrary quality, with unknown justification and intent, and expect others to agree with them. They don't consider that they may be speaking out of severe lack of empathy or knowledge (Gell-Mann amnesia!). We're extremely limited and oftentimes we don't even recognize it.
I mean, prison might help take care of his back problem more than a health insurance company would.
> I've had spinal cord compression on my thoracic spine since late 2017 and nobody will touch it
Same here, except I’ve had it since ~2000 (mid-teenager). Anytime a suggested treatment makes it to insurance, they deny it because “it’s extremely uncommon for back problems of someone your age to be in the thoracic spine.” They’ll gladly pay for unnecessary surgeries on the lumbar, but refuse even many diagnostic attempts in the thoracic area.
Same here, except I’ve had it since ~2000 (mid-teenager). Anytime a suggested treatment makes it to insurance, they deny it because “it’s extremely uncommon for back problems of someone your age to be in the thoracic spine.” They’ll gladly pay for unnecessary surgeries on the lumbar, but refuse even many diagnostic attempts in the thoracic area.
I can understand the symbolism here between the backpack of game money then.
I haven’t gotten all the details, but something like this makes sense. It was a personal vendetta from a person out of desperation/frustration.
I guess as more details come out we will know
I haven’t gotten all the details, but something like this makes sense. It was a personal vendetta from a person out of desperation/frustration.
I guess as more details come out we will know
But he’s not dead, he’s going to prison. Does he plan to commit suicide behind bars? He’ll probably be on tighter watch than Epstein - that’s what happens when you mess with the ruling class.
Life in prison is just a delayed death sentence.
A "delayed death sentence" is awful if you if you have chronic pain and are seeking suicide by revolution.
I dont think the two are equivalent
I dont think the two are equivalent
Death by suicide is entirely attainable in prison, if desired.
so what? that still doesn't mean that life in prison is the same as suicide.
Correct. I'm asserting life in prison and a death sentence are functionally identical. (In the US.)
Both can be ended via suicide, if the inmate so chooses.
Both can be ended via suicide, if the inmate so chooses.
Death sentence is often seen as better because you might get an individual cell, and copious pro bono appeals for your case.
He won’t get a death sentence for the charges which have been announced so far. Those which are severe enough to carry a death sentence in many US jurisdictions (like murder) are New York state charges, and NY law hasn’t had a death penalty for two decades now or an execution in roughly 8 decades.
If there somehow end up being Pennsylvania or federal charges against him in connection with the murder, those criminal law systems still have the death penalty.
He does currently face some Pennsylvania charges as well, such as firearms charges in connection with the encounter where he was arrested, but none of those are severe enough to warrant a death sentence.
If there somehow end up being Pennsylvania or federal charges against him in connection with the murder, those criminal law systems still have the death penalty.
He does currently face some Pennsylvania charges as well, such as firearms charges in connection with the encounter where he was arrested, but none of those are severe enough to warrant a death sentence.
[deleted]
Life outside prison is also a delayed death sentence.
The difference between life-in-prison and a death sentence is pretty minimal, given the length of time it takes in the US to get through the death row process. Decades, typically. Many are never actually executed. In either case, you are expected to die in a jail cell after many, many years of incarceration.
The difference between those two and a non-imprisoned life is... significant.
The difference between those two and a non-imprisoned life is... significant.
life anywhere is just a delayed death sentence...
I wouldn't be shocked if he walks. There is something crazy in the air and I could see a jury nullification happening here. It only takes one. Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?
Maybe, or the country collapses before he goes to trial.
I'm reminded of the trial of John Brown. For those who aren't history buffs, John Brown led a raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, VA in October 1859, hoping to steal weapons to arm the slaves and fuel a slave revolt. He was caught and executed in December 1859. The country collapsed into civil war 17 months later, at Lincoln's inauguration. Historians wryly note that John Brown was executed for doing, on a small scale, the same thing that Lincoln did on a large scale 2 years later.
I'm reminded of the trial of John Brown. For those who aren't history buffs, John Brown led a raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, VA in October 1859, hoping to steal weapons to arm the slaves and fuel a slave revolt. He was caught and executed in December 1859. The country collapsed into civil war 17 months later, at Lincoln's inauguration. Historians wryly note that John Brown was executed for doing, on a small scale, the same thing that Lincoln did on a large scale 2 years later.
nostrademons says >"Maybe, or the country collapses before he goes to trial."<
which seems pretty far-fetched to me.
But poster ablation earlier spoke of the:
"toxic stew of stupidity and sub-4chan conspiracy theorising." on ZeroHedge."
Is HN immune to what happened to Zerohedge? Some of the posts here are pretty speculative, to put it mildly.
which seems pretty far-fetched to me.
But poster ablation earlier spoke of the:
"toxic stew of stupidity and sub-4chan conspiracy theorising." on ZeroHedge."
Is HN immune to what happened to Zerohedge? Some of the posts here are pretty speculative, to put it mildly.
What happened to Zerohedge?
> Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?
Jurors are screened for bias, likely questions from the prosecutors will include, "Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?" Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury. Lots of people can answer with a "no" quite truthfully, myself included.
(Note also that I am not making a comment on whether or not I approve of how juries are selected, this is simply how it works.)
Jurors are screened for bias, likely questions from the prosecutors will include, "Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?" Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury. Lots of people can answer with a "no" quite truthfully, myself included.
(Note also that I am not making a comment on whether or not I approve of how juries are selected, this is simply how it works.)
> “Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?” Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury.
That’s not a sufficient basis for a dismissal for cause, most people who have ever had insurance would answer “Yes” to that question, and prosecutors don’t have an infinite number of peremptory challenges.
So, they probably won’t dismiss on the basis of that answer alone, but do some followup if the answer is “Yes”.
That’s not a sufficient basis for a dismissal for cause, most people who have ever had insurance would answer “Yes” to that question, and prosecutors don’t have an infinite number of peremptory challenges.
So, they probably won’t dismiss on the basis of that answer alone, but do some followup if the answer is “Yes”.
Counterpoint: I don't know anyone who could answer "no" truthfully. Maybe it's because I am in an older age group?
You're right there are lots of people who can answer "no". However, it's also possible that such a cohort is not a true jury of peers, and remember that juries skew older.
It's possible that screening everyone out who answers "yes" would not be allowed by the judge for this reason. Then, the prosecution would only have a small number of "no reason" exclusions.
You're right there are lots of people who can answer "no". However, it's also possible that such a cohort is not a true jury of peers, and remember that juries skew older.
It's possible that screening everyone out who answers "yes" would not be allowed by the judge for this reason. Then, the prosecution would only have a small number of "no reason" exclusions.
> Counterpoint: I don’t know anyone who could answer “no” truthfully.
People who have never personally been insured would answer “no” truthfully, people who have been insured but only consumed in-network, fairly routine services might be able to answer “No” truthfully (though hiccups even with that leading to initial denials are not uncommon), and people under 26 who have only been on their parents insurance and have been shielded from the details of insurance interactions would be able to answer “No” often without intentional misrepresentation.
> However, it’s also possible that such a cohort is not a true jury of peers,
“Jury of peers” is a line from Magna Carta referring to barons’ right to have their guilt or innocence determined by other barons and does not appear in the US Constitution. The limitation on excluding jurors in the US system is that the unlimited number of exclusions for cause that attorneys for either side may request are determined by the judge on the basis of whether the potential juror has sufficient evidence of bias that would make them incapable of rendering a fair verdict, and other exclusions (peremptory challenges) are sharply limited in number, not some assessment of whether the net result is “a true jury of peers”.
People who have never personally been insured would answer “no” truthfully, people who have been insured but only consumed in-network, fairly routine services might be able to answer “No” truthfully (though hiccups even with that leading to initial denials are not uncommon), and people under 26 who have only been on their parents insurance and have been shielded from the details of insurance interactions would be able to answer “No” often without intentional misrepresentation.
> However, it’s also possible that such a cohort is not a true jury of peers,
“Jury of peers” is a line from Magna Carta referring to barons’ right to have their guilt or innocence determined by other barons and does not appear in the US Constitution. The limitation on excluding jurors in the US system is that the unlimited number of exclusions for cause that attorneys for either side may request are determined by the judge on the basis of whether the potential juror has sufficient evidence of bias that would make them incapable of rendering a fair verdict, and other exclusions (peremptory challenges) are sharply limited in number, not some assessment of whether the net result is “a true jury of peers”.
A lot would say "yes" though. It doesn't have to be something major.
My wife's eye exam was scheduled a day early. Denied, though I'm not that annoyed over $250.
My wife's eye exam was scheduled a day early. Denied, though I'm not that annoyed over $250.
That's over 30 hours of work for a very large portion of the population.
It is a significant amount of money/effort for many, yes.
Originally I said I wasn't going on a shooting spree over it and edited it. Maybe I should have left it after all.
Originally I said I wasn't going on a shooting spree over it and edited it. Maybe I should have left it after all.
> Jurors are screened for bias, likely questions from the prosecutors will include, "Have you ever been denied a medical insurance claim?" Those who answer yes will definitely not make the jury.
In the US, it will be very difficult to find people who can say no to that.
In the US, it will be very difficult to find people who can say no to that.
The best question is "do you think wealthy CEOs disproportionately evade justice."
One of the more sympathetic views towards the murderer is that there was no legal avenue to pursue the CEO for mass fraud under which the plaintiffs would get a fair shake. Vigilantism is more welcome by the public when it appears to be the only recourse.
One of the more sympathetic views towards the murderer is that there was no legal avenue to pursue the CEO for mass fraud under which the plaintiffs would get a fair shake. Vigilantism is more welcome by the public when it appears to be the only recourse.
>The best question is "do you think wealthy CEOs disproportionately evade justice."
What prevents the juror answering "no", and then acting precisely on this belief?
What prevents the juror answering "no", and then acting precisely on this belief?
> I wouldn't be shocked if he walks.
Just for curiosities sake, who did you think would win the latest US presidential election?
I feel like many (most?) people on the internet are kind of disconnected from people's everyday life outside of the internet. I'm guessing that most of the average folks (people outside the internet zeitgeist) never even heard about this assassination, even less cares about the assassin going free if they did.
Just for curiosities sake, who did you think would win the latest US presidential election?
I feel like many (most?) people on the internet are kind of disconnected from people's everyday life outside of the internet. I'm guessing that most of the average folks (people outside the internet zeitgeist) never even heard about this assassination, even less cares about the assassin going free if they did.
I guessed correctly on the last 6 elections personally.
I was at a party over the weekend. I asked a room of 30 people what they thought of the assassin and the overwhelming consensus was hero, they wouldn't say anything if they saw him, and if they were on the jury they would acquit. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a replay of OJ Simpson where one of the jurors gave OJ a power fist as he walked out for the verdict. It only takes 1 person to get onto the jury and acquit. Americans love a robin hood.
I was at a party over the weekend. I asked a room of 30 people what they thought of the assassin and the overwhelming consensus was hero, they wouldn't say anything if they saw him, and if they were on the jury they would acquit. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a replay of OJ Simpson where one of the jurors gave OJ a power fist as he walked out for the verdict. It only takes 1 person to get onto the jury and acquit. Americans love a robin hood.
> the overwhelming consensus was hero
I'm guessing that makes it pretty clear that it wasn't really a mixed of "real Americans" as almost nothing is so black & white, especially if you compare people who live very different lives.
But, I could be wrong, it has happened before and it's bound to happen again at some point :)
I'm guessing that makes it pretty clear that it wasn't really a mixed of "real Americans" as almost nothing is so black & white, especially if you compare people who live very different lives.
But, I could be wrong, it has happened before and it's bound to happen again at some point :)
I had the same experience talking to others around here. I guess they aren't "real Americans" either. Or, maybe this is an unusually black & white event.
> Or, maybe this is an unusually black & white event.
I'd say the HN public is the bubble there. Lot of aspiring CEO who take the "don't care with rules if you can get away with it" message to heart so they feel like they have more in common with the victim than with the perpetrator of this murder. While I would not be surprised if it is the reverse for 90% of the USA population.
I'd say the HN public is the bubble there. Lot of aspiring CEO who take the "don't care with rules if you can get away with it" message to heart so they feel like they have more in common with the victim than with the perpetrator of this murder. While I would not be surprised if it is the reverse for 90% of the USA population.
HN is literally the only place (online or in the real world) I've seen anyone defending this CEO and trying to drum up sympathy for him. You're absolutely right: It's likely that we are the weird bubble outside of everyone else.
Trump just got voted in.
By ~50% of voters, not 99%. More people agree on this than do on cat pics being cute.
> Trump just got voted in.
So? You'd be surprised by what many of them think about insurance companies CEOs.
So? You'd be surprised by what many of them think about insurance companies CEOs.
Had a similar experience. All our guests at a dinner party were hoping he would escape.
Probably they were no true scotsmen either
>internet are kind of disconnected from people's everyday life outside of the internet.
Are insurance companies more liked among internet users or less liked among internet users (than the population at large)? I presume that internet users tend to be wealthier (due to more free/leisure time, better browsing technology) and less angry with their insurance than non-users, but could be wrong.
Are insurance companies more liked among internet users or less liked among internet users (than the population at large)? I presume that internet users tend to be wealthier (due to more free/leisure time, better browsing technology) and less angry with their insurance than non-users, but could be wrong.
> Where are you going to find a jury where nobody on it has the same grudge for more or less the same reasons?
By having a filtering process before the jury is empanelled to identify that.
By having a filtering process before the jury is empanelled to identify that.
Good luck with that...
They will ensure the selection of the absolute dumbest and most docile jurors possible to prevent this outcome.
Doesn't the defense also get a say on the juror selection?
I was thinking suckers, but I guess it's the same thing.
> ... I could see a jury nullification happening here. It only takes one.
Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?
Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?
> Does a hung jury not just lead to a retrial?
A hung jury leads to a mistrial. After a mistrial, the prosecution has the option of trying the case again, but it gets harder (you’ve got more time from the events, a more-tainted jury pool, etc.)
Also, if there are multiple charges, and the jury reaches a not guilty verdict on any charges, that may impact the ability to refile other charges, or make it harder to try them if they can be refiled, because any fact that the jury necessarily rejected in an acquittal is finally decided by that acquittal.
A hung jury leads to a mistrial. After a mistrial, the prosecution has the option of trying the case again, but it gets harder (you’ve got more time from the events, a more-tainted jury pool, etc.)
Also, if there are multiple charges, and the jury reaches a not guilty verdict on any charges, that may impact the ability to refile other charges, or make it harder to try them if they can be refiled, because any fact that the jury necessarily rejected in an acquittal is finally decided by that acquittal.
He could have planned to have a shootout and suicide-by-cop but that didn't happen. I was genuinely surprised that they took him alive.
Where he'll get treatment on the taxpayer dime?
For what it's worth there have been a number of cases of elderly patients holding up a bank for $1 and then sitting in the waiting area to be arrested with the stated goal to get medical treatment. I have no idea how many of them actually end up in jail or get the treatment they desired.
Oh, the precious taxpayer dime! Given to overspending public works, bureucracy, foreign wars, and other bullshit, as well as all kinds of private companies who sculp him!
But god forbid it's also used to treat sick people! Or prisoners.
But god forbid it's also used to treat sick people! Or prisoners.
Don't misunderstand me, I think it's fine he gets the treatment he needs to resolve his pain.
It should have happened without death, is all.
It should have happened without death, is all.
In this case it's the specific irony of not being able to afford healthcare unless separated from society.
my money's on him being "suicided" with the cameras off before a public trial can take place...
I dont think so, but it wouldn't surprise me.
That’s what happens when you commit a crime. It doesn’t matter who you kill or who you are when you do it. If the CEO had killed this guy in the same manner, he’d be facing the same consequences.
I'd be surprised if they NYPD and the FBI spent anything even remotely close to e.g. 10% of what they did in this cases to investigate any random average murder.
If he just shot someone randomly in a poorer neighbourhood he likely would still be free.
If he just shot someone randomly in a poorer neighbourhood he likely would still be free.
Your point is well made. If someone shoots you in a trailer park or the hood, nobody is launching a nationwide manhunt.
I redact my previous comment but leave it for posterity.
I redact my previous comment but leave it for posterity.
This is generally true for something like gunning down someone in the street.
(Even then: being a cop or the President helps...)
For almost all other crimes, no, probably not.
Even for murder, it's not entirely true; https://nypost.com/2024/12/05/us-news/teen-killed-another-wo... happened on the same day, but certainly didn't see the level of police resources involved in finding the killer. Teams of cops with drones weren't searching large swathes of NYC for those perps.
(Even then: being a cop or the President helps...)
For almost all other crimes, no, probably not.
Even for murder, it's not entirely true; https://nypost.com/2024/12/05/us-news/teen-killed-another-wo... happened on the same day, but certainly didn't see the level of police resources involved in finding the killer. Teams of cops with drones weren't searching large swathes of NYC for those perps.
Honestly, if he were me, I may feel the same way.
It wouldn't be the first time the police/three letters agencies lie about how they identified/located a suspect to not leak potentially illegal surveillance processes
and its looking like they jumped the gun on brian kohberger. they keep delaying the trial; i would not be surprised if he goes free.
Agree but doesn't explain why he would be carrying so much incriminating stuff around with him.
My theory is that he wasn’t done assassinating CEOs.
It’s the obvious answer as to why he still had the gun on him.
It’s the obvious answer as to why he still had the gun on him.
Assuming this (now deleted) post outlining his justification was indeed penned by the killer, he clearly had a motive to kill UH’s CEO but not others.
https://archive.is/2024.12.09-230659/https://breloomlegacy.s...
https://archive.is/2024.12.09-230659/https://breloomlegacy.s...
Given the wealth of Luigi Mangione's family, if he's the killer, this sounds unlikely to be penned by him (or at least his own story).
Just because his family is wealthy does not mean that his mother was financially supported for her healthcare. It's quite possible that the family patriarch held the purse strings and deemed that health insurance was the line for their financial support.
I'm in a similar situation with a family member and we are spending around 4-5k/month in a variety of non-allopathic strategies for this family member's health care. However, the family patriarch has drawn the line where his financial support is in providing housing, so the 4-5k is picked up by other family members.
I'm in a similar situation with a family member and we are spending around 4-5k/month in a variety of non-allopathic strategies for this family member's health care. However, the family patriarch has drawn the line where his financial support is in providing housing, so the 4-5k is picked up by other family members.
You can be a literal millionaire and bled dry by mounting health insurance claim denials. There is little anyone can do to protect themselves from this outcome, save for not getting sick or becoming a billionaire. The health system in the US is insanely broken.
I thought that was a very strange thing to do from the patriarch, until I googled non-allopathic and found out you're setting fire to 4-5k a month.
Its homeopathy, NOT healthcare.
Its homeopathy, NOT healthcare.
Non-Allopathic in my case means we’re not dealing with the traditional US medical system. We’re not engaged in homeopathy (microdosing random molecules) at all.
Perhaps what we are doing is still considered allopathic (most strategies are informed with research a la pubmed), with an osteopathic approach (whole body).
The difference here is that we’re able to eschew traditional means (dr appointment, lab test, drug rx feedback loop) of engaging with the medical system, while engaging with non-traditional health related businesses for our own care.
For example, we’re able to validate whether genetic disorders are at play by having sequenced full DNA and matching them against known genetic mutations.
We will order our own blood tests and pay out of pocket to quest, to drive decision making. Same thing a regular doctor would do, but in a far more expedited timeline. It’s a 1-2 day process test a vit D levels to determine and adjust dosing. An average doctor might be 3 weeks out for a 15 minute appointment to write that vit D lab script, then another week out from reviewing and writing the Rx for D.
4-5k a month is the cost of what someone with profound chronic illness ends up paying if they want to do their own R&D, deal with things on their own, in a manner that ensures timeliness and the best care possible. It’s a myth that access to the brightest minds (a la an institution like Mayo Clinic equals the best care, btw)
The money is merely the average in which to access the latest tests, as quickly as possible, medical equipment normally inaccessible to the general public and test and treatment options an engaged and highly trained MD that practices something such as precision medicine might suggest at the height of their careers’ charging power.
It also helps that the patriarch is a retired MD and can let us engage with the system out of band by writing scripts for medications that would be unavailable to the average public.
When lives and suffering are on the line, and we’re in these highly compensated roles, 4-5k/month is a privilege to spend for loved ones. Much of it may be lit on fire, so to speak, in personal r&d efforts, but each of them yields a win that gets us closer to a healthy baseline.
Perhaps what we are doing is still considered allopathic (most strategies are informed with research a la pubmed), with an osteopathic approach (whole body).
The difference here is that we’re able to eschew traditional means (dr appointment, lab test, drug rx feedback loop) of engaging with the medical system, while engaging with non-traditional health related businesses for our own care.
For example, we’re able to validate whether genetic disorders are at play by having sequenced full DNA and matching them against known genetic mutations.
We will order our own blood tests and pay out of pocket to quest, to drive decision making. Same thing a regular doctor would do, but in a far more expedited timeline. It’s a 1-2 day process test a vit D levels to determine and adjust dosing. An average doctor might be 3 weeks out for a 15 minute appointment to write that vit D lab script, then another week out from reviewing and writing the Rx for D.
4-5k a month is the cost of what someone with profound chronic illness ends up paying if they want to do their own R&D, deal with things on their own, in a manner that ensures timeliness and the best care possible. It’s a myth that access to the brightest minds (a la an institution like Mayo Clinic equals the best care, btw)
The money is merely the average in which to access the latest tests, as quickly as possible, medical equipment normally inaccessible to the general public and test and treatment options an engaged and highly trained MD that practices something such as precision medicine might suggest at the height of their careers’ charging power.
It also helps that the patriarch is a retired MD and can let us engage with the system out of band by writing scripts for medications that would be unavailable to the average public.
When lives and suffering are on the line, and we’re in these highly compensated roles, 4-5k/month is a privilege to spend for loved ones. Much of it may be lit on fire, so to speak, in personal r&d efforts, but each of them yields a win that gets us closer to a healthy baseline.
Maybe because he wanted to get caught? Or at least expected it and knew there was no way he'd get away with it.
It seems far more likely to be a case of incompetence. Law enforcement actually has an extremely low rate of "solving" cases, especially if you exclude all the "solved" cases where the suspect is caught on scene or that end in a plea bargain (i.e. did not have to establish sufficient evidence in the first place).
Ever since he got "caught" (if you can call someone literally telling the police where he is "the police catching him"), all I've been hearing about is how the police wants to use DNA evidence and bullet "fingerpints" (i.e. attempting to demonstrate that a bullet was not only fired from a given type of gun but a specific singular gun of that type) and other CSI woo to now tie the actual crime to him. They might actually be lucky and produce matches in this case as they have the actual suspect and murder weapon (assuming this wasn't an extremely unlikely 5D chess move of using a body double fall guy and/or different gun) but both of these types of evidence are extremely unreliable and rarely help actually finding the suspect even if they make for good television when they work. As I understand it the police even walked back on the mayor's initial claim about "having a name" to "having a list of names" - not to mention that you don't call in the FBI when you already have good leads yourself (if only for optics/political reasons).
He seems to have been mentally unstable for a while before engaging in this killing and the fact he wrote a manifesto strongly suggests he had an intention of being caught or at least considered it highly likely. The monopoly money bag wasn't necessarily a "red herring" as everyone I heard talk about it interpreted it as intending to send a message, which seems to agree with the apparent contents of his manifesto (based on what news reports have cited from it). The water bottle the police now wants to use for DNA evidence may have been deliberately left there for this purpose, too.
Based on what I've heard of his manifesto, he may have intended to kill other people too but have realized the difficulty involved given that his very public first killing likely spooked the other people on his list. I think it's more likely he didn't fully plan out an entire sequence of killings or didn't account for these complications and essentially gave up, settling on being caught sooner rather than later. People generally don't write manifestos when they don't also want to take credit for their actions.
Ever since he got "caught" (if you can call someone literally telling the police where he is "the police catching him"), all I've been hearing about is how the police wants to use DNA evidence and bullet "fingerpints" (i.e. attempting to demonstrate that a bullet was not only fired from a given type of gun but a specific singular gun of that type) and other CSI woo to now tie the actual crime to him. They might actually be lucky and produce matches in this case as they have the actual suspect and murder weapon (assuming this wasn't an extremely unlikely 5D chess move of using a body double fall guy and/or different gun) but both of these types of evidence are extremely unreliable and rarely help actually finding the suspect even if they make for good television when they work. As I understand it the police even walked back on the mayor's initial claim about "having a name" to "having a list of names" - not to mention that you don't call in the FBI when you already have good leads yourself (if only for optics/political reasons).
He seems to have been mentally unstable for a while before engaging in this killing and the fact he wrote a manifesto strongly suggests he had an intention of being caught or at least considered it highly likely. The monopoly money bag wasn't necessarily a "red herring" as everyone I heard talk about it interpreted it as intending to send a message, which seems to agree with the apparent contents of his manifesto (based on what news reports have cited from it). The water bottle the police now wants to use for DNA evidence may have been deliberately left there for this purpose, too.
Based on what I've heard of his manifesto, he may have intended to kill other people too but have realized the difficulty involved given that his very public first killing likely spooked the other people on his list. I think it's more likely he didn't fully plan out an entire sequence of killings or didn't account for these complications and essentially gave up, settling on being caught sooner rather than later. People generally don't write manifestos when they don't also want to take credit for their actions.
People can have contradictory motives. People in real life aren't driven by carefully considered system of beliefs. Only in fiction are people required to make sense.
We just make enough sense to mostly get by in the world.
We just make enough sense to mostly get by in the world.
Sure but people rarely write manifestos.
That said, apparently his manifesto is fairly short and honestly sounds more like a confession than an actual political manifesto.
My point is more that usually when you hear about a killer having a manifesto you expect a lenghty diatribe about what they think is wrong with society and why they think what they did helps fix it - whether it's early 20th century "propaganda of the deed" anarchists, late 20th century "fall of the West" primitivists or early 21st century "race war" white supremacists and "new crusade" Christian nationalists. Of course for e.g. Islamist terrorists you don't even need a manifesto because everyone knows the cliff notes version already (Western imperialism, Islamic caliphate, blasphemy, etc). Instead this guy seems to have largely been upset with privatized healthcare, which is a common sentiment but rarely enough to motivate someone to pull off such an elaborate stunt.
That his manifesto is pretty rushed and incomplete does support the idea that he's more mentally unstable than genuinely "politically radicalized" though. The Christchurch shooter's manifesto for example was fairly incoherent and seemed more like an elaborate trolling attempt than a sophisticated political tract but clearly some effort went into it. Luigi's almost feels like a half-hearted homework assignment. I wouldn't be surprised if he quickly wrote it after the killing on a whim and didn't give it much thought before, which again would fit with my impression that he really focused on the first killing and didn't plan out much beyond that. As someone struggling with ADHD and autistic hyperfixation (not saying either of those apply to him), I can relate.
That said, apparently his manifesto is fairly short and honestly sounds more like a confession than an actual political manifesto.
My point is more that usually when you hear about a killer having a manifesto you expect a lenghty diatribe about what they think is wrong with society and why they think what they did helps fix it - whether it's early 20th century "propaganda of the deed" anarchists, late 20th century "fall of the West" primitivists or early 21st century "race war" white supremacists and "new crusade" Christian nationalists. Of course for e.g. Islamist terrorists you don't even need a manifesto because everyone knows the cliff notes version already (Western imperialism, Islamic caliphate, blasphemy, etc). Instead this guy seems to have largely been upset with privatized healthcare, which is a common sentiment but rarely enough to motivate someone to pull off such an elaborate stunt.
That his manifesto is pretty rushed and incomplete does support the idea that he's more mentally unstable than genuinely "politically radicalized" though. The Christchurch shooter's manifesto for example was fairly incoherent and seemed more like an elaborate trolling attempt than a sophisticated political tract but clearly some effort went into it. Luigi's almost feels like a half-hearted homework assignment. I wouldn't be surprised if he quickly wrote it after the killing on a whim and didn't give it much thought before, which again would fit with my impression that he really focused on the first killing and didn't plan out much beyond that. As someone struggling with ADHD and autistic hyperfixation (not saying either of those apply to him), I can relate.
They don’t even need to actually tie him to the killing to put him in jail for a long time - possession of an illegal suppressor is a slam dunk here, and that’s major jail time.
Would this also apply if he were no longer in possession of the suppressor?
Keep the gun, but ditch the suppressor?
It wouldn’t help him with any of the rest of this mess, but possessing the illegal suppressor is an easy ‘we can keep him in jail until we figure out the rest of this’ situation.
Was there a picture of the suppressor?
> all I've been hearing about is how the police wants to use DNA evidence and bullet "fingerpints" [...] and other CSI woo to now tie the actual crime to him
I don't know about your country, but in my country if you look like the person shown on CCTV committing a crime, you're wearing the same jacket, you're carrying the same illegal gun, and you're carrying a handwritten manifesto justifying the crime?
That's enough evidence for a normal jury of normal people to convict. The cops don't really need to add any DNA or CSI woo, juries are capable of exercising common sense.
Only way there's reasonable doubt here is if the guy's carrying the first place trophy for the CEO shooter lookalike contest.
I don't know about your country, but in my country if you look like the person shown on CCTV committing a crime, you're wearing the same jacket, you're carrying the same illegal gun, and you're carrying a handwritten manifesto justifying the crime?
That's enough evidence for a normal jury of normal people to convict. The cops don't really need to add any DNA or CSI woo, juries are capable of exercising common sense.
Only way there's reasonable doubt here is if the guy's carrying the first place trophy for the CEO shooter lookalike contest.
Yeah, that's why I'm pointing it out. It's like the police is trying to oversell their investigative work in the public image, which strongly suggests that they had very little hand in actually catching him and now try to compensate - whether it's because they really were tipped off by a McDonald's employee or because the FBI found him doing something fishier. But the fact he had everything on him strongly suggests that the McDonald's story is at least credible.
It's pretty humiliating if you have a big militarized police force and can't catch a guy who killed a big important CEO in public and then went on wearing the murder suit in public until a random McDonald's guy calls you up and literally tells you where to find him, in public.
It's pretty humiliating if you have a big militarized police force and can't catch a guy who killed a big important CEO in public and then went on wearing the murder suit in public until a random McDonald's guy calls you up and literally tells you where to find him, in public.
Remember all those movies that show the government tracking people on satellites and using phone echolocation, etc?
Where is that shit now for a guy they have VIDEOS of?
Remember when osama bin Laden was staying a relatives house and not in a secret underground cave network?
This CSI/Navy seal messaging is compliance propaganda.
Where is that shit now for a guy they have VIDEOS of?
Remember when osama bin Laden was staying a relatives house and not in a secret underground cave network?
This CSI/Navy seal messaging is compliance propaganda.
Remember when hundreds of militants crossed the most secure border wall in any "Western" country ever both on foot, in vehicles and on paragliders and went on to massacre literally over a thousand people including hundreds of reservists before the second most overfunded military in the world was able to put a stop to them and stupidly ended up killing civvies and friendlies in the crossfire because it has a doctrine of preventing hostage taking at any cost?
Remember when the US spy agencies prevented a credible terrorist plot by accidentally catching a guy in the Middle East carrying a thumb drive with terrorist plans on it?
Surveillance exists to maintain control, it can't help establish it. Dragnet surveillance exists to reconstruct events, not to prevent them. And most importantly, it all exists to suppress, not to protect. It's about dominance, not security.
Remember when the US spy agencies prevented a credible terrorist plot by accidentally catching a guy in the Middle East carrying a thumb drive with terrorist plans on it?
Surveillance exists to maintain control, it can't help establish it. Dragnet surveillance exists to reconstruct events, not to prevent them. And most importantly, it all exists to suppress, not to protect. It's about dominance, not security.
Neither of your theories answer the question -- how did he know that the CEO was staying in a hotel other than Hilton (conference venue) and would arrive by foot 1 hour and 15 minutes before conference opens at 8am (CEOs do not typically arrive so early in advance). The shooter was caught on camera talking on a burner phone 15 minutes before shooting. Who did he talk to? Was he acting alone or received some help? The shooter only had to wait for 15 minutes or so before his target arrives. Pure "luck" or help from inside?
Find when CEO is going to speak at conference, work backward from there.
Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp.
Not rocket science at all, just basic OSint
Waiting 15min instead of 1hr 15min was probably luck though.
Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp.
Not rocket science at all, just basic OSint
Waiting 15min instead of 1hr 15min was probably luck though.
> Conference probably had a hotel block they were booking and a link to book so you know which hotel to camp.
In this case it was Hilton. And if the CEO stayed at Hilton he had no reason to be on the street outside the hotel where the killer was waiting for him. Somehow the shooter knew that the target is not staying at the Hilton and will be walking to the front entrance. BTW, the normal practice for high profile individuals to arrive in a car to a service entrance hidden from the public.
In this case it was Hilton. And if the CEO stayed at Hilton he had no reason to be on the street outside the hotel where the killer was waiting for him. Somehow the shooter knew that the target is not staying at the Hilton and will be walking to the front entrance. BTW, the normal practice for high profile individuals to arrive in a car to a service entrance hidden from the public.
This is my sticking point as well. The bullet messages only made sense for this specific guy and that’s a whole lot of work to engrave bullets, take a multi-state bus ride, camp out in a hostel, etc if you’re not 100% sure the guy is going to be there.
I’d feel more confident if he’d staked the route out for multiple days or if there was a plausible backup plan like breaking in to the CEO’s hotel or the conference.
I’d feel more confident if he’d staked the route out for multiple days or if there was a plausible backup plan like breaking in to the CEO’s hotel or the conference.
Isn’t this just selection bias? If he had been wrong and not seen the CEO, we would never have heard about him.
For all we know he made 15 attempts before this.
For all we know he made 15 attempts before this.
Yep. Also, if you're trying to surprise someone at their arrival to an event, you absolutely do arrive super early to wait for them rather than try to guess their exact arrival time. If the target had arrived in mid morning after missing the opening speech instead, his killer would have waited. If the target had made a late decision not to attend, we'd have probably found out about the killer via the next event or next target
> that’s a whole lot of work to engrave bullets
They weren't engraved. It was just Sharpie. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-healthcare-ceo-brian-tho... "A source briefed on the investigation said each word was meticulously written, not etched, onto the casings in Sharpie."
> 100% sure the guy is going to be there.
One can be 100% sure the guy is gonna at least be at the conference, and humans tend to be predictable. He was also fairly likely to be at the venue the day before getting prepared.
They weren't engraved. It was just Sharpie. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-healthcare-ceo-brian-tho... "A source briefed on the investigation said each word was meticulously written, not etched, onto the casings in Sharpie."
> 100% sure the guy is going to be there.
One can be 100% sure the guy is gonna at least be at the conference, and humans tend to be predictable. He was also fairly likely to be at the venue the day before getting prepared.
This is exactly what us hunters do year after year, time and time again. Drive for hours, hike for miles. Gathering what information we can. Then at some point we have to make assumptions and commit to some scenario in hopes it pans out the way you assume.
A tremendous amount of time and effort is spent with it all riding on a few, hopefully, well placed assumptions. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Usually your acquaintances only hear about the times the hunt works out. Same with this. We only hear about it, because it worked out for the hunter
A tremendous amount of time and effort is spent with it all riding on a few, hopefully, well placed assumptions. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Usually your acquaintances only hear about the times the hunt works out. Same with this. We only hear about it, because it worked out for the hunter
> how did he know that the CEO was staying in a hotel other than Hilton
Because someone paid that much money stays at a fancier place, like one of the Conrads or Waldorf Astorias. Hilton's a mid-level brand.
Or, you follow him from the conference center the day before.
Because someone paid that much money stays at a fancier place, like one of the Conrads or Waldorf Astorias. Hilton's a mid-level brand.
Or, you follow him from the conference center the day before.
There are plenty of plausible explanations, but it probably wouldn't have been a huge lift to get Thompson's itinerary from his secretary by spearfishing or some other form of social engineering.
> CEOs do not typically arrive so early in advance
But they may well have arranged other, small meetings with people also attending the same annual meeting. It's then convenient to have them all in the same hotel.
But they may well have arranged other, small meetings with people also attending the same annual meeting. It's then convenient to have them all in the same hotel.
Also I read it was a 3D printed gun and silencer which is hard to believe just printed it and never practiced or is he trained at shooting?
It does explain the malfunction though.
Yeah if a 3d printed silencer works at all it will only work once. It will be deformed by the heat and obstruct the bullet on the next shot.
No, it won't. It's possible to 3d print suppressors that withstand multiple shots, even mag dumps if they're made robustly enough.
He needed a Neilsen device or piston in the suppressor to assist with cycling on the action, which he didn't have.
He's not surprised that he has to rack the slide after every shot, he knows that it most likely will not cycle and he'll have to work it manually and he reaches immediately to do it.
edit: i'll speculate and say the suppressor still worked after the shooting because he still had it on him. if it was melted or broken, he may have been more apt to toss it.
He needed a Neilsen device or piston in the suppressor to assist with cycling on the action, which he didn't have.
He's not surprised that he has to rack the slide after every shot, he knows that it most likely will not cycle and he'll have to work it manually and he reaches immediately to do it.
edit: i'll speculate and say the suppressor still worked after the shooting because he still had it on him. if it was melted or broken, he may have been more apt to toss it.
Do you think he practiced before this or took a leap of faith with a possibly defective printed silencer? It’s bonkers to me that he would just hope for the best and possibly have it fail during the encounter and also it’s curious that he knew about the racking thing with every shot.
I mean he’s clearly a bright individual, Ivy League and comp sci major and all so did he study YouTube videos or something?
I mean he’s clearly a bright individual, Ivy League and comp sci major and all so did he study YouTube videos or something?
Was this the first time he tried it? Probably not.
>media really over-estimated this persons competence
It is a bit of psychological blindness where we convince ourselves that random murders aren't as easy as they really are. The truth is that almost anyone -- including people with lots of security theater -- can be nullified by random people. This is quadruply true in the era of drones.
It is a bit of psychological blindness where we convince ourselves that random murders aren't as easy as they really are. The truth is that almost anyone -- including people with lots of security theater -- can be nullified by random people. This is quadruply true in the era of drones.
There's very little in America to stop a person who is willing to die (or spend life in prison) from killing others.
Most normal people just have a healthy self preservation instinct, so aren't willing to accept those consequences.
Most normal people just have a healthy self preservation instinct, so aren't willing to accept those consequences.
It's not just America. Shinzo Abe was assassinated, with security and at a public event, by somebody using a homemade gun with homemade ammo.
As tech advances over time, this will all only become even more true.
As tech advances over time, this will all only become even more true.
Mass shootings in the US don’t even make the news any more. I don’t think that’s true in most countries:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...
547 so far this year. If we had equal justice for all in this country, this CEO shooting would have barely made local news, maybe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...
547 so far this year. If we had equal justice for all in this country, this CEO shooting would have barely made local news, maybe.
>547 so far this year. If we had equal justice for all in this country, this CEO shooting would have barely made local news, maybe.
Don't lie at us with statistics like that. The bulk of those so called "mass shootings", normal crimes gone off the rails and other things that are nowhere near what people think when you use the words "mass shooting", which is almost certainly the slight of hand you're going for.
2+ victims is a mass shooting per the FBI definition. While what you say and like you reference is technically true it's also a particularly evil way to mislead the reader to portray it as you did. The typical mass shooting on that list consists of 2-4 people shot over the course of an otherwise normal crime (usually a crime for profit gone off the rails or the drug industry DIYing dispute resolution) wheres the colloquial definition of "mass shooting" is more along the lines of a crazy suicidal person killing as many others as they can.
Pretty much every mass shooting by the colloquial definition makes the national news. I am unaware of any one that has not.
Don't lie at us with statistics like that. The bulk of those so called "mass shootings", normal crimes gone off the rails and other things that are nowhere near what people think when you use the words "mass shooting", which is almost certainly the slight of hand you're going for.
2+ victims is a mass shooting per the FBI definition. While what you say and like you reference is technically true it's also a particularly evil way to mislead the reader to portray it as you did. The typical mass shooting on that list consists of 2-4 people shot over the course of an otherwise normal crime (usually a crime for profit gone off the rails or the drug industry DIYing dispute resolution) wheres the colloquial definition of "mass shooting" is more along the lines of a crazy suicidal person killing as many others as they can.
Pretty much every mass shooting by the colloquial definition makes the national news. I am unaware of any one that has not.
> Pretty much every mass shooting by the colloquial definition makes the national news. I am unaware of any one that has not.
Now that sounds like obvious selection bias. Also, the Wikipedia article says "specifically for the purposes of this article, a total of four or more victims". But the point about the categorization is well taken. As the article says: "Many incidents involving organized crime and gang violence are included."
Now that sounds like obvious selection bias. Also, the Wikipedia article says "specifically for the purposes of this article, a total of four or more victims". But the point about the categorization is well taken. As the article says: "Many incidents involving organized crime and gang violence are included."
And this ‘mass shooting’ list also includes injuries NOT caused by shooting. What’s the point of that?
“ A man was killed and three women were injured when they fired upon in a vehicle on eastbound Roosevelt Road near Cicero Avenue in Cicero. The victims fled north onto Cicero Avenue into Chicago where they crashed, leading to three others being injured in the crash.[16]”
^ Who would call this a mass shooting?
“ A man was killed and three women were injured when they fired upon in a vehicle on eastbound Roosevelt Road near Cicero Avenue in Cicero. The victims fled north onto Cicero Avenue into Chicago where they crashed, leading to three others being injured in the crash.[16]”
^ Who would call this a mass shooting?
The disparity is laid bare by the fact that this wasn’t even the only murder in lower Manhattan on that day. One gets a multi-state manhunt and the top spot on national news for days. The other got a shrug.
Doesn't it make sense for police to go after high profile killings? If they catch the CEO killer that's more good press for them, and if they were slacking there's more chance that they'll get hounded for it.
Sure. NYPD is doing the rational thing in a society that treats the murder of a wealthy CEO as a much worse crime than the murder of a semi-homeless maybe-illegal immigrant.
And in a society that strongly valued equality before the law, they wouldn’t dare treat the two cases so differently. Thus we can see that we don’t live in such a society.
And in a society that strongly valued equality before the law, they wouldn’t dare treat the two cases so differently. Thus we can see that we don’t live in such a society.
>And in a society that strongly valued equality before the law, they wouldn’t dare treat the two cases so differently. Thus we can see that we don’t live in such a society.
How would "equality before the law" as you described even work? If some celebrity got killed and people wanted to contribute their resources into finding their killer, is that suddenly bad now? If my son got killed and I'm trying to find his killer rather than doing the Right Thing™ by devoting my time equally among all unsolved murder cases, am I a bad person?
How would "equality before the law" as you described even work? If some celebrity got killed and people wanted to contribute their resources into finding their killer, is that suddenly bad now? If my son got killed and I'm trying to find his killer rather than doing the Right Thing™ by devoting my time equally among all unsolved murder cases, am I a bad person?
You wouldn’t be, but the police doing so would be in such a situation, if there was equality.
Is a police department that shrugs and says "we'd want to solve this high profile murder that everyone wants solved, but because of 'equality' we have to solve this gangbanger murder that nobody cares about" really what we want? Isn't a government that's responsive to citizen demands also an ideal? What happens if they conflict?
Keep in mind, for this case in specific, a huge number of people did not want it solved
Your concerns about some people being more deserving of a good investigation reminds me why it's great that hospitals will serve everyone, even if they are a gangbanger.
I mean, yes, I do want a world where the police feel like they need to solve murders even when the victims are considered distasteful.
Only two of those sources exclude gang and organized crime-related shootings, which have made up a large portion of the statistic in the past.
Gang and organized crime-related shootings are very bad to have, most developed countries don't have them either.
Well, they're working on that[1].
[1] https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/10/15/swedens-homici...
[1] https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/10/15/swedens-homici...
[deleted]
It's always weird to me when people want to exclude them from stats.
Because it paints the image that normal innocent people are getting shot up in schools and markets more often than they really are, primarily to push the narrative that guns need to be taken from people who have committed no crimes, to stop crime.
In reality, the majority of shootings are done by people who will find a way to kill someone, one way or the other. Whether it be with a legally-purchased gun, an illegally-purchased gun, a homemade gun, a knife, a homemade shank, a baseball bat, a vehicle.
In reality, the majority of shootings are done by people who will find a way to kill someone, one way or the other. Whether it be with a legally-purchased gun, an illegally-purchased gun, a homemade gun, a knife, a homemade shank, a baseball bat, a vehicle.
>normal innocent people are getting shot up in schools and markets [often]
>the majority of shootings are done by people who will find a way to kill someone, one way or the other
Both of these things can be true. You can have a rampant gang violence problem, and also a rampant school shooting problem. The fact that the gang problem is worse doesn't make the school shooting problem okay, and to use this to argue against gun control is... odd.
>the majority of shootings are done by people who will find a way to kill someone, one way or the other
Both of these things can be true. You can have a rampant gang violence problem, and also a rampant school shooting problem. The fact that the gang problem is worse doesn't make the school shooting problem okay, and to use this to argue against gun control is... odd.
The point is that gun control isn't solving anything but eliminating what many Americans perceive as a fundamental right, because bad people do bad things with neutral items. You can stab dozens of people mortally before you're put down. You can mow a crowd of people down with your vehicle. But I carry a gun every day out of the possibility that someone might do one of those things to me, or my loved ones.
Banning a right is the worst bandaid "fix" possible, on top of what is a much more fundamental problem that can't be solved by merely stopping one of its symptoms. Our people are sick in multiple ways. Let's fix that.
Banning a right is the worst bandaid "fix" possible, on top of what is a much more fundamental problem that can't be solved by merely stopping one of its symptoms. Our people are sick in multiple ways. Let's fix that.
They're authoritarians, they don't want to take away guns from the government, only the citizens.
The majority of shootings are actually gun owners or their family members killing themselves. 60% or so.
Suicide makes up 55% of gun deaths, and the US is literally the only country in the world that counts these as gun violence. The remainder is primarily gang violence. Shooting of non-gang affiliated people is extremely rare, and noteworthy because of this rarity. Murder-suicides are also rare, about 1% of suicides.
Most discussion and statistics about gun violence intentionally obfuscates these facts. We could speculate about the motivations why, but it is largely irrelevant.
Most discussion and statistics about gun violence intentionally obfuscates these facts. We could speculate about the motivations why, but it is largely irrelevant.
You seem to be hinting, by your choice of statistics, that gun violence in the USA is not the pressing social issue it is commonly made out to be. (We could speculate about the motivations why, but it is largely irrelevant.)
Since I disagree, I will offer my own statistic: the leading cause of death in the United States among children and adolescents is gunshot wound.
Since I disagree, I will offer my own statistic: the leading cause of death in the United States among children and adolescents is gunshot wound.
Do you have a source on gang violence?
Of the numbers I've seen, in total gun related dealths are evenly split between suicide and homicide.
Of the homicides, ~10-50% are gang related (depending on source) and ~50% are drug-related (including overlap with gang).
F.ex. intimate partner violence being another major homicide category.
Of the numbers I've seen, in total gun related dealths are evenly split between suicide and homicide.
Of the homicides, ~10-50% are gang related (depending on source) and ~50% are drug-related (including overlap with gang).
F.ex. intimate partner violence being another major homicide category.
Parent specifically said “shooting deaths”, which technically includes guns shooting the person holding them in any country.
Gun suicide specifically affects white conservatives males and their kids more than any demographic. Either it’s access to guns, or conservatives are particularly more depressed (or maybe they lack access mental health services?). Having a friend die this way when I was in high school (and knowing no one who was shot and killed by someone else), it’s particularly real to me.
Gun suicide specifically affects white conservatives males and their kids more than any demographic. Either it’s access to guns, or conservatives are particularly more depressed (or maybe they lack access mental health services?). Having a friend die this way when I was in high school (and knowing no one who was shot and killed by someone else), it’s particularly real to me.
True, let me revise. The majority of "shootings" are suicides, which can be carried out in all manner of ways. The second largest contributors are gangs and organized crime. The smallest, by far, is what people actually picture in their mind when they hear "mass shooting".
Guns are an easy way to do it with a higher success rate. It is really hard to stab yourself to death even though it’s possible, for example. Who knows what would happen in Korea if guns were legal.
Because it's mostly business dispute resolution and it dominates the stats if you include it.
It's not like you can ask the courts to use state violence on the guy that shorted you come coke or to kick that other gang's dealer off your turf because he's already been warned once. Illegal industry has to DIY it.
To include it would be like compiling a list of extortion and including government fines and civil judgements. It dominates the stats so much that if you include it and evaluate it you're not actually looking at the thing you want to be looking at, you're measuring by proxy the size of something else. You'll wind up deriving conclusions like "most mass shooters are low level gang members" or "the threatening party in most extortion is the state" that is nominally true but also absurd doublespeak not actually congruent with the meaning of those words.
It's not like you can ask the courts to use state violence on the guy that shorted you come coke or to kick that other gang's dealer off your turf because he's already been warned once. Illegal industry has to DIY it.
To include it would be like compiling a list of extortion and including government fines and civil judgements. It dominates the stats so much that if you include it and evaluate it you're not actually looking at the thing you want to be looking at, you're measuring by proxy the size of something else. You'll wind up deriving conclusions like "most mass shooters are low level gang members" or "the threatening party in most extortion is the state" that is nominally true but also absurd doublespeak not actually congruent with the meaning of those words.
Why? I'm not in a gang or a mob, so i am safe from their silly little squabbles. I don't care how many gang members kill each other. I also don't care how many people die in DRC civil wars, because I am not in the DRC. I don't care about people dying on other planets and in different galaxies.
Ah yes, because no one innocent has ever died from gang on gang violence, and nobody has ever been wrongfully identified as a gang member and been killed.
I don't personally care about what's going on in the DRC either, but I do care about the entire city being safe as I don't want to die from accidentally taking a left turn.
I don't personally care about what's going on in the DRC either, but I do care about the entire city being safe as I don't want to die from accidentally taking a left turn.
> I don't personally care about what's going on in the DRC either, but I do care about the entire city being safe
The Democratic Republic of Congo is a country, not a city.
The Democratic Republic of Congo is a country, not a city.
Most normal people have a healthy aversion to killing. That’s what stops it, not fear of consequences.
We all agree most normal people have an aversion to killing. You're saying that having an aversion to killing stops people killing, which is a tautology. And then you say it's not about consequences. What's your explanation then?
It seems intuitive to me that the awareness of consequences plays a central role in preventing anger from turning into violence, every day, everywhere. Have you never seen a fight/argument on the street suddenly diffuse when a cop appears? Or eg, a guy drunk at a bar, starting to raise his voice in anger at someone, only to simmer down when he sees the bartender walking over because he doesn't want to be kicked out?
Awareness of consequences is a necessary precondition for people to course-correct. That's an essential feature of people: we are able to notice when we're on course toward a bad outcome (whether that's harm to oneself, or harm to someone/something we care about, or any undesirable situation), and so take responsibility for our actions in advance so we can change course. Without that we'd be amoral creatures. This is what makes us moral beings – that we can take responsibility for the outcomes of our actions. This is a good thing. It's what makes us people, and it's the basis of having a civilisation that is mostly peaceful.
It seems intuitive to me that the awareness of consequences plays a central role in preventing anger from turning into violence, every day, everywhere. Have you never seen a fight/argument on the street suddenly diffuse when a cop appears? Or eg, a guy drunk at a bar, starting to raise his voice in anger at someone, only to simmer down when he sees the bartender walking over because he doesn't want to be kicked out?
Awareness of consequences is a necessary precondition for people to course-correct. That's an essential feature of people: we are able to notice when we're on course toward a bad outcome (whether that's harm to oneself, or harm to someone/something we care about, or any undesirable situation), and so take responsibility for our actions in advance so we can change course. Without that we'd be amoral creatures. This is what makes us moral beings – that we can take responsibility for the outcomes of our actions. This is a good thing. It's what makes us people, and it's the basis of having a civilisation that is mostly peaceful.
It’s not a tautology. The aversion to killing is an inherent psychological thing. Some things are just fundamental to a person’s psychology. Some people have such a strong aversion to spiders that they can’t go near one, even when they know for certain that it’s harmless and there would be no consequences. And psychologically healthy people have that sort of aversion to killing another person. It’s inherent programming.
How often do fights end without police intervention? How many times do people get angry and decide not to escalate it to the point of murder even when they could get away with it? People do sometimes end up in situations where they could get away with killing. They rarely take advantage.
You’re probably familiar with _The Lord of the Flies_. We need order and authority, otherwise we’ll descend into savagery, right? Except this scenario has actually happened, and in real life the boys worked together peacefully to survive until help came.
When you mention “a bad outcome” you include harm to someone we care about. The vast majority of people consider a person’s death to be a bad outcome even if they don’t care about that person in particular.
I think you’re conflating two very separate ideas here. There’s the idea of the natural consequences of an action, and then there’s the idea of consequences imposed by some authority. The original comment I replied to was talking entirely about the latter. Here you discuss both but you treat them the same. But someone who refrains from killing because they don’t like the consequence of someone being dead is very different from someone who refrains from killing because they don’t want to go to prison.
There are really three different things here: 1) people don’t kill because of the legal or physical consequences to themselves 2) people don’t kill because they don’t like the outcome of a dead person 3) people don’t kill because they fundamentally don’t want to. There are examples of all 3. The vast majority of people aren’t in category 1. I think they’re almost all in 3, but there’s no practical difference between 2 and 3.
How often do fights end without police intervention? How many times do people get angry and decide not to escalate it to the point of murder even when they could get away with it? People do sometimes end up in situations where they could get away with killing. They rarely take advantage.
You’re probably familiar with _The Lord of the Flies_. We need order and authority, otherwise we’ll descend into savagery, right? Except this scenario has actually happened, and in real life the boys worked together peacefully to survive until help came.
When you mention “a bad outcome” you include harm to someone we care about. The vast majority of people consider a person’s death to be a bad outcome even if they don’t care about that person in particular.
I think you’re conflating two very separate ideas here. There’s the idea of the natural consequences of an action, and then there’s the idea of consequences imposed by some authority. The original comment I replied to was talking entirely about the latter. Here you discuss both but you treat them the same. But someone who refrains from killing because they don’t like the consequence of someone being dead is very different from someone who refrains from killing because they don’t want to go to prison.
There are really three different things here: 1) people don’t kill because of the legal or physical consequences to themselves 2) people don’t kill because they don’t like the outcome of a dead person 3) people don’t kill because they fundamentally don’t want to. There are examples of all 3. The vast majority of people aren’t in category 1. I think they’re almost all in 3, but there’s no practical difference between 2 and 3.
> You’re probably familiar with _The Lord of the Flies_. We need order and authority, otherwise we’ll descend into savagery, right? Except this scenario has actually happened, and in real life the boys worked together peacefully to survive until help came.
Just figured I'd throw a cite in on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_castaways
William Golding had no special anthroplogical knowledge/training, he was just writing fiction.
Just figured I'd throw a cite in on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongan_castaways
William Golding had no special anthroplogical knowledge/training, he was just writing fiction.
There is a difference between a bar fight and killing someone with intent. A bar fight is a fight for dominance, like you see in animals, the outcome is rarely fatal as the point is just to establish who is stronger and who should submit.
We have an aversion to killing that goes further than the fear of consequences. It can be seen in the military, where soldiers naturally don't want to kill their enemies, even when they have incentives to do so. To be effective, soldiers have to be desensitized to killing through their training. Enemies are dehumanized, they train on human shaped targets, etc... And even with all that training, after a few years of active service, many start questioning their life choices. It is common for military pilots, who enlist for the love of flying, until they realize what they are really doing, i.e. killing people. When that happens, it is time to retire to a noncombatant job.
Punishing crime is not useless, but I think saying that consequences are the cause of aversion for killing is backwards. We have a natural aversion for killing, especially when we are in a prosperous situation like we (the first world) are now in. And that's why we take murder so seriously.
And speaking of murder, our natural aversion for killing shows when we see how we treat the death penalty nowadays. The death penalty is (generally) for the worst people humanity has to offer, their killing have been approved by the highest authority, and there is still opposition. We even have rituals to offload the responsibility of killing from the executioners. For example by having a random person in a firing squad fire a blank round.
We have an aversion to killing that goes further than the fear of consequences. It can be seen in the military, where soldiers naturally don't want to kill their enemies, even when they have incentives to do so. To be effective, soldiers have to be desensitized to killing through their training. Enemies are dehumanized, they train on human shaped targets, etc... And even with all that training, after a few years of active service, many start questioning their life choices. It is common for military pilots, who enlist for the love of flying, until they realize what they are really doing, i.e. killing people. When that happens, it is time to retire to a noncombatant job.
Punishing crime is not useless, but I think saying that consequences are the cause of aversion for killing is backwards. We have a natural aversion for killing, especially when we are in a prosperous situation like we (the first world) are now in. And that's why we take murder so seriously.
And speaking of murder, our natural aversion for killing shows when we see how we treat the death penalty nowadays. The death penalty is (generally) for the worst people humanity has to offer, their killing have been approved by the highest authority, and there is still opposition. We even have rituals to offload the responsibility of killing from the executioners. For example by having a random person in a firing squad fire a blank round.
>You're saying that having an aversion to killing stops people killing, which is a tautology. And then you say it's not about consequences. What's your explanation then?
It's a fairly straightforward understanding. If I said I have an aversion to the taste of steak, would you require additional information to why I don't eat steak? Or, to put it in your terms, eating steak causes a negative internal state for me and doesn't require any external consequence to make me avoid it.
>It seems intuitive to me that the awareness of consequences plays a central role in preventing anger from turning into violence
There's a problem with relying on "intuitive" understandings in some cases, especially when there is contradictory evidence. I think the term for your stance is "deterrence theory/effect." In this case, I believe there are plenty of studies that show harsher consequences do not reduce crimes rates (or at least have marginal effects). People are not rational actors, especially in highly agitated emotional states.
It's a fairly straightforward understanding. If I said I have an aversion to the taste of steak, would you require additional information to why I don't eat steak? Or, to put it in your terms, eating steak causes a negative internal state for me and doesn't require any external consequence to make me avoid it.
>It seems intuitive to me that the awareness of consequences plays a central role in preventing anger from turning into violence
There's a problem with relying on "intuitive" understandings in some cases, especially when there is contradictory evidence. I think the term for your stance is "deterrence theory/effect." In this case, I believe there are plenty of studies that show harsher consequences do not reduce crimes rates (or at least have marginal effects). People are not rational actors, especially in highly agitated emotional states.
One can have an aversion to the act itself without considering the consequences. People who have never gotten in a real fight before don't understand that its actually quite difficult to throw a full-strength punch at someone if you've never done so before. It's not the consequences that you're considering in that moment, but an aversion to the violence itself.
Eh honestly I think its both but probably suprising amounts of the latter
People sometimes end up in situations where there would be no consequences, and killing rarely ensues.
How rulers like Putin survive so long though?
By making it appear, and actually, much harder. More surveillance, more body guards, stronger loyalty checks can get you a lot of security.
And let's be honest. Who would take a bullet for this CEO of one of the most despised corporations in USA (that's saying something).
I honestly think, that the general distaste for this particular industry, is why the law enforcement had such a hard time catching him.
And let's be honest. Who would take a bullet for this CEO of one of the most despised corporations in USA (that's saying something).
I honestly think, that the general distaste for this particular industry, is why the law enforcement had such a hard time catching him.
I did say almost. Putin is kind of the extreme example.
If someone is willing to live like an absolute hermit in basically a police state, hiding behind layers and layers of security apparatus, engaging lookalikes and only allowing the loyalty-tested anywhere near him, survival odds improve quite a bit.
But for anyone trying to live anything remotely approaching a normal life, or with any real freedom, your continued survival is completely due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in your world have a personal breaker against murder.
If someone is willing to live like an absolute hermit in basically a police state, hiding behind layers and layers of security apparatus, engaging lookalikes and only allowing the loyalty-tested anywhere near him, survival odds improve quite a bit.
But for anyone trying to live anything remotely approaching a normal life, or with any real freedom, your continued survival is completely due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in your world have a personal breaker against murder.
> Or the internet, media really over-estimated this persons competence.
definitely this one. there was a lot of projection of competency onto him, wanting him to be some kind of superhero assassin that would disappear. when in reality, he wasn't using that welrod pistol clone, and his gun was jamming with every shot.
but also he was self-destructive and definitely wasn't trying hard enough to not get caught. and that comes with the territory because you're not going to be well-adjusted and decide to assassinate someone in broad daylight. and i would pick self-destructive over arrogant. and he may just have not realized how distinct his facial features were.
definitely this one. there was a lot of projection of competency onto him, wanting him to be some kind of superhero assassin that would disappear. when in reality, he wasn't using that welrod pistol clone, and his gun was jamming with every shot.
but also he was self-destructive and definitely wasn't trying hard enough to not get caught. and that comes with the territory because you're not going to be well-adjusted and decide to assassinate someone in broad daylight. and i would pick self-destructive over arrogant. and he may just have not realized how distinct his facial features were.
He knew it was going to jam because he didn't have a proper device on his suppressor. He's not surprised that he has to rack the slide after every shot, he knows that it most likely will not cycle and he'll have to work it manually and he reaches immediately to do it.
It never made sense to me why he was wandering around the city in the same exact clothes he used during the murder. If he had simply worn another jacket, he may never have been identified. How could he not have realized he'd be on camera or described by witnesses?
Now he gets caught with all the incriminating evidence you could ask for? I'd say Occam's Razor points to your second theory: He's not playing some sort of 4D chess. He just decided to go kill this guy for some reason and went and did it. Dumb luck and a dense population easily explains how he was able to escape the city.
Now he gets caught with all the incriminating evidence you could ask for? I'd say Occam's Razor points to your second theory: He's not playing some sort of 4D chess. He just decided to go kill this guy for some reason and went and did it. Dumb luck and a dense population easily explains how he was able to escape the city.
That's the part that baffles me. Whenever something like this happens I re-engineer the planning as a mental exercise. I have never had any interest in offing anybody, but I never understand not having a plan and a basic disguise. The guy had IDs, but he also did nothing to hide his p[articular characteristics. If he had thinned his eyebrows and worn fake glasses and kept his mask on he'd likely still be at large. I would have ditched or reversed the jacket right away and thrown on a hat at the very least.
I think it is more informative to think of a time you planned a big trip, especially if things went really wrong on the trip or there was a significant problem. Looking back with hindsight, I can see how I may have failed to see and adapt to an issue before it got bigger or that I act irrationally because I’m stressed and I haven’t let go of a preconceived notion and accepted the new situation. I have wondered why I didn’t investigate something beforehand that now seems obvious and important. There have been cases where sheer dumb luck saved me or screwed me. Afterwards I could say I should have had a backup X or should have planned Y ahead of time, but I didn’t see or do those things.
There are so many moving parts in a situation like this that it is impossible to think of everything, and the things you don’t think of will look obvious to people after the fact. The dumb luck situations that save you or screw you can be interpreted as inside knowledge. His bumbling actions afterward from the outside might seem like a “why wouldn’t he just do this instead” without thinking about how the mental toll, stress, and panic of being hunted by the whole country could degrade your judgement.
There are so many moving parts in a situation like this that it is impossible to think of everything, and the things you don’t think of will look obvious to people after the fact. The dumb luck situations that save you or screw you can be interpreted as inside knowledge. His bumbling actions afterward from the outside might seem like a “why wouldn’t he just do this instead” without thinking about how the mental toll, stress, and panic of being hunted by the whole country could degrade your judgement.
I think he might have expected private security guards to tackle him as soon as he did it.
My guess is he didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about his emotional state after pulling the trigger. He probably immediately regretted the decision and half heartedly followed some sort of escape plan.
Or he realized that he'd become a folk hero and wanted to try his chances in the court of public opinion, try to inspire others, etc.
If you wanted to get caught then why not just stay at the crime scene or surrender a few days later?
But maybe he knew it was inevitable so he spent his last few days living life normally.
But maybe he knew it was inevitable so he spent his last few days living life normally.
I don't know if it was intentional but he certainly drummed up the hype over the murder by staying free as long as he did.
[deleted]
He probably didn’t want to get caught until he saw millions of people were on his side, then he changed his mind. Smart move imho. He started a movement he probably didn’t anticipate.
Maybe to create clout ? (assuming he really intended to get caught eventually)
Reportedly he is smart, so he probably knows the value of a good mystery.
Reportedly he is smart, so he probably knows the value of a good mystery.
We amateur criminologist assume intent in every clue. But Luigi, just like Roskalnikov, probably was a mixture of guilt, incompetence, and mental breakdown, as the reality of his situation and its hopelessness took over his thoughts.
Anyone speculating too far should think how well they would sleep after shooting someone on the street and fleeing the biggest manhunt in recent history. Then ask themselves what kind of decisions they could make after 2 days of no sleep and immense stress.
People watch too many movies.
People watch too many movies.
If he wanted to get caught, he didn't need to wear a disguise all the way from Georgia or wherever he came from. He didn't need to use a fake ID. He didn't need to flee the scene - at least, flee outside the city.
Why would he do all that if he wanted to get caught?
Why would he do all that if he wanted to get caught?
Educated people tend to overestimate their abilities outside their domain. We've all known someone with an "I can do anything" complex. Anyone can do anything... poorly. He likely deluded himself into believing he already outsmarted the cops so why even bother. Having two degrees doesn't make one a competent plumber, electrician, or in this case, criminal.
>Educated people tend to overestimate their abilities outside their domain.
This. And HN is the perfect example to observe this phenomenon.
I lost track how many highly confident but incorrect takes I read here on semiconductor topics from people who assumed they know everything about any tech topic because they earn sich figures from writing crud web software.
This. And HN is the perfect example to observe this phenomenon.
I lost track how many highly confident but incorrect takes I read here on semiconductor topics from people who assumed they know everything about any tech topic because they earn sich figures from writing crud web software.
Go one step further. Why does that happen?
People on HN skew young, smart (in one domain), and tend to live in a bubble of similar people. If you know you're smart, the smart people you talk to validate your smartness (in one domain), society validates it some more by paying you massive amounts, and you're not experienced enough to know better, you're bound to overestimate your abilities and knowledge.
It needn't be most, or even many on HN, and people of all kinds vastly overestimate their abilities. It's just that on HN it's overestimating with great ambition.
(I say this very confidently, don't I?)
It needn't be most, or even many on HN, and people of all kinds vastly overestimate their abilities. It's just that on HN it's overestimating with great ambition.
(I say this very confidently, don't I?)
So funny to jump to the "they're just kids" explanation for this when we are literally talking on a forum hosted by a VC incubator.
Is it not Occam's razor that people are like this because this world of startups, "cutting edge tech", "move fast and break things", etc. gives quite clear incentives to be like this? The entire of financial world of tech is quite significantly propped up by the inertia of unearned confidence!
Is it not Occam's razor that people are like this because this world of startups, "cutting edge tech", "move fast and break things", etc. gives quite clear incentives to be like this? The entire of financial world of tech is quite significantly propped up by the inertia of unearned confidence!
> If you know you're smart, the smart people you talk to validate your smartness (in one domain), society validates it some more by paying you massive amounts, and you're not experienced enough to know better, you're bound to overestimate your abilities and knowledge.
And then you become the richest man in the world and buy Twitter and show everyone that you're kind of just clueless outside of your area of expertise, but putting up with you is profitable enough that people just go with it.
And then you become the richest man in the world and buy Twitter and show everyone that you're kind of just clueless outside of your area of expertise, but putting up with you is profitable enough that people just go with it.
Also, lets not discount the fact that people can have a lot of success stepping out of their core domain.
People can do this repeatedly with positive feedback and increasing scope until eventually it doesn't work.
People can do this repeatedly with positive feedback and increasing scope until eventually it doesn't work.
You sound like an expert in psychology.
Eh, I'm nothing of the sort, I'm only advancing in years and have made it a point to exist in as many segments of society as I could. I was that cocky engineer once, my words are only anecdote from first-hand experience and observation. I never expect to be right, only hopefully more right than wrong.
How would discourse change to eliminate this problem? Should we only speak about topics we are employed in? Lead each comment with a summary of our qualifications, or a proclamation of humility where we signal how little we know?
I know you jest, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea at all. There are languages whose grammar forces the speaker to explicitly clarify the source of information; Eastern Pomo, for example, has different verb forms for whether it's something you know first hand, saw, are repeating, or deducing. I imagine it's not only useful for the listener, it also helps the speaker realise if maybe they are building a shaky argument to make a point. I, for one, would be interested to see that system in English, it could lead to interesting developments.
I mean, hypothetically MS or Meta could already automatically do this...
See, you put the caveat at the bottom, but I think you are just having a normal discussion. You aren't speaking "very confidently," you are just making an argument.
What I think happens is people who are very knowledgeable about a subject are hyper-sensitive to slightly incorrect information. And to boost their egos they like to diminish the people making the incorrect statements as not just incorrect, but confidently incorrect, a la Dunning Kruger.
See how confidently I made the exaggerative statement above? I don't necessarily mean it to be completely true, but I am making an argument. I think an assessment of confidence requires more than seeing no mollifying qualifiers like "I think" or "it might be". There's no verbal tone on the web.
What I think happens is people who are very knowledgeable about a subject are hyper-sensitive to slightly incorrect information. And to boost their egos they like to diminish the people making the incorrect statements as not just incorrect, but confidently incorrect, a la Dunning Kruger.
See how confidently I made the exaggerative statement above? I don't necessarily mean it to be completely true, but I am making an argument. I think an assessment of confidence requires more than seeing no mollifying qualifiers like "I think" or "it might be". There's no verbal tone on the web.
It was a little meta-joke, but I think the world could use a lot more expressions of doubt. Very few things are certain or universally true, and those that do tend to have Greek letters in them. I find highly confident people highly suspicious, and a culture that rewards overconfidence and punishes doubt both exhausting and dangerous.
Probably because people on the internet like to hear opinions on things like psychological and sociological factors from people who have simply stated an expertise in semiconductors...
Institutionalization of engineers and physicists thinking they are smarter than others.
overconfidence leads to participation which results in measurable statements and artefacts, under confidence does not. people are loud and (mostly) incorrect or silent.
But why would those "measurable statements and artefacts" lead one to believe they are competent? Presumably, wouldn't they also provide evidence of one's ignorance if they were evaluated objectively?
(If it wasn't clear, I'm poking at the idea that we have numerous biases that prevent objective evaluation)
(If it wasn't clear, I'm poking at the idea that we have numerous biases that prevent objective evaluation)
My (unpopular) take--programmers have been 'gassed up' by a decade of overcompensation + title inflation.
People think the high pay and the fancy titles* they're (often) given reflects their value or intellect*, even subconsciously, and they behave in such a manner.
*Sorry, I don't consider web programming (which comprises a majority of modern software development) "engineering"
*Many are some of the most intelligent people quite literally on Earth, or are otherwise exceptional.
People think the high pay and the fancy titles* they're (often) given reflects their value or intellect*, even subconsciously, and they behave in such a manner.
*Sorry, I don't consider web programming (which comprises a majority of modern software development) "engineering"
*Many are some of the most intelligent people quite literally on Earth, or are otherwise exceptional.
heh yeah i think we're coming up now on two generations of our brightest minds being spent on making us more isolated from each other and clicking on ads.
Ivy Leaguers are trained, often from birth, that they are better than the rest of us plebs because of their “merit” and represent a superhuman caste. This guy was most likely the same way.
If you’re told that you’re a superhuman, then why not think you can get away with it?
If you’re told that you’re a superhuman, then why not think you can get away with it?
Oh, it's not just Ivy League although of course that usually comes with a background of privilege and prestige that further compounds on this tendency. STEM people in general heavily demonstrate this tendency. MBA types too, although they tend to think the solution always comes down to treating everything as a business or privatization.
This is a good overview of some of your biases, but I don't think it generalises to reality.
You're aware that zingy one-liners only make for good conversation on the screen, not real life, right?
> MBA types too, although they tend to think the solution always comes down to
treating everything as a market or something to be solved with a market mechanism
treating everything as a market or something to be solved with a market mechanism
Intelligent people are not any less likely to be delusional than anyone. They are however, much better at convincing themselves and others of their delusions.
People that have logic training such as lawyers and engineers even more so.
People that have logic training such as lawyers and engineers even more so.
Michael Shermer's book Why Smart People Believe Weird Things.
I like coming here to remind myself how many things I know almost nothing about.
[deleted]
Or just take this story, where people who haven't even punched a CEO are making up detailed "theories" about the actions and motivations of someone who shot one dead.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto
Read his manifesto, then read this whole thread again. It's hilarious.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto
Read his manifesto, then read this whole thread again. It's hilarious.
Being educated isn't really representative of Hacker News. There are very clear dynamics here where being more knowledgeable makes the discussions irrelevant.
There are generally two ways of doing hard things. Either you are knowledgeable enough to be aware of the challenges and work around, or overcome, them. Or you are unaware, or shameless, enough to do it anyway. The later is much easier than the former. (Then you also have those who believe they could do something but never does because they can't). (Also not entirely mutually exclusive).
Sometimes this is a feature of education, but most of the time it is just a feature of ignorance. Being educated doesn't also prevent you from being ignorant. It is very much expected that most willing to do something hard are smart enough to do it, but not smart enough to do it well. Unless it's been made easier, but then it is no longer as hard.
It is also perception. Knowing both software and hardware would make you a technologist, or when talking about hardware someone who knows hardware but also knows software. Not knowing hardware but talking about it would more likely make you perceived as someone who knows software. And going back to the beginning, it is easier to think you know software than to actually know it.
There are generally two ways of doing hard things. Either you are knowledgeable enough to be aware of the challenges and work around, or overcome, them. Or you are unaware, or shameless, enough to do it anyway. The later is much easier than the former. (Then you also have those who believe they could do something but never does because they can't). (Also not entirely mutually exclusive).
Sometimes this is a feature of education, but most of the time it is just a feature of ignorance. Being educated doesn't also prevent you from being ignorant. It is very much expected that most willing to do something hard are smart enough to do it, but not smart enough to do it well. Unless it's been made easier, but then it is no longer as hard.
It is also perception. Knowing both software and hardware would make you a technologist, or when talking about hardware someone who knows hardware but also knows software. Not knowing hardware but talking about it would more likely make you perceived as someone who knows software. And going back to the beginning, it is easier to think you know software than to actually know it.
Looking at his tweets he looks like a perfect example of a smug “TPOT” postrationalist that identifies themselves as “gray tribe” and then mainlines figures like Bret and Eric Weinstein and has retrograde views.
Thinking he’s smarter than the rest of us is most likely a big part of his identity.
Thinking he’s smarter than the rest of us is most likely a big part of his identity.
I don't understand most of these terms, and I'm curious how much of that is me being a dummy, or just not consuming a generous amount of some very specific bubble's jargon.
Edit: to clarify, when you go down the rabbit hole of certain bubbles, you come across terms that nobody will know unless they've gone down those same rabbit holes. Occasionally when you come up for air, you might find yourself using those terms as if they're broadly known.
Edit: to clarify, when you go down the rabbit hole of certain bubbles, you come across terms that nobody will know unless they've gone down those same rabbit holes. Occasionally when you come up for air, you might find yourself using those terms as if they're broadly known.
They seem to be rather recent terms, say the last year or so. I found this just posted article helpful: https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-tpot-twit...
yeah this is person is talking about a very particular Twitter "for you" social algorithmic tarpit
He's definitely fitting the cliché of "STEM graduate who thinks they have all the answers to social problems without reading any previous works on the subject". E.g. he thinks Japan's cultural problems are a bigger issue than its birth rate itself (correct) but thinks part of the solution involves banning conveyer belt sushi bars because they enforce social isolation by having machines instead of workers (incorrect). He clearly takes inspiration from the Unabomber Manifesto but seems to focus on the primitivism instead of trying to understand the underlying social dynamics and power structures (which you might expect if he were a "leftist" as many initially assumed).
You can take a person out of his ivy league STEM background but you can't take the ivy league STEM background out of a person, or something.
You can take a person out of his ivy league STEM background but you can't take the ivy league STEM background out of a person, or something.
> but thinks part of the solution involves banning conveyer belt sushi bars because they enforce social isolation by having machines instead of workers (incorrect)
Why are you thinking he's incorrect? I mean, a debate can be had if bans are the correct tool, but there is a massive trend in hospitality in general (both restaurants and lodging) to de-personalize the entire experience, to take the human service out of the loop and make it invisible where it still needs to take place:
- hotel booking? no travel agents, no phone calls, anyone can just do that themselves with bookingdotcom and other aggregator service.
- hotel on-site service? no check-in at the reception, you go to a terminal, enter your booking id, get a keycard and that's it. when you check out, you close the door, dispose of the key card, and you haven't seen or interacted with any human during the entirety of your stay.
- food ordering? you sit alone at home, scroll through a list of restaurants that might not even exist ("ghost kitchens"), a computer orders a human to make the food, said anonymous person (and maybe some colleagues) makes your food, another anonymous person gets ordered by a computer to deliver it to your doorstep, and if you specify a non-contact delivery you didn't have to interact with a single human for anything. And I think it won't take long for the cooks to be replaced by machines as well, delivery robots are already a thing.
- on site food eating: you don't order at a server any more, you order at a terminal, a tablet or even your own phone, the computer dispatches cooks and servers, some even don't have human servers any more but only robots or running-sushi-style conveyor belts, and in the end you pay at a machine.
So yes, "running sushi" is definitely a good example how human to human interactions are outright eliminated from our lives.
Why are you thinking he's incorrect? I mean, a debate can be had if bans are the correct tool, but there is a massive trend in hospitality in general (both restaurants and lodging) to de-personalize the entire experience, to take the human service out of the loop and make it invisible where it still needs to take place:
- hotel booking? no travel agents, no phone calls, anyone can just do that themselves with bookingdotcom and other aggregator service.
- hotel on-site service? no check-in at the reception, you go to a terminal, enter your booking id, get a keycard and that's it. when you check out, you close the door, dispose of the key card, and you haven't seen or interacted with any human during the entirety of your stay.
- food ordering? you sit alone at home, scroll through a list of restaurants that might not even exist ("ghost kitchens"), a computer orders a human to make the food, said anonymous person (and maybe some colleagues) makes your food, another anonymous person gets ordered by a computer to deliver it to your doorstep, and if you specify a non-contact delivery you didn't have to interact with a single human for anything. And I think it won't take long for the cooks to be replaced by machines as well, delivery robots are already a thing.
- on site food eating: you don't order at a server any more, you order at a terminal, a tablet or even your own phone, the computer dispatches cooks and servers, some even don't have human servers any more but only robots or running-sushi-style conveyor belts, and in the end you pay at a machine.
So yes, "running sushi" is definitely a good example how human to human interactions are outright eliminated from our lives.
Fwiw, the conveyor belt sushi place I last went to did not feel any less personal than a typical restaurant, and did not seem to have fewer interactions with people than any place below a relatively fancy date spot
That was my point. It's an evocative image if you don't think about it too long but if you've ever seen one it's no different from any other fast food place. Unless you're a frequent customer, you're probably not going to develop any meaningful relationships with service workers - this is especially true for chain/franchise establishments and the rare exceptions I can think of are "mom and pop" style places which have all but vanished. You go to a places operated by service workers to socialize with other patrons (especially if they accompany you there, like on a date or group event), not the staff. In many cases the staff are literally required not to have genuine human interactions with you because they're being paid to be nice to you.
An Ivy League STEM background is not capable of educating him on the issues he's grappling with. Now an Ivy League Arts background might.
Unfortunately there's just not enough time in the day to really dig into the issues he's grappling with when there's an overwelming course load of databases and physics etc.
Unfortunately there's just not enough time in the day to really dig into the issues he's grappling with when there's an overwelming course load of databases and physics etc.
I hope he's not right about Japan because since covid I talk to even less people. Restaurants have automated not just ordering, but reservations and payment too now.
Of course he's right. The influence of conveyor belt sushi specifically seems very dubious (isn't it just an unusual novelty?) but any social trend that has people meeting and talking to others less frequently will have people meeting potential partners less frequently. What is the advice always given to people looking for a partner? Go out and meet people. Meet as many people as you can to increase your odds. Any aspect of Japanese society that reinforces or facilitates social isolation has a share of the blame for their demographic problem.
Surely the issue in Japan (and the West, tbh) is that people don't actually WANT to meet each other.
Well, this is the defining trend of our technological progress. People getting what they want makes them unhappy in the long, multigenerational term.
We innovate because we like being comfortable. We don’t want to tend to a fire constantly to be warm. We don’t want to depend on the randomness of hunting/foraging to have a full belly. We don’t want to take days and days of travel to go a few towns over. We don’t want to have to deal with people we don’t know because that’s anxiety inducing.
So we invent all those things that means many modern humans can just stay comfy, warm and fed at home with all their basic needs met without having to go through all this discomfort.
The problem now is that we’re all unhealthy, lonely, feel purposeless (and to top it all the planet is on fire).
We innovate because we like being comfortable. We don’t want to tend to a fire constantly to be warm. We don’t want to depend on the randomness of hunting/foraging to have a full belly. We don’t want to take days and days of travel to go a few towns over. We don’t want to have to deal with people we don’t know because that’s anxiety inducing.
So we invent all those things that means many modern humans can just stay comfy, warm and fed at home with all their basic needs met without having to go through all this discomfort.
The problem now is that we’re all unhealthy, lonely, feel purposeless (and to top it all the planet is on fire).
> The problem now is that we’re all unhealthy, lonely, feel purposeless (and to top it all the planet is on fire).
None of that is true. You're projecting what some people struggle with onto everyone, when the data indicates people are better off today. And mental health issues aren't unique to the industrialized world. Also, the planet is warming, but it's not on fire. Total exaggeration.
None of that is true. You're projecting what some people struggle with onto everyone, when the data indicates people are better off today. And mental health issues aren't unique to the industrialized world. Also, the planet is warming, but it's not on fire. Total exaggeration.
> when the data indicates people are better off today
And what "data" would that be?
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/03/new-surgeon-genera...
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/24/10/wha...
https://www.bib.bund.de/EN/News/2024/2024-05-29-FReDA-Policy...
And what "purpose" are people looking forward to?
> Also, the planet is warming, but it's not on fire. Total exaggeration.
What does that even mean? It's not literally burning, so it's fine? Because you say so?
And what "data" would that be?
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/03/new-surgeon-genera...
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable-knowledge/24/10/wha...
https://www.bib.bund.de/EN/News/2024/2024-05-29-FReDA-Policy...
And what "purpose" are people looking forward to?
> Also, the planet is warming, but it's not on fire. Total exaggeration.
What does that even mean? It's not literally burning, so it's fine? Because you say so?
But some billionaire did a TED talk where he said that the global poverty rate has been constantly declining, which is true, even if it is not meaningful if you remove it from the real-world context of purchasing power, social safety nets, support networks and shared commons, and only a positive if you think sweatshops are good because they create job opportunities.
> And what "purpose" are people looking forward to?
What, you don't find increasing shareholder value compelling?
> It's not literally burning, so it's fine?
Presumably they think the climage catastrophe is not a big deal. "On fire" is clearly hyperbole but the point is that we're on a fast track to total global economic collapse (to say nothing about the death and destruction itself) as long as the answer is to carefully do some ineffective reductions and give more money to the industry to spend on "carbon capture" technology that creates more emissions in the process of being built, maintained and operated than it could ever hope to capture, but I digress.
> And what "purpose" are people looking forward to?
What, you don't find increasing shareholder value compelling?
> It's not literally burning, so it's fine?
Presumably they think the climage catastrophe is not a big deal. "On fire" is clearly hyperbole but the point is that we're on a fast track to total global economic collapse (to say nothing about the death and destruction itself) as long as the answer is to carefully do some ineffective reductions and give more money to the industry to spend on "carbon capture" technology that creates more emissions in the process of being built, maintained and operated than it could ever hope to capture, but I digress.
[deleted]
There is plenty of data saying the average person is more unhealthy, lonely and unhappy than 50 years ago, at least in the developed world.
The less you meet people, the less comfortable you are with meeting people, the less you want to meet people. It's a death spiral.
It's not just about exposure to other people. It's also about facilitating genuine human connections. Japan's work culture is detrimental to life outside the workplace but the cultural problems extend far beyond that. It shouldn't need saying but Japanese culture is also extremely sexist and literally patriarchic in ways that should be obvious even to those claiming "Western culture" (which as a European is a ridiculous notion given the vast differences in attitude across the continent - or even within individual countries - alone) isn't at all.
On the one hand you have overblown expectations of success and commitment to work for men, on the other you have an expectation of submissiveness, docility and youthful purity for women, but in reality most men can't be high earners, most women need to work the same grueling hours to make a living and it all just ends up making everyone unhappy and lonely because nobody can live up to the expectations both instilled in them from a young age and placed on them by their peers and failure is not an option. Not to mention that the concept of dedication to your employer has become completely detached from the previously implied reward of the company's loyalty to their lifelong committed workers, too.
The situation in "the West" (let's say the US) is comparable in some ways, certainly, but the gendered expectations are much less intense and there are at least some options to socialize outside the work environment and as bad as labor protections are, people don't literally die at work.
On the one hand you have overblown expectations of success and commitment to work for men, on the other you have an expectation of submissiveness, docility and youthful purity for women, but in reality most men can't be high earners, most women need to work the same grueling hours to make a living and it all just ends up making everyone unhappy and lonely because nobody can live up to the expectations both instilled in them from a young age and placed on them by their peers and failure is not an option. Not to mention that the concept of dedication to your employer has become completely detached from the previously implied reward of the company's loyalty to their lifelong committed workers, too.
The situation in "the West" (let's say the US) is comparable in some ways, certainly, but the gendered expectations are much less intense and there are at least some options to socialize outside the work environment and as bad as labor protections are, people don't literally die at work.
> then mainlines figures like Bret and Eric Weinstein
I’m sorry are these supposed to be extremists? These are status quo western liberals, secular humanists, and science enthusiasts.
> retrograde
Is this a derogatory term in the human progress narrative?
I’m sorry are these supposed to be extremists? These are status quo western liberals, secular humanists, and science enthusiasts.
> retrograde
Is this a derogatory term in the human progress narrative?
This reads like word salad
TPOT?
Yes, that part of Twitter, tpot.
"many of those who participate were formerly part of the Rationalist and Effective Altruism movements. [...] What makes TPOT a "post-rational" community is an interest in topics that are not traditionally rationalist, such as spirituality, occultism and conspiracy theories."
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/tpot-postrat
"many of those who participate were formerly part of the Rationalist and Effective Altruism movements. [...] What makes TPOT a "post-rational" community is an interest in topics that are not traditionally rationalist, such as spirituality, occultism and conspiracy theories."
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/tpot-postrat
Back in my day we just called these people crackpots.
This is supposed to be his ”manifesto”.
https://x.com/SyeClops/status/1866353712148685002
Doesn’t seem to me like he has a superiority complex. He is devastated by his mother’s illness and the actions of United Healthcare.
https://x.com/SyeClops/status/1866353712148685002
Doesn’t seem to me like he has a superiority complex. He is devastated by his mother’s illness and the actions of United Healthcare.
I don’t know that I would trust that to be his manifesto. The BBC article says it was handwritten.
Why would someone post a typed version rather than a photo of the real thing (which they would need to have to be able to type it up)?
Why would someone post a typed version rather than a photo of the real thing (which they would need to have to be able to type it up)?
Here's the handwritten one that was found on him.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto
Wasn't his family incredibly wealthy? Wouldn't they be able to pay for healthcare out of pocket?
All signs point to this being fake.
i wouldn't be sharing stuff like that unless you know for sure
To be fair, if you are very smart / quite determined to pick up a skill / have a good mentor, you can get good enough in a lot of skills, that you can pass off your work as professional quality.
I have seen this happen people do this with programming / CAD / 3D modeling / various crafts etc.
I have seen this happen people do this with programming / CAD / 3D modeling / various crafts etc.
The reverse where people project insane complexity onto everything they don't understand is also true and common.
You see this all the time where people on HN, Reddit, wherever, will act as though roughing in the plumbing and electrical for a home addition is comparable in complexity and fraught with similar nuances as doing all the process electrical and plumbing for an industrial facility when it very much not.
You see this all the time where people on HN, Reddit, wherever, will act as though roughing in the plumbing and electrical for a home addition is comparable in complexity and fraught with similar nuances as doing all the process electrical and plumbing for an industrial facility when it very much not.
It seems implausible that he was competent enough to locate his target and escape the day of yet so incompetent as to hold onto the gun. I think he definitely wanted to get caught.
I’m curious about what exactly prompted whoever called him in to become suspicious - was the profile released from photos good enough? Or was he acting suspiciously with his backpack?
I’m curious about what exactly prompted whoever called him in to become suspicious - was the profile released from photos good enough? Or was he acting suspiciously with his backpack?
Plus, the release of all these unofficial pictures, and his capture being paraded by the media. They're trying to set an example.
I don’t think people are over-estimating his competence. He set himself a goal and achieved it… getting away with it simply wasn’t important so it wasn’t the thing he obsessed over.
Although, if the evidence is damning and you don't want it found, keeping it on your person is not the worst idea. That way you know the only way they find any evidence is if they find you.
Even if you try to destroy the evidence, evidence of you destroying the evidence works just as well for a lot of cases.
Even if you try to destroy the evidence, evidence of you destroying the evidence works just as well for a lot of cases.
The most likely scenario is that he was planning on not getting caught, saw the massive amount of support he had, then decided to attach his name to his actions.
Well his manifesto seems to imply that he is sacraficing himself and expects to suffer but that he beleives its the honorable thing to do.
Here's another option, combining the two.
- The intelligent individual is also self-absorbed and believed that they would be able to continue to kill CEOs without getting caught. A narcissistic streak that allowed them to make no attempt at concealing their identity in public. They kept the weapon in order to move to a new target (or they 3D printed an identical if the reports of a 3D printed gun are correct). They believed they would either not get caught or that the public would not turn them in. They may have envisioned themselves the Ted of Healthcare.
- The intelligent individual is also self-absorbed and believed that they would be able to continue to kill CEOs without getting caught. A narcissistic streak that allowed them to make no attempt at concealing their identity in public. They kept the weapon in order to move to a new target (or they 3D printed an identical if the reports of a 3D printed gun are correct). They believed they would either not get caught or that the public would not turn them in. They may have envisioned themselves the Ted of Healthcare.
He was also probably watching the news.
At some point you know you’ve already been caught.
At some point you know you’ve already been caught.
> Probably fail to do so, then eventually get convicted on all charges and end up in a supermax penitentiary for life.
Where he will finally get decent health care for free.
Where he will finally get decent health care for free.
Decent health care? In prison? Are you serious?
Re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.
To be fair if you have the resources to continually sue the prison you can get a decent amount.
[deleted]
FactKnower69(1)
Disposing of evidence can sometimes be more incriminating than not.
Let's say he shuts up and gets a lawyer. His lawyer can say that maybe the real gunman noticed he looked similar, then switched bags on a bus. It's weak, but it's something.
If he tossed it in NYC, he leaves possible DNA at the scene. If he tosses it at home, the cops will likely find it and take his disposal as an admission of guilt.
IANAL but while I guess it's not good to have your lawyer run the Shaggy defence ("it wasn't me!") if the police have made an effort in the investigation then there's a surprising chance they'll find the evidence anyway.
At the very least that could be his rationale.
He didn't know if they had a van watching his house, and if his bins were being collected by the police. He might have been too scared and paranoid to do anything.
Let's say he shuts up and gets a lawyer. His lawyer can say that maybe the real gunman noticed he looked similar, then switched bags on a bus. It's weak, but it's something.
If he tossed it in NYC, he leaves possible DNA at the scene. If he tosses it at home, the cops will likely find it and take his disposal as an admission of guilt.
IANAL but while I guess it's not good to have your lawyer run the Shaggy defence ("it wasn't me!") if the police have made an effort in the investigation then there's a surprising chance they'll find the evidence anyway.
At the very least that could be his rationale.
He didn't know if they had a van watching his house, and if his bins were being collected by the police. He might have been too scared and paranoid to do anything.
He could have stopped at any number of bridges along the way, filled the backpack with bricks, and tossed it into the river.
and could have been caught doing it.
I can see someone planning meticulously the murder, the immediate fleeing thereafter but not the rest. If I remember images, he wasn't wearing gloves so he may have had to clean it before he planned to get rid of it. Plus he may have hit hiccups in the process that may have derailed part of his plans. The fact he had cash both in local and foreign money probably means he had planned to move out of the country but was kind of waiting for the dust to settle.
I can see someone planning meticulously the murder, the immediate fleeing thereafter but not the rest. If I remember images, he wasn't wearing gloves so he may have had to clean it before he planned to get rid of it. Plus he may have hit hiccups in the process that may have derailed part of his plans. The fact he had cash both in local and foreign money probably means he had planned to move out of the country but was kind of waiting for the dust to settle.
He was carrying all of the evidence with him, including the fake ID he used at the hostel, the gun & suppressor, mask, and even a handwritten manifesto that points to his motivation. It seems he wanted to be found.
> It seems he wanted to be found.
I talked to someone personally who at some point had committed a series of crimes, and at some point they started doing things that were more and more likely to get them caught; they told me they thought to themselves, "What am I doing?" But they didn't stop, and eventually got caught.
In a different story, a few years ago I dropped my wallet on the sidewalk outside my house, and someone picked it up and tried to use one of the credit cards in it. Then they got in a fight which got them arrested; and the police found my wallet (with my ID and everything) in their possession. Why get in a fight that's going to get you arrested just at the moment when you have stolen property in your pocket?
My take is this: We present to others, and even ourselves, the illusion that there's just one unified "self"; but really inside there are a number of independent motivations within us. In both cases above, I think there was a part of those people who felt guilty and actually did want to be caught and punished.
It's possible there was something similar going on with the guy who shot the CEO: one part of him had managed to plan everything perfectly so that he could get away; but there was a saboteur. It couldn't ahead of time prevent him from doing the shooting, but it could afterwards prevent him from disposing of the evidence and ensure that he got caught.
I talked to someone personally who at some point had committed a series of crimes, and at some point they started doing things that were more and more likely to get them caught; they told me they thought to themselves, "What am I doing?" But they didn't stop, and eventually got caught.
In a different story, a few years ago I dropped my wallet on the sidewalk outside my house, and someone picked it up and tried to use one of the credit cards in it. Then they got in a fight which got them arrested; and the police found my wallet (with my ID and everything) in their possession. Why get in a fight that's going to get you arrested just at the moment when you have stolen property in your pocket?
My take is this: We present to others, and even ourselves, the illusion that there's just one unified "self"; but really inside there are a number of independent motivations within us. In both cases above, I think there was a part of those people who felt guilty and actually did want to be caught and punished.
It's possible there was something similar going on with the guy who shot the CEO: one part of him had managed to plan everything perfectly so that he could get away; but there was a saboteur. It couldn't ahead of time prevent him from doing the shooting, but it could afterwards prevent him from disposing of the evidence and ensure that he got caught.
> My take is this: We present to others, and even ourselves, the illusion that there's just one unified "self"; but really inside there are a number of independent motivations within us. In both cases above, I think there was a part of those people who felt guilty and actually did want to be caught and punished.
I have a different take. Assuming his crime is driven by his beliefs/mission, not being found will not further it. Logically you may argue that it would afford him more chances to carry on but given that we assume him to be driven by strong and passionate belief, he would want to be clearly and explicitly recognized for those beliefs and would want those thoughts to take center stage of public opinion. Carrying evidence also is his way of broadcasting the signal that he doesn't care about getting caught since he did the right thing and has nothing to be ashamed of.
I have a different take. Assuming his crime is driven by his beliefs/mission, not being found will not further it. Logically you may argue that it would afford him more chances to carry on but given that we assume him to be driven by strong and passionate belief, he would want to be clearly and explicitly recognized for those beliefs and would want those thoughts to take center stage of public opinion. Carrying evidence also is his way of broadcasting the signal that he doesn't care about getting caught since he did the right thing and has nothing to be ashamed of.
> I have a different take. Assuming his crime is driven by his beliefs/mission, not being found will not further it.
I'm not so sure in this case. It would have been hard for the perpetrator to predict beforehand, but there was so little public sympathy for the victim, and there are lot of people who said they would not help the police catch him. Him getting away would have shown that insurance companies are so terrible and so hated that the public is OK with the murder of those responsible (because if they weren't, they'd help the police and he'd be caught).
Escape would have sent a much stronger message than whatever he could hope to accomplish by grandstanding in a courtroom.
I'm not so sure in this case. It would have been hard for the perpetrator to predict beforehand, but there was so little public sympathy for the victim, and there are lot of people who said they would not help the police catch him. Him getting away would have shown that insurance companies are so terrible and so hated that the public is OK with the murder of those responsible (because if they weren't, they'd help the police and he'd be caught).
Escape would have sent a much stronger message than whatever he could hope to accomplish by grandstanding in a courtroom.
> Him getting away would have shown that insurance companies are so terrible and so hated that the public is OK with the murder of those responsible
That is already proven to a large extent. Sure police are doing their job because of the pressure they have and someone working at McDonald's wants to collect tens of thousands of dollars, but it is pretty clear that he has significant public support based on the outpouring of support in the recent days.
> Escape would have sent a much stronger message
No, escape would have just shown that he is good at hiding. Effectively giving himself up gave an even bigger stage for him to place his point. And he got a lot more coverage by delaying that instead of immediate surrender.
> than whatever he could hope to accomplish by grandstanding in a courtroom.
What is grandstanding for you could be advocacy for another. Only time can tell whether it accomplishes anything.
That is already proven to a large extent. Sure police are doing their job because of the pressure they have and someone working at McDonald's wants to collect tens of thousands of dollars, but it is pretty clear that he has significant public support based on the outpouring of support in the recent days.
> Escape would have sent a much stronger message
No, escape would have just shown that he is good at hiding. Effectively giving himself up gave an even bigger stage for him to place his point. And he got a lot more coverage by delaying that instead of immediate surrender.
> than whatever he could hope to accomplish by grandstanding in a courtroom.
What is grandstanding for you could be advocacy for another. Only time can tell whether it accomplishes anything.
There's a decent book written about exactly this, Crime and Punishment, by one of those Russians. Pretty hilarious read too.
I immediately thought of this when I read the parent comment.
one of those Russians... lol
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"Wait, this doesn't make sense", believe it or not, is not the default state of humanity, nor is it even the majority of our thoughts.
I know I am not doing my body and health a favor. There's a tool called journaling, but I am not even using it right now. It's a very useful tool to get your mind into thinking "wait, this doesn't make sense", or "why am I behaving this way?"
Everyday, I say to myself that I am speeding up my decline in health, and yet nothing changes(because I don't journal).
I know I am not doing my body and health a favor. There's a tool called journaling, but I am not even using it right now. It's a very useful tool to get your mind into thinking "wait, this doesn't make sense", or "why am I behaving this way?"
Everyday, I say to myself that I am speeding up my decline in health, and yet nothing changes(because I don't journal).
> I think there was a part of those people who felt guilty and actually did want to be caught and punished.
Eric Berne in one of the pop psy books makes a claim which to me rings true -- that the real criminals don't get caught, the ones that get caught are the ones that want to play hide & seek as a trauma response from childhood -- there's a very deep drive to be sought after and found and those people, because of absent parents and lack of attention didn't get to play it out, so they really do want to be discovered in their sub-conscious mind.
Eric Berne in one of the pop psy books makes a claim which to me rings true -- that the real criminals don't get caught, the ones that get caught are the ones that want to play hide & seek as a trauma response from childhood -- there's a very deep drive to be sought after and found and those people, because of absent parents and lack of attention didn't get to play it out, so they really do want to be discovered in their sub-conscious mind.
There is a hypothesis/philosophy called Society of Mind [1] which posits that our minds are a collection of individual 'agents' that each have their own motivations, sometimes cooperating and sometimes competing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind
Welcome to Jungian Psychology and the wonderful world of enantidromia. As humans are General Intelligences, we're capable of entertaining contradictory courses of action/thinking at the same time. At some point our conscious faculties "meet" our unconscious faculties, and the period of time when the two start to integrate into a whole individual is a bit of a wild ride that practically no modern practitioner of psychology I've met seems to even be aware of anymore, and can absolutely go awry.
Shout out to the Red Book.
Exactly my thoughts as well. Every piece of evidence law enforcement has was basically intentionally provided by him. If he just stuffed his trash in one of his 7 pockets, or wore a pair of sunglasses, or didn't actually stare straight at the camera in the taxi like he was getting his school picture taken? I mean pretty much the only thing he failed to do was leave his business card at the crime scene.
It would be interesting to see if he's banking on jury nullification being within the Overton window...
Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, and even fewer realize it is in fact legal. I'd be surprised if he was banking on that.
I don't think he was banking on that, but I thought it interesting that posts about jury nullification were all over the front page on Reddit today, e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1haimhk/til_... and https://old.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1haejf4...
maybe the prosecutor will refuse anyone who knows what jury nullification is
> maybe the prosecutor will refuse anyone who knows what jury nullification is
It’s typically asked about. If you know about it and lie, that’s perjury.
It’s typically asked about. If you know about it and lie, that’s perjury.
It's sometimes asked about whether you'd follow the evidence - people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is.
As for "lying" here, it's an interesting metaphysical question. Because you're not lying (or telling the truth) about some observable event, it's simply your own state of mind. If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise.
As for "lying" here, it's an interesting metaphysical question. Because you're not lying (or telling the truth) about some observable event, it's simply your own state of mind. If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise.
> If somebody asks "Why did you vote not guilty", you simply say "I didn't believe the evidence was convincing". There is literally no way for anyone else to say otherwise
Nullification needs to be unanimous. You'd get in trouble when pitching nullification to your fellow jurors. (Or at the very least, have a mistrial declared.)
> people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is
If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire. (Hell, just ask innocently about it.)
Nullification needs to be unanimous. You'd get in trouble when pitching nullification to your fellow jurors. (Or at the very least, have a mistrial declared.)
> people aren't excluded (at least by the judge) for just knowing what the concept is
If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire. (Hell, just ask innocently about it.)
> Nullification needs to be unanimous.
Nullification absolutely does not need to be unanimous, and it rarely is. All it takes is one juror force a mistrial (and another if it is retried, etc.) Sure, the prosecutor would likely retry, but again, it just takes one juror out of twelve to cause a mistrial, and the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely.
> If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire.
No shit, so don't mention it.
Nullification absolutely does not need to be unanimous, and it rarely is. All it takes is one juror force a mistrial (and another if it is retried, etc.) Sure, the prosecutor would likely retry, but again, it just takes one juror out of twelve to cause a mistrial, and the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely.
> If you want a surefire way to get off a jury, mention nullification in voir dire.
No shit, so don't mention it.
> it just takes one juror out of twelve to cause a mistrial
...this isn't nullification. A major point of nullification is a not-guilty verdict by a jury is final. No retrial. No appeal.
> the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely
You think this case wouldn't be re-tried?
...this isn't nullification. A major point of nullification is a not-guilty verdict by a jury is final. No retrial. No appeal.
> the vast majority of prosecutors don't prosecute indefinitely
You think this case wouldn't be re-tried?
of course the case would be retried, but if after the first mistrial there is a widespread partying in the streets, and then the second mistrial the same, and then the third trial starts there is rioting, the way the system currently works they might decide not to try a fourth trial. Of course I don't know if the U.S is there yet.
Usually it's phrased differently but it's on the form.
In the one case I sat on the jury for the judge told us that we had to follow their directions exactly as to how to interpret the law when making a sentence. We were informed we not allowed to choose a lighter charge (options were misdemeanor assault, assault and aggravated assault).
Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered and it was settled in an hour, but it was interesting. But I had been warned by multiple lawyer friends this might happen.
Even more wasteful as this was the 3rd strike so the difference between assault and aggravated was 25 or 26 years, aka no difference. And the defendant had pleaded down already. Finally it was obvious it wasn't aggravated for several reasons and the prosecution was just fishing for convictions. Basically took 2 extra days of everyone's time fishing for sentence elevations.
Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered and it was settled in an hour, but it was interesting. But I had been warned by multiple lawyer friends this might happen.
Even more wasteful as this was the 3rd strike so the difference between assault and aggravated was 25 or 26 years, aka no difference. And the defendant had pleaded down already. Finally it was obvious it wasn't aggravated for several reasons and the prosecution was just fishing for convictions. Basically took 2 extra days of everyone's time fishing for sentence elevations.
> Jury nullification wouldn't have mattered
Why is that? Was it just the sentencing phase?
Why is that? Was it just the sentencing phase?
The jury ended up giving them assault, not aggrivated. Aggrivated required pre-mediatation. But the guy was drunk and did something dumb and quick. It wasn't pre-meditated. The judge was essentially telling us it had to be aggrivated, but also quoted the law. The jury voted for non-aggrivated. But it was 3 strikes so he got the same sentence (the full boat) no matter if he was aggrivated or non-aggrivated.
how do I know this? the defense attorney and the prosecutor both went to bars in my neighborhood. I got both of them drinks and asked them for the back story on the case.
how do I know this? the defense attorney and the prosecutor both went to bars in my neighborhood. I got both of them drinks and asked them for the back story on the case.
HN few days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42332688
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42332688
> Most people don't even know what jury nullification is, and even fewer realize it is in fact legal. I'd be surprised if he was banking on that.
Also, IIRC, the court system is pretty against it. The judge won't instruct the jury on it and I very much doubt he'd let the defense attorney bring it up to the jury either.
Also, IIRC, the court system is pretty against it. The judge won't instruct the jury on it and I very much doubt he'd let the defense attorney bring it up to the jury either.
Courts can be against it all they want, it is still legal and well within a juror's rights. I'd never expect a judge or attorney to raise it as an option, but at the end of the day it is.
Jury selection throws a wrench in the system, lawyers have a chance to ask questions under oath and get rid of jurors for most any reason. As i understand it, its pretty common for them to try to ferret out anyone that may go the nullification route.
Jury selection throws a wrench in the system, lawyers have a chance to ask questions under oath and get rid of jurors for most any reason. As i understand it, its pretty common for them to try to ferret out anyone that may go the nullification route.
Do you have a cite for it being legal for jurors to ignore jury instructions and orders from the Court?
Is it also legal for jurors to ignore orders not to discuss the case, post about deliberations on Facebook, or decide the case based on race?
Is it also legal for jurors to ignore orders not to discuss the case, post about deliberations on Facebook, or decide the case based on race?
I don't unfortunately, that would be buried somewhere in federal codes.
Orders and instructions are different though. An official order by a judge may fall under contempt of court if you don't comply. Instructions are more procedural and about a judge running the process of the trial. For deliberation, that also generally means instructions that really just help guide a jury of people who may not have done it before and aren't sure of the process or general expectations.
Orders and instructions are different though. An official order by a judge may fall under contempt of court if you don't comply. Instructions are more procedural and about a judge running the process of the trial. For deliberation, that also generally means instructions that really just help guide a jury of people who may not have done it before and aren't sure of the process or general expectations.
My question was rhetorical. Instructions ARE an order. Willful failure to comply is contempt.
The issue is that proving why a juror voted a certain way is kind of tough. The beautiful part is that this is a feature, not a bug.
The issue is that proving why a juror voted a certain way is kind of tough. The beautiful part is that this is a feature, not a bug.
A juror can't be punished for their decision, ever. It doesn't matter whether a juror keeps their reasoning a secret or not.
Its interesting you meant that rhetorically, your premise is wrong in my opinion. If you want to distinguish between an instruction and an order I'd think it has to be based on how it can be enforced. An instruction can't be enforced by a judge, for example they can instruct you to only consider what was presented but they can't punish you if you disobey that.
Its interesting you meant that rhetorically, your premise is wrong in my opinion. If you want to distinguish between an instruction and an order I'd think it has to be based on how it can be enforced. An instruction can't be enforced by a judge, for example they can instruct you to only consider what was presented but they can't punish you if you disobey that.
Perhaps the jurisdiction where you practice is different than the ones I do? In federal court, and the states I'm familiar with, the judge certainly can punish you for disobeying instructions. You take an oath, and the judge orders you, to follow the instructions.
In the situation of jury nullification, though, the judge would have to be punishing a juror for the verdict they supported. That isn't legal at least in the US, a juror can't be instructed to give a certain verdict or punished based on their decision.
Judges will be careful not to directly give instructions against nullification for precisely that reason. They may very well imply that you shouldn't go off the rails of evidence provided or laws and precedent as described, but that's as far as a judge can go with instructions against nullification.
Judges will be careful not to directly give instructions against nullification for precisely that reason. They may very well imply that you shouldn't go off the rails of evidence provided or laws and precedent as described, but that's as far as a judge can go with instructions against nullification.
The judge, prosecution and defense get to vet each juror by asking them about their beliefs and biases. They can reject jurors if they believe the juror is unable to hear a case without being impartial. Jurors (often) won't be told the details of the case they'll be hearing while they're being vetted, only the basic details (e.g. defendant is a white male accused of murdering another white male).
In extremely high profile cases like the ones featuring Donald Trump, courts focus on selecting jurors who can remain fair and impartial despite their knowledge of the case or their own personal opinions. They'll go through extensive vetting which can include written questionnaires, interviews, oral questioning about their media consumption, their political beliefs and potential biases, and so on.
In extremely high profile cases like the ones featuring Donald Trump, courts focus on selecting jurors who can remain fair and impartial despite their knowledge of the case or their own personal opinions. They'll go through extensive vetting which can include written questionnaires, interviews, oral questioning about their media consumption, their political beliefs and potential biases, and so on.
They don't actually verify any of this and you can just lie. One of the chauvin jurors lied about being an activist.
That sounds more like a failure of the prosecution in the Chauvin trial, rather than an assumption we can make about all trials.
Failure of the prosecution? No, they have qualified immunity.
It’s not. American judges, generally speaking, hate jury nullification with the strength of a thousand suns. They are petty little tyrants.
Judges generally hate it but there's also nothing they can do about it if it happens.
That said its a very far leap to assume (either as the suspect or as a third party) that because this suspect has a lot of online sympathy that that will translate to a jury both willing and knowledgeable enough to nullify. Certainly wouldn't bet my life or freedom on that myself.
Personally I lean toward doubting that getting caught was part of some master plan. People have this binary view of things where he's either got to be a criminal mastermind who thought of everything or a complete fool, and the reality is probably that he's a better than average premeditated murderer (given all of what is stacked against him) who still got caught due to a combination of bad luck and being a little bit careless. Considering how extensive the current surveillance state is he got closer to getting away with it than the vast majority of people would have, but also combined that with some stupid but perfectly naturally human oversights.
That said its a very far leap to assume (either as the suspect or as a third party) that because this suspect has a lot of online sympathy that that will translate to a jury both willing and knowledgeable enough to nullify. Certainly wouldn't bet my life or freedom on that myself.
Personally I lean toward doubting that getting caught was part of some master plan. People have this binary view of things where he's either got to be a criminal mastermind who thought of everything or a complete fool, and the reality is probably that he's a better than average premeditated murderer (given all of what is stacked against him) who still got caught due to a combination of bad luck and being a little bit careless. Considering how extensive the current surveillance state is he got closer to getting away with it than the vast majority of people would have, but also combined that with some stupid but perfectly naturally human oversights.
Or maybe he’s just not that smart… it’s pretty much expected some number will lose their marbles and become semi-deranged or fully deranged every year.
I’d guess at least 1 in ten thousand per annum. Which would equate to hundreds of newly deranged developers per year in the US.
I’d guess at least 1 in ten thousand per annum. Which would equate to hundreds of newly deranged developers per year in the US.
The Identity Killer strikes again
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CiVFn1vEIiM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CiVFn1vEIiM
But the calling card needs to be left the previous day.
Version 2.0 of this crime will feature the shooter having the forethought to have put a bitcoin wallet address on the front of his mask as he traipsed around in front of the cameras.
And boy howdy, the sparks will fly then
And boy howdy, the sparks will fly then
As bad ideas go, this has to be one of the best.
Before releasing the pictures authorities would redact the address.
I don't think they'd know what it was.
But the internet.
My lack of socialization really shows when I first thought this to be a reference to the Persona video game.
They'll never see it coming!
I guess the next one can learn from this one and they will iteratively get better at not getting caught.
In the movie "Wag the Dog", Dustin Hoffman plays a Hollywood producer who is hired by the President to create a fake war to take attention away from another scandal. Spoiler alert Near the end, Hoffman's character is upset that the President's re-election is credited to something else instead of his handiwork. Even when told he's risking his life if he says anything, he yells "I want the credit!". I think a similar psychology may be at work in this and other crimes that become (in)famous.
I _think_ what you're getting at is saying the suspect wants the credit, in response to the parent saying the next one will be better at evasion by learning from his mistakes, right? And implying the next one might not want to evade either? I have no speculation here just looking for clarification on the movie reference.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Obviously anybody who goes to the trouble of penning a manifesto is a hero/protagonist in their own narrative. When they see that their acts have captured the attention or even admiration of a significant portion of the public, the urge to stand up and say "I'm the one who did this great deed, and here's why" will often overpower the instinct for self preservation.
This is the topic of the wonderfully named Edgar Allan Poe short story, The Imp of the Perverse:
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/edgar-allan-poe/short-fict...
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/edgar-allan-poe/short-fict...
I look forward to the retro on this.
It’s all very convenient and airtight, very nicely packaged.
I’m not saying it’s not exactly what it looks like, just kinda makes me think huh. Either the perp really wanted to be caught, or someone really wants to close this case. I’m going with he wanted to be caught, since he’s apparently not an actual idiot.
So just a relatively smart privileged dude swept away by dark ideology? It wouldn’t be the first time. If there’s any more to it, we won’t likely know.
I’m not saying it’s not exactly what it looks like, just kinda makes me think huh. Either the perp really wanted to be caught, or someone really wants to close this case. I’m going with he wanted to be caught, since he’s apparently not an actual idiot.
So just a relatively smart privileged dude swept away by dark ideology? It wouldn’t be the first time. If there’s any more to it, we won’t likely know.
[deleted]
I don’t think so, per article:
He "became quiet and started to shake" when asked if he had recently been to New York, according to the criminal complaint filed in Pennsylvania.
Being smart can lead to arrogance, which leads to stumbles. like carrying evidence, dining in public, etc.
He "became quiet and started to shake" when asked if he had recently been to New York, according to the criminal complaint filed in Pennsylvania.
Being smart can lead to arrogance, which leads to stumbles. like carrying evidence, dining in public, etc.
I am reading 'The Man Who Fell To Earth" and it's about this supposedly very smart martian who makes very basic mistakes that led to his capture. There is a quote, something to the effect, 'it's amazing the number of things you just don't think about'. Which I think is true and why people got caught. Truth is, he had a lot on his mind and that can make you very clumsy.
I doubt he was arrogant. I think he was on the run and didn’t have any place to put away the evidence. Probably homeless this whole time. And had to go to get food at some point.
Probably hadn't really thought through the specifics of tossing evidence.
Bodies of water are popular for disposing of things, because it's a huge PITA to find things there. Imagine how hard it might be in a large local pond, and then multiply that in complexity for a rather big river. Or an inland sea like the Great Lakes. Don't even multiply for those; it's a stupidly big irrelevant number.
Bodies of water are popular for disposing of things, because it's a huge PITA to find things there. Imagine how hard it might be in a large local pond, and then multiply that in complexity for a rather big river. Or an inland sea like the Great Lakes. Don't even multiply for those; it's a stupidly big irrelevant number.
It's hard to find cars 20 ft from the shore and a huge number of missing persons disappear that way accidentally driving in.
It's been several days, he had plenty of time to wipe stuff down and dump it. I don't think this is arrogance necessarily, perhaps isolation and paranoia.
> I doubt he was arrogant. I think he was on the run and didn’t have any place to put away the evidence. Probably homeless this whole time. And had to go to get food at some point.
He totally did. Find a trash can, and put it in (though maybe disassemble the gun first, and dispose of it in pieces in multiple locations).
He totally did. Find a trash can, and put it in (though maybe disassemble the gun first, and dispose of it in pieces in multiple locations).
He says in the manifesto that they won't take him alive. He planned to go out shooting, then wimped out.
_Alleged_ manifesto. We still don't know if it's real.
This. I expect a lot of fake/AI generated scams will be banking on this media hype to make some money while the iron is hot.
Ah yes, stupid people, famously never arrogant
My guess is that he assumed he'd be caught early, wasn't, and then got a bit overwhelmed with the reality of staying on the loose. That would've been overwhelming: finding places to sleep, transport, eating, etc. A gun and ID might've felt like tools that still had use, so he was yet to discard them.
Why you'd eat-in at a fast food place rather than just go via some low level Chinese takeaway though!
Why you'd eat-in at a fast food place rather than just go via some low level Chinese takeaway though!
>A gun and ID might've felt like tools that still had use
Exactly. A gun, even without ammo, still allows you to get out of hairy situations: steal a car, force someone to drive you somewhere, etc
>Why you'd eat-in at a fast food place rather than just go via some low level Chinese takeaway though!
Maybe he though he'd be more anonymous in a major fast food chain, and you stand out more in a Chinese place.
Exactly. A gun, even without ammo, still allows you to get out of hairy situations: steal a car, force someone to drive you somewhere, etc
>Why you'd eat-in at a fast food place rather than just go via some low level Chinese takeaway though!
Maybe he though he'd be more anonymous in a major fast food chain, and you stand out more in a Chinese place.
If that's the case, you make a call to a reporter — and then walk into a police station to surrender to authorities.
Only if you have no sense for drama.
That's not this guy.
That's not this guy.
Drama has too often allowed the suspect to be shot on sight.
He killed a CEO not a cop. If he'd gone after the police they'd likely have burned that McDonald's to the ground with him inside (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner)
I’m sure the police have orders to “take him alive.”
It doesn’t matter what the brass say when giving orders. If the officer says the magic words during debriefing (after the shooting), he gets off scott free.
What are the magic words? I don’t know them, but I know that the lawyers who work for police unions know them and the trainers who train police officers drill those into the heads of officers.
The core problem with the jurisprudence: if a reasonable officer had a fear for themself or for members of the public, then fatal shootings in the line of duty are usually justified. The objective facts at the scene don’t matter; only the officer’s perception. If only all citizens were given the same rights…
What are the magic words? I don’t know them, but I know that the lawyers who work for police unions know them and the trainers who train police officers drill those into the heads of officers.
The core problem with the jurisprudence: if a reasonable officer had a fear for themself or for members of the public, then fatal shootings in the line of duty are usually justified. The objective facts at the scene don’t matter; only the officer’s perception. If only all citizens were given the same rights…
The magic words are, "I feared for my life," or "I feared for my safety."
They have body cams don't they? If they just shoot a suspect and the body cam suggests no threat to the officer's life, they're in trouble.
If by trouble you mean "get a pension to compensate them for the metal harm they suffered from the shooting" then you're right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver)
“They’re in trouble”
Did you not understand my post, or do you not believe my claim?
The objective facts (as established by a body cam) matter very little, only a good faith belief that “I feared for my life or the life of someone in the public”.
Why? The burden of proof is “Innocent until proven guilty” and like I said, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the officer’s statement that “they feared for their life” was a lie at the time of the incident. That’s extremely difficult to prove, especially when an officer has been on the job for a while and has been conditioned to use the right words to CYA.
Did you not understand my post, or do you not believe my claim?
The objective facts (as established by a body cam) matter very little, only a good faith belief that “I feared for my life or the life of someone in the public”.
Why? The burden of proof is “Innocent until proven guilty” and like I said, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the officer’s statement that “they feared for their life” was a lie at the time of the incident. That’s extremely difficult to prove, especially when an officer has been on the job for a while and has been conditioned to use the right words to CYA.
No penalty for just turning it off.
Are they? Paid leave for a few years while it’s investigated, then back to work.
[deleted]
I mean if he's giving himself up, why not gift a mcdonald's employee 60k?
I can't help but think of another nyc shooter, Frank James, who was also caught at a McDonald's after turning himself in.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/search-new-york-subway-gunm...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/search-new-york-subway-gunm...
More evidence that McDonalds is really bad for you.
A lot of people who commit crimes are suffering from a range of untreated mental illnesses. They are not always firing on all cylinders all of the time, leading to weirdness like this.
Most folks with mental illnesses live among us, not in mental institutions. If on a scale 1-10 you have something like bipolar on 1 or 2, you can sort of function with some meds. Sort of, until SHTF and emotions go haywire. Keeping relationships is hard, be it personal or professional, so folks struggle but from outside they often just appear 'weird'.
Wife is a GP doctor, maybe 1/3rd of her patients have some form of this.
Wife is a GP doctor, maybe 1/3rd of her patients have some form of this.
100% this. I've seen stats saying 20% of people in jail have untreated mental illness. I've spent a lot of time in jails and I would say it has be 80%+ because a lot of people can function enough to live in society and hide their symptoms until the point where they do something criminal.
This guy had bad back problems and got surgery but it was probably ongoing. He got kicked off his parents insurance at 26 and ran out of money.
He was working for TrueCar as a data engineer, he had employee provided health insurance.
Also (I'm hoping) the trauma of taking another person's life must be hugely upsetting. I'm hoping it's not something you do lightly, and is not without personal consequences (guilt,shame, shock,.. dunno).
Why would you hope that?
Can you really not think of anyone where it would be better if they were... not there anymore?
Can you really not think of anyone where it would be better if they were... not there anymore?
1. This guy has a tight alibi and the shooter is elsewhere.
2. This guy has a terminal illness.
3. This guy is bankrupt after healthcare debt + buying backpacks.
2. This guy has a terminal illness.
3. This guy is bankrupt after healthcare debt + buying backpacks.
Or the most obvious case of setup ever.
can be both killer's and police's setup too
He could be taking lots of medication for his back pain which could cause him to think not so rationally
> including the fake ID he used at the hostel
I've stayed at that place multiple times, though years ago.
They did check ID, but never copied it.
I wonder how they knew it was fake.
I've stayed at that place multiple times, though years ago.
They did check ID, but never copied it.
I wonder how they knew it was fake.
Do they record names of guests? It would take two seconds to ask the NJ DMV if someone by that name exists. If they don't, then the ID was probably fake. If there is someone by that name, showing the real ID photos to the hostel receptionist would quickly clear up whether the ID is fake or not. The receptionist flirted with him and got him to show his face so there's a good chance she'd be able to look at some photos and say whether any of them look like the guy.
Last time I was there they wouldn't even record NJ.
They recorded name on reservation and maybe DOB.
The place had cameras everywhere apart from inside rooms and bathrooms.
I can't believe that was the only time they got him on camera.
They recorded name on reservation and maybe DOB.
The place had cameras everywhere apart from inside rooms and bathrooms.
I can't believe that was the only time they got him on camera.
>Last time I was there they wouldn't even record NJ.
>They recorded name on reservation and maybe DOB.
I'm sure the cops can run the same name/DOB combination through the databases of all 50 states + DC, and rule out any that don't match the surveillance footage.
>They recorded name on reservation and maybe DOB.
I'm sure the cops can run the same name/DOB combination through the databases of all 50 states + DC, and rule out any that don't match the surveillance footage.
So, according to this:
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian...
“I was informed... that defendant presented a forged New Jersey Driver’s License with the name of Mark Rosario as his identification, which based on the number on it was the same identification defendant presented at the hostel,"
So the hostel saved at least the number.
This was not the case at least 2 years ago. I'm absolutely certain.
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian...
“I was informed... that defendant presented a forged New Jersey Driver’s License with the name of Mark Rosario as his identification, which based on the number on it was the same identification defendant presented at the hostel,"
So the hostel saved at least the number.
This was not the case at least 2 years ago. I'm absolutely certain.
Once the police traced the suspect to the hostel, wouldn't they check the relevant IDs?
What ID?
The hostel had none. They never copied it.
They never wrote ID numbers either.
They checked the name and that was it.
Unless it changed in the last year or so.
The hostel had none. They never copied it.
They never wrote ID numbers either.
They checked the name and that was it.
Unless it changed in the last year or so.
They saved the ID number at least:
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian...
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian...
The only part I don't get now is the cell phone
I assumed he had some help with the timing via the burner phone
But this all looks very lone wolfish now
I assumed he had some help with the timing via the burner phone
But this all looks very lone wolfish now
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037870412-...
If real, he scheduled a post to be released everyday at ~6pm EST. If he wasn't caught that day he would delete the scheduled post, and reschedule for the next day at 6pm.
I say 6 because it was the earliest snapshot of the site. Looks like the post just got taken down off sub stack and I can't view the exact time of post.
That's likely how it happened
If real, he scheduled a post to be released everyday at ~6pm EST. If he wasn't caught that day he would delete the scheduled post, and reschedule for the next day at 6pm.
I say 6 because it was the earliest snapshot of the site. Looks like the post just got taken down off sub stack and I can't view the exact time of post.
That's likely how it happened
I still don't get how he knew where the guy would be
If you're a shareholder you get a postcard in the mail with the time and address of public meetings.
But not "he will leave the building at this 30 second interval. As needed for a walk up on a busy city street that is well policed.
Honestly I think it was luck.
He had 10 days to find out on site.
Yeah, the timing is a question I still have. At first it sounded like he was only there a few minutes before the CEO appeared. Later information sounds like he might have been hanging around outside for longer. I haven't seen a knowledgable evaluation of how plausible it is that he would have known where Thompson was going to be based only on public information.
Yes, how do you know the whereabouts of a CEO?
> Yes, how do you know the whereabouts of a CEO?
You might know about their public appearances such as for shareholder meetings but how would you know which hotel they're staying at and that they would leave said hotel at 6:45 AM(!) and walk(!!) to the meeting venue?
Either massive luck on the shooter's side or there is a source of information that hasn't been discovered yet.
You might know about their public appearances such as for shareholder meetings but how would you know which hotel they're staying at and that they would leave said hotel at 6:45 AM(!) and walk(!!) to the meeting venue?
Either massive luck on the shooter's side or there is a source of information that hasn't been discovered yet.
[deleted]
If this is a vendetta, the goal was achieved and there was nothing more to do. He had to give himself two goals, the vendetta and not get caught, which is more difficult than one goal. A hired killer would pursue both goals routinely as a mean to stay in business but not an amateur and anyway not as effectively.
Agreed. He seems to be smart enough to never be caught. Could just be the need to be liked/famous/known. On the other hand, he might not have expected to be noticed by someone who knew him. That's a real 0.01% you can't predict in your perfect planning.
He doesn't seem smart at all... He took off his mask in front of a camera to flirt with a receptionist. He left a long extensive trail of evidence. He manifesto sounds like it was written by a 14 year old. It only took him four days to get caught. Like most criminals, he is not smart.
Is having bugs in your code proof that you're not smart, or is it more likely momentary carelessness or even just that humans always have a non-zero error rate?
It’s very difficult to not get caught in a total over militarized surveillance state. He is not stupid
Less than 50% of murders are solved these days[1]. If he hadn't been carrying around all of the evidence and was more careful with the mask he very well may have gotten away with it, the NYPD had no clue who or where he was
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...
name 5 high profile ones in the last decade? :)
all of those you are referring to are not plastered 24/7 over all media world-wide
all of those you are referring to are not plastered 24/7 over all media world-wide
Most murderers don't target the capitalist elite though.
This. If you or I would have been gunned down on the street, do you think the police would have had such a manhunt going on?
Like most criminals who get caught*
How many similar crimes go unsolved? It can't be common. I doubt it's a matter of just being smart.
> seems he wanted to be found
He was presumably en route somewhere. Disposing of a fake ID such that forensics can’t get anything useful off it isn’t easily done on the run / incognito. (And if his inspiration is the Unabomber, he presumably had more targets.)
He was presumably en route somewhere. Disposing of a fake ID such that forensics can’t get anything useful off it isn’t easily done on the run / incognito. (And if his inspiration is the Unabomber, he presumably had more targets.)
Surely you recognize that all you need to do is to rub it on some concrete for a couple of minutes to completely destroy it right? Not to mention if you owned a pair of scissors or a lighter or something…
> you recognize that all you need to do is to rub it on some concrete for a couple of minutes to completely destroy it right
You're going to take time away from your actual escape to make yourself less incriminating in case you are caught? Should he have been grinding up IDs at the Greyhound bus terminal in New York? Right after the whole city heard about the shooting? Or should he have waited until after the FBI plastered the nation with his face?
> if you owned a pair of scissors or a lighter or something
Scissors won't take care of fingerprints, let alone DNA. As for the lighter, again, where do you propose he do this without attracting attention?
Actually, I could see him having thought this would be easy to do, maybe even packing a lighter and scissors, only to realise in execution that you can't start burning IDs on a bus without someone noticing.
You're going to take time away from your actual escape to make yourself less incriminating in case you are caught? Should he have been grinding up IDs at the Greyhound bus terminal in New York? Right after the whole city heard about the shooting? Or should he have waited until after the FBI plastered the nation with his face?
> if you owned a pair of scissors or a lighter or something
Scissors won't take care of fingerprints, let alone DNA. As for the lighter, again, where do you propose he do this without attracting attention?
Actually, I could see him having thought this would be easy to do, maybe even packing a lighter and scissors, only to realise in execution that you can't start burning IDs on a bus without someone noticing.
Respectfully, none of what you’re describing is real life. Police don’t go around fingerprinting random pieces of plastic.
You can just deface it in any way and throw it out the window on a highway or into any trash can and it will quite literally never be found.
You can just deface it in any way and throw it out the window on a highway or into any trash can and it will quite literally never be found.
> Police don’t go around fingerprinting random pieces of plastic
No. But you don't know how far behind they are when you dispose of it. It only becomes random plastic after they've lost your trail.
> can just deface it in any way and throw it out the window on a highway or into any trash can
Sure. Or you can keep it until it can be safely disposed of. Which carries fewer risks? We don't even have to hypothesise, we know for a fact that the IDs on his person didn't cause him to get caught. We also know him not having the IDs on him wouldn't have caused him to be less caught.
No. But you don't know how far behind they are when you dispose of it. It only becomes random plastic after they've lost your trail.
> can just deface it in any way and throw it out the window on a highway or into any trash can
Sure. Or you can keep it until it can be safely disposed of. Which carries fewer risks? We don't even have to hypothesise, we know for a fact that the IDs on his person didn't cause him to get caught. We also know him not having the IDs on him wouldn't have caused him to be less caught.
I would think that getting rid of the evidence is the integral part of planning a crime. Otherwise it is sloppiness. There is a lot of ways to do such things I am sure, but you have to thought it through before. He didn't or the adrenaline was too much for him.
He had four days to come up with a way to get rid of a few pieces of plastic.
Now I'm not a valedictorian, but I'd like to think I could achieve that.
Now I'm not a valedictorian, but I'd like to think I could achieve that.
Maybe he saw how the world basically thought he was an amazing hero and he wanted to let people know who he really is.
I think this might actually be it - he may have been motivated in some part by fame (but planned to be anonymous and get away with it) and after the hugely positive online response decided to purposely get caught.
Trial for this could be hugely publicized
Trial for this could be hugely publicized
If you wanted to get the message out, you could go to a media org for interview and then call police in.
I wonder if cops were monitoring major news offices because of this.
I wonder if cops were monitoring major news offices because of this.
I'm real interested in how a trial goes. Can you even find enough people in America who haven't been bent over by insurance to form an unbiased jury? I find it hard to imagine any jury would convict him.
This is wildly unrealistic.
Many people have not been bent over by insurance, but that's the less confusing part of this post.
Almost everyone who has been bent over by insurance will still find someone who assassinated another dude guilty.
Many people have not been bent over by insurance, but that's the less confusing part of this post.
Almost everyone who has been bent over by insurance will still find someone who assassinated another dude guilty.
I generally agree but think it’ll depend on how sympathetic his case is and what defense he tries. I believe New York juries have to reach a unanimous decision and if he had one of those insurance horror stories it wouldn’t be unheard of for at least one juror to feel sympathetic to, say, a provocation defense and only find him guilty of lesser charges.
Not guilty must also be unanimous. If the jurors can’t agree it’ll be retried. Usually lone holdouts capitulate.
Yes, as I said the mostly likely outcome is guilty but it wouldn’t shock me if, say, he wasn’t convicted on every charge. Juries introduce a human element and the response to this murder illustrates how many people really hate insurance companies. Something over 10% of Americans say they know someone who died due to denied care, which is a big enough number that I wouldn’t rule anything out.
There are other stats in play, too. For example, 30% of Americans know a murder victim. 50% have dealt with gun violence. The jury system narrows down to people who can focus on the law and follow the judge’s instructions. The pool of potential jurors is huge. It’s been rare that a trial has changed counties in any state because too many people in a county have strong feelings about the victim or perpetrator. I could see lesser murder charged being brought to keep motivation out of the trial, though. And yes, rule nothing out (in any trial.)
Agreed yet he'll serve some time like Gypsy Rose. A seemingly good hearted victimized murderer who story seems to work out well for her in the end in. She orchestrated killing her mom vs. just running away. If she's smart enough to get her mom killed indirectly using a lonely dude she's smart enough to run away. Murderer who is free with fame. Luigi is now the same yet is this murderer more liked then Gypsy Rose?
Anyone who has been bent over by insurance will not be selected for the jury.
I'm not sure that is even necessary. I know enough people impacted by such things I'm not sure I wouldn't nullify even though I haven't been impacted myself. I don't think they can find 12 people who don't know someone with a bad story.
Isn't that a reverse conflict of interest? That way you are deliberately selecting people that are more/less sympathetic than a baseline of the US population.
It's not as if "he was mistreated by an insurer" is a defence, is it? That should be entirely irrelevant to the jury's finding, although sentencing might take it into account. The jury just needs to decide if he did it, so not having been mistreated by an insurer shouldn't preclude someone from making that decision.
'Shouldn't' is true. But the prosecution does not need to explain why they reject a potential juror by 'preemptive challenge'. Why would they take the chance?
Similarly, a defendant's race is not relevant to their guilt, but you're not going to pick a self-declared racist if you don't have to.
Similarly, a defendant's race is not relevant to their guilt, but you're not going to pick a self-declared racist if you don't have to.
I keep seeing this take, and it seems pretty bizarre to me. Most Americans rate their health insurance as excellent or good [1], and even of the ones that don't, most probably don't support murdering health insurance executives on the street.
They won't have trouble seating a jury, and he'll be convicted of 1st degree homicide and spend the rest of his adult life in prison.
1. https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/poll-finding/kff-surve...
They won't have trouble seating a jury, and he'll be convicted of 1st degree homicide and spend the rest of his adult life in prison.
1. https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/poll-finding/kff-surve...
I think the problem is with outliers. Most people don’t have problems with thier health insurance because they don’t interact with it much or just have routine care.
But if you’re unlucky, it can ruin your life or the life of a loved one. It’s not hard to find horror stories - some recent viral ones came from LinkedIn comments to the CEO (written before his murder)
But if you’re unlucky, it can ruin your life or the life of a loved one. It’s not hard to find horror stories - some recent viral ones came from LinkedIn comments to the CEO (written before his murder)
Indeed, when the alternative was to be a nobody, on the lam, for the rest of his life.
How so? All he had to do was continue to fly under the radar for a few more weeks until everyone forgot about it. Being on the lam implies they knew his identity; they did not.
> All he had to do was continue to fly under the radar for a few more weeks until everyone forgot about it.
That is seriously underestimating the attention span of law enforcement. I’m not saying that they would have caught him for sure, but they have motivation and means to keep looking far longer than a few weeks.
> Being on the lam implies they knew his identity; they did not.
At the minimum they had a picture of his face. That stuff will stay in databases indefinietly and face recognition is only getting better. They might have had his DNA from objects he interacted with or things he discarded. They could have traced his burner phone to locations he previously frequented, or where he bought it from. They could have traced him via video surveilance further along his escape and tied him to a location or a car.
None of this is guaranteed to work. There is a certain amount of luck involved. But just because after a few days they didn’t know who he is, doesn’t mean they could not have found him months or years down the road.
That is seriously underestimating the attention span of law enforcement. I’m not saying that they would have caught him for sure, but they have motivation and means to keep looking far longer than a few weeks.
> Being on the lam implies they knew his identity; they did not.
At the minimum they had a picture of his face. That stuff will stay in databases indefinietly and face recognition is only getting better. They might have had his DNA from objects he interacted with or things he discarded. They could have traced his burner phone to locations he previously frequented, or where he bought it from. They could have traced him via video surveilance further along his escape and tied him to a location or a car.
None of this is guaranteed to work. There is a certain amount of luck involved. But just because after a few days they didn’t know who he is, doesn’t mean they could not have found him months or years down the road.
The rich don’t just let go of murder investigations.
Another way to think of it would be, how much would it cost for a very rich family or person to hire few people to hunt you for the following 10 years.
So far the record indicates he was better at hunting them than they him.
Is there a word for these types of snarky quips that trigger off a single word but fail to address the point?
I feel like I'm seeing them more and more.
The killer didn't do any hunting. They did shooting and running.
I feel like I'm seeing them more and more.
The killer didn't do any hunting. They did shooting and running.
He stalked his prey and killed it. That's hunting. Then law enforcement tracked him and trapped him. Also hunting! But none of the rich family has done any hunting (yet). So far they are the hunted.
why are you romanticizing him? He waited outside a conference. That is like saying I hunted a hamburger at McDonalds.
All of this is besides the central point, which is that a killer would likely be on the run from detectives and maybe PIs for the rest of their lives.
All of this is besides the central point, which is that a killer would likely be on the run from detectives and maybe PIs for the rest of their lives.
I'm not. Hunting people in a safe democratic society isn't "romantic", it's not "The Most Dangerous Game" or anything else. Your analogy is absolutely accurate. Harvesting an oyster would be another. Still totally hunting (or maybe just gathering).
> the rest of their lives
Only if any of their adversaries survive with sufficient will to fight.
> the rest of their lives
Only if any of their adversaries survive with sufficient will to fight.
If it happened as they said, they couldn't really track him without the tip off.
He just happened to be at the right place at the right time with the right equipment?
I know a lot of game hunters who would say that’s pretty much the definition of hunting.
I know a lot of game hunters who would say that’s pretty much the definition of hunting.
> Is there a word for these types of snarky quips that trigger off a single word but fail to address the point?
They're (attempts at) a bon mot
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bon_mot
They're (attempts at) a bon mot
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bon_mot
I think based on examples I am seeing for what qualifies as a bon mot, it would be different, but since you specified "attempt" in parentheses I guess it could qualify as some sort of attempt.
The thing is I don't think it is a genuine attempt. Is more like an intentionally counterfeit bon mot. It doesn't actually engage with the parent sentiment, but might fool people that are only half reading.
> Is there a word for these types of snarky quips that trigger off a single word but fail to address the point?
No but please let me know when you find one! And indeed you are correct, this is a fairly new pattern and it's absolutely increasing.
No but please let me know when you find one! And indeed you are correct, this is a fairly new pattern and it's absolutely increasing.
Murder is hard on your soul. He wouldn't be able to go back to life as usual.
That CEO didn't seem to have any qualms about killing people
It was indirect, and people always see themselves as the good guy. It's easy to justify in your mind. "I'm saving shareholders money." "Most doctors over service patients, so they are the bad guys." "They would have died anyway," etc.
I would bet a lot of the healthcare CEO's are totally surprised that anyone would want to harm them.
I would bet a lot of the healthcare CEO's are totally surprised that anyone would want to harm them.
They're not going to hire for a healthcare CEO with high empathy. I mean, think of the shareholders!
It's like profit is at odds with taking care of the patients. Who would have thought.
I feel like a lot of doctors and nurses wouldn’t be doctors or nurses without the decent profit they earn.
I certainly wouldn’t work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays, not to mention sacrifice my life during my 20s. And be around gross stuff and sad people.
And especially not when you can earn a comparable profit working behind keyboard.
I certainly wouldn’t work evenings, nights, weekends, and holidays, not to mention sacrifice my life during my 20s. And be around gross stuff and sad people.
And especially not when you can earn a comparable profit working behind keyboard.
That's... not what I meant. It is one thing to earn (very) good wages and entirely another thing to optimise the whole healthcare for profit. Healthcare is, by definition, a cost center. If you wanted to align incentives (a bit better) you would be paying for it only when you are not ill, not when you are. A decent compromise is what most countries do, which is that citizens pay a fixed sum for health insurance which covers most of the basic expenses. However the incentives are never completely aligned - someone profits from people being ill.
> optimise the whole healthcare for profit.
I don’t understand what this means. A group of doctors get together and open a business offering their services, and they distribute profits into their bank accounts. Or a dentist, or an optometrist, or a podiatrist.
Why would 99% of people do this work if they cannot profit?
> A decent compromise is what most countries do, which is that citizens pay a fixed sum for health insurance which covers most of the basic expenses.
That is just health insurance with $0 deductible/copays. Some US employers do offer this, and some even pay 100% of the premiums.
But these plans don’t sell well to the broader public, because most people would prefer (or can only afford) a lower premium and accept the volatility of having to spend a few hundred or a few thousand before insurance kicks in.
I don’t understand what this means. A group of doctors get together and open a business offering their services, and they distribute profits into their bank accounts. Or a dentist, or an optometrist, or a podiatrist.
Why would 99% of people do this work if they cannot profit?
> A decent compromise is what most countries do, which is that citizens pay a fixed sum for health insurance which covers most of the basic expenses.
That is just health insurance with $0 deductible/copays. Some US employers do offer this, and some even pay 100% of the premiums.
But these plans don’t sell well to the broader public, because most people would prefer (or can only afford) a lower premium and accept the volatility of having to spend a few hundred or a few thousand before insurance kicks in.
> I don’t understand what this means.
In some (many?) countries the options for private healthcare are limited (by design) and public healthcare takes care of people. Not in USA though. :) It has its pros and cons, but to be honest, neither system works very well. I would pick a public one anytime, but maybe it's just because I know it.
> Why would 99% of people do this work if they cannot profit?
They do profit, and should - they get a paycheck for their work.
In some (many?) countries the options for private healthcare are limited (by design) and public healthcare takes care of people. Not in USA though. :) It has its pros and cons, but to be honest, neither system works very well. I would pick a public one anytime, but maybe it's just because I know it.
> Why would 99% of people do this work if they cannot profit?
They do profit, and should - they get a paycheck for their work.
If I nonjudgmentally assumed you speak from personal experience, doesn't it also depend on the person, their sensitivity, vulnerabilities etc.?
I have a 3.5 year old toddler and it sure feels hard on my soul right now (he just behaved the worst he's ever behaved in daycare today, to the point that they had to isolate him... and this is me dealing with it after only 3 hours of sleep, since he also keeps waking up every night ever since he turned 3... "sleep regression" should be called "slow parricide via toddler non-sleep")
I have a 3.5 year old toddler and it sure feels hard on my soul right now (he just behaved the worst he's ever behaved in daycare today, to the point that they had to isolate him... and this is me dealing with it after only 3 hours of sleep, since he also keeps waking up every night ever since he turned 3... "sleep regression" should be called "slow parricide via toddler non-sleep")
Please consider reading this book. It changed my life:
Sleep deprivation makes your life so miserable. And it does so for the toddler as well. My daughter couldn't learn to walk and kept falling over because, well, she was just too exhausted.
It seems the book isn't as well known in the US (where I'm assuming you are) as it is in Europe, and maybe there are equivalent approaches from American authors as well. But this is the one that solved the problem and taught her to sleep in 4 - four - nights.
My wife and I applied the stuff from the book from Dec.1st to Dec.4th of 2018. My daughter has not had trouble sleeping her 11+ hours straight a single night since then (that was 6 years ago) except a couple of times when she was teething.
I was recently asked on a (business) podcast what was the top book that changed my life and that was it. To think you could struggle for such a long time, and suddenly find out you could change that in 4 days... I have tears in my eyes whenever I talk about it.
Anyway. Long message to wish you well, internet stranger. It will get better.
Wahlgren, Anna (2009). A Good Night's Sleep - This is how you can truly help your baby to sleep through the night. Anna Wahlgren AB. ISBN 9789197773614
Sleep deprivation makes your life so miserable. And it does so for the toddler as well. My daughter couldn't learn to walk and kept falling over because, well, she was just too exhausted.
It seems the book isn't as well known in the US (where I'm assuming you are) as it is in Europe, and maybe there are equivalent approaches from American authors as well. But this is the one that solved the problem and taught her to sleep in 4 - four - nights.
My wife and I applied the stuff from the book from Dec.1st to Dec.4th of 2018. My daughter has not had trouble sleeping her 11+ hours straight a single night since then (that was 6 years ago) except a couple of times when she was teething.
I was recently asked on a (business) podcast what was the top book that changed my life and that was it. To think you could struggle for such a long time, and suddenly find out you could change that in 4 days... I have tears in my eyes whenever I talk about it.
Anyway. Long message to wish you well, internet stranger. It will get better.
Well don’t leave us hanging, what was the stuff that worked for you?
I've found that trying to describe the strategies in a few words usually gets the other person to think "oh, it can't be that simple" and then not actually try it.
Just like, trying to describe the lifestyle changes that got you in shape (which are always going to be the same 4-5 basic things), is less helpful than telling someone "go to the same coach/book I went to, and give it a try".
But in a nutshell, the book teaches a few simple principles of why kids wake up/cry and how what we (as parents) typically do to console the child actually sends the message that "sleeping in this bed is not safe".
Once you get that, it gives you a 4-day (and 4-nights) routine to follow to get the baby/toddler/infant/child to re-learn that this is a safe place, your parents are around, you can go back to sleep. Doing the full 4 days is a two-person job (my wife and I rented a room at the hotel next door and took turns with one of us sleeping there while the other was with our daughter at home).
We followed everything to the letter ; the first couple of days is timed very precisely and you take notes in a journal as you go, which is how I can tell you that we were already tearing up when our daughter slept in 3-hour chunks the 2nd night, did an almost 8-hour streak on night 3 and pulled a full 11-hour night on night 4.
I'll tell you, the least important part of the whole thing is a short lullaby we came up with as we were going to the 4 days, and I still sing that to my daughter 6 years later as I leave her for the night, as this has become a bit of a talisman for me :-) Definitely not needed anymore but I'll probably sing her this song until she leaves for college or tells me to shut up!
Just like, trying to describe the lifestyle changes that got you in shape (which are always going to be the same 4-5 basic things), is less helpful than telling someone "go to the same coach/book I went to, and give it a try".
But in a nutshell, the book teaches a few simple principles of why kids wake up/cry and how what we (as parents) typically do to console the child actually sends the message that "sleeping in this bed is not safe".
Once you get that, it gives you a 4-day (and 4-nights) routine to follow to get the baby/toddler/infant/child to re-learn that this is a safe place, your parents are around, you can go back to sleep. Doing the full 4 days is a two-person job (my wife and I rented a room at the hotel next door and took turns with one of us sleeping there while the other was with our daughter at home).
We followed everything to the letter ; the first couple of days is timed very precisely and you take notes in a journal as you go, which is how I can tell you that we were already tearing up when our daughter slept in 3-hour chunks the 2nd night, did an almost 8-hour streak on night 3 and pulled a full 11-hour night on night 4.
I'll tell you, the least important part of the whole thing is a short lullaby we came up with as we were going to the 4 days, and I still sing that to my daughter 6 years later as I leave her for the night, as this has become a bit of a talisman for me :-) Definitely not needed anymore but I'll probably sing her this song until she leaves for college or tells me to shut up!
This is adorable.
If only I knew what steps to follow on those 4 precious nights...
If only I knew what steps to follow on those 4 precious nights...
I looked up this book on Amazon.
"Paperback: From $473"
Yikes. :/
Can't find an ebook of it either...
Willing to sell it or pass it along? (Best Christmas ever? lol)
Thank you for the kind thoughts regardless. It really is a struggle, to say the least.
"Paperback: From $473"
Yikes. :/
Can't find an ebook of it either...
Willing to sell it or pass it along? (Best Christmas ever? lol)
Thank you for the kind thoughts regardless. It really is a struggle, to say the least.
Oh wow, the English edition must have gone out of print.
I'm going to have a look at whether there's a more popular author with a similar philosophy.
I'm going to have a look at whether there's a more popular author with a similar philosophy.
I'd still be interested in that!
> he just behaved the worst he's ever behaved in daycare today
I'm sorry, maybe it's not my place, but... Please listen to him. Children are not stupid, they just lack experience. If he behaves some way then there is a reason for it. The usual suspect is lack of attention (which is very important for a child), since they get more of it (even if in form of punishment) for behaving "badly"... The outcome is predictable.
I found that treating them as adults when it comes to respecting their wishes goes a long way towards raising a good person.
Again, sorry for an unsolicited advice from a random person on the internet. Especially as it sounds like life is very stressful for you right now. Fingers crossed everything gets better soon.
I'm sorry, maybe it's not my place, but... Please listen to him. Children are not stupid, they just lack experience. If he behaves some way then there is a reason for it. The usual suspect is lack of attention (which is very important for a child), since they get more of it (even if in form of punishment) for behaving "badly"... The outcome is predictable.
I found that treating them as adults when it comes to respecting their wishes goes a long way towards raising a good person.
Again, sorry for an unsolicited advice from a random person on the internet. Especially as it sounds like life is very stressful for you right now. Fingers crossed everything gets better soon.
This. I recall both my mother, my wife and my daughter telling me they would get in trouble when they were younger because they wanted attention.
We already do that, but maybe even more is necessary. The problem is that I'm 52 and already had sleep apnea/CPAP, she is 49, and my son is 3. Every day is an exhausting marathon.
I understand, and I know that for each person the circumstances are different. I hope you are both able to find the strength to just - be with him. I wish you all the best!
It gets better.
It may take until their adult brain forms around the age of 23, though.
Wow! … it took me another decade after that!
I bet he saw it as just cause.
The stuff found on him is irrelevant, they'd pin him down with dna and whatever other evidence.
The stuff found on him is irrelevant, they'd pin him down with dna and whatever other evidence.
[deleted]
They know what his face looks like and had a bunch of information about his whereabouts prior to visiting the city. It was only a matter of time until they found him. His one bet might have been to cross the border in Mexico.
What about those eye brows though?
Could as well have walked into a police station or uploaded the manifesto on his GitHub.
He didn't want to be found but thought it was a non-zero possibility is being ruled out why?
Yup, looks like a CIA glowop.
or, he didn't think he would get caught and his plan to was move on to victim #2.
And he really could have gotten away with it if he wanted to. Im sure he noticed online the vast population of people willing to hide him or provide an alibi.
Usually I don't tend to get caught up in stories like this. But one thing has me completely fascinated, is how far off the deep end the internet went over the last few days. A murderer became a cult hero online. I saw many posts even suggesting "the snitch" should be hunted down and get what's coming to him/her.
I try not to overreact to stuff online, but this took me a bit by surprise. Things really feel like a melting pot at the moment, with so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.
I try not to overreact to stuff online, but this took me a bit by surprise. Things really feel like a melting pot at the moment, with so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.
> who actually lead pretty decent lives.
It's because the whole image is fake. In theory everything is fine but you know there is something very bad about the healthcare system, and the power of an institution to decide about someone else's life or death is just one aspect of it; prices inflated beyond imagination is another one (these two are related). So we pretend to live normal lives but in the back of our head we pray we don't ever need to become a victim of this system. But on the outside yes, it looks like everything is fine and we have decent lives.
It's because the whole image is fake. In theory everything is fine but you know there is something very bad about the healthcare system, and the power of an institution to decide about someone else's life or death is just one aspect of it; prices inflated beyond imagination is another one (these two are related). So we pretend to live normal lives but in the back of our head we pray we don't ever need to become a victim of this system. But on the outside yes, it looks like everything is fine and we have decent lives.
Its because the generally applicable standard way globally to know if things are bad for someone, doesn't work in US. Most people have homes, there is a car standing outside, they have clothes to wear, people are generally private (due to high focus on individualism) and unless you try, you can't really overhear your neighbour - so these issues hide behind closed doors.
The problem is I don't see any "easy" solution to this issue, simply because there will always be an institution in place to decide about someone else's life our death.
Be it a privately run for profit insurance system that runs on perverse incentives, or a government agency that runs on power and influence and corruption.
Be it a privately run for profit insurance system that runs on perverse incentives, or a government agency that runs on power and influence and corruption.
The “easy” solution is to try and remove profit as much as possible from the equation. Pretty much every other high GDP country in the world has single payer healthcare.
Guess how many people get told their anaesthesia won’t be covered for their full surgery. That shouldn’t even be a question, and yet the US system makes it one.
Guess how many people get told their anaesthesia won’t be covered for their full surgery. That shouldn’t even be a question, and yet the US system makes it one.
Two people I know who moved to the US from countries with single payer healthcare said that in their previous countries they would have to wait a long time for certain operations, but in the US can get them almost immediately.
Depends on criticality. Yes, the US beats Canada for example on wait time in a lot of cases, however, as a Canadian I can walk into a ER and not have a co-pay.
I had my appendix out a few years ago, I walked into the ER at 2PM, had the surgery done by midnight, and was able to be discharged by 9AM the next day. The only cost was my parking, because I drove myself over. Meanwhile, I've also had friends in the US who were clearly quite ill, and made the conscious decision to not go to the ER because it would have cost them hundreds of dollars.
It's all a balance, but I'm happier with my single pay system, because for the most part, health decisions aren't at the whim of my bank balance being too low. I personally wouldn't be as disappointed in the US system, if the reason someone can get a surgery immediately didn't balance out with something like UnitedHealthcare's 32% rejection rate, because someone wanted a $10MM / yr salary or a $40MM yacht.
I had my appendix out a few years ago, I walked into the ER at 2PM, had the surgery done by midnight, and was able to be discharged by 9AM the next day. The only cost was my parking, because I drove myself over. Meanwhile, I've also had friends in the US who were clearly quite ill, and made the conscious decision to not go to the ER because it would have cost them hundreds of dollars.
It's all a balance, but I'm happier with my single pay system, because for the most part, health decisions aren't at the whim of my bank balance being too low. I personally wouldn't be as disappointed in the US system, if the reason someone can get a surgery immediately didn't balance out with something like UnitedHealthcare's 32% rejection rate, because someone wanted a $10MM / yr salary or a $40MM yacht.
The US has a law that 80% or 85% of premiums needs to go to healthcare. So if an insurance company is already up against the limit, increasing the rejection rate will actually decrease salaries and yachts (because less money will be spent on healthcare, thus premiums need to be reduced, and the 20% available for employee salary becomes smaller).
https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med...
Although, if increasing the rejection rate allows the insurance company to decrease individual premiums, which causes a lot more people to sign up for coverage due to low cost, that could increase total premium income, total spent on healthcare, and salaries.
https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med...
Although, if increasing the rejection rate allows the insurance company to decrease individual premiums, which causes a lot more people to sign up for coverage due to low cost, that could increase total premium income, total spent on healthcare, and salaries.
[deleted]
From what I understand, wait time can certainly be an issue with single payer healthcare. However, there's people in the US who have effectively infinite wait time because they can't afford treatment at all.
I have an excellent insurance plan and ready access to a large US hospital system. The wait to see a dermatologist as a new patient is ~6 months. Definitely not unique to single-payer systems.
Also, this wait times in many part of the US are in line with the single payer countries. The quality of care in the US is heavily dependent on location.
Some problems in those countries are also caused by for profit healthcare existing in America. The shortage of doctors in Canada is not helped by the appeal of making much more money down south.
Not to mention Canadian expats are generally the ones who would be able to afford the American healthcare costs.
Not to mention Canadian expats are generally the ones who would be able to afford the American healthcare costs.
Also sounds like Canada isn't paying their doctors enough, which isn't to say America's healthcare is better, but it is something to take into account.
Canadian doctors are extremely well paid by Canadian and international standards, just not by the standards of American doctors (who have to repay massive medical debt). Increasing their wages is not really feasible, outside of a few underpaid specialties.
Dutch and Swiss healthcare systems are entirely private (more so than in the US since there are no Medicare or Medicaid equivalents) yet they are highly regulated and profits are limited.
Why can’t the US just copy paste them? It’s not like single payer is the only option..
Why can’t the US just copy paste them? It’s not like single payer is the only option..
US health insurance is profit limited too:
https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med...
https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/med...
> Dutch and Swiss healthcare systems are entirely private (more so than in the US since there are no Medicare or Medicaid equivalents)
and Swiss doctors are paid very well compared to let say German ones. There is long waiting list of German doctors that would like to practice in Switzerland.
and Swiss doctors are paid very well compared to let say German ones. There is long waiting list of German doctors that would like to practice in Switzerland.
Waiting time increases with accessibility and aging population. Most developed countries with universal healthcare amd the hospitals are full with elderly. The developing countries are often much better due to younger population. Places like Turkey are incredibly accessible and cheap compared to the develped countries.
When you remove profit from the equation, you also remove the incentive to increase supply. That's fundamentally what profit is: a reward for fulfilling the needs of consumers. If you can fulfill those needs better or more efficiently or at a larger scale than your competitors, you get more profit.
When you remove profit from the equation, you also remove the incentive to increase supply.
Would you go to work without being paid? I wouldn't.
The same is true for those working in healthcare.
United healthcare wouldn't even exist if there was a ton of people who wanted to found, fund, and work at nonprofit health insurance companies.
The same is true for those working in healthcare.
United healthcare wouldn't even exist if there was a ton of people who wanted to found, fund, and work at nonprofit health insurance companies.
>>Would you go to work without being paid? I wouldn't.
Do you think doctors and nurses work for free in countries with socialized healthcare?
They do get paid. A lot if you're a specialist too - it's a very lucrative field to be in. Admittedly, not for everyone - nurses and junior doctors usually don't get paid very well, but it's my understanding that in US it's not like these professions make bank either.
>>if there was a ton of people who wanted to found, fund, and work at nonprofit health insurance companies.
That's the whole point that Americans are missing - you don't need the insurance companies in the first place, if the entire system is owned by the public. You go to a hospital, you get an operation done and that's it, at no point is there anyone sitting there are processing your "claim" - if the operation is one allowed by the system(and it almost certainly is) then it's just done and the system pays for it from general taxation budget. No one negotiates rates with the hospital, argues about your excess or premiums or in or out of network coverage. Health insurance is something you get for travelling abroad, like if you have an accident while skiing and need a helicopter to get you out, not for visiting a doctor or a hospital.
Do you think doctors and nurses work for free in countries with socialized healthcare?
They do get paid. A lot if you're a specialist too - it's a very lucrative field to be in. Admittedly, not for everyone - nurses and junior doctors usually don't get paid very well, but it's my understanding that in US it's not like these professions make bank either.
>>if there was a ton of people who wanted to found, fund, and work at nonprofit health insurance companies.
That's the whole point that Americans are missing - you don't need the insurance companies in the first place, if the entire system is owned by the public. You go to a hospital, you get an operation done and that's it, at no point is there anyone sitting there are processing your "claim" - if the operation is one allowed by the system(and it almost certainly is) then it's just done and the system pays for it from general taxation budget. No one negotiates rates with the hospital, argues about your excess or premiums or in or out of network coverage. Health insurance is something you get for travelling abroad, like if you have an accident while skiing and need a helicopter to get you out, not for visiting a doctor or a hospital.
Im responding to a comment that thinks the following is crazy and wrong.
>When you remove profit from the equation, you also remove the incentive to increase supply.
Yes, socialized system countries have doctors because they pay doctors, ensuring supply. This proves the point above.
If you pay people to do something, you get more of it.
Health insurance companies dont provide healthcare. They dont stich you up or manufacture pills. They are in the business of vetting and denying claims to ration healthcare provided by others.
>No one negotiates rates with the hospital, argues about your excess or premiums or in or out of network coverage. Health insurance is something you get for travelling abroad, like if you have an accident while skiing and need a helicopter to get you out, not for visiting a doctor or a hospital.
It works different in various socialized systems, but there is always someone negotiating with the hospital, the workers, and the manufacturers. Sometimes this is the government, sometimes it is private insurance.
I dont know which country you are talking about, but almost every country has some sort of Health Insurance. What differs is the level of involvement by the citizens in selecting it.
A classic example would be Germany, which is a multiple payer system with both government and private insurance. 85% percent of people have the government health insurance, which is paid by employers and employees and mandatory. the government manages and negotiates rates for this plan. You can opt out and get private insurance instead, and those insurers have sperate negotiations and offer different services. There is also supplemental insurance, also private, also negotiated separate.
>When you remove profit from the equation, you also remove the incentive to increase supply.
Yes, socialized system countries have doctors because they pay doctors, ensuring supply. This proves the point above.
If you pay people to do something, you get more of it.
Health insurance companies dont provide healthcare. They dont stich you up or manufacture pills. They are in the business of vetting and denying claims to ration healthcare provided by others.
>No one negotiates rates with the hospital, argues about your excess or premiums or in or out of network coverage. Health insurance is something you get for travelling abroad, like if you have an accident while skiing and need a helicopter to get you out, not for visiting a doctor or a hospital.
It works different in various socialized systems, but there is always someone negotiating with the hospital, the workers, and the manufacturers. Sometimes this is the government, sometimes it is private insurance.
I dont know which country you are talking about, but almost every country has some sort of Health Insurance. What differs is the level of involvement by the citizens in selecting it.
A classic example would be Germany, which is a multiple payer system with both government and private insurance. 85% percent of people have the government health insurance, which is paid by employers and employees and mandatory. the government manages and negotiates rates for this plan. You can opt out and get private insurance instead, and those insurers have sperate negotiations and offer different services. There is also supplemental insurance, also private, also negotiated separate.
From my understanding Germany is an outlier among countries with socialized healthcare because their system is either straight up reliant on insurance or is modelled after insurance-like systems. My experience is based on Poland and UK. And sure in the UK you pay for "national insurance" which partially funds the NHS, but the point is that it's almost irrelevant to your coverage - as long as you live in the UK legally you are entitled to treatment, whether you pay NI or not. Again, the difference(imho) is that if you go to a hospital and a doctor there decides you need an operation done, it only goes through a cursory check to make sure the operation is covered and then it's carried out. It doesn't go to some central office where someone checks if you as a person X are entitled to have this done or not, it's not a "claim" like a one you would make with an actual insurance company.
And yes, of course you can supplement that with private insurance if you wish, but vast majority of people don't.
And yes, of course the government negotiates with providers - but when you get treated that's not something that affects you. You don't get a bill that says "your treatment was £10k, but the goverment will only pay £5k, cough up the rest". In fact no one(patients) gets any bills ever.
And yes, of course you can supplement that with private insurance if you wish, but vast majority of people don't.
And yes, of course the government negotiates with providers - but when you get treated that's not something that affects you. You don't get a bill that says "your treatment was £10k, but the goverment will only pay £5k, cough up the rest". In fact no one(patients) gets any bills ever.
I'm pretty sure that UK is the outlier, where healthcare providers are state employees. Wikipedia says the NHS is the largest employer in Europe with 1.4 million employees.
I think the vast majority of countries have some sort of a situation with the government as at least one of the payers, and Private health care providers.
I completely agree that the US is an outlier in how involved the patient is in the payment of their healthcare, and the fact that they can be left with the bill instead of the provider if the insurance is denied.
On a psychological level, I think people are more frustrated by being offered care that they can't afford and dealing with uncertain coverage then not being offered the care at all.
I'm a huge proponent of healthcare reform in the US. That's sad, I think one of the biggest problems with getting it past is unreal expectations. Americans have a caricature of European healthcare in their mind that is totally inaccurate.
I think the vast majority of countries have some sort of a situation with the government as at least one of the payers, and Private health care providers.
I completely agree that the US is an outlier in how involved the patient is in the payment of their healthcare, and the fact that they can be left with the bill instead of the provider if the insurance is denied.
On a psychological level, I think people are more frustrated by being offered care that they can't afford and dealing with uncertain coverage then not being offered the care at all.
I'm a huge proponent of healthcare reform in the US. That's sad, I think one of the biggest problems with getting it past is unreal expectations. Americans have a caricature of European healthcare in their mind that is totally inaccurate.
It’s still an insurance system though, whether it’s publicly owned or privately. There are still bureaucrats who decide what is covered and what is not, and they make that decision for the entire population. Things like cutting edge cancer treatments (often developed in the US) are many years late arriving to public healthcare systems. And many expensive treatments are simply not covered, or covered as second or third line (eg. immune therapy), when patients in the US with appropriately good insurance receive them as first line with far better outcomes.
> No one negotiates rates with the hospital
No one negotiates period. Coverage decisions are made unilaterally by government officials, and services that those officials deem too expensive are simply not offered. The same issue exists with medical equipment. The wait time for an MRI is absurd in eg. Canada because government only funded so many machines. In the states there are simply more machines, because supply was more elastic, and more freely able to meet demand.
> No one negotiates rates with the hospital
No one negotiates period. Coverage decisions are made unilaterally by government officials, and services that those officials deem too expensive are simply not offered. The same issue exists with medical equipment. The wait time for an MRI is absurd in eg. Canada because government only funded so many machines. In the states there are simply more machines, because supply was more elastic, and more freely able to meet demand.
Sure. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure American healthcare system can be amazing in certain cases, and like you said, in specific instances the "market demand" is able to solve issues that socialized systems struggle with. But the same is true in the opposite direction - plenty of stories of people being denied lifesaving care because insurance companies decide it's not worth it. People who have their cancer treatment stopped because their employer changed the insurer and the new insurer has to do a full re-evaluation before they approve the treatment to continue, so in the meantime you get no cancer drugs for months while they do their process. And so on and so on. We could both do this I'm sure.
>>when patients in the US with appropriately good insurance receive them as first line with far better outcomes.
The problem I have with that is basically you're saying the quality of the treatment depends on what insurance you have. In socialized healthcare everyone gets the same treatment.
And in fact this is reflected in the average quality of care received on average, with outcomes in US being much worse than elsewhere. US has mortality from "preventable causes" twice as bad as Australia, Japan or France(paragraph 5). So in US few people get amazing care better than anywhere else. And most people get worse care than anywhere else.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/blogs/comp...
>>Things like cutting edge cancer treatments (often developed in the US) are many years late arriving to public healthcare systems.
Obviously it's hard to make a general statement on this because every country has varied policies around this. But to share an anecdote - my own dad was enrolled into an experimental programme at a leading oncology hospital in Poland because he had a very rare and ultra aggressive cancer which had no known treatment other than a brand new(then) Glivec, which wasn't even approved for that cancer yet, but he had the whole course of his treatment fully funded under our socialized healthcare. In those very very rare cases where regular treatment is not available there are avenues to explore experimental treatments, and they then serve to direct general treatment plans for the rest of the population. Again, this is a specific example from one country.
>>when patients in the US with appropriately good insurance receive them as first line with far better outcomes.
The problem I have with that is basically you're saying the quality of the treatment depends on what insurance you have. In socialized healthcare everyone gets the same treatment.
And in fact this is reflected in the average quality of care received on average, with outcomes in US being much worse than elsewhere. US has mortality from "preventable causes" twice as bad as Australia, Japan or France(paragraph 5). So in US few people get amazing care better than anywhere else. And most people get worse care than anywhere else.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/blogs/comp...
>>Things like cutting edge cancer treatments (often developed in the US) are many years late arriving to public healthcare systems.
Obviously it's hard to make a general statement on this because every country has varied policies around this. But to share an anecdote - my own dad was enrolled into an experimental programme at a leading oncology hospital in Poland because he had a very rare and ultra aggressive cancer which had no known treatment other than a brand new(then) Glivec, which wasn't even approved for that cancer yet, but he had the whole course of his treatment fully funded under our socialized healthcare. In those very very rare cases where regular treatment is not available there are avenues to explore experimental treatments, and they then serve to direct general treatment plans for the rest of the population. Again, this is a specific example from one country.
You would concede that, as a consequence of imposing involuntary obligations on their citizens, socialized systems are less free? And you would also concede that reasonable people can disagree about the priorities of their values, and that valuing personal autonomy over collective well-being is a reasonable position?
> people being denied lifesaving care because insurance companies decide it's not worth it
You get what you sign up for. Like in any business transaction, doing your due diligence and understanding the details of both parties obligation is table stakes. We also have courts precisely for cases when such disputes become intractable.
> so in the meantime you get no cancer drugs for months while they do their process.
No one is stopping you from paying for the drugs yourself. Insurance will reimburse you once they validate your claim. Bureaucracy takes time.
> the average quality of care received on average
And the quality of care on the upper end is markedly worse in many ways. Wealthy people from all over the world travel to the US for their medical procedures for a reason. You're effectively arguing that net-contributors to society (people who pay a lot of taxes) should accept an increase in their tax burden for the privilege of a degradation in their personal access to and quality of care, in order to bring up the average. I hope you appreciate just how directly this opposes the interests of this class.
> From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
You can't have a system like this in a free country. I want the freedom to associate (in an insurance pool) alongside other people with a similar risk profile to myself (eg. no drinking/drugs/smoking, daily exercise, good sleep, healthy body composition) to the exclusion of others. I want my insurance company to carefully scrutinize its applicants and claimants, on my behalf, to ensure that my interests are being well-represented. Insurance does not mean absolution from personal responsibility.
> people being denied lifesaving care because insurance companies decide it's not worth it
You get what you sign up for. Like in any business transaction, doing your due diligence and understanding the details of both parties obligation is table stakes. We also have courts precisely for cases when such disputes become intractable.
> so in the meantime you get no cancer drugs for months while they do their process.
No one is stopping you from paying for the drugs yourself. Insurance will reimburse you once they validate your claim. Bureaucracy takes time.
> the average quality of care received on average
And the quality of care on the upper end is markedly worse in many ways. Wealthy people from all over the world travel to the US for their medical procedures for a reason. You're effectively arguing that net-contributors to society (people who pay a lot of taxes) should accept an increase in their tax burden for the privilege of a degradation in their personal access to and quality of care, in order to bring up the average. I hope you appreciate just how directly this opposes the interests of this class.
> From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
You can't have a system like this in a free country. I want the freedom to associate (in an insurance pool) alongside other people with a similar risk profile to myself (eg. no drinking/drugs/smoking, daily exercise, good sleep, healthy body composition) to the exclusion of others. I want my insurance company to carefully scrutinize its applicants and claimants, on my behalf, to ensure that my interests are being well-represented. Insurance does not mean absolution from personal responsibility.
Well, needless to say, I disagree with every single sentence of your post. I don't think there's a reason to continue - we'll just not agree here.
The government still negotiates. Refusing to buy a product/service at X rate is a negotiation, and there is a back and forth with providers/manufacturers.
Same for state employed healthcare professionals, which have salary set by the state.
Same for state employed healthcare professionals, which have salary set by the state.
What other incentive is there? There might be some willing to go deep into debt in medical school so they can work for free out of the goodness of their hearts, but that's a vanishingly small number of people.
And yet apparently countries all over the world have to artificially raise the bar for med school because so many people want to be doctors for incentives aside from just the money.
What are you talking about? Almost every country has a doctor shortage and Doctors are still well paid professionals there.
People don't go bankrupt at anywhere near the rate Americans do for medical reasons. People don't constantly bring up dealing with insurance as the #1 burden during medical procedures.
sure, but that has nothing to do with your last statement, which was nonsense.
That's like saying 2+2=5, then when someone points it out, saying the sky is blue.
That's like saying 2+2=5, then when someone points it out, saying the sky is blue.
> Pretty much every other high GDP country in the world has single payer healthcare.
This is just completely not true. Take France and Germany for example.
> Guess how many people get told their anaesthesia won’t be covered for their full surgery. That shouldn’t even be a question, and yet the US system makes it one.
So anesthesiologists should be able to ask for any amount their heart desires and the insurance is the bad guy if they don’t want to pay it? Anesthesiologists have a profit motive too, you know.
This is just completely not true. Take France and Germany for example.
> Guess how many people get told their anaesthesia won’t be covered for their full surgery. That shouldn’t even be a question, and yet the US system makes it one.
So anesthesiologists should be able to ask for any amount their heart desires and the insurance is the bad guy if they don’t want to pay it? Anesthesiologists have a profit motive too, you know.
> All French citizens are required to have health insurance, and there are three main health insurance funds. The funds are non-profit and negotiate with the state on healthcare funding.
> Does Germany have free public healthcare? Yes, all Germans and legal residents of Germany are entitled to free “medically necessary” public healthcare, which is funded by social security contributions. However, citizens must still have either state or private health insurance, covering at least hospital and outpatient medical treatment and pregnancy.
> Does Germany have free public healthcare? Yes, all Germans and legal residents of Germany are entitled to free “medically necessary” public healthcare, which is funded by social security contributions. However, citizens must still have either state or private health insurance, covering at least hospital and outpatient medical treatment and pregnancy.
Neither of those are single-payer systems, which you can see by the fact that both of your quotations involve multiple payers. Google "does france have single payer healthcare" or "does germany have single payer healthcare" for more info
> So anesthesiologists should be able to ask for any amount their heart desires and the insurance is the bad guy if they don’t want to pay it?
Obviously not; if they're billing 72 hours a day, that's fraud.
If my procedure goes long because of a complication, I'd still prefer they not wake me up mid-procedure for a credit card and signature.
Obviously not; if they're billing 72 hours a day, that's fraud.
If my procedure goes long because of a complication, I'd still prefer they not wake me up mid-procedure for a credit card and signature.
Naturally they would not wake you up mid-procedure for payment, nor ask you for payment later. What anthem wanted to do was put a cap on the number of billable hours per procedure, and have anesthesiologists accept payment based on that cap as "payment in full", meaning they would not expect additional payment for the extra time they spent after a procedure went long, either from the patient or the insurerer. This would have resulted in anesthesiologists making less money (as well as having less opportunity for fraud), which is why they didn't like it.
But it was presented in popular media as if the insurance company was trying to shift the cost of overlong procedures onto the patient, rather than onto the anesthesiologists. Thankfully there was a public outcry and the anesthesiologists won, well-deservedly so considering they must be barely scraping by on a median income of $470,000/year.
But it was presented in popular media as if the insurance company was trying to shift the cost of overlong procedures onto the patient, rather than onto the anesthesiologists. Thankfully there was a public outcry and the anesthesiologists won, well-deservedly so considering they must be barely scraping by on a median income of $470,000/year.
> What anthem wanted to do was put a cap on the number of billable hours per procedure, and have anesthesiologists accept payment based on that cap as "payment in full", meaning they would not expect additional payment for the extra time they spent after a procedure went long, either from the patient or the insurerer.
The policy even had a path for the anesthesiologist to justify the overrun so that portion could be covered too. No doubt Anthem would scrutinize the justification closely and reject cases where they detect abuse, and the incentives are for Anthem to be too strict, but there was nothing wrong with the policy on its face. These sorts of things are absolutely necessary in order to drive healthcare costs, which are absolutely obscene, down.
The policy even had a path for the anesthesiologist to justify the overrun so that portion could be covered too. No doubt Anthem would scrutinize the justification closely and reject cases where they detect abuse, and the incentives are for Anthem to be too strict, but there was nothing wrong with the policy on its face. These sorts of things are absolutely necessary in order to drive healthcare costs, which are absolutely obscene, down.
And pretty much every one of those countries also has widely used private insurance because the public one most definitely has price caps, longer waits, and lesser service.
No system could afford to spend unlimited amounts for anyone wanting it. You get triaged since resources are not infinite.
Pick your favorite system, say the UK, and google UK healthcare rationing to find state policy on what limits people face.
No system could afford to spend unlimited amounts for anyone wanting it. You get triaged since resources are not infinite.
Pick your favorite system, say the UK, and google UK healthcare rationing to find state policy on what limits people face.
Any medical system inevitably has limits of what they can spend per patient. Do you prefer the limit to be set and enforced by the government that is amenable to political process, or anonymous profit-seeking insurance company board members, like in the sibling comment case https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42375998 ?
That comment was about a person on Medicare Advantage, which is extremely heavily regulated by Medicare, the epitome a of govt medically regulated cost per procedure system.
Here is the govt Medicare page about Medicare Advantage Plans, with references to all the pages of legislation and Medicare rules such plans must comply with.
https://www.medicare.gov/health-drug-plans/health-plans/your...
For example, select “What should I know about Medicare Advantage Plans?”
It states, among other things, “ Medicare Advantage Plans provide all of your Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical Insurance) benefits (also called “Original Medicare”), including new benefits that come from laws or Medicare policy decisions”.
Op claims Medicare “always” provides PT, which is not true. Here’s some rules about it: https://www.healthline.com/health/medicare/does-medicare-cov...
Note in particular Medicare advantage will provide any PT where Medicare would.
If you look at peer reviewed research, MA outperforms M in outcomes and satisfaction by a slight amount.
These are reasons why forming or reinforcing beliefs on anecdotes and not understanding the truth is a bad way to make claims.
So now that you see this outcome was medical care “set and enforced by the government” and not the outcome from “anonymous profit-seeking insurance company board members,” will you redirect your outrage?
Here is the govt Medicare page about Medicare Advantage Plans, with references to all the pages of legislation and Medicare rules such plans must comply with.
https://www.medicare.gov/health-drug-plans/health-plans/your...
For example, select “What should I know about Medicare Advantage Plans?”
It states, among other things, “ Medicare Advantage Plans provide all of your Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical Insurance) benefits (also called “Original Medicare”), including new benefits that come from laws or Medicare policy decisions”.
Op claims Medicare “always” provides PT, which is not true. Here’s some rules about it: https://www.healthline.com/health/medicare/does-medicare-cov...
Note in particular Medicare advantage will provide any PT where Medicare would.
If you look at peer reviewed research, MA outperforms M in outcomes and satisfaction by a slight amount.
These are reasons why forming or reinforcing beliefs on anecdotes and not understanding the truth is a bad way to make claims.
So now that you see this outcome was medical care “set and enforced by the government” and not the outcome from “anonymous profit-seeking insurance company board members,” will you redirect your outrage?
Was it a governmental agency or a private entity that denied coverage in their case?
[deleted]
A first step could be to look at health care outcomes across the globe and see if the ones at the top have anything in common: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o...
There is a huge difference between US and pretty much the rest of the world. The most corrupt healthcare system is US, hands down.
I can explain my perspective which echos kinda what you say.
I am in my 40s, I make pretty good money. My life is good.
My mom died last year. The medical system and her medicare "advantage" plan killed her. She had a stroke. However, within a day, she was up and walking around with assistance.
However, the hospital was understaffed so two things happened. She fell going to the bathroom AND after that happened, they did not get her moving enough and she got a huge bed sore.
The huge bed sore would not have happened if her medicare advantage plan hadn't denied denied denied having her moved to get physical, occupation, and speech theray. If she had just good ole medicare, they would have approved it the day of request (it was requested the day after the stroke, I was warned that her plan was going to deny because they always do where medicare always approves). Instead, she rotted in an understaffed wing of the hospital for a week while I fought to get shit approved.
After getting approval to be moved, she was making slow slow progress due to the bed sore. It is hard when your body needs to recover and you have a huge wound on your back.
Once again her medicare "advantage" plan denied giving her more time in therapy. Guess what? Medicare would have just approved. Her advantage plan said the "community" could care for her and she could just get better over time. Do you know what that means? They wanted me to quit working and care for my mom 24/7. That is what they meant by community care. I am an only child with no other family except my wife and kids.
The hospital social worker was great and refused to discharge my mom because she knew I couldn't physically move my mom around or give her the care she required. That started a month battle where her insurance was refusing to pay anymore hospital bills, refused to get her more therapy, and essentially killed my mom. If the social worker had allowed my mom to be discharged, I would have been fucked.
She slowly got worse and died. The american medical system with its private "advantage" plans took what would have been a recoverable bad health incident and allowed it to kill my mom for greed.
BTW, after a month of fighting, emails to the insurance board of directors and CEO, I got more therapy approved for my mom but it was too late by then. She died a few days later.
You can probably guess how I feel about the CEO's murder........
I am in my 40s, I make pretty good money. My life is good.
My mom died last year. The medical system and her medicare "advantage" plan killed her. She had a stroke. However, within a day, she was up and walking around with assistance.
However, the hospital was understaffed so two things happened. She fell going to the bathroom AND after that happened, they did not get her moving enough and she got a huge bed sore.
The huge bed sore would not have happened if her medicare advantage plan hadn't denied denied denied having her moved to get physical, occupation, and speech theray. If she had just good ole medicare, they would have approved it the day of request (it was requested the day after the stroke, I was warned that her plan was going to deny because they always do where medicare always approves). Instead, she rotted in an understaffed wing of the hospital for a week while I fought to get shit approved.
After getting approval to be moved, she was making slow slow progress due to the bed sore. It is hard when your body needs to recover and you have a huge wound on your back.
Once again her medicare "advantage" plan denied giving her more time in therapy. Guess what? Medicare would have just approved. Her advantage plan said the "community" could care for her and she could just get better over time. Do you know what that means? They wanted me to quit working and care for my mom 24/7. That is what they meant by community care. I am an only child with no other family except my wife and kids.
The hospital social worker was great and refused to discharge my mom because she knew I couldn't physically move my mom around or give her the care she required. That started a month battle where her insurance was refusing to pay anymore hospital bills, refused to get her more therapy, and essentially killed my mom. If the social worker had allowed my mom to be discharged, I would have been fucked.
She slowly got worse and died. The american medical system with its private "advantage" plans took what would have been a recoverable bad health incident and allowed it to kill my mom for greed.
BTW, after a month of fighting, emails to the insurance board of directors and CEO, I got more therapy approved for my mom but it was too late by then. She died a few days later.
You can probably guess how I feel about the CEO's murder........
this right here. all the people in this thread acting like "everything is fine" and things aren't so bad for most people...i sincerely hope they get the reality check they deserve but not like this. to see a loved one - who did nothing wrong other than existing - to be murdered by the system? i've witnessed this first hand and to say one's blood boils is understatement of the century. all preventable but when profits are always always always always the most important thing...you're nothing but a cost; an expense to others' egregious profit motives. and as such....expendable.
I will freely admit, I didn't know shit about medicare advantage plans prior to this shit show happening. Most people don't have a clue. But if you talk to a social worker at a hospital, they see it every single day. They are beat down trying to fight for their patients while watching them get fucked by insurance.
Never go HMO, PPO is worth the extra $ when you want to choose hospitals and specialists.
How's that work? My employer doesn't offer health insurance, just reimbursement and every plan on the marketplace is an HMO.
What state are you in? You should be able to get PPO plans in the healthcare marketplace. Expect to pay considerably more a month of it isn’t subsidized
I'm not sure all of this is profit seeking caused given their small margins. It feels like it could be a down stream effect of business sustainability and competition. The bag is necessarily covered by those who have less long running health complications, and so you need to provide a competitive price to them so they pay in with you. The price offered when you don't need care becomes lower than the amount needed to cover everyone when you do. Which would incentive denials out of necessity as well.
It's bureaucratic violence. Slow. With maximum kafkaesque torture to draw it out.
How many people die for greed? Is that not violence?
How many people die for greed? Is that not violence?
"The noble person that goes to work and pray like they s'posed to? Slaughter people too, your murder's just a bit slower."
- Kendrick Lamar
- Kendrick Lamar
Medicare Advantage is HMO right? I just switch my folks to BCBS PPO with Medicare and a “medigap” supplemental plan to cover things that Medicare won’t. My head is still spinning up to my neck in paperwork for the cancer and hemorrhagic stroke bills from out of network physician groups billing, truly 24/7 job. Sorry for your loss. You did a lot to help I can tell after going through this myself. Be kind to yourself. They denied my mom’s chemo drugs it’s absurd. She paid into the system for decades without incident.
This is my story, just replacing "mom" with "dad". Thanks for telling it and sorry for your loss.
I wonder if there is a niche to ameliorate this sort of thing by offering payday loans on insurance payouts.
The incentives are pro-social: insurance companies have an incentive to delay payouts, because their profits come from interest (they pay out more money than they take in) so the longer they can hold onto money the better. But that's reversed for this hypothetical loan issuer - they want to make the payout as fast as possible in order to earn as much interest as possible as quickly as possible.
And if there's a systematic tendency for medicaid advantage plans to deny claims that eventually get approved, and if you could predict which ones will get approved 'just' by really understanding what medicaid would approve, then this might be self-sustaining or even profitable?
The incentives are pro-social: insurance companies have an incentive to delay payouts, because their profits come from interest (they pay out more money than they take in) so the longer they can hold onto money the better. But that's reversed for this hypothetical loan issuer - they want to make the payout as fast as possible in order to earn as much interest as possible as quickly as possible.
And if there's a systematic tendency for medicaid advantage plans to deny claims that eventually get approved, and if you could predict which ones will get approved 'just' by really understanding what medicaid would approve, then this might be self-sustaining or even profitable?
There is no niche, that makes a fundamentally inefficient system, more efficient.
If any such niche existed, for any system, then this niche would be the system.
If any such niche existed, for any system, then this niche would be the system.
The solution is disallow private insurance being the middle man between medicare and the patient.
What possible benefit to the patient is having a whole bureaucracy sit between the gov't insurance and the person in need of medical care? It only exists to make money off the backs of the people they are harming.
Now, if you don't know why people sign up for them, you don't understand what they are doing. My mom, like many others, was on a fixed income. If you sign up for a medicare advantage plan, they will do things like give you an extra $100 a month to you directly. Why would insurance be willing to PAY you? Because they make all their money billing medicare and denying you coverage.
18 billion in profits last year running a middle man between patients and medicare
What possible benefit to the patient is having a whole bureaucracy sit between the gov't insurance and the person in need of medical care? It only exists to make money off the backs of the people they are harming.
Now, if you don't know why people sign up for them, you don't understand what they are doing. My mom, like many others, was on a fixed income. If you sign up for a medicare advantage plan, they will do things like give you an extra $100 a month to you directly. Why would insurance be willing to PAY you? Because they make all their money billing medicare and denying you coverage.
18 billion in profits last year running a middle man between patients and medicare
> Why would insurance be willing to PAY you?
Why would the government introduce an intermediary in the first place?
Why would the government introduce an intermediary in the first place?
Network effects. They outsource all the medical billing and management to the big insurance racket companies. Protip: go with a PPO Medicare plan and medigap supplemental plan if you want your loved ones to see any specialists and go to any hospital. I switched mine off the HMO advantage plans to BCBS PPO cause HMO Medicare advantage plans deny everything by default fighting tooth and nail.
Wikipedia says the government introduced intermediaries to cut costs (i.e. create a scapegoat people can blame for denying claims or reducing payments to providers and not have the finger point at the government).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Act_of_1997
> The act had a five-year savings goal and a ten-year savings goal following its enactment in 1997. The five-year savings goal was $116.4 billion which would be achieved by limiting growth rates in payments to hospitals and physicians under fee-for-service arrangements.[7]
>This plan also involved the change of the methods of payment made to rehabilitation hospitals, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, and outpatient service agencies as well as the reduction of payments to Medicare managed care plans and the slowing of growth rates of these same care plans.[7]
>The ten-year savings goal was $393.8 billion using the same savings methods as the five-year goal to achieve the savings in 2007.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Act_of_1997
> The act had a five-year savings goal and a ten-year savings goal following its enactment in 1997. The five-year savings goal was $116.4 billion which would be achieved by limiting growth rates in payments to hospitals and physicians under fee-for-service arrangements.[7]
>This plan also involved the change of the methods of payment made to rehabilitation hospitals, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, and outpatient service agencies as well as the reduction of payments to Medicare managed care plans and the slowing of growth rates of these same care plans.[7]
>The ten-year savings goal was $393.8 billion using the same savings methods as the five-year goal to achieve the savings in 2007.[7]
Is it just me or does this sound like a terrible bill? I've gone through the page and it just sounds like it was trying to save money by making healthcare beneficiaries worse off.
I haven't researched how all these came to exist but I assume it is the typical conservative talking point about the free market being more efficient so why wouldn't we want this. It will save us all money. And no, I don't believe any of that BS.
Or, I don’t know, maybe we do what every other Western nation has done and just present a public option for healthcare coverage to the average person?
Nah, better to have millionaires lying to the sick and dying about the company not having the money to pay for the coverage that the sick person paid a hefty monthly premium to provide.
Nah, better to have millionaires lying to the sick and dying about the company not having the money to pay for the coverage that the sick person paid a hefty monthly premium to provide.
Nice, a hyper capitalistic solution to a problem which only exists because of a hyper capitalistic system. Why not add another middleman with a financial incentive to a system overburdened by middlemen with financial incentives?
The solution would be to remove useless leeches providing no value or benefit to anyone other than shareholders, not add more of them.
And what do you know, most of the rest of the developed world has managed to do that. And even the parts that have private healthcare have managed to put strict rules controlling it, and costs and outcomes are much better.
The solution would be to remove useless leeches providing no value or benefit to anyone other than shareholders, not add more of them.
And what do you know, most of the rest of the developed world has managed to do that. And even the parts that have private healthcare have managed to put strict rules controlling it, and costs and outcomes are much better.
[deleted]
that sounds like a true nightmare. i'm sorry that happened.
Yep, and it is preventable. The one thing I can say is NEVER let your parents sign up for a "medicare" advantage plan. There is no advantage. The company my mom was with is one of the largest and profited something like 18 BILLION off medicare last year. How do you think that is possible? Because they overcharge medicare and deny coverage.
People sign up for (or are tempted to sign up for) Medicare C because traditional Medicare is too complex and bafflingly bad. Traditional Medicare requires paying for your Part B premium, a separate Part D plan and premium (from the private insurance companies), likely a third “Medigap” plan and premium (also from the private insurance companies IIRC) and then separate private vision and dental coverages.
And for all of that, you’re stuck paying at least 20% of everything, on top of separate deductibles for each part and no out of pocket caps at all (meaning Medicare isn’t even an ACA compliant health care plan). Part C simplifies this for so many people by rolling all of Part B, Part D and usually vision and dental into a single premium and puts out of pocket caps on the amount of money you might need to shell out. Is it any wonder people keep choosing Part C even if it means their providers have to fight the insurance more?
And for all of that, you’re stuck paying at least 20% of everything, on top of separate deductibles for each part and no out of pocket caps at all (meaning Medicare isn’t even an ACA compliant health care plan). Part C simplifies this for so many people by rolling all of Part B, Part D and usually vision and dental into a single premium and puts out of pocket caps on the amount of money you might need to shell out. Is it any wonder people keep choosing Part C even if it means their providers have to fight the insurance more?
Source? UNH’s entire net income in 2023 was $22.3B, and their market cap is more than 5x the next biggest managed care organization (MCO).
The other MCOs all had net income less than $8B (CVS/Elevance/Cigna/Humana/etc).
There is no way a business earned a profit of $18B just from Medicare and it not being visible on their net income figures.
That is not to say Medicare Advantage is good for most customers (the common advice is to stay away from it), but fantastical numbers don’t help arguments.
The other MCOs all had net income less than $8B (CVS/Elevance/Cigna/Humana/etc).
There is no way a business earned a profit of $18B just from Medicare and it not being visible on their net income figures.
That is not to say Medicare Advantage is good for most customers (the common advice is to stay away from it), but fantastical numbers don’t help arguments.
Profit is not income. That $18B could be spend on salaries, bonuses, company assests, etc, and I'm not an accountant but if it's getting spent on the business it doesn't have to be included in their income reports.
Profit without a qualifier is assumed to mean net income, which is all revenue minus all expenses.
But even supposing that the business earns $18B from Medicare Advantage after all is said and done, it doesn’t pass the smell test because at that level of profit, these businesses should shut everything else down and just do Medicare Advantage.
But even supposing that the business earns $18B from Medicare Advantage after all is said and done, it doesn’t pass the smell test because at that level of profit, these businesses should shut everything else down and just do Medicare Advantage.
Wish I could upvote this more. Switched mine to BCBS PPO with medigap supplemental plan for their Medicare provider. They got to go to the best cancer hospital and specialists you can just call up the office and schedule. It costs like $900 a month though and they pay 20% with 80% plan coverage up to catastrophic out of pocket limit. PPO if you want to give your loved ones a fighting chance.
I'm so sorry about what happened to your mom. I'd be furious, too. It sounds like you did everything you possibly could and really fought for her.
It really makes me sad, but thank you for sharing your story.
It really makes me sad, but thank you for sharing your story.
It makes me want to commit a murder just reading this.
I'm genuinely amazed by the distribution of opinions in this thread.
If y'all feel that way, why don't you vote for a "socialist" healthcare system like we have over here in communist Europe?
I mean, I'm over here in Germany and I'm not going to claim the system is that great, but it's really not half bad either, and it does seem to prevent the most extreme tragedies.
If y'all feel that way, why don't you vote for a "socialist" healthcare system like we have over here in communist Europe?
I mean, I'm over here in Germany and I'm not going to claim the system is that great, but it's really not half bad either, and it does seem to prevent the most extreme tragedies.
Vote where? Do you see that on the ballot?
It's on the ballot a lot; Obama wanted, but was ultimately unable to, implement a broad individual mandate within the ACA; Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supported medicare for all.
A number of states have implemented individual mandates; including Massachusetts under Mitt Romney.
It seems quite clear that you'd get it if you (collectively) voted that way, or not for candidates who very actively oppose it.
A number of states have implemented individual mandates; including Massachusetts under Mitt Romney.
It seems quite clear that you'd get it if you (collectively) voted that way, or not for candidates who very actively oppose it.
You just described one of quite a few reasons (higher education falls into same category, overall security could be mentioned in such topic too) that I consider some parts of western Europe a better place to live and raise kids than anything US can provide. Despite having much lower numbers on paychecks alone.
I get that system needs to push folks into working hard and motivate exceptional efforts (and luck), but sometimes this goes into properly bad directions where few gain and majority loses. In any functional society, all this is never isolated and it has ripple effects.
I get that system needs to push folks into working hard and motivate exceptional efforts (and luck), but sometimes this goes into properly bad directions where few gain and majority loses. In any functional society, all this is never isolated and it has ripple effects.
>In theory everything is fine but you know there is something very bad about the healthcare system,
No merely healthcare, but employment, housing etc. It's easy to single out healthcare for obvious reasons.
No merely healthcare, but employment, housing etc. It's easy to single out healthcare for obvious reasons.
Your description reminds me of the opening scene of Blue Velvet.
You can leave! Nothing is stopping you from staying in the US. Particularly if you're on this website, you probably have talents other countries would like to acquire. The fact that you haven't says you don't believe what you say.
The "America, love it or leave it" tactic? It's intellectually dishonest and shortcuts any kind of debate or thoughtful discussion. Or is this more of the "you haven't left your wife beating husband so you must like it" tactic? That's also philosophically bereft and avoids anything substantive.
Suffice it to say, constructive criticism is vital for democratic improvement.
Suffice it to say, constructive criticism is vital for democratic improvement.
If your belief is the United States is so bad that it justifies murder, you should leave. If you're more reasonable, I would not recommend leaving.
My belief is that there are people who get what they deserve. The CEO was one of them.
Why should anyone care what you do or do not recommend?
So, everyone who ever joined the police? That is certainly a new take.
> If your belief is the United States is so bad that it justifies murder, you should leave.
That's a weird conclusion. For me, it's rather "The USA has its flaws (for me - healthcare and higher education financing above all) so we as a society should focus on fixing these problems". Killing people or leaving the country are not solutions, they are are an equivalent of short Twitter replies on a nuanced subject.
That's a weird conclusion. For me, it's rather "The USA has its flaws (for me - healthcare and higher education financing above all) so we as a society should focus on fixing these problems". Killing people or leaving the country are not solutions, they are are an equivalent of short Twitter replies on a nuanced subject.
I agree! I'm only suggesting leaving if you think murder is justified.
Isn’t this how it is supposed to work in America? People own guns to fight tyranny. The gunman carried out his own judgment, but that’s the whole point. And there is reasonable belief that the CEO is responsible for a lot of suffering and expected life lost.
> Don't like it? GTFO out loser! Uproot your family, move away from everything you know, all your friends, and go take a chance in a completely different country. Just change everything about your life and stop trying to make anything ever better. Otherwise STFU about it!
- You
- You
It’s funny how we treat these things. Kill a bunch of people by putting lead in their drinking water and it’s a shrug. Occasionally you might lose your job over it. In extremely rare and egregious cases you might end up with a minor criminal conviction.
Kill one person by putting lead in their heart at high speed and now it’s a serious crime. If the victim is Important then you get a massive manhunt and national news coverage.
Kill one person by putting lead in their heart at high speed and now it’s a serious crime. If the victim is Important then you get a massive manhunt and national news coverage.
Accidentally kill someone with your car because you're distracted, no problem. But if you're drunk? Crime.
Good example, distracted driving that ends in death should be treated much more harshly than it is.
>putting lead in their drinking water
Flint, Michigan
Flint, Michigan
Yep. Guess how many people went to prison for that one.
>Kill one person by putting lead in their heart at high speed and now it’s a serious crime.
I wish this was an attempt at a joke.
I wish this was an attempt at a joke.
Me too. I’m describing it flippantly for effect, but I’m deadly serious. There are ways to kill people that get the attention of law enforcement, and ways to kill people that are de facto (and often de jure) legal. And wouldn’t you know, the latter category tends to include the methods used by the rich and powerful.
There's a barely-known Italian song from 2006 by Italian rapper Caparezza that deals with this exact theme. It's about a guy trying to "legally" kill his wife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxhmOfk-L5Q
Lyrics here https://www.angolotesti.it/C/testi_canzoni_caparezza_1135/te...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxhmOfk-L5Q
Lyrics here https://www.angolotesti.it/C/testi_canzoni_caparezza_1135/te...
>I’m deadly serious
I figured that. It feels a little like the country is going crazy.
I figured that. It feels a little like the country is going crazy.
Or coming to temporary clarity? Things like the “culture wars” are distractions pushed by the elites to keep the lower classes fighting amongst themselves and not their true enemy. But extractive robber barons are the real problem behind everyone’s life getting worse all the time, and for a brief moment everyone has seen that and been in alignment.
[deleted]
How could we not, when the rich and powerful kill with impunity?
If we have a functioning democracy, you know, where we vote for what we want, how do we end up with the healthcare situation in this country? (For god's sake I'm NOT inviting a right-vs-left debate here!) Nobody wants this, and yet we haven't solved it by any legislative actions. That tells you clearly there is an invisible 4th arm of government (not "shadow government", corporate government) going on here that we are just beginning to shed light on.
It’s not even subtle. The deciding vote which kept Obamacare from having a public option was Joe Lieberman, commonly referred to as “the Senator from Aetna.”
[deleted]
The country has been going crazy yelling about trans people and gay people and black people and Irish people and "Ingins" for hundreds of years. Suddenly we stop worrying about 7 trans athletes and pay actual attention to what's actually going on and you say we're going crazy? I say we, just for a few days, collectively woke from a delusional nightmare to see the world as it really is.
Don't worry. We're already drifting back to sleep.
Don't worry. We're already drifting back to sleep.
That's not funny; that's just not how things actually work.
It’s not?
Air pollution alone kills tens of thousands of Americans a year. More die from air pollution than die from what’s legally defined as murder, by a substantial margin. How many people are in prison for it? Most of that pollution it outright legal. The illegal parts are rarely punished and never on the level meted out to “murderers.” And that’s just one example.
It’s totally legal to deliberately kill innocent people, as long as you do it in certain ways.
Air pollution alone kills tens of thousands of Americans a year. More die from air pollution than die from what’s legally defined as murder, by a substantial margin. How many people are in prison for it? Most of that pollution it outright legal. The illegal parts are rarely punished and never on the level meted out to “murderers.” And that’s just one example.
It’s totally legal to deliberately kill innocent people, as long as you do it in certain ways.
You're using the word "deliberately" wrong when talking about things like air pollution. Pointing a gun and shooting at someone is quiet a different thing than is causing air pollution.
Are people who smoked next to other people deliberately killing them? After all, second hand smoke was quite dangerous.
Are people who smoked next to other people deliberately killing them? After all, second hand smoke was quite dangerous.
Please explain the difference, in terms of how it should affect my opinion of the person who carries out the act. Pretend, for the sake of argument (and because it’s true) that I don’t see it.
A factory boss decides to release some toxic pollutant. They know that it will result in some number of deaths over the next years. They choose to go through with it anyway, because they make more profit than if they disposed of the stuff properly, and that money matters more to them than the lives they’re ending.
What’s the difference between that and some petty criminal shooting someone in the street so they can take the victim’s wallet?
And yeah, smoking counts too, why not? The saving grace there is that the harm from an individual smoker isn’t very large. Even over a period of years, someone who habitually smokes near people who don’t consent to it only takes a tiny fraction of a life. That’s why I think smoking bans should be enforced with reasonable fines rather than life in prison.
A factory boss decides to release some toxic pollutant. They know that it will result in some number of deaths over the next years. They choose to go through with it anyway, because they make more profit than if they disposed of the stuff properly, and that money matters more to them than the lives they’re ending.
What’s the difference between that and some petty criminal shooting someone in the street so they can take the victim’s wallet?
And yeah, smoking counts too, why not? The saving grace there is that the harm from an individual smoker isn’t very large. Even over a period of years, someone who habitually smokes near people who don’t consent to it only takes a tiny fraction of a life. That’s why I think smoking bans should be enforced with reasonable fines rather than life in prison.
> Please explain the difference, in terms of how it should affect my opinion of the person who carries out the act.
Sure.
> A factory boss decides to release some toxic pollutant. They know that it will result in some number of deaths over the next years. They choose to go through with it anyway, because they make more profit than if they disposed of the stuff properly, and that money matters more to them than the lives they’re ending.
This depends a lot on context you haven't provided. Most importantly - is this legal?
If releasing this toxic pollutant is illegal, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. For good reason, that is usually not a death sentence. But if you have an issue with how harsh or not the sentence is, that's a question to take up with the legal system, not with the individual.
Either way, vigilante justice is not needed.
If releasing this pollutant is legal, the question is different. Firstly, why is it legal? If it shouldn't be, then again - this is something to take up with the justice system. Sometimes it's legal for good reasons - it's not clear yet that it is truly toxic. That should definitely inform how we treat someone - releasing something that might be a pollutant is definitely different.
There's just a lot of nuance to this question, it's not an easy soundbite, because the real world is complicated.
> What’s the difference between that and some petty criminal shooting someone in the street so they can take the victim’s wallet?
Let me make a very important point here.
The legality of an action matters a lot more for society than the morality of an action. That's kind of the whole reason we have a legal system, and for good reason! And a pretty fundamental principle of the legal system is that intent matters a whole lot.
Here's some of the differences of the two cases:
- With a criminal shooting someone in the street to take their wallet, I am very scared that he will continue doing this - he will likely shoot more people to get their wallets, because he ignores the laws and morality.
As opposed to the factory boss, who (assuming this is legal), would presumably not do something if it were illegal. So I don't have to worry about his actions - he's not likely to "kill" anyone else if it's against the law.
- A criminal shooting someone is almost certainly trying to kill or at least harm them. The action is very direct. This matters a bunch, because we can be pretty certain of their intent, and therefore how they will act in the future.
As opposed to a factory boss - where the indirectness of the action is far more ambiguous. Did he really know that this would cause deaths? Are there mitigating circumstances (like him being pretty sure it's far enough that it won't cause deaths because it's small amounts, or far from populations)?
---
The biggest problem with your examples is that there are really two options here. You either agree with the legal system - in which case, there's a perfect remedy for actions like releasing toxic chemicals, which is using the legal system to prosecute such people.
Or you don't agree with the legal system - you think some things should be illegal, but they aren't.
And this is what is secretly (or not so secretly) motivating most of the pro-vigilante comments. They think that what they consider to be moral is good enough to use to enact justice - they don't need to actually convince their fellow citizens, or convince their lawmakers, to enact their ideas into law. It's enough for them to fervently be sure they are right - that's supposedly a good enough reason to inflict their morality on other people using violence.
And that is a disgusting, anti-democratic worldview, that would leave society in tatters.
Society can't function if everyone can just decide that their morality is the ultimate justice. We have to come together as a society and agree on rules. Because as everyone understands - 99% of people do something that someone else considers wrong.
If our society functioned via "well I'm sure I'm right about what is moral, so I can execute people based on my morality", then pretty soon we'd have total anarchy.
Do you think abortion is murder? Go ahead and kill some doctors. Do you think creating weapons should be illegal? Go ahead and kill the CEO of a weapons manufacturer. Do you think protesting war is terrible because it puts "our soldiers" in danger? Go and shoot up people leading protests. Perhaps you think that climate change will kill us and anyone who works in the car industry is therefore tainted? Go and blow up some car factory workers.
I agree with some of the position above, disagree with some others, as I'm sure most people do. And that's fine! But decent people understand that disagreeing about things, even things that directly pertain to life and death - is not a good enough reason to start killing each other over. We all have to live together, so we all have to work together to agree on what is right or wrong, and to appoint people to collectively enact the will of society - not just have individual citizens run off and do what they want based on their ideas.
Sure.
> A factory boss decides to release some toxic pollutant. They know that it will result in some number of deaths over the next years. They choose to go through with it anyway, because they make more profit than if they disposed of the stuff properly, and that money matters more to them than the lives they’re ending.
This depends a lot on context you haven't provided. Most importantly - is this legal?
If releasing this toxic pollutant is illegal, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. For good reason, that is usually not a death sentence. But if you have an issue with how harsh or not the sentence is, that's a question to take up with the legal system, not with the individual.
Either way, vigilante justice is not needed.
If releasing this pollutant is legal, the question is different. Firstly, why is it legal? If it shouldn't be, then again - this is something to take up with the justice system. Sometimes it's legal for good reasons - it's not clear yet that it is truly toxic. That should definitely inform how we treat someone - releasing something that might be a pollutant is definitely different.
There's just a lot of nuance to this question, it's not an easy soundbite, because the real world is complicated.
> What’s the difference between that and some petty criminal shooting someone in the street so they can take the victim’s wallet?
Let me make a very important point here.
The legality of an action matters a lot more for society than the morality of an action. That's kind of the whole reason we have a legal system, and for good reason! And a pretty fundamental principle of the legal system is that intent matters a whole lot.
Here's some of the differences of the two cases:
- With a criminal shooting someone in the street to take their wallet, I am very scared that he will continue doing this - he will likely shoot more people to get their wallets, because he ignores the laws and morality.
As opposed to the factory boss, who (assuming this is legal), would presumably not do something if it were illegal. So I don't have to worry about his actions - he's not likely to "kill" anyone else if it's against the law.
- A criminal shooting someone is almost certainly trying to kill or at least harm them. The action is very direct. This matters a bunch, because we can be pretty certain of their intent, and therefore how they will act in the future.
As opposed to a factory boss - where the indirectness of the action is far more ambiguous. Did he really know that this would cause deaths? Are there mitigating circumstances (like him being pretty sure it's far enough that it won't cause deaths because it's small amounts, or far from populations)?
---
The biggest problem with your examples is that there are really two options here. You either agree with the legal system - in which case, there's a perfect remedy for actions like releasing toxic chemicals, which is using the legal system to prosecute such people.
Or you don't agree with the legal system - you think some things should be illegal, but they aren't.
And this is what is secretly (or not so secretly) motivating most of the pro-vigilante comments. They think that what they consider to be moral is good enough to use to enact justice - they don't need to actually convince their fellow citizens, or convince their lawmakers, to enact their ideas into law. It's enough for them to fervently be sure they are right - that's supposedly a good enough reason to inflict their morality on other people using violence.
And that is a disgusting, anti-democratic worldview, that would leave society in tatters.
Society can't function if everyone can just decide that their morality is the ultimate justice. We have to come together as a society and agree on rules. Because as everyone understands - 99% of people do something that someone else considers wrong.
If our society functioned via "well I'm sure I'm right about what is moral, so I can execute people based on my morality", then pretty soon we'd have total anarchy.
Do you think abortion is murder? Go ahead and kill some doctors. Do you think creating weapons should be illegal? Go ahead and kill the CEO of a weapons manufacturer. Do you think protesting war is terrible because it puts "our soldiers" in danger? Go and shoot up people leading protests. Perhaps you think that climate change will kill us and anyone who works in the car industry is therefore tainted? Go and blow up some car factory workers.
I agree with some of the position above, disagree with some others, as I'm sure most people do. And that's fine! But decent people understand that disagreeing about things, even things that directly pertain to life and death - is not a good enough reason to start killing each other over. We all have to live together, so we all have to work together to agree on what is right or wrong, and to appoint people to collectively enact the will of society - not just have individual citizens run off and do what they want based on their ideas.
> This depends a lot on context you haven't provided. Most importantly - is this legal?
Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant. You are entering into a conversation about morality. The law does not dictate morality, as much as it can morality dictates the law. The entire point of the person you are replying to is that acts with moral equivalence are treated differently by the law because of the social and economic status of those likely to commit those acts.
A very real example of this from American history is that crack cocaine and powder cocaine had different mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for charges of simple possession as well as charges of possession with intent to distribute. Both are effectively the same drug, but one version of this drug is more commonly use by poor and non-white people, and the other version used by rich white people, and so we ended up with a gross disparity in the law over exactly morally equivalent acts.
You are not actually engaging with the argument that the person you are replying to is making. Nobody gives a shit what the law says, they care about what is right and what is wrong. Then we mold the law to match.
Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant. You are entering into a conversation about morality. The law does not dictate morality, as much as it can morality dictates the law. The entire point of the person you are replying to is that acts with moral equivalence are treated differently by the law because of the social and economic status of those likely to commit those acts.
A very real example of this from American history is that crack cocaine and powder cocaine had different mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for charges of simple possession as well as charges of possession with intent to distribute. Both are effectively the same drug, but one version of this drug is more commonly use by poor and non-white people, and the other version used by rich white people, and so we ended up with a gross disparity in the law over exactly morally equivalent acts.
You are not actually engaging with the argument that the person you are replying to is making. Nobody gives a shit what the law says, they care about what is right and what is wrong. Then we mold the law to match.
> Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant. You are entering into a conversation about morality. The law does not dictate morality, as much as it can morality dictates the law.
There are various ideas about morality. But I think even in the most common-sense interpretation of morality, most people agree that there are things that are legal, but immoral, things that are perfectly moral but illegal, and that respecting the law is a meta-rule that is important regardless of morality.
Simple example: Most people agree that cheating on a spouse is wrong and immoral. Not illegal though. Do you think it makes any sense to suggest that the only options are either we change the law to make adultery criminal, or we take vigilante justice on adulterers? Or is it just possible that some things might be immoral (to some people) but should be legal?
> A very real example of this from American history is that crack cocaine and powder cocaine had different mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines [...]
Yes, and I think the law was wrong in this case, like it's been wrong many times in history (slavery was once legal too). The correct thing to do was to try and change it, which is what eventually happened.
An incorrect option would've been to jailbreak prisoners because you disagree with the law, despite lots of people being imprisoned for longer than they should've been.
> You are not actually engaging with the argument that the person you are replying to is making. Nobody gives a shit what the law says, they care about what is right and what is wrong. Then we mold the law to match.
I am engaging, because I disagree with this idea. The law and morality are connected, but distinct things, as I've shown above. We have to have legal systems in place to make broad decisions - we can't go based off of people's personal moral ideas. Explain to me how you would like things to work and still be compatible with that idea, given the above examples I've given.
And I think the idea that "nobody gives a shit what the law says" is a statement that is... very, very incorrect.
There are various ideas about morality. But I think even in the most common-sense interpretation of morality, most people agree that there are things that are legal, but immoral, things that are perfectly moral but illegal, and that respecting the law is a meta-rule that is important regardless of morality.
Simple example: Most people agree that cheating on a spouse is wrong and immoral. Not illegal though. Do you think it makes any sense to suggest that the only options are either we change the law to make adultery criminal, or we take vigilante justice on adulterers? Or is it just possible that some things might be immoral (to some people) but should be legal?
> A very real example of this from American history is that crack cocaine and powder cocaine had different mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines [...]
Yes, and I think the law was wrong in this case, like it's been wrong many times in history (slavery was once legal too). The correct thing to do was to try and change it, which is what eventually happened.
An incorrect option would've been to jailbreak prisoners because you disagree with the law, despite lots of people being imprisoned for longer than they should've been.
> You are not actually engaging with the argument that the person you are replying to is making. Nobody gives a shit what the law says, they care about what is right and what is wrong. Then we mold the law to match.
I am engaging, because I disagree with this idea. The law and morality are connected, but distinct things, as I've shown above. We have to have legal systems in place to make broad decisions - we can't go based off of people's personal moral ideas. Explain to me how you would like things to work and still be compatible with that idea, given the above examples I've given.
And I think the idea that "nobody gives a shit what the law says" is a statement that is... very, very incorrect.
The biggest question here is: what is the purpose of the law?
The standard answers are things like, the law exists to protect people, or enforce broadly agreed conduct, or to deter or punish criminals.
Those answers are all wrong. The purpose of the law is this: to convince people not to take matters into their own hands.
Civilization depends on people mostly not taking violent revenge when wronged. The law exists to replace revenge with “justice” in the minds of the aggrieved. Everything else is window dressing.
If this starts to break down then the law is failing. The fix isn’t to convince people that following the law is inportant, the fix is to show people that the law offers a viable notion of justice, whatever that might entail.
The standard answers are things like, the law exists to protect people, or enforce broadly agreed conduct, or to deter or punish criminals.
Those answers are all wrong. The purpose of the law is this: to convince people not to take matters into their own hands.
Civilization depends on people mostly not taking violent revenge when wronged. The law exists to replace revenge with “justice” in the minds of the aggrieved. Everything else is window dressing.
If this starts to break down then the law is failing. The fix isn’t to convince people that following the law is inportant, the fix is to show people that the law offers a viable notion of justice, whatever that might entail.
> If this starts to break down then the law is failing. The fix isn’t to convince people that following the law is inportant, the fix is to show people that the law offers a viable notion of justice, whatever that might entail.
I agree. I just don't think the system is as broken as you seem to think it is. Compared to almost any other place and time, the system is the best.
> Those answers are all wrong. The purpose of the law is this: to convince people not to take matters into their own hands.
Btw, while I do agree with this in a democracy, note that many, many people throughout history (and today!) live and have lived in places where some people really are above the law. That doesn't seem to preclude society functioning.
I agree. I just don't think the system is as broken as you seem to think it is. Compared to almost any other place and time, the system is the best.
> Those answers are all wrong. The purpose of the law is this: to convince people not to take matters into their own hands.
Btw, while I do agree with this in a democracy, note that many, many people throughout history (and today!) live and have lived in places where some people really are above the law. That doesn't seem to preclude society functioning.
If the system is the best then it should work. If it worked then there wouldn’t be a bunch of people cheering on a cold-blooded murder.
Have you lost a loved one because health insurance refused or delayed payment for treatment? I can't take you seriously when you say the system isn't that broken when I see people sharing their experiences of how people died and suffered unnecessarily because some health insurance company fought them on it. How is that not insanely broken?
Here in Germany, I've never had to worry about whether my healthcare would pay my treatment when I've had to go to the hospital and had to be operated on. The idea that this is possible in other countries is unfathomable to me. I didn't choose to have whatever illness I might have. My doctor decided the best way to treat my illness. Why does some third party get to decide "but nah bro, it can't be that bad, let's just wait and see how the patient does in a week or two". Why can they override what a doctor thinks is best?
And why are there people like you who thinks "it's not that bad/broken".
Here in Germany, I've never had to worry about whether my healthcare would pay my treatment when I've had to go to the hospital and had to be operated on. The idea that this is possible in other countries is unfathomable to me. I didn't choose to have whatever illness I might have. My doctor decided the best way to treat my illness. Why does some third party get to decide "but nah bro, it can't be that bad, let's just wait and see how the patient does in a week or two". Why can they override what a doctor thinks is best?
And why are there people like you who thinks "it's not that bad/broken".
> And I think the idea that "nobody gives a shit what the law says" is a statement that is... very, very incorrect.
I would say almost the entire body of social science and moral philosophy (setting aside the replication crisis for the moment) more or less proves the correctness of saying "nobody gives a shit what the law says". Society is bound by social mores, not by laws, laws are intended to encode social mores and give a vehicle to systematically enforce those mores without relying on vigilantes. Without the law, we'd have more direct culture clashes around topics like immigration, because people try to bring their cultural values and social mores with them, the law encodes and enforces whatever social mores exist, as much as the people of a society can control its laws.
It's not the law people care about, it's the social mores. And the social mores extend from the collective consensus of morality. People don't generally kill other people, not because it's illegal, but because it's wrong. But sometimes, killing other people isn't wrong, such in the case of self-defense or protecting your family. Sometimes the law even convicts and punishes people for committing crimes, because the law has a narrower interpretation at the margins than wider social mores. This is exactly what you're observing here. There is a moral equivalence between murdering thousands of people via a bureaucratic decision and pulling the trigger on the gun, but the law treats them differently, society does not. /This/ is why so many people condone the shooter's actions.
You aren't getting it. The law does not matter. The law is a reflection of society, society is not a reflection of the law. The law is a tool of language to try to explain, communicate, and enforce something that exists outside of it, but the thing which gives law power is the thing which exists outside of it. Morals are way more important than laws.
For all situations that actually matter, nobody gives a shit what the law says, and they never will. They only care about what other people will think of them, what they will think of themselves, and how their moral compass and social mores guide their decision-making process. This is exactly why we generally think of people who murder as being sociopaths, lacking a moral compass, because it's the moral compass and not the law that prevents most people from being murderers.
You think I'm being flip, I'm actually making an incredibly cogent point that you continue to miss, just as you missed the point of the person you replied to originally.
I would say almost the entire body of social science and moral philosophy (setting aside the replication crisis for the moment) more or less proves the correctness of saying "nobody gives a shit what the law says". Society is bound by social mores, not by laws, laws are intended to encode social mores and give a vehicle to systematically enforce those mores without relying on vigilantes. Without the law, we'd have more direct culture clashes around topics like immigration, because people try to bring their cultural values and social mores with them, the law encodes and enforces whatever social mores exist, as much as the people of a society can control its laws.
It's not the law people care about, it's the social mores. And the social mores extend from the collective consensus of morality. People don't generally kill other people, not because it's illegal, but because it's wrong. But sometimes, killing other people isn't wrong, such in the case of self-defense or protecting your family. Sometimes the law even convicts and punishes people for committing crimes, because the law has a narrower interpretation at the margins than wider social mores. This is exactly what you're observing here. There is a moral equivalence between murdering thousands of people via a bureaucratic decision and pulling the trigger on the gun, but the law treats them differently, society does not. /This/ is why so many people condone the shooter's actions.
You aren't getting it. The law does not matter. The law is a reflection of society, society is not a reflection of the law. The law is a tool of language to try to explain, communicate, and enforce something that exists outside of it, but the thing which gives law power is the thing which exists outside of it. Morals are way more important than laws.
For all situations that actually matter, nobody gives a shit what the law says, and they never will. They only care about what other people will think of them, what they will think of themselves, and how their moral compass and social mores guide their decision-making process. This is exactly why we generally think of people who murder as being sociopaths, lacking a moral compass, because it's the moral compass and not the law that prevents most people from being murderers.
You think I'm being flip, I'm actually making an incredibly cogent point that you continue to miss, just as you missed the point of the person you replied to originally.
> You think I'm being flip, I'm actually making an incredibly cogent point that you continue to miss, just as you missed the point of the person you replied to originally.
I think it's a bad approach to assume that you're making incredible points and I'm just not getting it, rather than assuming we're just disagreeing and that, potentially, you are wrong.
> Society is bound by social mores, not by laws, laws are intended to encode social mores and give a vehicle to systematically enforce those mores without relying on vigilantes.
Maybe we're talking past one another by talking about whether the law "matters" or not.
Social mores are against adultery. Many people do in fact commit adultery, and continue to have totally fine lives, despite this.
On the other hand, lots of people hate taxes. Try not paying your taxes, and you'll end up in jail.
I don't think the law is a reflection of social mores - almost everyone agrees that the law, while obviously based on many in society, shouldn't encompass all social mores, and has to include things that are not, prima facie, moral. You shouldn't, in general, put someone in jail for being too poor to afford food, and stealing some food. Very few people agree that that's moral in a specific instance. But if you don't jail people for stealing, very soon society breaks down.
I'm not sure which of the above, if any, you disagree with. Maybe none of it - in which case maybe we just agree with each other and are using different language to explain ourselves. If you disagree with something in specific, maybe we should drill down on that.
I think it's a bad approach to assume that you're making incredible points and I'm just not getting it, rather than assuming we're just disagreeing and that, potentially, you are wrong.
> Society is bound by social mores, not by laws, laws are intended to encode social mores and give a vehicle to systematically enforce those mores without relying on vigilantes.
Maybe we're talking past one another by talking about whether the law "matters" or not.
Social mores are against adultery. Many people do in fact commit adultery, and continue to have totally fine lives, despite this.
On the other hand, lots of people hate taxes. Try not paying your taxes, and you'll end up in jail.
I don't think the law is a reflection of social mores - almost everyone agrees that the law, while obviously based on many in society, shouldn't encompass all social mores, and has to include things that are not, prima facie, moral. You shouldn't, in general, put someone in jail for being too poor to afford food, and stealing some food. Very few people agree that that's moral in a specific instance. But if you don't jail people for stealing, very soon society breaks down.
I'm not sure which of the above, if any, you disagree with. Maybe none of it - in which case maybe we just agree with each other and are using different language to explain ourselves. If you disagree with something in specific, maybe we should drill down on that.
> On the other hand, lots of people hate taxes. Try not paying your taxes, and you'll end up in jail.
You seem to be making the argument that the law has a life of its own, which isn't entirely untrue, but case in point: While most people don't enjoy paying taxes, they do so because they understand it's necessary to have a functioning society they want to be part of. There are many legal ways to get around paying most or all of your taxes, but they're generally so costly to setup that they're only available to the very rich and to corporations, and most people morally judge this as a negative thing even though it's legal, they don't generally morally judge paying their taxes as a negative thing, but the avoidance as negative.
We do disagree, and it's not a question of semantics, it's a question of causality. You are essentially saying that the law and social mores have no causality relationship, I am saying the law comes from social mores, and the law does not influence them. The law is /subordinate/, which is why nobody really cares about it. Obviously "nobody" is intentionally overbroad, policy-makers, lawyers, and judges care quite a lot about the law, but the vast majority of the population (99%+) does not, they do however care very very deeply about social mores and cultural norms.
You seem to be making the argument that the law has a life of its own, which isn't entirely untrue, but case in point: While most people don't enjoy paying taxes, they do so because they understand it's necessary to have a functioning society they want to be part of. There are many legal ways to get around paying most or all of your taxes, but they're generally so costly to setup that they're only available to the very rich and to corporations, and most people morally judge this as a negative thing even though it's legal, they don't generally morally judge paying their taxes as a negative thing, but the avoidance as negative.
We do disagree, and it's not a question of semantics, it's a question of causality. You are essentially saying that the law and social mores have no causality relationship, I am saying the law comes from social mores, and the law does not influence them. The law is /subordinate/, which is why nobody really cares about it. Obviously "nobody" is intentionally overbroad, policy-makers, lawyers, and judges care quite a lot about the law, but the vast majority of the population (99%+) does not, they do however care very very deeply about social mores and cultural norms.
My entire point here is that there are some kinds of unjust killings which are legal, and that the disparity is heavily skewed such that the kinds that tend to be done by rich and powerful people are the kinds that are legal.
There are a few related but different questions for a given sort of killing: is it legal? Is it just? If the first two answers are different, what should be done about it?
For the first two questions, the answers for regular lead poisoning are yes and no respectively, and for high-speed lead poisoning it’s no and no. I think this disparity is a serious problem.
Why do you think there is a disparity? Is it purely the product of democracy and the will of the people? If so, it seems like a hell of a coincidence that the legal killings are mostly the ones that rich and powerful people do.
I agree that it’s bad to take it into your own hands and kill people you think the law has failed to cover.
But it’s going to happen sometimes. In a healthy society it’s going to be universally condemned. This one wasn’t. What does it mean and what should we do about it?
Some segment of commenters seems to think that it means people are sick and should be shamed into condemning this killing like they’re supposed to.
I think that’s stupid. People are how they are. It’s more interesting and useful to look at why this particular killing gets so much support.
The failing in our society isn’t that too many people cheer on this killing. That’s a symptom. The problem is a system which treats people’s lives cheaply, which allows some people to kill in the name of profit, and not only fails to condemn them, but rewards them handsomely.
If you want people to work within the system, they need to believe that it’s worth doing. They mostly do, but cracks are showing. It would be wise to fix the problem before those cracks produce a total failure.
There are a few related but different questions for a given sort of killing: is it legal? Is it just? If the first two answers are different, what should be done about it?
For the first two questions, the answers for regular lead poisoning are yes and no respectively, and for high-speed lead poisoning it’s no and no. I think this disparity is a serious problem.
Why do you think there is a disparity? Is it purely the product of democracy and the will of the people? If so, it seems like a hell of a coincidence that the legal killings are mostly the ones that rich and powerful people do.
I agree that it’s bad to take it into your own hands and kill people you think the law has failed to cover.
But it’s going to happen sometimes. In a healthy society it’s going to be universally condemned. This one wasn’t. What does it mean and what should we do about it?
Some segment of commenters seems to think that it means people are sick and should be shamed into condemning this killing like they’re supposed to.
I think that’s stupid. People are how they are. It’s more interesting and useful to look at why this particular killing gets so much support.
The failing in our society isn’t that too many people cheer on this killing. That’s a symptom. The problem is a system which treats people’s lives cheaply, which allows some people to kill in the name of profit, and not only fails to condemn them, but rewards them handsomely.
If you want people to work within the system, they need to believe that it’s worth doing. They mostly do, but cracks are showing. It would be wise to fix the problem before those cracks produce a total failure.
> My entire point here is that there are some kinds of unjust killings which are legal, and that the disparity is heavily skewed such that the kinds that tend to be done by rich and powerful people are the kinds that are legal.
I think you're flipping the causality. It's not like society looked at all ways of killing people, said "well these ones are done by poor people and these by rich, let's decide what to do about things based on that". It's that rich people in general got that way by working within the system, doing legal things, etc. (Usually, but not always, with a lot of starting privilege that made it easier for them, or course.)
> Why do you think there is a disparity? Is it purely the product of democracy and the will of the people?
Mostly. I think the disparity is because shooting someone is a lot less ambiguous than doing things like using pollutants. I think you're refusing to acknowledge the nuance here.
But just to be clear - you think poisoning someone with lead is legal? Or releasing lead into places that would affect people is legal? Cause I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both counts. Lead is heavily regulated, and I'm fairly certain clear-cut cases of "I released a paint with lead in it" would be illegal.
> I agree that it’s bad to take it into your own hands and kill people you think the law has failed to cover.
> But it’s going to happen sometimes. In a healthy society it’s going to be universally condemned. This one wasn’t. What does it mean and what should we do about it?
Well I think you answered your own question - it shows that our society is unhealthy. That's why I'm spending my time arguing on an internet forum on why I think we should all condemn this kind of thing - I'm fighting for the ideals of a healthy society!
> Some segment of commenters seems to think that it means people are sick and should be shamed into condemning this killing like they’re supposed to.
> I think that’s stupid. People are how they are. It’s more interesting and useful to look at why this particular killing gets so much support.
Not at all stupid (I say, as someone doing this). I don't agree with this "people are people" idea. I believe in ideas, in debate, in persuasion. I believe we as a society are pretty lost if we can't come around such basic ideas as "murder is wrong and we should all condemn murderers".
And btw, I think despite the huge amount of noise we're all seeing about this, in absolute terms I think 95% people the population is firmly on the side of "murder is wrong", with a very large online contingent of people making it appear that there is some groundswell otherwise. I'm also trying to fight this perceived groundswell, if only by showing that the other side exists.
> The failing in our society isn’t that too many people cheer on this killing. That’s a symptom. The problem is a system which treats people’s lives cheaply, which allows some people to kill in the name of profit, and not only fails to condemn them, but rewards them handsomely.
I think this is just an utterly wrong view of society. We live in a golden age compared to any other society that has ever existed. People generally live longer, healthier lives by almost any actual statistic that measures such things. We have access to a vast wealth of almost anything we want, from experiences, to material goods, to entertainment - things that would've looked like miracles to a person at almost any other time in history.
And I think this idea that the system treats people's lives cheaply is absurd, frankly. There are specific problems, the system isn't perfect - but you can't objectively look at current (Western) society and not see that it's the pinnacle of human achievement - so far - by almost any objective measure.
That this translates into a populace that is somehow very upset with some vague "the system" is a problem, but I think you're misdiagnosing it as something actually being wrong with "the system", as opposed to being wrong with people's perceptions.
(Of course a lot of this hinges on what you mean by "the system" here - certainly every country has lots of specific problems that you could point out and I'd agree with. But I usually hear these complaints phrased very abstractly, without any concrete understanding of what specifically is wrong or what better "system" you are imagining. If you want to tell me what your answer is to either of these questions - I'd be very interested in hearing!)
I think you're flipping the causality. It's not like society looked at all ways of killing people, said "well these ones are done by poor people and these by rich, let's decide what to do about things based on that". It's that rich people in general got that way by working within the system, doing legal things, etc. (Usually, but not always, with a lot of starting privilege that made it easier for them, or course.)
> Why do you think there is a disparity? Is it purely the product of democracy and the will of the people?
Mostly. I think the disparity is because shooting someone is a lot less ambiguous than doing things like using pollutants. I think you're refusing to acknowledge the nuance here.
But just to be clear - you think poisoning someone with lead is legal? Or releasing lead into places that would affect people is legal? Cause I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both counts. Lead is heavily regulated, and I'm fairly certain clear-cut cases of "I released a paint with lead in it" would be illegal.
> I agree that it’s bad to take it into your own hands and kill people you think the law has failed to cover.
> But it’s going to happen sometimes. In a healthy society it’s going to be universally condemned. This one wasn’t. What does it mean and what should we do about it?
Well I think you answered your own question - it shows that our society is unhealthy. That's why I'm spending my time arguing on an internet forum on why I think we should all condemn this kind of thing - I'm fighting for the ideals of a healthy society!
> Some segment of commenters seems to think that it means people are sick and should be shamed into condemning this killing like they’re supposed to.
> I think that’s stupid. People are how they are. It’s more interesting and useful to look at why this particular killing gets so much support.
Not at all stupid (I say, as someone doing this). I don't agree with this "people are people" idea. I believe in ideas, in debate, in persuasion. I believe we as a society are pretty lost if we can't come around such basic ideas as "murder is wrong and we should all condemn murderers".
And btw, I think despite the huge amount of noise we're all seeing about this, in absolute terms I think 95% people the population is firmly on the side of "murder is wrong", with a very large online contingent of people making it appear that there is some groundswell otherwise. I'm also trying to fight this perceived groundswell, if only by showing that the other side exists.
> The failing in our society isn’t that too many people cheer on this killing. That’s a symptom. The problem is a system which treats people’s lives cheaply, which allows some people to kill in the name of profit, and not only fails to condemn them, but rewards them handsomely.
I think this is just an utterly wrong view of society. We live in a golden age compared to any other society that has ever existed. People generally live longer, healthier lives by almost any actual statistic that measures such things. We have access to a vast wealth of almost anything we want, from experiences, to material goods, to entertainment - things that would've looked like miracles to a person at almost any other time in history.
And I think this idea that the system treats people's lives cheaply is absurd, frankly. There are specific problems, the system isn't perfect - but you can't objectively look at current (Western) society and not see that it's the pinnacle of human achievement - so far - by almost any objective measure.
That this translates into a populace that is somehow very upset with some vague "the system" is a problem, but I think you're misdiagnosing it as something actually being wrong with "the system", as opposed to being wrong with people's perceptions.
(Of course a lot of this hinges on what you mean by "the system" here - certainly every country has lots of specific problems that you could point out and I'd agree with. But I usually hear these complaints phrased very abstractly, without any concrete understanding of what specifically is wrong or what better "system" you are imagining. If you want to tell me what your answer is to either of these questions - I'd be very interested in hearing!)
Society did precisely what you say it didn’t do. As polluting industries arose, society decided what to do about it. For a long time it was nothing. Then some restrictions, generally increasing over time. The fact that restrictions were enacted and changed means there was a deliberate choice here. We looked at industrialists profiting from mass poisoning, and our response was, could you tone it down a bit? And not, killing innocent people for money is wrong, so you’re going to prison.
There are plenty of circumstance where it’s legal to release lead into places where it would affect people. Sometimes outright not forbidden, and sometimes technically illegal but barely enforced. Examples of the former include leaded gasoline (still legal for some application) and coal power plants (they exhaust all sorts of nasty stuff, including lead). For the latter, consider Flint Michigan, or you can find random cases such as Smith Foundry where they exceeded limits for years and consequences were light.
I recognize that it’s a lot easier to draw a causal line for a gun than for pollution. I don’t think it should matter aside from the increased difficulty of proving guilt. I recognize that it does influence perceptions, but I don’t think it should.
Interesting thing about living longer, healthier lives than ever before. In the US, that leveled off about 15 years ago. Lately it has started getting worse. Health care costs continued to rise steadily. Insurance bureaucracy gets ever more onerous. And the wealthiest people in society continue to get vastly more wealthy.
You could say that people are still a lot better off than they were 50 years ago or whatever. And you’d be correct. But people really don’t like it when things get worse. They especially don’t like it when the pain isn’t shared by the upper crust.
Would you rather have a health care plan that provides quick, easy access to leeches, or a plan with a million forms, an annoying call tree, and opaque decision making, which gives you proper medicine 90% of the time and leeches 10% of the time? The second one is the objectively better option. But the people who offer that plan will probably be lynched. You can acknowledge that and work with it, or you can insist on treating people as rational and get absolutely nowhere.
“Murder is wrong” is a tautology. “Murder” means a killing that is wrong. (Either morally or legally depending on context.) The question isn’t whether murder is wrong. Everyone agrees on that. The question is which killings morally count as murder and which don’t. And don’t say “they all count!” Almost nobody actually believes that and you probably don’t either. People draw the line in different places but you can almost always find some circumstance where they’d say, yeah, that killing was acceptable. It’s a little surprising that a bunch of people think killing an insurance CEO is on the other side of the line, but it shouldn’t be surprising that there is a line.
Society is unhealthy. We agree on that. Why do you think it’s so? Is it just something that happens randomly, or is there an underlying reason?
There are plenty of circumstance where it’s legal to release lead into places where it would affect people. Sometimes outright not forbidden, and sometimes technically illegal but barely enforced. Examples of the former include leaded gasoline (still legal for some application) and coal power plants (they exhaust all sorts of nasty stuff, including lead). For the latter, consider Flint Michigan, or you can find random cases such as Smith Foundry where they exceeded limits for years and consequences were light.
I recognize that it’s a lot easier to draw a causal line for a gun than for pollution. I don’t think it should matter aside from the increased difficulty of proving guilt. I recognize that it does influence perceptions, but I don’t think it should.
Interesting thing about living longer, healthier lives than ever before. In the US, that leveled off about 15 years ago. Lately it has started getting worse. Health care costs continued to rise steadily. Insurance bureaucracy gets ever more onerous. And the wealthiest people in society continue to get vastly more wealthy.
You could say that people are still a lot better off than they were 50 years ago or whatever. And you’d be correct. But people really don’t like it when things get worse. They especially don’t like it when the pain isn’t shared by the upper crust.
Would you rather have a health care plan that provides quick, easy access to leeches, or a plan with a million forms, an annoying call tree, and opaque decision making, which gives you proper medicine 90% of the time and leeches 10% of the time? The second one is the objectively better option. But the people who offer that plan will probably be lynched. You can acknowledge that and work with it, or you can insist on treating people as rational and get absolutely nowhere.
“Murder is wrong” is a tautology. “Murder” means a killing that is wrong. (Either morally or legally depending on context.) The question isn’t whether murder is wrong. Everyone agrees on that. The question is which killings morally count as murder and which don’t. And don’t say “they all count!” Almost nobody actually believes that and you probably don’t either. People draw the line in different places but you can almost always find some circumstance where they’d say, yeah, that killing was acceptable. It’s a little surprising that a bunch of people think killing an insurance CEO is on the other side of the line, but it shouldn’t be surprising that there is a line.
Society is unhealthy. We agree on that. Why do you think it’s so? Is it just something that happens randomly, or is there an underlying reason?
> Society did precisely what you say it didn’t do. As polluting industries arose, society decided what to do about it. For a long time it was nothing. Then some restrictions, generally increasing over time. The fact that restrictions were enacted and changed means there was a deliberate choice here. We looked at industrialists profiting from mass poisoning, and our response was, could you tone it down a bit? And not, killing innocent people for money is wrong, so you’re going to prison.
So maybe society got it wrong. Maybe you're getting it wrong. Maybe they didn't fully understand things back then, maybe you don't fully understand the actual options society faced.
I'm not arguing that society always gets things right. I'm arguing that single-handedly deciding it got things right and therefore doing whatever you think is best is something society can't condone.
The greatest thing humanity understood over the last 500 years, however imperfectly, is the idea of being able to live side by side and not kill each other, even when you strongly disagree about things. Before that people were killing each other over differences in religious interpretations, differences in ideas, etc. People always disagree about things - but we learned to live together, and in democracies, learned how to work together to steer society to (hopefully) better places. You really want to unwind that?
This isn't hypothetical. I'm asking a direct question - what would you do with a father who, say, kills a doctor who performed an abortion on his daughter? From the father's point of view and ethics, the doctor literally murdered is grandchild. Do you cheer him on? Excuse him? I'm genuinely curious how you answer.
> Society is unhealthy. We agree on that. Why do you think it’s so? Is it just something that happens randomly, or is there an underlying reason?
I think the underlying reason is what I said about - that people are forgetting the fundamental idea of being a unified society, living together and even loving each other, without necessarily agreeing on everything. Even when the disagreements are profound, hurtful and run very deep. I think Western society has misplaced its sense of purpose and sense of being virtuous - so of course it's easy to slide into "well everything sucks, of course we should just ignore the law and do whatever we want".
So maybe society got it wrong. Maybe you're getting it wrong. Maybe they didn't fully understand things back then, maybe you don't fully understand the actual options society faced.
I'm not arguing that society always gets things right. I'm arguing that single-handedly deciding it got things right and therefore doing whatever you think is best is something society can't condone.
The greatest thing humanity understood over the last 500 years, however imperfectly, is the idea of being able to live side by side and not kill each other, even when you strongly disagree about things. Before that people were killing each other over differences in religious interpretations, differences in ideas, etc. People always disagree about things - but we learned to live together, and in democracies, learned how to work together to steer society to (hopefully) better places. You really want to unwind that?
This isn't hypothetical. I'm asking a direct question - what would you do with a father who, say, kills a doctor who performed an abortion on his daughter? From the father's point of view and ethics, the doctor literally murdered is grandchild. Do you cheer him on? Excuse him? I'm genuinely curious how you answer.
> Society is unhealthy. We agree on that. Why do you think it’s so? Is it just something that happens randomly, or is there an underlying reason?
I think the underlying reason is what I said about - that people are forgetting the fundamental idea of being a unified society, living together and even loving each other, without necessarily agreeing on everything. Even when the disagreements are profound, hurtful and run very deep. I think Western society has misplaced its sense of purpose and sense of being virtuous - so of course it's easy to slide into "well everything sucks, of course we should just ignore the law and do whatever we want".
> I'm not arguing that society always gets things right. I'm arguing that single-handedly deciding it got things right and therefore doing whatever you think is best is something society can't condone.
I keep agreeing with that and you keep arguing it so this all seems like a complete waste of time.
I keep agreeing with that and you keep arguing it so this all seems like a complete waste of time.
> I believe in ideas, in debate, in persuasion
do you? Are you open to be convinced of the opposite of your view on this issue?
> I think despite the huge amount of noise we're all seeing about this, in absolute terms I think 95% people the population is firmly on the side of "murder is wrong"
I think you are wrong. Society very often sides with the side that is perceived as the threatened person acting in self-defense even when they use violence.
Also we cannot rule out racism. If the killer wasn't white (then fit for the role of hero in the US), it would be all different.
do you? Are you open to be convinced of the opposite of your view on this issue?
> I think despite the huge amount of noise we're all seeing about this, in absolute terms I think 95% people the population is firmly on the side of "murder is wrong"
I think you are wrong. Society very often sides with the side that is perceived as the threatened person acting in self-defense even when they use violence.
Also we cannot rule out racism. If the killer wasn't white (then fit for the role of hero in the US), it would be all different.
> do you? Are you open to be convinced of the opposite of your view on this issue?
Yes, always.
But I think it's a pretty high burden of proof to convince me that murder is OK, or that it should be celebrated.
> I think you are wrong. Society very often sides with the side that is perceived as the threatened person acting in self-defense even when they use violence.
I think very few people would consider killing someone in cold blood an actual act of self defense.
I could be wrong of course. Hard to tell how people genuinely feel without some kind of real survey.
> Also we cannot rule out racism. If the killer wasn't white (then fit for the role of hero in the US), it would be all different.
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you explain?
Yes, always.
But I think it's a pretty high burden of proof to convince me that murder is OK, or that it should be celebrated.
> I think you are wrong. Society very often sides with the side that is perceived as the threatened person acting in self-defense even when they use violence.
I think very few people would consider killing someone in cold blood an actual act of self defense.
I could be wrong of course. Hard to tell how people genuinely feel without some kind of real survey.
> Also we cannot rule out racism. If the killer wasn't white (then fit for the role of hero in the US), it would be all different.
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you explain?
> Most importantly - is this legal?
If legality is determined based on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful, then this is equivalent to saying "most importantly, does it benefit the rich and powerful?" which is, of course, the point of the person you're arguing with. So this is not the gotcha you think it is.
> vigilante justice is not needed.
This does not feel like a good faith argument. This is the exact same "but do they really need to protest about it?" argument made by everyone who wants to see the status quo preserved. You're saying that the status quo is intrinsically good and everything must be done within the legal system as it's set up. That gives no redress to the people for whom the legal system has been specifically designed to fuck over. Your argument completely falls apart if the legal system is not 100% foolproof, and I simply don't believe anyone could argue in good faith that it is foolproof.
I do not want to see vigilante justice. But I also recognize that if the legal system is not producing justice, people will find ways to bring about their own version of justice. This is a predictable consequence of a system that has been specifically designed to never hold anyone in power accountable for anything. The way to stop vigilante justice is to improve the legal system so that people do not feel that it is necessary.
If legality is determined based on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful, then this is equivalent to saying "most importantly, does it benefit the rich and powerful?" which is, of course, the point of the person you're arguing with. So this is not the gotcha you think it is.
> vigilante justice is not needed.
This does not feel like a good faith argument. This is the exact same "but do they really need to protest about it?" argument made by everyone who wants to see the status quo preserved. You're saying that the status quo is intrinsically good and everything must be done within the legal system as it's set up. That gives no redress to the people for whom the legal system has been specifically designed to fuck over. Your argument completely falls apart if the legal system is not 100% foolproof, and I simply don't believe anyone could argue in good faith that it is foolproof.
I do not want to see vigilante justice. But I also recognize that if the legal system is not producing justice, people will find ways to bring about their own version of justice. This is a predictable consequence of a system that has been specifically designed to never hold anyone in power accountable for anything. The way to stop vigilante justice is to improve the legal system so that people do not feel that it is necessary.
> If legality is determined based on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful, then this is equivalent to saying "most importantly, does it benefit the rich and powerful?" which is, of course, the point of the person you're arguing with. So this is not the gotcha you think it is.
I don't think it's true that legality is determined based only on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful.
In any case, if you think asking if something is legal before deciding whether it's ok to do it is some kind of gotcha, then you're throwing out the whole concept of law and order - of society. I'm not sure where you go from there.
> This does not feel like a good faith argument. [...] You're saying that the status quo is intrinsically good and everything must be done within the legal system as it's set up. That gives no redress to the people for whom the legal system has been specifically designed to fuck over. Your argument completely falls apart if the legal system is not 100% foolproof, and I simply don't believe anyone could argue in good faith that it is foolproof.
Wow, you're making a lot of assumptions there. I don't think the legal system is 100% foolproof, not at all, nor do I think it's intrinsically good. No sane person would argue that.
But there are a lot of ways to deal with that fact, a whole spectrum ranging from "doing nothing" through "trying to change the legal system" through to "just agree to ignore the legal system". You're arguing that if the system isn't perfect, we should skip right to ignoring it.
I'm arguing that we improve the system. Keep working on it, keep arguing and persuading and sometimes getting our way and sometimes not.
When did we get so jaded and decide things can't improve? Western civilization has gotten vastly better for most people, things that are considered moral absolutes today were not even considered in polite company less than 50 years ago (not to mention some things less than ten).
> But I also recognize that if the legal system is not producing justice, people will find ways to bring about their own version of justice. This is a predictable consequence of a system that has been specifically designed to never hold anyone in power accountable for anything. The way to stop vigilante justice is to improve the legal system so that people do not feel that it is necessary.
I strongly disagree with the idea that the legal system never holds anyone in power accountable, there are myriad counterexamples to that. And not as many actual examples of "the system" letting people be unaccountable.
And there's a gigantic difference between understanding that sometimes people want vigilante justice, and excusing it or cheering it on. Of course it's understandable. There are even more clear cases - family members of murder victims would totally understandably want to kill the people who murdered their loved ones. I would very much empathize if someone were to do that; I'd still condemn it as wrong. Wouldn't you?
I don't think it's true that legality is determined based only on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful.
In any case, if you think asking if something is legal before deciding whether it's ok to do it is some kind of gotcha, then you're throwing out the whole concept of law and order - of society. I'm not sure where you go from there.
> This does not feel like a good faith argument. [...] You're saying that the status quo is intrinsically good and everything must be done within the legal system as it's set up. That gives no redress to the people for whom the legal system has been specifically designed to fuck over. Your argument completely falls apart if the legal system is not 100% foolproof, and I simply don't believe anyone could argue in good faith that it is foolproof.
Wow, you're making a lot of assumptions there. I don't think the legal system is 100% foolproof, not at all, nor do I think it's intrinsically good. No sane person would argue that.
But there are a lot of ways to deal with that fact, a whole spectrum ranging from "doing nothing" through "trying to change the legal system" through to "just agree to ignore the legal system". You're arguing that if the system isn't perfect, we should skip right to ignoring it.
I'm arguing that we improve the system. Keep working on it, keep arguing and persuading and sometimes getting our way and sometimes not.
When did we get so jaded and decide things can't improve? Western civilization has gotten vastly better for most people, things that are considered moral absolutes today were not even considered in polite company less than 50 years ago (not to mention some things less than ten).
> But I also recognize that if the legal system is not producing justice, people will find ways to bring about their own version of justice. This is a predictable consequence of a system that has been specifically designed to never hold anyone in power accountable for anything. The way to stop vigilante justice is to improve the legal system so that people do not feel that it is necessary.
I strongly disagree with the idea that the legal system never holds anyone in power accountable, there are myriad counterexamples to that. And not as many actual examples of "the system" letting people be unaccountable.
And there's a gigantic difference between understanding that sometimes people want vigilante justice, and excusing it or cheering it on. Of course it's understandable. There are even more clear cases - family members of murder victims would totally understandably want to kill the people who murdered their loved ones. I would very much empathize if someone were to do that; I'd still condemn it as wrong. Wouldn't you?
> I don't think it's true that legality is determined based only on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful ... I don't think the legal system is 100% foolproof
Nor do I, but it sounds like I (and likely some of the others responding to you) think it leans a lot further in that direction than you do. That's a worthwhile discussion, but my point was that "the most important question is whether it's legal or not" feels out of place -- almost bad faith -- in a discussion about whether the legal system is working or not.
> When did we get so jaded and decide things can't improve?
When we saw the United States backslide into 1960s-era Jim Crow discourse, and even 1930s-era Totalitarianism discourse, that we thought we were over and done with.
> Western civilization has gotten vastly better for most people
Over what timeframe? "Western civilization" has gotten worse for almost everyone since the 1980s by many measures. We're drowning in multiple forms of debt. Wages have stagnated. Expected lifespan has plateaued or even declined. Racism and sexism seem to be on the rise. Medical issues can bankrupt even privileged rich kids. More people are in prison or homeless than the 1980s. The rich have much more societal power over the poor than they have since the gilded age. How far back do you expect us to go to maintain this positive outlook? Telling us it was much worse 90 years ago feels hollow when it was better 10 years ago, better than that 20 years ago, even better 30 years ago, and better still 40 years ago. The only thing that's significantly better is technology and science, especially medicine -- but most of us aren't really reaping the benefits of those improvements in medicine for risk of going bankrupt.
> I strongly disagree with the idea that the legal system never holds anyone in power accountable, there are myriad counterexamples to that
Are there myriad counterexamples? There are some salient ones like Elizabeth Holmes, SBF, and Bernie Madoff -- who all fucked over other rich people in addition to the poor. But there are many more counter-counterexamples: our incoming president was convicted of 34 felonies with no consequence and has openly stated he's going to pardon all his buddies for any level of corruption they might be guilty of. The Panama Papers, the Epstein files -- people aren't seeing anyone held accountable for these things. Meanwhile compare the response of the NYPD to the CEO's murder versus the murder of a black teenager in a poor neighborhood. What's the difference, really? Both are a private citizen being murdered. Why the different response? What's really different about those two people?
> law and order - of society ... If our society functioned via "well I'm sure I'm right about what is moral, so I can execute people based on my morality", then pretty soon we'd have total anarchy
A lot of your arguments have this feeling of "maintaining order in society is more important than individual justice or morality". That's a rather authoritative/totalitarian stance, which I don't say just to dismiss it -- it's a valid political viewpoint, and there arguably can be "good" kinds of totalitarianism. I think there are hypothetical societies where I would agree with you, and societies where I would strongly disagree. In the United States in 2024, I medium-disagree. "Maintaining order" usually just means "maintaining the status quo", so you have to actually look at the status quo. The status quo is that people are getting charged $291 for a 10-minute virtual followup consultation, $6000 for an ambulance ride, going bankrupt if they need major surgery, and sometimes just dying without treatment if they need major intervention but get denied by their health insurance. The status quo is that the rich can legally murder others stochastically if it increases their profits, and can even commit actual felonies without very much risk of consequence. The status quo is that few of our representatives are willing to challenge these systems, and those that do get ostracized, and even then their efforts are struck down by an openly corrupt supreme court. The status quo is that overwhelming waves of disinformation and rage-bait have made it impossible to "out-vote the ignorant" to enact any meaningful change in the system. The status quo is absolutely fucked for the vast majority of people. So no, in the United States in 2024, I don't think "maintaining order" -- preserving the current winners and losers in society -- is more important than individual justice and morality.
Nor do I, but it sounds like I (and likely some of the others responding to you) think it leans a lot further in that direction than you do. That's a worthwhile discussion, but my point was that "the most important question is whether it's legal or not" feels out of place -- almost bad faith -- in a discussion about whether the legal system is working or not.
> When did we get so jaded and decide things can't improve?
When we saw the United States backslide into 1960s-era Jim Crow discourse, and even 1930s-era Totalitarianism discourse, that we thought we were over and done with.
> Western civilization has gotten vastly better for most people
Over what timeframe? "Western civilization" has gotten worse for almost everyone since the 1980s by many measures. We're drowning in multiple forms of debt. Wages have stagnated. Expected lifespan has plateaued or even declined. Racism and sexism seem to be on the rise. Medical issues can bankrupt even privileged rich kids. More people are in prison or homeless than the 1980s. The rich have much more societal power over the poor than they have since the gilded age. How far back do you expect us to go to maintain this positive outlook? Telling us it was much worse 90 years ago feels hollow when it was better 10 years ago, better than that 20 years ago, even better 30 years ago, and better still 40 years ago. The only thing that's significantly better is technology and science, especially medicine -- but most of us aren't really reaping the benefits of those improvements in medicine for risk of going bankrupt.
> I strongly disagree with the idea that the legal system never holds anyone in power accountable, there are myriad counterexamples to that
Are there myriad counterexamples? There are some salient ones like Elizabeth Holmes, SBF, and Bernie Madoff -- who all fucked over other rich people in addition to the poor. But there are many more counter-counterexamples: our incoming president was convicted of 34 felonies with no consequence and has openly stated he's going to pardon all his buddies for any level of corruption they might be guilty of. The Panama Papers, the Epstein files -- people aren't seeing anyone held accountable for these things. Meanwhile compare the response of the NYPD to the CEO's murder versus the murder of a black teenager in a poor neighborhood. What's the difference, really? Both are a private citizen being murdered. Why the different response? What's really different about those two people?
> law and order - of society ... If our society functioned via "well I'm sure I'm right about what is moral, so I can execute people based on my morality", then pretty soon we'd have total anarchy
A lot of your arguments have this feeling of "maintaining order in society is more important than individual justice or morality". That's a rather authoritative/totalitarian stance, which I don't say just to dismiss it -- it's a valid political viewpoint, and there arguably can be "good" kinds of totalitarianism. I think there are hypothetical societies where I would agree with you, and societies where I would strongly disagree. In the United States in 2024, I medium-disagree. "Maintaining order" usually just means "maintaining the status quo", so you have to actually look at the status quo. The status quo is that people are getting charged $291 for a 10-minute virtual followup consultation, $6000 for an ambulance ride, going bankrupt if they need major surgery, and sometimes just dying without treatment if they need major intervention but get denied by their health insurance. The status quo is that the rich can legally murder others stochastically if it increases their profits, and can even commit actual felonies without very much risk of consequence. The status quo is that few of our representatives are willing to challenge these systems, and those that do get ostracized, and even then their efforts are struck down by an openly corrupt supreme court. The status quo is that overwhelming waves of disinformation and rage-bait have made it impossible to "out-vote the ignorant" to enact any meaningful change in the system. The status quo is absolutely fucked for the vast majority of people. So no, in the United States in 2024, I don't think "maintaining order" -- preserving the current winners and losers in society -- is more important than individual justice and morality.
People, culture, values, morals and ethics predate law. The code of Hammurabi reflects those aspects of ancient Babylon.
Law must reflect to some degree and scope, the morals of its culture or people. If this does not happen for enough time and affects enough people, then you see a regression to tribal or vigilante justice.
Law is a form of centrally managed punishments that strongly influence individuals to behave according to the local population's values, morals and ethics.
What if a small class of people with enough resources, wit and motivation can hack this system to their favor? How will the rest of the population react when they realize this had been going on for years? Will they be able to "patch the bug" in the code of law and stop the exploiters?
What happened with the CEO of a system that is antithetical to American values, culture and morals, is an individual workaround to a long running lethal bug ignored by the maintainers of the code of law. This was ignored because the maintainers are a cog in the machine of that small class.
I agree with law and democracy, but we may no longer have that since the bigger population has no agency to shape laws. We may just have some other unnamed system that on the surface looks like law and democracy, but under the hood seems to be an oligarchy.
Law must reflect to some degree and scope, the morals of its culture or people. If this does not happen for enough time and affects enough people, then you see a regression to tribal or vigilante justice.
Law is a form of centrally managed punishments that strongly influence individuals to behave according to the local population's values, morals and ethics.
What if a small class of people with enough resources, wit and motivation can hack this system to their favor? How will the rest of the population react when they realize this had been going on for years? Will they be able to "patch the bug" in the code of law and stop the exploiters?
What happened with the CEO of a system that is antithetical to American values, culture and morals, is an individual workaround to a long running lethal bug ignored by the maintainers of the code of law. This was ignored because the maintainers are a cog in the machine of that small class.
I agree with law and democracy, but we may no longer have that since the bigger population has no agency to shape laws. We may just have some other unnamed system that on the surface looks like law and democracy, but under the hood seems to be an oligarchy.
I agree with most of what you wrote as hypotheticals, I just disagree it describes things as they are.
I don't know why you are so eager to think people don't have agency or can't influence society. So many things change all the time. Just one example - twenty years ago most gay people lived in secret, because being out was a huge problem for society; the idea of gay marriage was ridiculously distant. Today, in most places, it's seen as a non-issue.
That didn't happen by chance. It happened because of the hard dedicated work of a lot of people, who convinced society to see things differently, and won.
I don't know why you are so eager to think people don't have agency or can't influence society. So many things change all the time. Just one example - twenty years ago most gay people lived in secret, because being out was a huge problem for society; the idea of gay marriage was ridiculously distant. Today, in most places, it's seen as a non-issue.
That didn't happen by chance. It happened because of the hard dedicated work of a lot of people, who convinced society to see things differently, and won.
While I feel similarly to you I would argue that society have two well working indicators of disconnect between enacted laws and average morals/perception of reality:
- violence
- sentiment towards violence justification
And if anything this murder shows the extent of issue of the disconnect above.
And if anything this murder shows the extent of issue of the disconnect above.
I'm not sure people are actually leading pretty decent lives. The people I know are working stressful dead end jobs and living with roommates in order to barely make ends meet. They don't have much prospect of improving their lot because doing so requires capital that they don't have (e.g. to start a business or go to college). Even though they have health insurance, they avoid going to the doctor unless absolutely necessary because they can't afford the co-pay. In some cases the states that they live in actively seek to discriminate against them.
The people I know are pretty much exactly the opposite of you so I think it comes down to age/experience, location, and other factors.
Yeah, you're quite literally in a bubble.
It seems that people are increasingly convinced that “in this country it is necessary, now and then, to put one health insurance exec to death in order to inspire the others to pay”.
That is a sign that people believe they can't obtain redress through widely available legal means.
That is a sign that people believe they can't obtain redress through widely available legal means.
What you are looking at is the people checking the power of the institutions they tasked with providing legal recourse who have mostly been sitting on their hands and/or serving parties other than the people.
If the state, courts and other systems don't get people justice or something you can squint at and call justice when they are wronged some fraction of those wronged will go outside the systems and seek to get even instead.
Public sympathy for the (rare, perhaps crazy) people who shoot CEOs or armor bulldozers are what gives the parts of the institutions that want to do what the people want the political capital to something other than the status quo.
If the state, courts and other systems don't get people justice or something you can squint at and call justice when they are wronged some fraction of those wronged will go outside the systems and seek to get even instead.
Public sympathy for the (rare, perhaps crazy) people who shoot CEOs or armor bulldozers are what gives the parts of the institutions that want to do what the people want the political capital to something other than the status quo.
Everyone is walking a tightrope.
I, and probably a lot of people reading this on HN, are outwardly very comfortable.
I have cash/assets that would be life changing for most people (especially when I read comments on reddit where people say that $10k would be life changing for them) - and a "good" white-collar job.
I'm also lucky enough to be old enough to have not been 100% screwed like our even younger generation has (I only got 90% screwed).
I've been very lucky in life, but when I see the level of wealth inequality and how corporations have completely captured our government, and our two-tiered justice system, it makes me feel sick and angry.
I still feel like I'm being held hostage by the 0.1%, under pressure to keep working to line other's pockets for much longer than I would otherwise have to, and like the whole thing could all come crashing down in a week's time given some improbable but far-from-impossible set of circumstances.
I also don't feel like I would be supported by my government, corporations, or society in general if those circumstances actually occurred.
So I definitely sympathize with the frustration of people who feel unsupported by society and unrepresented by government - especially those who happened to be unluckier in life than I.
And with the current state of affairs, there must be a LOT of them around.
I sympathize with that frustration a hell of a lot more than I sympathize for a dead CEO who made a career out of systematically denying treatment to people who paid him for coverage.
In fact, I'm happy he died as a reminder that nobody is untouchable, no matter how much lobbying your corporation has done to make social murder legal, and no matter how much you've tried to isolate yourself from the consequences of your terrible actions.
I read a reddit comment about the alleged shooter's arrest before:
"murder is such a strong word, can't we just call it removing a cancer?"
I, and probably a lot of people reading this on HN, are outwardly very comfortable.
I have cash/assets that would be life changing for most people (especially when I read comments on reddit where people say that $10k would be life changing for them) - and a "good" white-collar job.
I'm also lucky enough to be old enough to have not been 100% screwed like our even younger generation has (I only got 90% screwed).
I've been very lucky in life, but when I see the level of wealth inequality and how corporations have completely captured our government, and our two-tiered justice system, it makes me feel sick and angry.
I still feel like I'm being held hostage by the 0.1%, under pressure to keep working to line other's pockets for much longer than I would otherwise have to, and like the whole thing could all come crashing down in a week's time given some improbable but far-from-impossible set of circumstances.
I also don't feel like I would be supported by my government, corporations, or society in general if those circumstances actually occurred.
So I definitely sympathize with the frustration of people who feel unsupported by society and unrepresented by government - especially those who happened to be unluckier in life than I.
And with the current state of affairs, there must be a LOT of them around.
I sympathize with that frustration a hell of a lot more than I sympathize for a dead CEO who made a career out of systematically denying treatment to people who paid him for coverage.
In fact, I'm happy he died as a reminder that nobody is untouchable, no matter how much lobbying your corporation has done to make social murder legal, and no matter how much you've tried to isolate yourself from the consequences of your terrible actions.
I read a reddit comment about the alleged shooter's arrest before:
"murder is such a strong word, can't we just call it removing a cancer?"
> how far off the deep end the internet went over the last few days.
Side note - the "internet" is very likely a mix of bots and real humans nowadays. What might seem initially like a real person saying "hunt the snitch down" could very likely be a bot that is meant to sow and influence discord. That bot's followers could very likely be real people who then say "ya i agree with this account! get your pitchfork!"
Side note - the "internet" is very likely a mix of bots and real humans nowadays. What might seem initially like a real person saying "hunt the snitch down" could very likely be a bot that is meant to sow and influence discord. That bot's followers could very likely be real people who then say "ya i agree with this account! get your pitchfork!"
This is generally true but I've never seen clear evidence of bot activity on HN – have you? I think it's very likely that those reactions on Twitter are 50/50 bot, but I've seen HN people posting their own version of "wow, what a guy" in ways that were convincingly human and very surprising.
Huge disagree - there's no convincingly human anymore for internet text, especially for short internet text. Since the coming of LLMs, when I read HN, Reddit or even blog posts, I always keep it in the back of my mind that whatever I'm reading can very well be written by a bot. Fine-tune/prompt an LLM the right way and you'll get content indistinguishable from human text even for highly specific niche topics/contexts.
This is a random reply to a different comment Aerbil313 made for their benefit as their email in hackernews seems expired.
----
I have a family member suffering from multiple exposures to fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibiotics. While the research doesn't understand the root-cause reason for how FQs cause trouble, my journey with dealing with my personal family-history of diabetes and my family's chronic illness has gotten me to go down a road of understanding how to solve some issues.
From what I understand, mitochondrial dysfunction appears to be at the core of many issues like I said. However, to expand on what I've found useful in my n=1-2 experiments, juxtaposed against much of the Phd/MD health podcast sphere information, most interventions like exercise and nutrition fundamentally are there to improve metabolic health. Many markers like VO2 Max or A1c are integral that gives a snapshot of one aspect of one's metabolic health.
In my family's and my specific journey, I've put together a variety of molecules/supplements we've found useful in their journey and framed it in such a way as to be actionable, but also presentable enough to the public.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fo2F851i0OE4tIQb0hQ7...
It's a lot of information, but hopefully it would be useful for you and others. Feel free to ask any questions on my rationale, thinking, or reasoning behind why certain things are useful, and how I came to certain conclusions.
----
I have a family member suffering from multiple exposures to fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibiotics. While the research doesn't understand the root-cause reason for how FQs cause trouble, my journey with dealing with my personal family-history of diabetes and my family's chronic illness has gotten me to go down a road of understanding how to solve some issues.
From what I understand, mitochondrial dysfunction appears to be at the core of many issues like I said. However, to expand on what I've found useful in my n=1-2 experiments, juxtaposed against much of the Phd/MD health podcast sphere information, most interventions like exercise and nutrition fundamentally are there to improve metabolic health. Many markers like VO2 Max or A1c are integral that gives a snapshot of one aspect of one's metabolic health.
In my family's and my specific journey, I've put together a variety of molecules/supplements we've found useful in their journey and framed it in such a way as to be actionable, but also presentable enough to the public.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fo2F851i0OE4tIQb0hQ7...
It's a lot of information, but hopefully it would be useful for you and others. Feel free to ask any questions on my rationale, thinking, or reasoning behind why certain things are useful, and how I came to certain conclusions.
I read your comment history and I’m 99.9% sure you’re a human.
=D
For what it’s worth, I am also human. Hi.
=D
For what it’s worth, I am also human. Hi.
> convincingly human
We are long past that being a means of distinguishing a bot for anything other than obvious crypto scams. I have no doubt at all that a substantial number of HN posts, especially on divisive topics such as this one, are made by foreign agents. HN is an ideal means of targeting the types of people driving Western economies, and so I am certain that it is one of the top targets for such operations.
We are long past that being a means of distinguishing a bot for anything other than obvious crypto scams. I have no doubt at all that a substantial number of HN posts, especially on divisive topics such as this one, are made by foreign agents. HN is an ideal means of targeting the types of people driving Western economies, and so I am certain that it is one of the top targets for such operations.
Bots don't independently invent opinions separate from the people running them. Not even with LLMs. "Bots" are just sock puppets - people creating multiple identities for themselves so they can ballot-stuff the Court of Public Opinion.
So it's not so much that there are no real people who want to hunt down the snitch, but that there's a very loud minority of performative extremists with an army of sock puppet accounts who want to hunt down the snitch.
So it's not so much that there are no real people who want to hunt down the snitch, but that there's a very loud minority of performative extremists with an army of sock puppet accounts who want to hunt down the snitch.
> there's a very loud minority of performative extremists with an army of sock puppet accounts who want to hunt down the snitch
The people running the bot armies for foreign influence operations probably do not care about hunting down the snitch, they are simply following orders to spread that message.
The people running the bot armies for foreign influence operations probably do not care about hunting down the snitch, they are simply following orders to spread that message.
Unfortunately, sometimes the law allows for the legal murder of people by pen. More people are killed by keyboards and pens, and I don't mean like John Wick, than are killed by guns because we have "for-profit healthcare". That means that the motive of the company is not determined by whether their decisions will kill people by the policies they create, but whether the decisions they make will be profitable. As long as those decisions don't run afoul of the law, they can kill at will. If that sounds fucked up, it is because it is fucked up.
Back in the 19th century a lot of Russian Revolutionaries came from families of well being, or are even aristocrats.
> so much pent up anger
And one reason it's pent-up, as opposed to released, is due to corporations taking over our society and ruining human lives. All within the confines of the law and democracy. That's what this is about. There is no recourse or effective vehicle to be heard.
And one reason it's pent-up, as opposed to released, is due to corporations taking over our society and ruining human lives. All within the confines of the law and democracy. That's what this is about. There is no recourse or effective vehicle to be heard.
> ...so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.
This is the part of the story that must be discussed more, lest there will be more killings like this one.
This is the part of the story that must be discussed more, lest there will be more killings like this one.
Yeah was wild to see that.
I take it as a reaction to the wider public feeling that the US medical system is broken and the appropriate channel to fix it (voting & politics) being broken too thanks to lobbying.
Under circumstances like this people’s perception shifts to a more relativistic perspective. A bit like perception of a rioter throwing a stone at riot police depends on whether the viewer agrees with the movements goals even if in isolation they wouldn’t normally approve of throwing rocks at people faces.
I take it as a reaction to the wider public feeling that the US medical system is broken and the appropriate channel to fix it (voting & politics) being broken too thanks to lobbying.
Under circumstances like this people’s perception shifts to a more relativistic perspective. A bit like perception of a rioter throwing a stone at riot police depends on whether the viewer agrees with the movements goals even if in isolation they wouldn’t normally approve of throwing rocks at people faces.
I imagine that's what the start of the French revolution felt like too - one day you could walk down the streets of Paris as a noble minding your own business, the next day you had your head chopped off because people got fed up. Not saying that this is what's happening in the US right now, but I imagine the societal feelings of anger against "the elite" are similar.
Americans burned down a police station over George Floyd, stormed the capitol, and there were two assassination attempts on Trump last year.
Basically, we’ve begun normalizing events that fit a timeline of domestic turmoil.
Basically, we’ve begun normalizing events that fit a timeline of domestic turmoil.
I thought it was a joke when I saw the posts on the Reddit homepage celebrating the murder and even the murderer. Partly because I thought Redditors were above that type of thing, but also because I thought it was against their TOS.
It's a real reminder of how little sympathy people can have about people who they consider the enemy or the "other". I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too. Humans are so flawed. And I'm not suggesting for a moment I'm above it. I've often noticed how I don't care as much as I should when someone I dislike is harmed or suffers injustice.
It's a real reminder of how little sympathy people can have about people who they consider the enemy or the "other". I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too. Humans are so flawed. And I'm not suggesting for a moment I'm above it. I've often noticed how I don't care as much as I should when someone I dislike is harmed or suffers injustice.
A lot of people feel that he as the CEO of the health insurance with the highest rate of denied claims is indirectly responsible for the death of a large number of people. Thus killing him is justified as vigilante justice. And vigilante justice is frequently seen in a positive light when the justice system is unable or unwilling to act.
That may feel acceptable, but I hope those people remember it when someone controversial they admire meets a similar fate, greeted by applause from the other side.
Once we start tacitly approving of extrajudicial killings, it doesn’t stop with just those you dislike or even just the outspoken figures. Consider how many completely innocent civilians died during the Troubles or the French Revolution, or how easy it would’ve been for someone completely innocent to get harmed here.
It’s easy to approve of this in a vacuum, it’s just a path full of extreme cognitive dissonance.
Once we start tacitly approving of extrajudicial killings, it doesn’t stop with just those you dislike or even just the outspoken figures. Consider how many completely innocent civilians died during the Troubles or the French Revolution, or how easy it would’ve been for someone completely innocent to get harmed here.
It’s easy to approve of this in a vacuum, it’s just a path full of extreme cognitive dissonance.
One of the many purposes of the justice system is to serve "justice" so people don't feel the need to take it in their own hands. The fact that so many people feel this murder is justified shows a clear breakdown of the justice system. Which should give everyone pause because that path does lead to the terrors you describe.
But the path to solving that has to involve adjustments to the system that address this mismatch, not just condemning the act or creating some huge diversion in the hope people will forget about it.
But the path to solving that has to involve adjustments to the system that address this mismatch, not just condemning the act or creating some huge diversion in the hope people will forget about it.
I would say that this is not only one of its proposes, but by far the most important. The system primarily prevents violence by convincing people they don’t need to commit violence to achieve justice.
If that starts to break down, people in power need to wake up and fix it. The system does not, cannot, protect them from the masses entirely by force. I fear that they have forgotten.
If that starts to break down, people in power need to wake up and fix it. The system does not, cannot, protect them from the masses entirely by force. I fear that they have forgotten.
I’m not disagreeing.
I don’t think we should rejoice that justice has failed so miserably that people are applauding extrajudicial killings.
It’s a really, really, really bad thing.
I don’t think we should rejoice that justice has failed so miserably that people are applauding extrajudicial killings.
It’s a really, really, really bad thing.
It is absolutely not the duty of citizens to bend to an unjust system, but rather that of the justice system to reflect the ethics of its citizenry. Clearly there is a severe disconnect and "civil society" reached a breaking point around this issue.
What do you mean, “once we start”? It has always been. The only really unusual thing about this instance is that the target was not the sort of person who’s traditionally been seen as deserving it.
Things have notably gotten worse over the last decade or so, if that hasn’t been made abundantly clear.
Perhaps, but on a longer time horizon none of this is new.
On a longer time horizon the norm is brutal warfare that leaves many innocent people dead.
I don’t think we should be so keen to embrace that.
I don’t think we should be so keen to embrace that.
Even in times of peace, Americans love our righteous killings and murderous folk heroes.
I’m not keen to embrace it. But I think the finger-wagging is idiotic. Chastising people will accomplish nothing except for making them think you’re out of touch.
Folks disturbed by this outpouring of support for this murder should instead be asking why people feel that way. Maybe it’s because of a system that treats their lives as an expense to be minimized and gives them no recourse. If wide support for Luigi Mangione worries you, maybe look at fixing that.
I’m not keen to embrace it. But I think the finger-wagging is idiotic. Chastising people will accomplish nothing except for making them think you’re out of touch.
Folks disturbed by this outpouring of support for this murder should instead be asking why people feel that way. Maybe it’s because of a system that treats their lives as an expense to be minimized and gives them no recourse. If wide support for Luigi Mangione worries you, maybe look at fixing that.
Seems like you’re awfully annoyed by this conversation so I’ll let it go, but I hope you remember this convo the next time this happens to someone.
Right now, Daniel Penny is being celebrated by half the country for killing Neely, and the other half wishes something like this would happen to him.
Right now, Daniel Penny is being celebrated by half the country for killing Neely, and the other half wishes something like this would happen to him.
I keep getting this response and I do not understand it. Why would I change my opinion just because other people might disagree?
It’s especially bizarre here because I haven’t even expressed an opinion about the killing. All I said is that love of killers is nothing new, and if you want it to stop then you need to change the circumstances that make people like killing, rather than just telling them that they’re bad.
It’s especially bizarre here because I haven’t even expressed an opinion about the killing. All I said is that love of killers is nothing new, and if you want it to stop then you need to change the circumstances that make people like killing, rather than just telling them that they’re bad.
There is a belief that Daniel Penny acted in the direct defense of those in the area. That is quite different than killing a CEO who is probably going to be replaced by the same type of person.
> greeted by applause from the other side.
Considering the other side is a minority of top-level executives and media outlets, I wouldn't bank much on that.
People are going to celebrate killers regardless, as they always have, when the perpetrator shares the viewpoint of the majority. It happened with Jesus and Barabbas, it happened with Cromwell and Charles I, it happened with Louis XVI and the French revolutionaries.
In fact, I'm not surprised that Luigi has a bigger fanbase than the Trump shooter. The majority then were in awe of Trump, if not openly cheering him. Here, they're cheering Luigi, with some even insinuating that it was his plan to get caught (something which might as well be true).
Considering the other side is a minority of top-level executives and media outlets, I wouldn't bank much on that.
People are going to celebrate killers regardless, as they always have, when the perpetrator shares the viewpoint of the majority. It happened with Jesus and Barabbas, it happened with Cromwell and Charles I, it happened with Louis XVI and the French revolutionaries.
In fact, I'm not surprised that Luigi has a bigger fanbase than the Trump shooter. The majority then were in awe of Trump, if not openly cheering him. Here, they're cheering Luigi, with some even insinuating that it was his plan to get caught (something which might as well be true).
> Considering the other side is a minority of top-level executives and media outlets, I wouldn't bank much on that.
The other side is often 50% of the country. Whatever controversial figures you like, near 50% of the country would gladly applause or at least quote Clarence Darrow if they were brutally murdered.
Something to keep in mind.
The other side is often 50% of the country. Whatever controversial figures you like, near 50% of the country would gladly applause or at least quote Clarence Darrow if they were brutally murdered.
Something to keep in mind.
Trump just got elected and is appointing a cabinet of billionaires.
It should be noted that the context with Jesus and Barabbas is probably the failed Jewish revolt against Rome that led to the destruction of the temple in 70CE, with the gospel accounts looking to separate the emerging gentile Christian movement from the Jewish rebels.
It should be noted that the context with Jesus and Barabbas is probably the failed Jewish revolt against Rome that led to the destruction of the temple in 70CE, with the gospel accounts looking to separate the emerging gentile Christian movement from the Jewish rebels.
It's similar to war heroes. Yes, Abraham Lincoln killed people. Yes, we could avoid glamorizing him and empathize with the poor southerners. But generally, war heroes are idolized. This guy is like a war hero who killed someone on the other side.
That's already happening. Just yesterday someone got acquitted of murdering a homeless person in NYC. The only thing that's different here is that it was a CEO who got killed instead of one of the peasants.
Murder wasn't even one of the charges, so even if he had been found guilty on all counts it still wouldn't justify you calling him a murderer
I don't think that the law necessarily defines whether or not someone is a murderer.
Stated another way, the law's job is to act in accordance with right and wrong, not to define it.
Stated another way, the law's job is to act in accordance with right and wrong, not to define it.
Yes, near 50% of the country is cheering that he was acquitted and someone was killed. The other 50% would be glad if he faced extrajudicial punishment.
Not a good state to be in.
Not a good state to be in.
Thankfully don’t admire anyone that kills people to boost profits
You might! You’d be surprised how many people have ties to the “defense” industry.
These CEOs have found a way to game the system, but the system presupposes mutual respect. If one side reneges on this contract and says that technically they're following the rules, well, the other side will just disregard the rules. It's like the kid at the playground who won't play fair but insists that technically they follow the rules, ignoring completely the outcome -- kids just don't want to play with them anymore, and will probably be mean to the `cheater'.
A CEO like this is an employee. He didn’t invent private insurance. He doesn’t get the 50 billion a year. He is a symbolic scapegoat.
Every person with a 401k probably owns UHC somewhere, and they expect it to increase every year. He is merely part of the system to help make that happen.
Try going into work tomorrow and saying “boss I think our VP’s initiatives are wrong and I’m going to take us in a different direction”.
Every person with a 401k probably owns UHC somewhere, and they expect it to increase every year. He is merely part of the system to help make that happen.
Try going into work tomorrow and saying “boss I think our VP’s initiatives are wrong and I’m going to take us in a different direction”.
There are good reasons to oppose his murder, but they are not found within him.
I don’t have to defend anyone against murder, it’s illegal and wrong.
Just a cog, is your defense of him.
Do you think UHC is bad because the CEO happens to be a uniquely evil person and if it was someone with a good heart it would be good?
What kind of alternate reality would that be? The people heading these companies are good at rationalizing why they are not evil. Don't play their game.
The interesting question to me is where murder is justified in your ethics. You came in with absolutes, after defending him.
The interesting question to me is where murder is justified in your ethics. You came in with absolutes, after defending him.
> He is merely part of the system to help make that happen.
Yeah, we saw that defense at Nuremberg. Didn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
Yeah, we saw that defense at Nuremberg. Didn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
I’m sure you never do anything because it’s enforced by the systems you are a part of. Always an independent thinker, looking out for your personal integrity.
You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.
The serious point is that blaming individual moral character is not going to fix healthcare. We need systemic change.
You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.
The serious point is that blaming individual moral character is not going to fix healthcare. We need systemic change.
This idea of there being a "game" that just magically is, while players that cannot be blamed for playing, nonsense. We need to change the system people with low individual character created for their own benefits, yes. But that's still why we have those systems in the first place, that wasn't an accident or oversight or lack of an effort of common people to try and make the world better. They fight and struggle every day, against the efforts of people the likes of which Brian Thompson played willing executive for.
> You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.
They're comparing an excuse. It would be the same correct comparison if it was about someone parking illegally. And accepting and enabling suffering and death of people for profit rather than out of fear of being shot isn't exactly better.
> You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.
They're comparing an excuse. It would be the same correct comparison if it was about someone parking illegally. And accepting and enabling suffering and death of people for profit rather than out of fear of being shot isn't exactly better.
There are two separate ideas here:
1. Wanting to determine blame, and assign good and bad morality labels.
2. wanting to make healthcare better.
1. is merely psychosocial. It’s ultimately to make you feel better by constructing a revenge justification narrative.
Murdering administrators does nothing to fix 2. They will just replace him with the next guy in line.
No matter how you construe it, he didn’t make healthcare bad and he is not empowered to fix it.
1. Wanting to determine blame, and assign good and bad morality labels.
2. wanting to make healthcare better.
1. is merely psychosocial. It’s ultimately to make you feel better by constructing a revenge justification narrative.
Murdering administrators does nothing to fix 2. They will just replace him with the next guy in line.
No matter how you construe it, he didn’t make healthcare bad and he is not empowered to fix it.
> I’m sure you never do anything because it’s enforced by the systems you are a part of.
I mean, I can quite confidently state I've not received tens of millions of dollars for my role in denying medical care to millions of people.
> You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.
I'm saying "I'm just a little peon in the system!" isn't a good defense. Doubly so for C-suite level folks. This wasn't some call center drone following a script.
> The serious point is that blaming individual moral character is not going to fix healthcare. We need systemic change.
Systemic change often requires individual people to be ashamed of the current setup.
I mean, I can quite confidently state I've not received tens of millions of dollars for my role in denying medical care to millions of people.
> You’re also comparing an insurance CEO to nazi organizers. Reality check.
I'm saying "I'm just a little peon in the system!" isn't a good defense. Doubly so for C-suite level folks. This wasn't some call center drone following a script.
> The serious point is that blaming individual moral character is not going to fix healthcare. We need systemic change.
Systemic change often requires individual people to be ashamed of the current setup.
Ok just to be clear: Your position is that UHC is bad because of the exceptionally poor morality of the CEO? And that if we name, shame, and threaten we will hopefully get a moral one who will turn it around?
> I'm just a little peon in the system!" isn't a good defense.
I agree. It’s not a good way to morally justify to yourself why you killed someone.
> I'm just a little peon in the system!" isn't a good defense.
I agree. It’s not a good way to morally justify to yourself why you killed someone.
My position is that a CEO of a large publicly traded company doesn’t get to shimmy out of responsibility by going “woe is me, it’s the system’s fault!”
I think if the system keeps refusing to change something breaks. We just saw that in Syria. I think people are unsympathetic in this case because health insurers have already broken the social compact they’re supposed to operate within.
I think if the system keeps refusing to change something breaks. We just saw that in Syria. I think people are unsympathetic in this case because health insurers have already broken the social compact they’re supposed to operate within.
> woe is me
Who is saying that? I’m advocating for the change that will fix the system. Not the one that gives warm fuzzy feelings from righteous bloodlust.
Who is saying that? I’m advocating for the change that will fix the system. Not the one that gives warm fuzzy feelings from righteous bloodlust.
But nothing is keeping you from working for that change, certainly not the fact that so many people want it so badly that they even cheer over the murder of a healthcare CEO. It's not a dichotomy; you can do either of these things, both, or none.
This just occurred to me though. Is UHC going to have a hard time finding a CEO that continues this practice? Have they actually been given any reason to change? Any reason to believe they won't just double down?
If this murder doesn't change anything, was it justified? I just don't know.
If this murder doesn't change anything, was it justified? I just don't know.
Ironically, the net result may be an increase in CEO compensation.
I was even more surprised by the response on Bluesky because I naively expected it to be 'better' than that. But I saw vitriol and hatred directed at people for daring to suggest that other, unrelated CEOs shouldn't be shot. It was like a reflection of the worst elements of X, even though these people claim to be the 'good' side.
some people believe the CEO's death is justice. engels called what insurance companies do "social murder" where these institutions and the state commits violence against individuals or kills them through policy or profit motives. and it's perfectly legal. it's only when an individual uses self defense against this social violence that it is considered wrong.
Honest question, do you think there is a point where someone has earned death? For example, was the mission to kill Bin Laden wrong? Was the mission to kill the Iranian General in Iraq wrong? Is it wrong to kill someone via the death penalty for the rape and murder of a child? Many people fundamentally believe those things are good examples of killing other humans. And realistically, those people are responsible for less harm and suffering , not to mention deaths, that CEOs of healthcare providers being investigated by the DoJ.
It’s not that there. Is a lack of sympathy, it’s overwhelmed by the feeling of justice. And not the injustice you think occurred.
It’s not that there. Is a lack of sympathy, it’s overwhelmed by the feeling of justice. And not the injustice you think occurred.
There is a difference between “earning a death” as some sort of justice, and killing being justified to prevent further harm. The death penalty is more of an example of earning death, as it is a punishment more than it is to prevent the person doing harm. Whereas a police shooting is a “justified” killing to prevent harm to others. In the former the goal is killing, in the latter the goal is to stop a threat and the outcome is killing.
The killing of Bin Laden and Soleimani were justified, in my opinion, as declared enemy combatants and leaders of hostile State and non-State military forces. They didn’t “deserve” to die for justice. They were taken off the battlefield. Whether I agree with that decision or not, I understand the justification.
Killing a rapist and murderer via the death penalty is wrong, in my opinion. It is killing in cold blood as a punishment, not to protect others or prevent harm. I do not think government should engage in retributive killing. But that is just me.
As for the United CEO, I don’t think he deserved to die or earned a death. I do think that a compelling argument can be made that government institutions have failed to act to protect human life at the hands of the American healthcare system, and that an individual could see his killing as a justified means to force change and protect American lives. It is the eternal question of when is someone a terrorist and when are they a freedom fighter?
The killing of Bin Laden and Soleimani were justified, in my opinion, as declared enemy combatants and leaders of hostile State and non-State military forces. They didn’t “deserve” to die for justice. They were taken off the battlefield. Whether I agree with that decision or not, I understand the justification.
Killing a rapist and murderer via the death penalty is wrong, in my opinion. It is killing in cold blood as a punishment, not to protect others or prevent harm. I do not think government should engage in retributive killing. But that is just me.
As for the United CEO, I don’t think he deserved to die or earned a death. I do think that a compelling argument can be made that government institutions have failed to act to protect human life at the hands of the American healthcare system, and that an individual could see his killing as a justified means to force change and protect American lives. It is the eternal question of when is someone a terrorist and when are they a freedom fighter?
There's martial law and there is civil law. Martial law applies to enemies and in wartime. In this case, killing enemies like Bin Laden is acceptable.
However, in civil law, for the state to kill someone it has to be done through the courts. There is evidence given on each side. Killing someone without this is not justice.
People talk as if it is so obvious UHC CEO was responsible for the deaths of many people but he never got to make his case. That's not justice at all.
However, in civil law, for the state to kill someone it has to be done through the courts. There is evidence given on each side. Killing someone without this is not justice.
People talk as if it is so obvious UHC CEO was responsible for the deaths of many people but he never got to make his case. That's not justice at all.
I‘m talking about justice and what is legal and what is just are two different things.
Is it just a child rapist, who there is video evidence commuting the crime, gets to walk free because they can’t find the victim to testify in court? And yes, that is the law in some countries. The uk had to wait for someone to come back to the uk because they could convict without the victims but the country he committed the crime couldn’t.
And it’s only not obvious that he‘s responsible for a lot of pain and suffering when you ignore the facts. The accused doesn’t need to give their side of the story for people to know what happened.
Is it just a child rapist, who there is video evidence commuting the crime, gets to walk free because they can’t find the victim to testify in court? And yes, that is the law in some countries. The uk had to wait for someone to come back to the uk because they could convict without the victims but the country he committed the crime couldn’t.
And it’s only not obvious that he‘s responsible for a lot of pain and suffering when you ignore the facts. The accused doesn’t need to give their side of the story for people to know what happened.
> The accused doesn’t need to give their side of the story for people to know what happened.
There is always a defense in court. This is not necessarily the defendant explicitly testifying. That's what I meant by the defendant making their case.
Justice can fail in the courts, I agree. But you can't have justice without (a) an authority with the power to judge, usually the state, and (b) a court proceeding where evidence is weighed.
If you say the UHC CEO killing was justice, then you must, to be consistent, allow for other such killings. Should all healthcare CEOs now be knocked off?
There is always a defense in court. This is not necessarily the defendant explicitly testifying. That's what I meant by the defendant making their case.
Justice can fail in the courts, I agree. But you can't have justice without (a) an authority with the power to judge, usually the state, and (b) a court proceeding where evidence is weighed.
If you say the UHC CEO killing was justice, then you must, to be consistent, allow for other such killings. Should all healthcare CEOs now be knocked off?
Only about a quarter of the world's countries have the death penalty so even if "many people believe that's a good example of killing other humans", most do not. While I abhor the nature of privatised healthcare in the US, I think judging—and, certainly, killing—people based on potential indirect harm they've caused is a very slippery slope.
I don’t know of a single country without a military nor a country that doesn’t allow law enforcement to use lethal force. So your statement that most people don’t think they are valid examples of a good killing of someone is disingenuous.
I was specifically referring to the death penalty.
But my point was about justice and if we think there is a point someone deserves to die. If we say there is, which I think it’s clear, there is. The whole question about people being happy is about them being happy that they‘re seeing justice. But you tried to side step that.
Also, on the death penalty, I don’t think it’s ever gone to a vote where the people decided. So saying most people are againist the death penalty sounds hollow.
Also, on the death penalty, I don’t think it’s ever gone to a vote where the people decided. So saying most people are againist the death penalty sounds hollow.
Bin Laden should have been arrested and processed by a court.
Killing the Iranian General was wrong. (this is a place for covert action, perhaps)
Same with everyone else the US has killed by drone.
Sentenced by a court to die, given the rule of law, is OK.
(note my personal belief is that the death penalty is wrong. today, it is legal).
Same with everyone else the US has killed by drone.
Sentenced by a court to die, given the rule of law, is OK.
(note my personal belief is that the death penalty is wrong. today, it is legal).
> I'm almost certain nearly all of the people celebrating the murder believe that they're good people and believe in justice too.
It's because they believe in justice that they are celebrating the murder.
It's because they believe in justice that they are celebrating the murder.
A kind of justice that hasn't ben particularly just in the past, which is why vigilante justice isn't legal. The point is to not have citizens deciding to carry out their own idea of justice. That's for the state, which in a democratic society, we vote on, they pass laws which judges interpret and so on.
Because we can't trust everyone to deal out their own idea of justice without it turning into endless blood feuds and partisan killings. Not to mention all the lynchings and witch hunts. This doesn't even bring up the fact that most individuals don't have the resources or motivation to carry out a proper independent investigation. So then the wrong person gets hung by an angry mob, or beat to death by a family member of the victim.
Because we can't trust everyone to deal out their own idea of justice without it turning into endless blood feuds and partisan killings. Not to mention all the lynchings and witch hunts. This doesn't even bring up the fact that most individuals don't have the resources or motivation to carry out a proper independent investigation. So then the wrong person gets hung by an angry mob, or beat to death by a family member of the victim.
Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a successful healthcare insurance CEO.
Brian Thompson was CEO for all of 3 and a half years. He was also only about 50 years old, I don't think he's quite the bond villain you want him to be.
I don't follow your reasoning, 3 years is a significant time. Are you saying that you need to be above 70 to become a "bond villain", haven't seen that movie.
But in any case he was working for United since 2004, according to Wikipedia.
But in any case he was working for United since 2004, according to Wikipedia.
For some definition of justice. Maybe not the same definition the rest of us are using, though.
The actions of his company —which he led and dictated policy for— can be considered evil by a reasonably dispassionate measure - they deliberately caused undue suffering or shortened the life of countless thousands of vulnerable people.
I (obviously) don’t support vigilante justice, and felt somewhat sad when Hussein and Gadaffi were hanged/lynched because despite their evil, I’d rather we don’t treat human beings like that.
But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants; and as such, I can understand why many might be happy about what took place, especially if they had personal animus with the company.
I (obviously) don’t support vigilante justice, and felt somewhat sad when Hussein and Gadaffi were hanged/lynched because despite their evil, I’d rather we don’t treat human beings like that.
But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants; and as such, I can understand why many might be happy about what took place, especially if they had personal animus with the company.
> But I don’t think it’s hyperbole to consider the actions of this CEO and his company in the same breath as such evil tyrants
But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them. Healthcare is more complicated because you have multiple causes at play: the health conditions of patients, the hospitals and what they bill, and the insurance companies.
Money is a big factor here. People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person. I understand the resentment over wealth inequality, but someone recently calculated that the top 4 billionaires could only support healthcare for everyone for 3 months. Money is not an infinite resource. Rationing is unavoidable.
But I get that there is a problem. Automatic denials and denials over treatments that have clear and significant benefits are a problem, absolutely. And the system could run more efficiently. But we also can't avoid death due to old age or sickness. Nor painless death.
But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.
But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them. Healthcare is more complicated because you have multiple causes at play: the health conditions of patients, the hospitals and what they bill, and the insurance companies.
Money is a big factor here. People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person. I understand the resentment over wealth inequality, but someone recently calculated that the top 4 billionaires could only support healthcare for everyone for 3 months. Money is not an infinite resource. Rationing is unavoidable.
But I get that there is a problem. Automatic denials and denials over treatments that have clear and significant benefits are a problem, absolutely. And the system could run more efficiently. But we also can't avoid death due to old age or sickness. Nor painless death.
But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.
When people are tired of a system and the powers that be, they take action into their own hands. I'd rather a few dead CEO's and a renewed zeal among the populace to address these issues, then roll over like a dog.
What about deploying an AI that automatically denies 90% of appeals incorrectly? Is that Tyrannical or is that "complicated"?
https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/unitedhealthcare-used-...
There is no reason why you need middlemen between the people and healthcare, beyond enriching the rent-seeking middlemen.
https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/unitedhealthcare-used-...
There is no reason why you need middlemen between the people and healthcare, beyond enriching the rent-seeking middlemen.
> But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them.
That's just a difference in methods.
> People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person.
You're right that US healthcare is a total mess (that's a much bigger area for discussion) but that doesn't mean that it's therefore okay for insurance companies to deliberately trade people for profits. That's literally what they do. Seriously, they could choose to make less profit, or pay lower salaries, and treat patients proportionally better. (And of course, as we all know from the reporting in the past week, UnitedHealth is the worst of all in the US for treatment denials.)
> But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.
I totally agree; but that wasn't the argument I was making.
That's just a difference in methods.
> People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person.
You're right that US healthcare is a total mess (that's a much bigger area for discussion) but that doesn't mean that it's therefore okay for insurance companies to deliberately trade people for profits. That's literally what they do. Seriously, they could choose to make less profit, or pay lower salaries, and treat patients proportionally better. (And of course, as we all know from the reporting in the past week, UnitedHealth is the worst of all in the US for treatment denials.)
> But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.
I totally agree; but that wasn't the argument I was making.
This overall dynamic has become very concerning to me- people have sorted themselves into echo chambers online that dehumanize anyone not in their group- to the point of justifying murder for just for not being in their specific group. This has happened universally across the political and ideological spectrum. Parts of Reddit for example has a seething hatred for anyone elderly “boomers” and/or well off “billionaires and landlords” with lots of extreme essays on why people in these groups should be systematically harmed or even executed becoming well liked. Anyone adding nuance to the discussion is attacked- empathy and nuance are labeled as themselves evil. Everything is based on a cartoonishly oversimplified model of the world with pure good and evil actors- not understanding that unfair outcomes are most often simply the banal result of bad planning and locked in structures that appear organically and can persist even when everyone involved wants them to change but can’t coordinate well. This dynamic is repeated everywhere and not unique to just the right or left. Nothing good will come off this.
This is a spot-on description. The locked-in banality seems to be the source of fuel for many issues people are taking offense with. Housing cost too much? Oh well. Food costs too much? Oh well. Medical costs too much? Oh well, etc. etc.
There doesn't seem to be many release valves other than "accept your fate" especially when you have seemingly little control over your own fate.
There doesn't seem to be many release valves other than "accept your fate" especially when you have seemingly little control over your own fate.
When you have a complex locked in problem that most people genuinely already want to solve, it can be solved with good leadership- someone needs to have a clear and workable vision and get all of the players organized to collectively act at the same time.
One doesn't need to be a politician to do this, but just as an example Obama was able to do this to make some improvements to the US healthcare situation.
Unfortunately, the people most affected by these problems are probably not in a position to acquire the knowledge and skills to lead the entire field to a better solution like this.
One doesn't need to be a politician to do this, but just as an example Obama was able to do this to make some improvements to the US healthcare situation.
Unfortunately, the people most affected by these problems are probably not in a position to acquire the knowledge and skills to lead the entire field to a better solution like this.
On the one side you have a mass murderer that’s part of the politically untouchable class, and on the other, one of his permanently injured victims managed to survive and deal out frontier-style justice.
It makes for a good story. We’ve all seen that movie 100 times.
I wonder if the shooter will survive long enough to make it to jury trial. That’s when the real circus will begin.
(All I know about this story is that United Health has one of the highest incorrect claim rejection rates in the industry. I know nothing about the CEO, but we’re way past 140 characters at this point, so these things don’t matter to social media.)
It makes for a good story. We’ve all seen that movie 100 times.
I wonder if the shooter will survive long enough to make it to jury trial. That’s when the real circus will begin.
(All I know about this story is that United Health has one of the highest incorrect claim rejection rates in the industry. I know nothing about the CEO, but we’re way past 140 characters at this point, so these things don’t matter to social media.)
> melting pot
Did you mean tipping point?
Did you mean tipping point?
Yes, probably. But I don't think we're at an actual tipping point. I don't think we're about to see a breakdown or anything like that, soon, but we're certainly heading in that general direction.
What is the euphemism I'm actually looking for? Knife edge? No.
What is the euphemism I'm actually looking for? Knife edge? No.
Maybe powder keg
[deleted]
It's not surprising. Most people don't comment. The tiny minority that comment likely have extreme views. Sorting algorithms that drive engagement makes this worse.
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...
So everybody online can be dismissed, except the people posting online that everyone who posts something online can be dismissed? How does that work?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371412
It's everywhere. You're simply wrong. Sort by date, sort by score, look on any broader news story and check out the comments. They're not "extreme", either. Even if their content was, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be extreme by definition at this point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42371412
It's everywhere. You're simply wrong. Sort by date, sort by score, look on any broader news story and check out the comments. They're not "extreme", either. Even if their content was, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be extreme by definition at this point.
The point isn't to dismiss everything outright, it's simply cautioning that online commenters are a tiny minority of the overall population, and if you see a surprising opinion showing up in the top comments, you shouldn't extrapolate that everyone holds those views.
This only holds for opinions. If someone posts a link to a survey that says out of a representative sample of Americans, 70% of them support abortion or whatever, you should believe that (assuming there are no issues with the organization conducting the survey). Same with other forms of argumentation. You shouldn't distrust the top answer on stackoverflow just because it's from 1% of the population, although you probably not think the average person is some sort of expert on every programming question either.
This only holds for opinions. If someone posts a link to a survey that says out of a representative sample of Americans, 70% of them support abortion or whatever, you should believe that (assuming there are no issues with the organization conducting the survey). Same with other forms of argumentation. You shouldn't distrust the top answer on stackoverflow just because it's from 1% of the population, although you probably not think the average person is some sort of expert on every programming question either.
Sort by date, no difference. And FWIW so far I only heard the idea that this CEO deserves empathy online
[deleted]
It's kind of sad. But I think that most people are fundamentally good -- they're just reactive and understand our broken healthcare system so little that they actually consider the victim to have actually earned a death sentence. When really, he was still a cog in the machine, not much closer to harming people than a software developer whose code ends up being used in military drones.
The problems with US healthcare boil down to there being more demand for healthcare than supply, and a fat bureaucracy sprouting up to partition that limited healthcare, often screwing over people who need exceptionally special care or who can't afford insurance in the first place. Who is to blame? You could reasonably apply some blame to the shortage of doctors created by the AMA, the FDA's guidance and the sugar industry's lobbying resulting in people being less healthy, lack of consumer protection laws around opaque medical pricing/gouging, and private insurance.
Would changing any one of these alone fix healthcare in the US? Maybe the first 2, if given a long time to materialize. But do any of these people deserve to die? It says a lot about you if you automatically dehumanize these people and say yes.
The problems with US healthcare boil down to there being more demand for healthcare than supply, and a fat bureaucracy sprouting up to partition that limited healthcare, often screwing over people who need exceptionally special care or who can't afford insurance in the first place. Who is to blame? You could reasonably apply some blame to the shortage of doctors created by the AMA, the FDA's guidance and the sugar industry's lobbying resulting in people being less healthy, lack of consumer protection laws around opaque medical pricing/gouging, and private insurance.
Would changing any one of these alone fix healthcare in the US? Maybe the first 2, if given a long time to materialize. But do any of these people deserve to die? It says a lot about you if you automatically dehumanize these people and say yes.
> Things really feel like a melting pot at the moment, with so much pent up anger amongst people who actually lead pretty decent lives.
One of the reasons that many people voted for Trump, is nihilism. The real belief that Trump is the one most likely to burn the ‘system’ to the ground. That is the brightest hope some voters have.
One of the reasons that many people voted for Trump, is nihilism. The real belief that Trump is the one most likely to burn the ‘system’ to the ground. That is the brightest hope some voters have.
Please put more effort into understanding people's issues with the system as it stands today.
And please understand that virtually no one wants to leave a burned-out wreckage on a desolate hellscape. Everyone fancies themselves Shiva, or a phoenix, or whatever cultural imagery makes sense to you.
And please understand that virtually no one wants to leave a burned-out wreckage on a desolate hellscape. Everyone fancies themselves Shiva, or a phoenix, or whatever cultural imagery makes sense to you.
I know this is a sensitive topic. I am sorry it bothers you.
The sadder truth is, that I say what I say - AFTER having already applied your advice. I have spoken to strangers, reached out to see what they think. I spend the time to understand the many subcultures people are not parts of.
Go look at what is showing up in streamer feeds.
Talk to people, and when a 20 year old tells you “yeah bitcoin is great, because I have no hopes. So even if it goes to the shitter, how much worse can I be.”, you will see that people are truly happy to see things go to hell.
I do wish I had seen other things and had different interactions. But there is a substantial level of nihilism.
If you wish not to believe me - we’re in a thread where an insurance CEO was assassinated and the perpetrator is being hailed as a hero.
The sadder truth is, that I say what I say - AFTER having already applied your advice. I have spoken to strangers, reached out to see what they think. I spend the time to understand the many subcultures people are not parts of.
Go look at what is showing up in streamer feeds.
Talk to people, and when a 20 year old tells you “yeah bitcoin is great, because I have no hopes. So even if it goes to the shitter, how much worse can I be.”, you will see that people are truly happy to see things go to hell.
I do wish I had seen other things and had different interactions. But there is a substantial level of nihilism.
If you wish not to believe me - we’re in a thread where an insurance CEO was assassinated and the perpetrator is being hailed as a hero.
This conversation won't last much longer unless you actually listen.
People are hailing the shooter because of the resulting society they want to grow out of this, not because of some shallow death-drive diagnosis by an aspiring armchair psychologist.
People are hailing the shooter because of the resulting society they want to grow out of this, not because of some shallow death-drive diagnosis by an aspiring armchair psychologist.
I mean this genuinely. I believe you are being earnest.
Why do you have a strangle hold on meaning, and not what people themselves are saying ?
You seem to be rejecting observed reality, while accusing me of not listening.
Perhaps your objection isn’t clear?
Why do you have a strangle hold on meaning, and not what people themselves are saying ?
You seem to be rejecting observed reality, while accusing me of not listening.
Perhaps your objection isn’t clear?
I don't think anything is unclear. You assert that people only want destruction and that they disregard what comes after. I disagree, your opinion is disrespectful to the human spirit and indeed implies you see people as subhuman, acting purely on a musky animal instinct with no regard for the future. I am saying that the vast majority of those expressing glee in the shooter's actions aren't stupid, they know what they want to grow out of the ashes.
What "observed reality" are you even referring to? In the end all we're doing is speculative mass-psychoanalysis. Something tells me you don't quite know what you're even saying...
What "observed reality" are you even referring to? In the end all we're doing is speculative mass-psychoanalysis. Something tells me you don't quite know what you're even saying...
[deleted]
[deleted]
i think its because the accused dude is just as online as the average social media user who has latched on to this.
Given the number of people who think that Oswald did not shoot three people, that James Earl Ray did not shoot anyone, that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not shoot anyone, the mental gymnastics are not surprising. It's always been like this; the internet just allows us to know about it in real time. There are still people to this day who will tell you that the Yippies really DID levitate the Pentagon.
Imagine modern Russia. You can't have much of an opinion on pressing subjects of today unless that opinion is sanctioned by Russia's authorities - otherwise you're dead, or incarcerated or at best left the country. The propaganda machine is working 24/7. Now, Russia is a young country - counting from the last big turmoil in 1991, it's only 30+ years old - but some of the people there lived through USSR times. And some 100- years ago USSR was going through grim times itself, with millions suffering in purges, and even more millions and tens of millions learning to conform. And, as some prized artists and writers said there, the country killed a lot of progressive and inspired and very many of who're left are those who did purges, participated in them or from their families. So now the Russia's population - many involuntarily - support the war which was started for, frankly, really wrong reasons. And the future the Russia is perhaps looking towards is grim, hard and thankless no matter how things will progress. Can you imagine the scale of the task of getting back from the proverbial pit towards what we'd see as a more normal way of a country, what's going on in the heads of those people trying to live a normal life there?
Now, you might be surprised but America also has problems under the surface. America likes to project the good impression, but certain problems exist, aren't addressed enough for some time, got accumulated and it's harder to gloss them over. And since those problems are decades old, you have some parts of generations quite familiar with them. And we have Trump - first winning in 2016 and then even more triumphantly winning in 2024 - and those "normal", "good" sort of decidedly lost this November to those who's combined message might well be "things aren't well". Maybe we need to look at what's normal, as in if we have that state? Should we consider normal something only 40% think? 50%? 70%? That is, if 30% have long running reasons to think things aren't normal - is it enough for you to pause?
To the melting pot. What would you think if, looking into the pot, at the extreme you'd see the whole pot is full of that pent up anger, and nothing - or almost nothing - of what's "normal" here? Do numbers matter here? And, if they are suddenly too large, what you're going to do with lots and lots of those who'd think, figuratively, that lynching is still a good idea? Or in other somewhat known words, what would you do the good from, if the only thing you can do that is from evil?
Now, you might be surprised but America also has problems under the surface. America likes to project the good impression, but certain problems exist, aren't addressed enough for some time, got accumulated and it's harder to gloss them over. And since those problems are decades old, you have some parts of generations quite familiar with them. And we have Trump - first winning in 2016 and then even more triumphantly winning in 2024 - and those "normal", "good" sort of decidedly lost this November to those who's combined message might well be "things aren't well". Maybe we need to look at what's normal, as in if we have that state? Should we consider normal something only 40% think? 50%? 70%? That is, if 30% have long running reasons to think things aren't normal - is it enough for you to pause?
To the melting pot. What would you think if, looking into the pot, at the extreme you'd see the whole pot is full of that pent up anger, and nothing - or almost nothing - of what's "normal" here? Do numbers matter here? And, if they are suddenly too large, what you're going to do with lots and lots of those who'd think, figuratively, that lynching is still a good idea? Or in other somewhat known words, what would you do the good from, if the only thing you can do that is from evil?
thomond(2)
The wealth gap in 2012 US is larger than it was in pre-revolution France. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/us-inco...
I am not sure this is a fair comparison. Wouldn't this be true if we compare any pre-industrial society with any post-industrial society?
[1] has some actual numbers to answer that question, with e.g. [2] for modern US numbers (since [1] has only Europe). The wealth gap peaked in 1910, took a nose dive until the late 1960s (though much more pronounced in Europe than in the US) and is on the rise since then.
The post-industrial US dipped as low as ~1300 or ~1650 Europe, but is now back to levels Europe only reached in 1750, well on track to repeating the rising inequality during industrialization. Sweden is still at 1280/1600 Europe numbers, better than 1960s USA.
Actually it probably has risen a bit more since then since those are 2010 numbers, hence the comparison of US numbers to the French Revolution
1: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/top-rich-europe-long-run-hist...
2: https://www.blogscapitalbolsa.com/media/images/69b536a604624...
The post-industrial US dipped as low as ~1300 or ~1650 Europe, but is now back to levels Europe only reached in 1750, well on track to repeating the rising inequality during industrialization. Sweden is still at 1280/1600 Europe numbers, better than 1960s USA.
Actually it probably has risen a bit more since then since those are 2010 numbers, hence the comparison of US numbers to the French Revolution
1: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/top-rich-europe-long-run-hist...
2: https://www.blogscapitalbolsa.com/media/images/69b536a604624...
From [2], why is there a huge drop globally following 1910?
1914-1918 is the more precise date range that you are looking at for causation.
One of the victims of war is Capital. Much Capital is destroyed in some places, and countries generally begin to do things that look an awful like command economics (i.e. Your factory is a tank factory now, you will make tanks, we will tell you how much you are getting paid. If you resist we will use the propaganda machine to make you look like our enemy). During both world wars the returns on capital were well below the rate of growth, and what would otherwise be expected.
On top of all that, the world wars were huge events for income taxes. If you look at a history of income taxes in the US, you see three local maxima for the top brackets. The Civil War, and the two world wars. The same is true of estate taxes in the UK, for example.
One of the victims of war is Capital. Much Capital is destroyed in some places, and countries generally begin to do things that look an awful like command economics (i.e. Your factory is a tank factory now, you will make tanks, we will tell you how much you are getting paid. If you resist we will use the propaganda machine to make you look like our enemy). During both world wars the returns on capital were well below the rate of growth, and what would otherwise be expected.
On top of all that, the world wars were huge events for income taxes. If you look at a history of income taxes in the US, you see three local maxima for the top brackets. The Civil War, and the two world wars. The same is true of estate taxes in the UK, for example.
From what I gather a number of factors. As one article puts it: "Social solidarity engendered by the wars, wartime experience of governing the economy, unemployment in the 1930s and the rise of socialist ideas."
Both pension systems and labor unions were first created in the late 1880s/1890s and got a lot of steam in the early 1900s. Similarly with the modern iteration of minimum wages. Both the Nordic Model and Rhein Capitalism were created in the 1930s. On the more extreme spectrum, the Russian Revolution brought communism to Russia in 1917.
In a way you can see this as the fruits of the critique of capitalism by Marx in the 1840s. They grew and took root in light of rising unsustainable inequality and lead to mostly positive reforms that brought down inequality even in societies that retained capitalism at the core. Then the trend reverses as the US starts their war on Socialism and Communism, and Reganomics and Thatcherism become dominant.
Both pension systems and labor unions were first created in the late 1880s/1890s and got a lot of steam in the early 1900s. Similarly with the modern iteration of minimum wages. Both the Nordic Model and Rhein Capitalism were created in the 1930s. On the more extreme spectrum, the Russian Revolution brought communism to Russia in 1917.
In a way you can see this as the fruits of the critique of capitalism by Marx in the 1840s. They grew and took root in light of rising unsustainable inequality and lead to mostly positive reforms that brought down inequality even in societies that retained capitalism at the core. Then the trend reverses as the US starts their war on Socialism and Communism, and Reganomics and Thatcherism become dominant.
I understand how those elements would lead to a decrease of wealth inequality past 1920/30, but it doesn't directly explain why the decrease seems to start before World War I.
If the unionizing and minimum wage movement was the cause of the big drop, wouldn't the drop have started before 1910?
If the unionizing and minimum wage movement was the cause of the big drop, wouldn't the drop have started before 1910?
World Wars
Wouldn't the opposite be expected, an aristocratic caste system less equal than an ostensibly democratic society ostensibly based on fairness and human rights?
No, I would expect exactly what we have because both debt and capital accumulation are positive feedback loops.
You're talking about expectations from economic theory, while I'm talking about expectations from societal values; or, in other words, the economy defining society, vs society defining the economy. Obviously the first is factually correct in the US at the moment, but I think the second is what most people believe/wish for. Worth noting that other capitalist countries put better brakes on those feedback loops, they're not inherent to the system.
What you're describing is "idealism" - the idea that people's ideas are not conditioned by the material conditions of their lives. That doesn't seem to be true. Instead, "The ideas of the ruling class are, in any age, the ruling ideas". Most people believe the things that are necessary in order for the conditions they live under to perpetuate themselves. People's ideas change mostly as a result of change in their material conditions.
After the Great Depresson and the second world war, most capitalist countries put brakes on those feedback loops in order to keep the whole system functional, especially in view of the apparent success of a socialist alternative. But those brakes have been in the process of being gradually stripped away since the 1970s, and even faster since the failure of the Soviet Union.
After the Great Depresson and the second world war, most capitalist countries put brakes on those feedback loops in order to keep the whole system functional, especially in view of the apparent success of a socialist alternative. But those brakes have been in the process of being gradually stripped away since the 1970s, and even faster since the failure of the Soviet Union.
I understand. You mean why would a liberal democracy choose the system with the positive feedback loops, right?
> Worth noting that other capitalist countries put better brakes on those feedback loops
Seeing how the wealth gap is increasing between them and the US, most politicians and wealthy individuals are doing all they can to remove those brakes, pushing evermore to follow the US. Defund, privatize, deregulate.
Seeing how the wealth gap is increasing between them and the US, most politicians and wealthy individuals are doing all they can to remove those brakes, pushing evermore to follow the US. Defund, privatize, deregulate.
If you think the system is designed to do anything but transfer wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest, then you should seriously do some critical thinking on the subject.
"Wouldn't this be true if we compare any pre-industrial society with any post-industrial society?"
Technically not in socialist soviet union for example. (But de facto the top party members did control way more wealth than common people.)
Technically not in socialist soviet union for example. (But de facto the top party members did control way more wealth than common people.)
How does a rich person existing affect me? Is it just because I'm jealous that I don't have a yacht and so I should try to overthrow the system that doesn't let me have a yacht? Even though I'll never get a yacht in any system?
Can we look at the graph of wealth disparity of America versus other nations?
Can we look at the graph of wealth disparity of America versus other nations?
Extremely rich people control every aspect of your life, how your city is planned, the state of the job market, the state of the economy, the laws, the state of the planet itself. One way that got a lot of attention lately is that extremely rich people prevent access to health care for everyone else.
Nobody has that much control. Human systems evolve from many different interests and lots of unforseen consequences. How are the extremely rich preventing access to health care for everyone else? The US is a democracy, people do vote and have a say in what they want their representatives to do. If universal healthcare was the priority for a majority of voters over time, it would have happened.
This seems like a pretty conspiratorial view on how society operates.
How so? The richest man in the US just bought himself a president. And now he intends to dismantle half the federal government.
You think Elon Musk swung the election all by himself?
It's certainly plausible: https://mastodon.social/@[email protected]/113617945750132...
Except Harris outspent Trump overall by a significant amount.
Don't be naive. Try to look at everything throught he lens that considers money is speech and corporations are people, and that the flow of wealth always, without exeception, flows from the poorest to the richest, and you will understand why it's a fallacy to think there is any good will involved, or that the ultra-wealthy are going to let you or I, the peasants, fuck up their plans.
Because the existence of these people means that we concentrate economic resources toward building yachts that might otherwise be concentrated toward growing food or building homes.
Rational economic actors who produce goods and/or services will tend to supply what there is the most economic demand for (what brings them the most profit). If half the population has almost none of the money, then their needs have little economic demand behind them. So then what is the economic incentive to supply them with the things they need?
In other words, producing a hundred-million-dollar yacht is a hundred million dollars (less profit margin) that could have been invested toward a more collective good, thus increasing the supply of those goods, thus reducing their scarcity, thus reducing their price.
Rational economic actors who produce goods and/or services will tend to supply what there is the most economic demand for (what brings them the most profit). If half the population has almost none of the money, then their needs have little economic demand behind them. So then what is the economic incentive to supply them with the things they need?
In other words, producing a hundred-million-dollar yacht is a hundred million dollars (less profit margin) that could have been invested toward a more collective good, thus increasing the supply of those goods, thus reducing their scarcity, thus reducing their price.
> Before accounting for taxes and transfers, the U.S. ranked 10th in income inequality; among the countries with more unequal income distributions were France, the U.K. and Ireland. But after taking taxes and transfers into account, the U.S. had the second-highest level of inequality, behind only Chile. (Mexico and Brazil had higher after-tax/transfer Gini scores, but no “before” scores with which to compare them; including them would push the U.S. down to fourth place.)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/12/19/global-in...
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/12/19/global-in...
How does a king existing affect you if you live in a monarchy? One does not need begrudge the king his power to live in fear of it.
A king in a monarchy generally has absolute power to enforce his will. A rich person living in a society of laws does not.
A rich person certainly does not. Rich people as a collective class, however? You're kidding yourself if you claim that the people who make the laws and run our institutions aren't a nearly exclusive subset of the rich class.
Nevertheless, distributed power certainly is less dangerous than concentrated power, isn't it? Inequality is a metric of the overall concentration of such power in our free market society. More inequality means more power in the hands of fewer. They become more like kings each day, when does it stop?
Nevertheless, distributed power certainly is less dangerous than concentrated power, isn't it? Inequality is a metric of the overall concentration of such power in our free market society. More inequality means more power in the hands of fewer. They become more like kings each day, when does it stop?
Because of the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, money is speech. Therefore the more money you have, the more speech you have, and the more speech you have the more loudly your voice is heard. The more money you have, the more political influence you have. Because of the Citizens United decision, the politicians are no longer beholden to the will of the voters, but to the will of the donors. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make law, that is the providence of the Congress, but here they made law. Money is speech and corporations are people. If you can't match their donations, you shut sit down and shut the fuck up because you do not count anymore with your pithy vote an no money to donate.
There's plenty of countries that are higher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_in...
Most of those countries aren't exactly paragons of political stability, but they're probably not going to undergo a french revolution any time soon.
Most of those countries aren't exactly paragons of political stability, but they're probably not going to undergo a french revolution any time soon.
Viva la revolution.
donatj(4)
[deleted]
He gave the Unabomber’s manifesto four stars on Goodreads, and described Unabomber as a "political revolutionary".
Excerpts from his review:
"It’s easy to quickly and thoughtless write this off as the manifesto of a lunatic, in order to avoid facing some of the uncomfortable problems it identifies. But it’s simply impossible to ignore how prescient many of his predictions about modern society turned out."
"He was a violent individual - rightfully imprisoned - who maimed innocent people. While these actions tend to be characterized as those of a crazy luddite, however, they are more accurately seen as those of an extreme political revolutionary."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/luigi-mang...
Excerpts from his review:
"It’s easy to quickly and thoughtless write this off as the manifesto of a lunatic, in order to avoid facing some of the uncomfortable problems it identifies. But it’s simply impossible to ignore how prescient many of his predictions about modern society turned out."
"He was a violent individual - rightfully imprisoned - who maimed innocent people. While these actions tend to be characterized as those of a crazy luddite, however, they are more accurately seen as those of an extreme political revolutionary."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/luigi-mang...
What you're missing here (and all the media copy-pasting the review) is that the review is a quote from reddit.com/r/climate https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone...
The excerpts from the review posted here were _not_ from the section that was quoting the reddit post
I still don’t get how people miss this - he explicitly states it’s a quote, he even puts it in quotation marks.
People see what they want to I suppose.
People see what they want to I suppose.
I think at least part of the problem was that the quotation contained quotes itself—we could probably turn this into a discussion about nested quote marks, unicode quotes vs. ascii, and character escaping if we really wanted it to be relevant to HN's core domain...
For anyone reading stuff like this, read Ellul’s Technological Society instead. Optionally followed by “The Meaning of the City.” I haven’t read the manifesto and don’t plan to; it apparently cited Ellul a fair amount and Ellul seems like a saner guide.
Actually, David Skrbina's "The Metaphysics of Technology" is the most easily readable, comprehensive cover of critical philosophical views towards technology from the ancient greeks until modern time.
Ted K made virtually no reference to Ellul in his manifesto either. In either case, both were quite sane. Ted's manifesto is not a philosophical analysis of technology like Ellul or Skrbina. Ted's manifesto is a practical treatise agains technology and its primary thesis is that technological society must be destroyed.
Ted K made virtually no reference to Ellul in his manifesto either. In either case, both were quite sane. Ted's manifesto is not a philosophical analysis of technology like Ellul or Skrbina. Ted's manifesto is a practical treatise agains technology and its primary thesis is that technological society must be destroyed.
Why not both? Ted Kaczynski was an important thinker whether or not you agree with his thesis and methods. ISAIF was published in newspapers and the sky didn't fall.
I tried to read Kaczynski's manifesto once and came away with the impression he was mentally ill. I think there's stuff in there that impresses people with personality types who are disposed to agree with him, and it sounds cogent to those people, but I found it hard to escape that he was pretty incoherent and made logical leaps into a private reality.
I mean, he was mentally ill. He was literally a victim of MKULTRA. That does not necessarily disqualify everything he wrote, however.
I can't recall the details, but I saw a documentary that made me doubt that the mkultra experience was very formative for him. Iirc he had a big change in his outlook and demeanor at around the typical age of onset for schizophrenia and similar issues. According to what I've read, these conditions seemingly have multiple causative factors within an individual, genetic and environmental, where "environmental" factors can include stuff that started in the womb.
[deleted]
“Important thinker” is a stretch. Most actual philosophers of technology are far more coherent and knowledgeable.
I think his ideas come across more clearly and coherently in his later work than in his manifesto, but that's often the case.
I don't regard him as a philosopher but rather an agitator, not unlike Thomas Paine or (insert your preferred historical figure here). This largely because his writing is not in a spirit of inquiry over where technology might go, rather it is conclusory - industrialism is path-dependent and net negative, with the only open questions being how to undermine it effectively.
I don't regard him as a philosopher but rather an agitator, not unlike Thomas Paine or (insert your preferred historical figure here). This largely because his writing is not in a spirit of inquiry over where technology might go, rather it is conclusory - industrialism is path-dependent and net negative, with the only open questions being how to undermine it effectively.
His works read like a book-smart guy that thought his intelligence in X field translated into intelligence at large. It didn't, and frankly his actions were so illogical and nonsensical that it's a puzzle why people think he is some sort of misunderstood genius.
He's no different than the many, many cranks writing ill-informed manifestos online.
He's no different than the many, many cranks writing ill-informed manifestos online.
You should read it, It did not cite Ellul.
+1 on Ellul’s work. Though it is quite long.
A book with similar sentiment that is more approachable is Neil Postman’s Technopoly.
A book with similar sentiment that is more approachable is Neil Postman’s Technopoly.
Good-looking Unabomber with terrible opsec is pretty spot on for this guy.
The unabomber made some good points though. First quote is solid analysis of him
Indeed. I wish he found a productive way to get some real traction on his ideas.
I think it has been long enough to say that the bombings were not productive.
I think it has been long enough to say that the bombings were not productive.
Actually, his bombings got his manifesto published and the manifesto did get some traction in places.
I think you are confusing exposure with productivity.
Since the manifesto advocated taking down industrial society and that hasn't been done, it's hard to judge the productivity of the thing while the outcome isn't known I guess.
Like I said:
>I think it has been long enough to say that the bombings were not productive.
We can revisit this conversation in another 30 years if you wish.
>I think it has been long enough to say that the bombings were not productive.
We can revisit this conversation in another 30 years if you wish.
He's had a huge societal impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth. The lack of apparent "productivity" is caused by forces beyond anyone's control (nature of market economies, etc.)
Oh wow, you're attributing this ideology to Ted? There is a long history.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism
I will say that Ted's manifesto certainly inspired me to work on degrowth and alternative ways and I know quite a few others too.
Like primarily HN, the only place I've ever heard people speak positively of it. Amazing how frequently this comes up here too, y'all have to be the guy's biggest remaining fanbase at this point.
I have a feeling that most people who think positively about it also know that there's not much point by definition in talking about it in mainstream society since it is fundamentally incompatible with modern society itself.
I'm seeing similar sentiments anywhere there's a significant American audience — e.g. reddit, bluesky.
The manfiesto is a 1960s screed about SJWs. You might as well just read a Neo-Twitter thread and get the exact same experience.
Only part of it is about what Ted called 'leftists'. About 2/3rds of it has nothing to do with leftism.
I don't see the point. The Unabomber manifesto had nothing to do with bombs. It is a commentary on the state of technology in society and a commentary on leftism.
You can't say it had nothing to do with them. At a minimum, the manifesto directly motivated them.
Im not a Kaczynski scholar, so maybe it is possible to embrace the philosophy and come to sperate conclusions, but that is rarely the case for manifestos. They usually make strong positive claims about the necessity and justification of the author's actions.
Im not a Kaczynski scholar, so maybe it is possible to embrace the philosophy and come to sperate conclusions, but that is rarely the case for manifestos. They usually make strong positive claims about the necessity and justification of the author's actions.
The objective of the killings was to get the manifesto published in mainstream media. If you actually read it, which I'm guessing you didn't, then you'd see that Ted K did not really advocate random killings. He was concerned about taking down industrial civlization entirely.
1) I dont think you are engaging in good faith. Good faith discussions dont include cynical asides, but I will give it one last chance.
2) There is a contraction in saying the manifesto has nothing to do with the killings, while its pulication is the primary motivation for the killings.
3) Kaczynski started bombing in 78 and mailed the manifesto to the news in 95. Kaczynski has similar essays before bombing, but at no time between 78 and 95 tried to leverage killings for exposure.
2) There is a contraction in saying the manifesto has nothing to do with the killings, while its pulication is the primary motivation for the killings.
3) Kaczynski started bombing in 78 and mailed the manifesto to the news in 95. Kaczynski has similar essays before bombing, but at no time between 78 and 95 tried to leverage killings for exposure.
I'm not the person you originally replied to, but I tend to agree with them in the sense of the writings not having much to do with the bombings.
There can exist a corpus of ideas, and there can be actions people take due to their beliefs in those ideas, but if those actions don't particularly have much to do with the actual ideas, we can say one doesn't have much to do with the other. I'd give the New Testament as another example where the idea corpus and actions taken in its name tend to diverge.
There can exist a corpus of ideas, and there can be actions people take due to their beliefs in those ideas, but if those actions don't particularly have much to do with the actual ideas, we can say one doesn't have much to do with the other. I'd give the New Testament as another example where the idea corpus and actions taken in its name tend to diverge.
The philosophy could be separated in concept. My point was that, in reality, it absolutely was not.
The claim "The Unabomber manifesto had nothing to do with bombs" is one of fact and easily refuted by history.
In a parallel universe, someone else could have penned similar ideas and not conducted the bombings. In this universe, the bombings were entirely motivated by the ideas stated in the manifesto.
The claim "The Unabomber manifesto had nothing to do with bombs" is one of fact and easily refuted by history.
In a parallel universe, someone else could have penned similar ideas and not conducted the bombings. In this universe, the bombings were entirely motivated by the ideas stated in the manifesto.
Okay, that's a reasonable distinction. I agree with you.
I think the reason this discussion is frequently had, is that people will read the manifesto, recognize that it discusses some interesting issues in a self-consistent way, and want to discuss those ideas without simultaneously heading off semi-veiled accusations of "are you going to blow stuff up now too?".
In fact, I would argue that considering that the Unabomber manifesto has been inspiration to at least two very intelligent people as they commit targeted murder against strangers, there is something interesting and unusual about that corpus of ideas compared to other writings by other figures.
I'm unaware of any highly educated people who have become similarly radicalized after reading Mein Kampf. Something is uniquely appealing about Kaczynski's writings.
I think the reason this discussion is frequently had, is that people will read the manifesto, recognize that it discusses some interesting issues in a self-consistent way, and want to discuss those ideas without simultaneously heading off semi-veiled accusations of "are you going to blow stuff up now too?".
In fact, I would argue that considering that the Unabomber manifesto has been inspiration to at least two very intelligent people as they commit targeted murder against strangers, there is something interesting and unusual about that corpus of ideas compared to other writings by other figures.
I'm unaware of any highly educated people who have become similarly radicalized after reading Mein Kampf. Something is uniquely appealing about Kaczynski's writings.
On that I agree. When I read the manifesto, I thought there were a number of incredibly prescient ideas. Other parts I disagreed with.
I agree that there's a distinction between having an outside opinion about the direction of society, and becoming a terrorist.
It ultimately comes down to if someone truly believes that the ends justify the means.
In my opinion, deontological morality is primarily what prevents terrorism, followed by individual humility and acceptance of fallibility.
Unfortunately, I think utilitarianism and consequentialism are currently in Ascension in the USA.
I agree that there's a distinction between having an outside opinion about the direction of society, and becoming a terrorist.
It ultimately comes down to if someone truly believes that the ends justify the means.
In my opinion, deontological morality is primarily what prevents terrorism, followed by individual humility and acceptance of fallibility.
Unfortunately, I think utilitarianism and consequentialism are currently in Ascension in the USA.
My takeaway from this is that what would have saved this man is a proper liberal arts degree. I can't deny that there are reasons for engineering degrees being as focused as they are, but he clearly didn't get the chance to work out his philosophical ideas in an appropriately challenging environment.
Or, it's good he didn't get a proper liberal arts degree, so he wasn't saddled with mealy-mouth excuses for why things are the way they are.
My takeaway is that an engineering degree doesn't have anything to do with a guy that, from that message, looks to me as an arrogant narcissist (by how smart he tries to be) who likely doesn't have trained too well his acceptance for frustration and who seems to give in his impulses disregarding anything else.
And your takeaway is, for me, infantile, naive and dangerous. This guys is not a victim of a system, this guy is a killer, whether we like that CEO or not.
And your takeaway is, for me, infantile, naive and dangerous. This guys is not a victim of a system, this guy is a killer, whether we like that CEO or not.
Very contrarian take I think. Most people see that the CEO isn't just unliked, he's actively responsible for the deaths of many. So, for many, his death is justified. As the legal system would never find him guilty for something all knew he was guilty of.
[flagged]
> So, for many, his death is justified.
For the majority? Come on, if you guys don't like private healthcare (and why would you?) then there's a democratic process you can follow to change it. Encouraging executions on the streets might feel good, but it's not going to achieve anything, even if you think it's justified.
For the majority? Come on, if you guys don't like private healthcare (and why would you?) then there's a democratic process you can follow to change it. Encouraging executions on the streets might feel good, but it's not going to achieve anything, even if you think it's justified.
I don't think people should have to accept dying with medical care they already paid for unavailable to them, and I don't think they should have to accept it even if the majority of people vote for that.
There's a lot of things that can be justified for the good of society (when in Rome and all that), but I just firmly think this isn't one of them.
There's a lot of things that can be justified for the good of society (when in Rome and all that), but I just firmly think this isn't one of them.
[flagged]
No, of course not. Have you honestly given up on democracy over there? If your country weren't so damn big, I would just pity such a descent, but as it is, it's terrifying to the rest of the world.
Yes, absolutely. My entire life I've watched this play out. Not once were we ever close to free healthcare for all citizens. For every human that demands this there are thousands of dollars of lobbying at the ready and lawmakers don't even cost that much. You can apparently buy off a house rep for as little as $20k.
Are you seriously asking people that lost family members because of the greed of C-level individuals to not lose hope on allegedly democratic processes that can't solve their issues?
> Have you honestly given up on democracy over there?
Pretty much. Look up "citizens united". It turned USA into an oligarchy. Billionaires are allowed to buy elections, and politicians are beholden to the billionaires.
Pretty much. Look up "citizens united". It turned USA into an oligarchy. Billionaires are allowed to buy elections, and politicians are beholden to the billionaires.
0dayz(1)
What’s your point? I haven’t read the manifesto, but I have read that many consider it uncomfortably correct
The Unabomber's MO was politically-motivated terror attacks aimed at high-rank targets. That's exactly what the NYC killing was, so it supports the claim that this guy did it.
They weren't "high-rank targets". At least, many were not. They included a university president and an airline president, several college professors, but also grad students and owners of small computer stores. And the president of the California Forestry Association, who was probably an important person among foresters, but not so much in wider society.
In case anyone was curious, Wikipedia calls the California Forestry Association a "timber industry lobbying group".
The Unabomber killed innocent people. That's a very different MO from this guy.
Well, Kaczynski thought they were guilty. The intended recipients that is; not sure if he made any statement on employees who were injured by opening mail intended for their boss.
In his later writing like Anti-tech Revolution he advocated for strategic actions that would make a return to a pre-technological society (apparently 18th century pastoralism or something similar) inevitable, but sort of threw up his hands over figuring how to meet that criterion.
In his later writing like Anti-tech Revolution he advocated for strategic actions that would make a return to a pre-technological society (apparently 18th century pastoralism or something similar) inevitable, but sort of threw up his hands over figuring how to meet that criterion.
Did he think the people on the airliner were guilty?
Maybe? If I recall correctly his original moment of radicalization was having the peace of his rustic cabin disturbed by some tourist loudly operating an ATV or jetski. However as far as I'm aware that's the only indiscriminate mass attack he undertook; I don't know if the change was motivated by a shift in his moral viewpoint or he decided narrow targeting was a more effective tactic.
Context for the confused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_444
Context for the confused: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_444
>having the peace of his rustic cabin disturbed by some tourist loudly operating an ATV or jetski.
It was a sawmill!
When I saw the documentary about him, I remember thinking that he went to such extremes to get away from people, living without power or water, absolutely in the middle of nowhere, only to have his peace shattered by the reopening of some stupid sawmill.
I feel a bit like Ted when my stupid neighbors decide to use their leafblower many times each week.
God forbid anyone should have any peace. Oh my god, a leaf!! I must blow it somewhere else at once!!
It was a sawmill!
When I saw the documentary about him, I remember thinking that he went to such extremes to get away from people, living without power or water, absolutely in the middle of nowhere, only to have his peace shattered by the reopening of some stupid sawmill.
I feel a bit like Ted when my stupid neighbors decide to use their leafblower many times each week.
God forbid anyone should have any peace. Oh my god, a leaf!! I must blow it somewhere else at once!!
Nit: it was not the middle of nowhere. It was 25 minutes from
Lincoln which is full of tourists.
Why do you have a greater right to peace than your neighbors do a right to clean?
Peace comes from within
Peace comes from within
What an absurd take. People do actually have a right to "quiet enjoyment" in their homes.
If everyone made that amount of noise, the area we live in would be completely unbearable.
I wouldn't complain if he only used his stupidly loud blower when some leaves had built up, or used a rake for the three leaves he's blowing every time.
Or picked them up by hand. Or any of a number of different options that don't ruin the environment for everyone within 100m. But no.
Personally, I believe that ruining the environment should have a cost attached. But it unfortunately doesn't, so selfish dickheads gonna dickhead and ruin the environment for everyone.
Let me guess, a leaf blowing aficionado? Giant truck with big manly exhaust driver? Muh rights?
If everyone made that amount of noise, the area we live in would be completely unbearable.
I wouldn't complain if he only used his stupidly loud blower when some leaves had built up, or used a rake for the three leaves he's blowing every time.
Or picked them up by hand. Or any of a number of different options that don't ruin the environment for everyone within 100m. But no.
Personally, I believe that ruining the environment should have a cost attached. But it unfortunately doesn't, so selfish dickheads gonna dickhead and ruin the environment for everyone.
Let me guess, a leaf blowing aficionado? Giant truck with big manly exhaust driver? Muh rights?
This is a good change take a step back and reflect. Read my comment again and then read your response.
You're being really hostile and assuming the worst of me. You know nothing about me.
I'm just saying that you _might_ be the problem here. I'm not saying that others don't need to be more considerate, but that you only have control over yourself and your reaction.
You're being really hostile and assuming the worst of me. You know nothing about me.
I'm just saying that you _might_ be the problem here. I'm not saying that others don't need to be more considerate, but that you only have control over yourself and your reaction.
>You're being really hostile and assuming the worst of me.
What difference does it make? Doesn't your peace come from within?
I'll explain why:
>Why do you have a greater right to peace than your neighbors do a right to clean?
I think this was quite a rude statement, somehow even more rude because it was posed in a weak, backhanded way as a question.
It is also a question with the embedded presupposition that I actually do think I have a "greater" right to peace than my neighbors do a right to clean. "Assuming the worst of me".
This presupposition is also irrelevant because moving leaves is not inherently an operation that generates large amounts of noise.
I simultaneously believe my neighbor has a right to clean and also that I have a right to peace. These beliefs are not mutually exclusive and also not measurable so cannot be directly compared.
Notably however, my cleaning does not disturb my neighbors peace.
You don't know me or my situation except what I've stated, which was that I am living next to someone using a leafblower many times per week.
My strongly-held opinion is that there's no legitimate reason to use a leafblower many times a week in a highly-populated area unless you're being a selfish asshole. I think it was pretty clear that I would hold that opinion.
Do you disagree? I don't know because you haven't stated a position, only insultingly and weakly implied what you think my reaction should be (which is: no reaction, lobotomized and happy, everything is ok because I am non-reactive).
If you disagree, then I know where we stand and consequently what I think of your advice.
But your armchair psychology ("what do you think?") I found insulting.
>You know nothing about me.
I know something.
I know that your response to someone being disturbed by a neighbor using a leafblower many times per week was to imply (once again, in a weak backhanded non-committal way) that that person is being unreasonable to think that was excessive, and to offer a pithy one sentence non-solution to the problem.
A "solution" that is basically just me ignoring the fact my own home environment is being ruined by an asshole so I can't enjoy music, read a book or do basically whatever activity I would like to quietly enjoy.
Once again, in my own home, disturbing nobody.
>I'm just saying that you _might_ be the problem here.
Sitting quietly in your own home _might_ be a problem. I mean, what is there to be said about this? Do you want to step back and reflect on how this sounds?
Thanks for your concern. I'm comfortable with thinking my neighbor is an asshole. I don't love the situation, but that's my burden. I don't see any way around that without extreme action.
My original post was an impotent shout into the void, in the vain hope that maybe someone somewhere might be influenced to not be such a noisy asshole. Maybe my neighbor is reading!
>Peace comes from within
I find this pithy response to minimize the legitimacy of my concerns, and also insulting, as if I wouldn't have thought to ignore the noise without this insight.
Do you honestly think I wouldn't have thought to ignore the noise? I haven't tried? Do you actually believe you were offering any useful advice here?
If I didn't care about enjoying quiet activities in my life, and also somehow hadn't managed to discover this insight myself, then your pithy response might be helpful.
Unfortunately for me, I do value my own quiet activities.
And I don't actually see a way to simultaneously enjoy peaceful quiet activities, while also tolerating extremely loud annoying noise. And let's be honest, it's extremely loud annoying noise. Do you disagree?
If you don't have a solution to that conundrum, then perhaps it's best that you don't offer advice.
Sometimes people are assholes and there isn't a solution. I realize that. Unfortunately I'm not capable of being happy about it, as I am not comatose and my peace, the quiet enjoyment that I am supposedly entitled to inside my own home, is unfortunately somewhat dependent on external factors.
So, I'm unhappy about it, and telling me that I'm the problem because I'm not trying harder to ignore that unhappiness doesn't help.
What difference does it make? Doesn't your peace come from within?
I'll explain why:
>Why do you have a greater right to peace than your neighbors do a right to clean?
I think this was quite a rude statement, somehow even more rude because it was posed in a weak, backhanded way as a question.
It is also a question with the embedded presupposition that I actually do think I have a "greater" right to peace than my neighbors do a right to clean. "Assuming the worst of me".
This presupposition is also irrelevant because moving leaves is not inherently an operation that generates large amounts of noise.
I simultaneously believe my neighbor has a right to clean and also that I have a right to peace. These beliefs are not mutually exclusive and also not measurable so cannot be directly compared.
Notably however, my cleaning does not disturb my neighbors peace.
You don't know me or my situation except what I've stated, which was that I am living next to someone using a leafblower many times per week.
My strongly-held opinion is that there's no legitimate reason to use a leafblower many times a week in a highly-populated area unless you're being a selfish asshole. I think it was pretty clear that I would hold that opinion.
Do you disagree? I don't know because you haven't stated a position, only insultingly and weakly implied what you think my reaction should be (which is: no reaction, lobotomized and happy, everything is ok because I am non-reactive).
If you disagree, then I know where we stand and consequently what I think of your advice.
But your armchair psychology ("what do you think?") I found insulting.
>You know nothing about me.
I know something.
I know that your response to someone being disturbed by a neighbor using a leafblower many times per week was to imply (once again, in a weak backhanded non-committal way) that that person is being unreasonable to think that was excessive, and to offer a pithy one sentence non-solution to the problem.
A "solution" that is basically just me ignoring the fact my own home environment is being ruined by an asshole so I can't enjoy music, read a book or do basically whatever activity I would like to quietly enjoy.
Once again, in my own home, disturbing nobody.
>I'm just saying that you _might_ be the problem here.
Sitting quietly in your own home _might_ be a problem. I mean, what is there to be said about this? Do you want to step back and reflect on how this sounds?
Thanks for your concern. I'm comfortable with thinking my neighbor is an asshole. I don't love the situation, but that's my burden. I don't see any way around that without extreme action.
My original post was an impotent shout into the void, in the vain hope that maybe someone somewhere might be influenced to not be such a noisy asshole. Maybe my neighbor is reading!
>Peace comes from within
I find this pithy response to minimize the legitimacy of my concerns, and also insulting, as if I wouldn't have thought to ignore the noise without this insight.
Do you honestly think I wouldn't have thought to ignore the noise? I haven't tried? Do you actually believe you were offering any useful advice here?
If I didn't care about enjoying quiet activities in my life, and also somehow hadn't managed to discover this insight myself, then your pithy response might be helpful.
Unfortunately for me, I do value my own quiet activities.
And I don't actually see a way to simultaneously enjoy peaceful quiet activities, while also tolerating extremely loud annoying noise. And let's be honest, it's extremely loud annoying noise. Do you disagree?
If you don't have a solution to that conundrum, then perhaps it's best that you don't offer advice.
Sometimes people are assholes and there isn't a solution. I realize that. Unfortunately I'm not capable of being happy about it, as I am not comatose and my peace, the quiet enjoyment that I am supposedly entitled to inside my own home, is unfortunately somewhat dependent on external factors.
So, I'm unhappy about it, and telling me that I'm the problem because I'm not trying harder to ignore that unhappiness doesn't help.
Did I miss something? Under which court of law was the person this dude murdered found guilty of something?
Innocence and morality isn't restricted to the determinations or domain of the legal system.
You don't have to go through the courts to be guilty of something
Do you need to be tried in court to be guilty of something? The guy he killed contributed to the suffering of many Americans. In this country that should be illegal but it isn’t, it’s rewarded.
It's very interesting to me that everyone is blaming the CEO and not the system. The tethering of health care coverage to employment is the real issue. If decoupled, people could actually shop around and not purchase from companies with high denial rates.
It's baffling to me that people are calling this a righteous cleanse when it was purely the murder of an innocent man with a family.
It's baffling to me that people are calling this a righteous cleanse when it was purely the murder of an innocent man with a family.
Being part of the system does not absolve one of consequences of one's actions. Auschwitz management was part of the system. UHC wasn't an average participant it was really pushing the boundaries of abusive practises to the extreme. Go to any place where medical professionals hang out online and read their accounts of UHC shenanigans.
Innocent? No, he was a bad person with blood on his hands, made rich by the pain and suffering of the sick. Those people have families, too.
I think all of these things can be true. It is possible for one person to be ambivalent about the killing of a bad man, acknowledge that he had a family and that is unfortunate, and accept that the system is flawed and that systematic change is required to materially improve things.
I think all of these things can be true. It is possible for one person to be ambivalent about the killing of a bad man, acknowledge that he had a family and that is unfortunate, and accept that the system is flawed and that systematic change is required to materially improve things.
I agree that the system needs to change.
I agree it's fair to criticize executives who are responsible for suffering.
But I also think we have to be very careful with the messaging about that.
Because I don't want to live in a society where we think that violence is an acceptable solution to injustice.
It doesn't lead to a good place.
Yes, sometimes it's necessary. But very very very rarely.
I agree it's fair to criticize executives who are responsible for suffering.
But I also think we have to be very careful with the messaging about that.
Because I don't want to live in a society where we think that violence is an acceptable solution to injustice.
It doesn't lead to a good place.
Yes, sometimes it's necessary. But very very very rarely.
> Because I don't want to live in a society where we think that violence is an acceptable solution to injustice.
Personally, I'm with you. I absolutely don't want justice delivered via a mob or a vigilante without due process or the other protections that a fair justice system is supposed to provide us with.
This is why it's so important that congress, police, prosecutors, judges, and even juries do their jobs. If the people have no legal, accessible, and effective means to get justice they might resort to illegal means to get it. The longer people are denied justice, the more likely it is they'll take it into their own hands.
Personally, I'm with you. I absolutely don't want justice delivered via a mob or a vigilante without due process or the other protections that a fair justice system is supposed to provide us with.
This is why it's so important that congress, police, prosecutors, judges, and even juries do their jobs. If the people have no legal, accessible, and effective means to get justice they might resort to illegal means to get it. The longer people are denied justice, the more likely it is they'll take it into their own hands.
There are peaceful means to affect policy. But not only you have to vote for the right people, you also have to let candidates know what they have to promise in order to gain the votes.
This election cycle nobody quite focused on healthcare; more abstract culture wars were in focus instead.
You can't blame that on congress and on judges etc. The whole society is responsible. The way we talk (or not talk) to our relatives and neighbors has profound effects on the society you'll live in
This election cycle nobody quite focused on healthcare; more abstract culture wars were in focus instead.
You can't blame that on congress and on judges etc. The whole society is responsible. The way we talk (or not talk) to our relatives and neighbors has profound effects on the society you'll live in
Violence is always the solution. We just usually deputize the police and courts and prisons to do it for us.
Even that violence is better when minimized right?
You don't want police to apply excessive force. You won't want innocent bystanders to be shot by the police. You don't want the police to hurt people just because they think they may be guilty, etc. Those things do happen and when they happen people get upset and rightfully so.
You don't want police to apply excessive force. You won't want innocent bystanders to be shot by the police. You don't want the police to hurt people just because they think they may be guilty, etc. Those things do happen and when they happen people get upset and rightfully so.
Violence is only necessary when people refuse to abide by the rules. If nobody was violent, cops wouldn't need to be. If people adhered to the system and went to jail whem convicted, there would be no problems. Violence begets violence. It is possible to craft a society where we leave it in our past.
Ah, right, it’s never the CEOs blame for bad things, that’s why they get they are paid so little. Or was it the other way around, they are paid a lot because of their responsibility?
Anyway, it’s the State’s and regulations fault, as usual.
Anyway, it’s the State’s and regulations fault, as usual.
This is the legislation’s fault though. As long as insurance payments have to balance with insurance payouts, insurance companies need to strictly control payouts. An insurance company with no checks on treatments will have premiums significantly higher than the ones that do and ultimately won’t get picked.
Yes, of course, of course. CEOs just follow the laws strictly. That's why Thompson is accused of insider trading, because of legislation.
People are lazy, and blaming an individual is easy, while understanding complex systems is hard.
Understanding that the role of a CEO is essentially a replaceable cog in a vast and complex machine is beyond the capabilities of most people’s good-bad moral system, and so it’s easier to scapegoat one guy instead of looking at the deeper structure.
Understanding that the role of a CEO is essentially a replaceable cog in a vast and complex machine is beyond the capabilities of most people’s good-bad moral system, and so it’s easier to scapegoat one guy instead of looking at the deeper structure.
The concept of a "chief" is deeply rooted in human psychology and thus also in the circuitry behind moral intuition.
We spawned an emergent disembodied super-human organism called "society" that lives through the action of individual humans like an ant colony lives through the actions of individual ants.
But yet we have the strong need to put a human face on it. We need to attribute agency to something that has behaviour.
In order to explain phenomena like thunder, earthquakes etc, humans throughout history have often felt it much easier to imagine some "person in the sky" being the cause of it.
The same mechanism powers many conspiracy theories. "Global financial system that's hard to understand? Nah, it's just the Rothschilds".
Now, in some cases like CEOs of companies that do harm, it's harder to dismiss the individual responsibility, because there is a freedom of choice that the individual could do.
It's easier thus to pin the blame on that single cog rather than blaming the whole society for not voting the right people who would fix the problem at the root.
But ultimately, if that one cog would refuse to do harm then another person would take their place until the rules of the game would be patched to prevent that.
Punishing culpable people is effective only inasmuch it deters from the unwanted behaviour.
Letting people administer "justice" via violence is not conducive to a just and peaceful society. The side effects of letting that happen will backfire and will undo any "justice" improvements you may seek to achieve.
I think we all can personally loathe big bad CEOs and still think that murdering them is the wrong thing you do no matter what your moral theory is.
We spawned an emergent disembodied super-human organism called "society" that lives through the action of individual humans like an ant colony lives through the actions of individual ants.
But yet we have the strong need to put a human face on it. We need to attribute agency to something that has behaviour.
In order to explain phenomena like thunder, earthquakes etc, humans throughout history have often felt it much easier to imagine some "person in the sky" being the cause of it.
The same mechanism powers many conspiracy theories. "Global financial system that's hard to understand? Nah, it's just the Rothschilds".
Now, in some cases like CEOs of companies that do harm, it's harder to dismiss the individual responsibility, because there is a freedom of choice that the individual could do.
It's easier thus to pin the blame on that single cog rather than blaming the whole society for not voting the right people who would fix the problem at the root.
But ultimately, if that one cog would refuse to do harm then another person would take their place until the rules of the game would be patched to prevent that.
Punishing culpable people is effective only inasmuch it deters from the unwanted behaviour.
Letting people administer "justice" via violence is not conducive to a just and peaceful society. The side effects of letting that happen will backfire and will undo any "justice" improvements you may seek to achieve.
I think we all can personally loathe big bad CEOs and still think that murdering them is the wrong thing you do no matter what your moral theory is.
I agree fully. One additional comment I have is that, while the CEO chooses to work in that role, the general public is not always privy as to what their influences are.
It's possible this CEO was fighting to reduce claim denial rates but was squeezed or cutoff from his legal team in every attempt. It's also possible he pushed to deny as often as possible. But until we have evidence, it seems a bit wild to attribute "willingness to work in an influential role at a company massively disliked" with complicity in crimes against humanity. And as you point out, it is never acceptable to use violence offensively against such a person, even if he was foaming at the mouth to hit the deny button daily.
It's possible this CEO was fighting to reduce claim denial rates but was squeezed or cutoff from his legal team in every attempt. It's also possible he pushed to deny as often as possible. But until we have evidence, it seems a bit wild to attribute "willingness to work in an influential role at a company massively disliked" with complicity in crimes against humanity. And as you point out, it is never acceptable to use violence offensively against such a person, even if he was foaming at the mouth to hit the deny button daily.
I'm personally fine with scapegoating all CEOs. Basically anyone over a certain pay.
10M is my number but I'm sure all the temporarily embarrassed billionaires on here would be shocked by such a low number.
Anything over that and I'd be quite happy to see them "adjusted" and all the cogs replaced.
Imagine if you were in a tribe of 100 and 1 person thought they should earn 40 times the other 99.
What do you think would happen in that tribe? Well that's what we've got now.
The average personal wealth of people in the top 1% is more than a thousand times that of people in bottom 50%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Eventually, they will reap what they sow.
10M is my number but I'm sure all the temporarily embarrassed billionaires on here would be shocked by such a low number.
Anything over that and I'd be quite happy to see them "adjusted" and all the cogs replaced.
Imagine if you were in a tribe of 100 and 1 person thought they should earn 40 times the other 99.
What do you think would happen in that tribe? Well that's what we've got now.
The average personal wealth of people in the top 1% is more than a thousand times that of people in bottom 50%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Eventually, they will reap what they sow.
the system is the people propelling it.
Bureaucrats of the holocaust were also innocent?
No man that gets a bonus when people that could be saved die is an innocent man
HN is quite a glass house. Moralizing then back to selling peoples data and ensuring warehouse workers suffer and get our kids get addicted to doomscrolling, while selling people more shit they don't need. Then use that money to push up house prices.
What makes you think that people supporting the exit of evil CEOs also support evil CEOs selling people's data?
You don't think there's a single person on here celebrating this killing who also worked at Facebook, Google, or the like at any point in their lives?
I'm sure there are people here who have caused a lot of harm to others while working at amazon or google or facebook. Probably even a few who should be behind bars. It's possible that some of them were happy to hear that the CEO was killed. I doubt it's most of us though.
There's a lot of space between "knowingly kills people for profit" and "collects user data from an app/works on a manipulative algorithm" which could make it easy for some people to pretend that they aren't doing "real" harm or to believe that the CEO was a "real problem" while they personally aren't.
I hope that the more people are held accountable for what they do (regardless of how that happens) it'll force others to do some self-reflection even if only out of a sense of self-preservation, but I'd be careful about generalizing too much. The people posting here are a pretty diverse lot, and you can find hypocrisy in any sufficiently large group. I wouldn't call HN a "glass house" but it's got a few big windows.
There's a lot of space between "knowingly kills people for profit" and "collects user data from an app/works on a manipulative algorithm" which could make it easy for some people to pretend that they aren't doing "real" harm or to believe that the CEO was a "real problem" while they personally aren't.
I hope that the more people are held accountable for what they do (regardless of how that happens) it'll force others to do some self-reflection even if only out of a sense of self-preservation, but I'd be careful about generalizing too much. The people posting here are a pretty diverse lot, and you can find hypocrisy in any sufficiently large group. I wouldn't call HN a "glass house" but it's got a few big windows.
As always, there is a cost benefit analysis one must perform when doing anything, including administering healthcare treatment. Is it worth $40M in costs to save a 94 year old from death today when the expected payoff is 2 more months of life?
I'm all for changing the system, but this action likely won't do that.
I'm all for changing the system, but this action likely won't do that.
Literally every single one of us is guilty, then. You could personally do something today that would save a life, instead of what you'll actually do. That doesn't make you guilty of anything, though.
> Literally every single one of us is guilty, then
Yes, all of "us" doing it industrial scale and getting paid for it are guilty. Not me, but maybe you.
Yes, all of "us" doing it industrial scale and getting paid for it are guilty. Not me, but maybe you.
I am not, as I'm sure you guessed, the CEO of a healthcare corporation. I'm probably as equally guilty as you are, in your own terms.
You haven’t missed anything, we are merely witnessing the scary, pathetic beginning of the internet version of medieval peasant mob violence.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case.
The basic premise, as I understand it, is that there is nothing illegal about coming to the wrong conclusion as a juror. I have also read that it can be contempt of court to try to convince jurors to intentionally come to a conclusion not based on the law and evidence.
So what would happen if a single juror just remained steadfast that the defendant was innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Can a judge remove that juror if they believe they are not being forthright?
So what would happen if a single juror just remained steadfast that the defendant was innocent despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Can a judge remove that juror if they believe they are not being forthright?
Whenever people justify why the US's jury system is better than the judgement by judges that's prevalent in continental Europe it's always about these exact scenarios. If you just want to find facts you don't need a jury of peers. The jury is at least in part there to pass a moral judgement beyond the letter of the law.
From what I understand a juror can only be removed during the jury selection process or if someone outside the jury "tampers" with the jurors. If you get called to jury duty, the quickest way to get out of it is to say you know about jury nullification. But if you don't reveal that and get into the jury you are free to rule as you want and to try to convince the other jurors to do the same.
From what I understand a juror can only be removed during the jury selection process or if someone outside the jury "tampers" with the jurors. If you get called to jury duty, the quickest way to get out of it is to say you know about jury nullification. But if you don't reveal that and get into the jury you are free to rule as you want and to try to convince the other jurors to do the same.
Idea about jury trial is to give people say over how they want their laws enforced and spreading accountability around.
With jury, you can't blame a single person for the result you didn't like. It was your neighbors that decided. And, at the same time, laws get continuously tested. Every time a jury is called, it's like a small section of society (randomly chosen, and later pruned by criteria) gathering verifying if it still makes sense.
As for the facts. While they are very important, law is also about morality. And while facts remain, morality changes all the time.
And regarding Europe. Some of the sentences handed by judges here, are so horrendous, that I would take american style jury over them any day. Especially when it comes to violent crime.
With jury, you can't blame a single person for the result you didn't like. It was your neighbors that decided. And, at the same time, laws get continuously tested. Every time a jury is called, it's like a small section of society (randomly chosen, and later pruned by criteria) gathering verifying if it still makes sense.
As for the facts. While they are very important, law is also about morality. And while facts remain, morality changes all the time.
And regarding Europe. Some of the sentences handed by judges here, are so horrendous, that I would take american style jury over them any day. Especially when it comes to violent crime.
It's the legal equivalent of a firing squad. No execution requires a squad, but you'll certainly need one if you value the health and safety of your executioners.
> But if you don't reveal that and get into the jury you are free to rule as you want and to try to convince the other jurors to do the same.
This is perjury. On your jury duty questionnaire, there was a question (something about "faithfully upholding the law" or something) which is a roundabout way of asking "By the way, you don't plan to do a jury nullification anytime soon, do you?". If you said no to that, then got on a jury, and told everyone to do a jury nullification, you've done perjury, and you actually can be punished for that.
The only legal way to nullify a law is for each member of the jury to individually decide they don't like the law and vote to nullify. You can't convict a jury for falsely acquitting. But you can convict a jury for conspiring to do so.
This is perjury. On your jury duty questionnaire, there was a question (something about "faithfully upholding the law" or something) which is a roundabout way of asking "By the way, you don't plan to do a jury nullification anytime soon, do you?". If you said no to that, then got on a jury, and told everyone to do a jury nullification, you've done perjury, and you actually can be punished for that.
The only legal way to nullify a law is for each member of the jury to individually decide they don't like the law and vote to nullify. You can't convict a jury for falsely acquitting. But you can convict a jury for conspiring to do so.
Trying to nullify with a Michael Scott-style "I DECLARE NULLIFICATIOOOON!" or otherwise mentioning it is probably a bad idea. I suppose if you'll get warned and you do it again you'll be held in contempt. But I'm no expert.
The situation you describe is known as a hung jury, and would result in a mistrial. Usually this means the case is retried later (with a different jury).
The situation you describe is known as a hung jury, and would result in a mistrial. Usually this means the case is retried later (with a different jury).
When the jurors can't agree, for whatever reason, you get a hung jury.
A judge needs cause to remove a juror. This includes a juror refusing to deliberate. In the specific case you bring up, it would be hard to prove that the juror is refusing to deliberate (i.e. "not being forthright") compared to just differently interpreting the facts of the case or the law or disagreeing with how the law should be applied.
It is the purpose of voir dire to weed out jurors with a preexisting bias in the case. You don't want to remove jurors after the case has started, as you run the risk of running out of alternates (there are probably state specific laws on how to handle this without requiring a mistrial though).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
A judge needs cause to remove a juror. This includes a juror refusing to deliberate. In the specific case you bring up, it would be hard to prove that the juror is refusing to deliberate (i.e. "not being forthright") compared to just differently interpreting the facts of the case or the law or disagreeing with how the law should be applied.
It is the purpose of voir dire to weed out jurors with a preexisting bias in the case. You don't want to remove jurors after the case has started, as you run the risk of running out of alternates (there are probably state specific laws on how to handle this without requiring a mistrial though).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
> The basic premise, as I understand it, is that there is nothing illegal about coming to the wrong conclusion as a juror
Note that this works regardless of which direction the wrong conclusion is in.
People always talk about it in the case of a juror voting to acquit someone when the evidence is that they are guilty but juror choose to disregard it, but historically it often went the other way. There's a long history of black people in the US, especially in the South, being convicted by all white juries that almost certainly would not have convicted on the exact same evidence if the accused has been white.
I don't know if there is a name for this, so I'll call it reverse-nullification, with nullification just referring to the case of acquittal of someone despite the evidence.
Unlike a nullification case, an reverse-nullification case is in theory correctable. A nullification case is not correctable because an acquittal by a jury cannot be reversed by the judge or an appeals court. A judge or appeals court can reverse a conviction so could correct an reverse-nullification case.
However, as a practical matter that often cannot actually be done because often the judge or appeals court cannot tell that it was an reverse-nullification case. A case often comes down to conflicting stories from witnesses with the jury having to decide which witnesses to believe. The conviction may have been an reverse-nullification or it might just have been that the jury found the prosecution witnesses more believable.
Note that this works regardless of which direction the wrong conclusion is in.
People always talk about it in the case of a juror voting to acquit someone when the evidence is that they are guilty but juror choose to disregard it, but historically it often went the other way. There's a long history of black people in the US, especially in the South, being convicted by all white juries that almost certainly would not have convicted on the exact same evidence if the accused has been white.
I don't know if there is a name for this, so I'll call it reverse-nullification, with nullification just referring to the case of acquittal of someone despite the evidence.
Unlike a nullification case, an reverse-nullification case is in theory correctable. A nullification case is not correctable because an acquittal by a jury cannot be reversed by the judge or an appeals court. A judge or appeals court can reverse a conviction so could correct an reverse-nullification case.
However, as a practical matter that often cannot actually be done because often the judge or appeals court cannot tell that it was an reverse-nullification case. A case often comes down to conflicting stories from witnesses with the jury having to decide which witnesses to believe. The conviction may have been an reverse-nullification or it might just have been that the jury found the prosecution witnesses more believable.
Pinning your hopes to this is setting yourself up for disappointment
[deleted]
Murder is only justified when it's your business model and behind numbers and profit margins in an Excel sheet are the real people you are sentencing to a lifetime of suffering and/or death.
A quick look at United Health's P/L shows a 6% profit margin. This does not quite support the popular rhetoric of a corporation in search of relentless margin (unless the argument is they are bad at it despite all efforts).
Very interesting, the insurance with the highest rejection rate where the medical spendings are twice the cost per capita compared to European average and the median age is younger, the insurance makes only %6?
What do you do so wrong? What is your mechanism of getting rid of those who provide you the healthcare at low efficiency and hight cost? In Europe we have elections and when those don't yield the desired results we storm the HQ and replace by force.
You can't be expecting that when too many people die the insurance company will lose customers and the shareholders will replace the top management, right?
What do you do so wrong? What is your mechanism of getting rid of those who provide you the healthcare at low efficiency and hight cost? In Europe we have elections and when those don't yield the desired results we storm the HQ and replace by force.
You can't be expecting that when too many people die the insurance company will lose customers and the shareholders will replace the top management, right?
They are required to spend 80% on actual medical care, add various administrative costs etc. and 6% sounds reasonable. Problem is that this incentivizes them to waste as much money as possible but the whole industry has to "agree" to do that for it to work. So that other insurance companies couldn't undercut them.
Aren't health insurance company margins capped? i.e. if they are required to spend 80% on medical care so effectively they can only make more money be bloating costs more and more.
It's better to waste $4.75 by maximizing the inefficiency and costs of the entire system thorough extremely overpriced drugs due to various nonsensical middlemen based market structures, administrative bloat etc. and make 0.25$ than to reduce premiums. Of course it still costs $5 to the society. It might actually be better if they had higher margins...
It's better to waste $4.75 by maximizing the inefficiency and costs of the entire system thorough extremely overpriced drugs due to various nonsensical middlemen based market structures, administrative bloat etc. and make 0.25$ than to reduce premiums. Of course it still costs $5 to the society. It might actually be better if they had higher margins...
Profits after paying executive
salaries, right?
In any case there should not be a profit motive in (health) insurance.
In any case there should not be a profit motive in (health) insurance.
Executive salaries represent less than 0.01% of UHG revenue.
Total revenue is about $320B. Thompson's compensation was $1M cash + about $10m stock (the stock part doesn't impact the company's profit margin).
In any case, executive salaries are basically a rounding error in the books.
Total revenue is about $320B. Thompson's compensation was $1M cash + about $10m stock (the stock part doesn't impact the company's profit margin).
In any case, executive salaries are basically a rounding error in the books.
> the stock part doesn't impact the company's profit margin
It certainly does if you use GAAP. A lot of tech companies cheat by providing GAAP and non-GAPP figures (of course there are some other cases where it makes sense) to hide stock based comp.
It certainly does if you use GAAP. A lot of tech companies cheat by providing GAAP and non-GAPP figures (of course there are some other cases where it makes sense) to hide stock based comp.
... or that they have used creative accounting to come to that number.
Regardless, people who are debilitated by injury or illness aren't going to look at 6% and say, "well, jeeze, I guess these guys really are hard done by."
They're going to wonder why something that costs them tens of thousands of dollars a year (health insurance premiums) isn't paying for a medically-necessary procedure, profits be damned.
Regardless, people who are debilitated by injury or illness aren't going to look at 6% and say, "well, jeeze, I guess these guys really are hard done by."
They're going to wonder why something that costs them tens of thousands of dollars a year (health insurance premiums) isn't paying for a medically-necessary procedure, profits be damned.
All public companies, especially of this size, have their financial statements audited. Of course, shenanigans still happen but I haven't heard any credible claims regarding UNH just yet. More importantly, corporate hanky-panky is almost always designed to boost revenue and margins and not lower them so I am willing to bet the numbers here are trustworthy.
> profits be damned.
But, profits cannot be damned, at least not if you plan on being a going concern. At some point, the companies need to make a profit otherwise they go out of business and cannot provide any healthcare at all.
My point is not that UNH is a sterling example of healthcare service but to point out that the narrative justifying the public outrage is not really logically coherent or supported by evidence. If there is no public healthcare service, you will need to have private insurers. If you have private insurers, they will need to make profit. The best you can do in this situation is make sure there is competition so the profits are not out of line (which seems to be the case) and there is minimal waste in the system (jury is out on that one).
Also, public healthcare is not the panacea that it seems to be promoted as. Healthcare is expensive and at some point, limits will be placed to avoid bankrupting the system. Take a look at any number of the systems of any number of European countries and see the wait times, approvals, etc.
BTW, I support the idea of a government provided healthcare system, but I just don't think it will solve all the problems the way people seem to think it will.
> profits be damned.
But, profits cannot be damned, at least not if you plan on being a going concern. At some point, the companies need to make a profit otherwise they go out of business and cannot provide any healthcare at all.
My point is not that UNH is a sterling example of healthcare service but to point out that the narrative justifying the public outrage is not really logically coherent or supported by evidence. If there is no public healthcare service, you will need to have private insurers. If you have private insurers, they will need to make profit. The best you can do in this situation is make sure there is competition so the profits are not out of line (which seems to be the case) and there is minimal waste in the system (jury is out on that one).
Also, public healthcare is not the panacea that it seems to be promoted as. Healthcare is expensive and at some point, limits will be placed to avoid bankrupting the system. Take a look at any number of the systems of any number of European countries and see the wait times, approvals, etc.
BTW, I support the idea of a government provided healthcare system, but I just don't think it will solve all the problems the way people seem to think it will.
> But, profits cannot be damned, at least not if you plan on being a going concern. At some point, the companies need to make a profit otherwise they go out of business and cannot provide any healthcare at all.
More than a handful of the BCBS health insurance companies run as non-profits. Other countries find a way to make it work without shoveling money into the gaping maw of retirement and pension funds. Hell, even profits are fine. No one expects the people at these companies to work for free. They just expect to receive coverage when they have it deemed medically necessary by a doctor. If that means that c-suiters make a max of $500k a year and that the institutional investors have to kick rocks, that's what that means.
> My point is not that UNH is a sterling example of healthcare service but to point out that the narrative justifying the public outrage is not really logically coherent or supported by evidence.
We have type one diabetics rationing their insulin to the point that they die, while the people who run the companies that are supposed to help cover the price of said insulin make millions of dollars in compensation per year. The American male has a median lifetime earnings of $1.8 million. This isn't logically incoherent or not supported by evidence; if you have a pulse and have looked at American news over the last 15 years, you'll have seen stories about people being screwed by their insurers, sometimes to the point of literal death.
> If you have private insurers, they will need to make profit.
See above.
> Also, public healthcare is not the panacea that it seems to be promoted as. Healthcare is expensive and at some point, limits will be placed to avoid bankrupting the system.
No one's suggesting it's perfect, just that it's better than having profligate executives and major shareholders insult your intelligence by telling you they just don't have the money to cover your claim for prescriptions and necessary procedures after you paid the cost of a decent used car in premiums over the last year. Even wait times seen in socialized systems could be tolerable to those who otherwise would not get to see a doctor.
More than a handful of the BCBS health insurance companies run as non-profits. Other countries find a way to make it work without shoveling money into the gaping maw of retirement and pension funds. Hell, even profits are fine. No one expects the people at these companies to work for free. They just expect to receive coverage when they have it deemed medically necessary by a doctor. If that means that c-suiters make a max of $500k a year and that the institutional investors have to kick rocks, that's what that means.
> My point is not that UNH is a sterling example of healthcare service but to point out that the narrative justifying the public outrage is not really logically coherent or supported by evidence.
We have type one diabetics rationing their insulin to the point that they die, while the people who run the companies that are supposed to help cover the price of said insulin make millions of dollars in compensation per year. The American male has a median lifetime earnings of $1.8 million. This isn't logically incoherent or not supported by evidence; if you have a pulse and have looked at American news over the last 15 years, you'll have seen stories about people being screwed by their insurers, sometimes to the point of literal death.
> If you have private insurers, they will need to make profit.
See above.
> Also, public healthcare is not the panacea that it seems to be promoted as. Healthcare is expensive and at some point, limits will be placed to avoid bankrupting the system.
No one's suggesting it's perfect, just that it's better than having profligate executives and major shareholders insult your intelligence by telling you they just don't have the money to cover your claim for prescriptions and necessary procedures after you paid the cost of a decent used car in premiums over the last year. Even wait times seen in socialized systems could be tolerable to those who otherwise would not get to see a doctor.
I don't think a government-run health system would solve all problems either but it would address a lot of problems re: access, affordability and having a health baseline. Obviously doctors, nurses, supplies, etc are a finite resource and so they can't see everyone all at once so you have to prioritize based on need and severity. I think that's fair compared to... prioritizing based on who can pay.
Why can't US pretty much just directly copy-paste the entirely private (more so than in the the US since there are no Medicare/Medicaid equivalents) Dutch or Swiss systems, though?
If a government-run health system is such a contentious issue... turns out privatized healthcare can work just fine if there is sufficient regulation.
If a government-run health system is such a contentious issue... turns out privatized healthcare can work just fine if there is sufficient regulation.
The US did essentially copy and paste the Swiss system. That's what the ACA was modeled after.
It left out a few key bits though - like requiring those who sign up for healthcare backpay premiums for the entire period they were uninsured to whoever they sign up with.
It left out a few key bits though - like requiring those who sign up for healthcare backpay premiums for the entire period they were uninsured to whoever they sign up with.
Also AFAIK drug prices are fixed nationally and negotiated by the government?
Then the basic plan is around 300-400 CHF (regulated by the government) and the deductibles are capped at CHF 2,500. This seems to be covering the overwhelming majority of costs (if we exclude government + cash) since the volume the market for premium/supplementary coverage seems to be pretty small (<20%):
https://www.deloitte.com/ch/en/Industries/financial-services...
Then the basic plan is around 300-400 CHF (regulated by the government) and the deductibles are capped at CHF 2,500. This seems to be covering the overwhelming majority of costs (if we exclude government + cash) since the volume the market for premium/supplementary coverage seems to be pretty small (<20%):
https://www.deloitte.com/ch/en/Industries/financial-services...
> there is minimal waste in the system (jury is out on that one).
How could that be? Unless that's sarcasm..
I mean the US government alone (so excluding all private spending and insurance companies) spends more on healthcare per capita than many European countries which have universal healthcare.
Switzerland has a pretty much entirely privatized healthcare system (in theory too a much higher degree than the US) which is (relatively) well regulated. Also considerably higher median salaries and GDP per capita (albeit disposable PPP income is quite a bit lower) yet they spend 35% less on healthcare than the US.
How could that be? Unless that's sarcasm..
I mean the US government alone (so excluding all private spending and insurance companies) spends more on healthcare per capita than many European countries which have universal healthcare.
Switzerland has a pretty much entirely privatized healthcare system (in theory too a much higher degree than the US) which is (relatively) well regulated. Also considerably higher median salaries and GDP per capita (albeit disposable PPP income is quite a bit lower) yet they spend 35% less on healthcare than the US.
My understanding is a lot of difference in healthcare spending in Europe v USA can be explained by the cost of pharmaceuticals and the fact that we have fancier (read more expensive) stuff.
The pharmaceuticals pricing is due to the factor that pharma companies believe they can charge higher prices in the US than anywhere else so the US consumer effectively subsidizes the rest of the world. I'm not sure how to solve this problem in a way that lowers prices AND maintains availability of the drugs. The obvious solution is to demand that pharma companies lower prices in the US, but (assuming they are unable to increase prices in Europe) this will just lead to some (many?) drugs not being profitable and reducing availability of drugs for all.
As for the fancier stuff, we do want to have fancier stuff. That means you get better healthcare outcomes for some pretty sick people. We should not want to cut that out. We're in trolley experiment territory when you start discussing whether it is better to have a life-saving, but expensive, procedure available but not everyone can get it because of cost or to not have the procedure available at all for anyone.
The pharmaceuticals pricing is due to the factor that pharma companies believe they can charge higher prices in the US than anywhere else so the US consumer effectively subsidizes the rest of the world. I'm not sure how to solve this problem in a way that lowers prices AND maintains availability of the drugs. The obvious solution is to demand that pharma companies lower prices in the US, but (assuming they are unable to increase prices in Europe) this will just lead to some (many?) drugs not being profitable and reducing availability of drugs for all.
As for the fancier stuff, we do want to have fancier stuff. That means you get better healthcare outcomes for some pretty sick people. We should not want to cut that out. We're in trolley experiment territory when you start discussing whether it is better to have a life-saving, but expensive, procedure available but not everyone can get it because of cost or to not have the procedure available at all for anyone.
Our stuff isn't fancier than their stuff. They administer the same drugs, they buy MRIs from the same manufacturers, their scapels are just as sharp.
My $25k single milliliter of fluid (https://imgur.com/a/HzqgLa2) costs the NHS about $4k in the UK.
My $25k single milliliter of fluid (https://imgur.com/a/HzqgLa2) costs the NHS about $4k in the UK.
There is absolutely 100% of the same stuff used in the US, just fancier names.
Other countries reduce cost by having the state negotiate instead of many small insurance companies all negotiate separately. This is why other countries get a better deal because they offer a larger base of future sales.
Other countries reduce cost by having the state negotiate instead of many small insurance companies all negotiate separately. This is why other countries get a better deal because they offer a larger base of future sales.
It doesn't close much of the gap. Prescription drugs represent ~9% of healthcare expenditures in the US.
Don't the Swiss also have very fancy stuff, though?
But yeah, drug pricing might be a significant part. I'm not sure about the reduced incentives for pharmaceutical companies, though? From what I understand the system is very inefficient, there are a lot of middlemen (i.e. waste) involved and price discrimination going on so a lot of that money might not necessarily be going to the drug companies doing the research.
But yeah, drug pricing might be a significant part. I'm not sure about the reduced incentives for pharmaceutical companies, though? From what I understand the system is very inefficient, there are a lot of middlemen (i.e. waste) involved and price discrimination going on so a lot of that money might not necessarily be going to the drug companies doing the research.
Only the CEO or everyone that works there?
How many people in the claims adjudication call center are making ~5 times the median American male's lifetime earnings each year, every year?
What's the income threshold for people who are eligible for murder? Surely the whole board and the C-Suite. Senior VPs? VPs?
Cynically, this sounds to me like something that people typically suggest we leave up to markets. Is that insane? Yes, but it's already a business model, and health insurance basically does that.
These people make vast sums of money every year by asking the American people what it's worth to them to not be ruined by a chance illness or injury, then finding ways to make sure they don't have to save people from financial ruin or death. I don't see how that's really so different from a protection racket, except for the fact that most protection rackets were operated with more good faith effort towards the extorted.
These people make vast sums of money every year by asking the American people what it's worth to them to not be ruined by a chance illness or injury, then finding ways to make sure they don't have to save people from financial ruin or death. I don't see how that's really so different from a protection racket, except for the fact that most protection rackets were operated with more good faith effort towards the extorted.
>These people make vast sums of money every year by asking the American people what it's worth to them to not be ruined by a chance illness or injury, then finding ways to make sure they don't have to save people from financial ruin or death. I don't see how that's really so different from a protection racket, except for the fact that most protection rackets were operated with more good faith effort towards the extorted.
This definition of a "protection racket" is a bit loose. By similar logic landlords are also a "protection racket" for having a place to hive.
This definition of a "protection racket" is a bit loose. By similar logic landlords are also a "protection racket" for having a place to hive.
> This definition of a "protection racket" is a bit loose. By similar logic landlords are also a "protection racket" for having a place to hive.
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” - known Marxist-Leninist Adam Smith
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” - known Marxist-Leninist Adam Smith
An apartment, or healthcare is hardly "natural produce".
I was thinking the same thing. Oh and why stay in the healthcare vertical? Surely the CEO and employees of Raytheon deserve to be shot in the back leaving a hotel. What a ridiculous set of conversations…
Are you being sarcastic here? I just got off work and still have the brain fog.
[deleted]
Most of those people are making several multiples the average Indian's lifetime earnings. Should those call center folks pay for the Indians' healthcare?
India already has a multi-payer universal healthcare system.
It's also not an American's business to come in and tell India how to run its healthcare system.
It's also not an American's business to come in and tell India how to run its healthcare system.
That's a cop-out. Just as the CEOs could transfer their higher wealth to average Americans, average Americans could transfer their higher wealth to Indians without changing or giving input on their healthcare system.
(which is absolutely not universal in any OECD-country sense)
(which is absolutely not universal in any OECD-country sense)
Responsibility for the actions of a company should be somewhat proportional to the amount of profit derived from said activities.
So if you kill people but you only make $30K a year then no big deal. But if they 100x your salary now you're a real bad guy. That can't be right.
I didn't say the consequences should be proportional, I said the responsibility (or blame); and profits derived should just be one part of the equation.
Criminal consequences of a company collectively being responsible for the deaths of individual(s) shouldn't just disappear because no one individual ostensibly caused it. A company is a system of incentives and processes, and if those incentives and processes are leading to preventable deaths and suffering, those who benefit most from and are most responsible for perpetuating those incentives and processes should be held liable.
Criminal consequences of a company collectively being responsible for the deaths of individual(s) shouldn't just disappear because no one individual ostensibly caused it. A company is a system of incentives and processes, and if those incentives and processes are leading to preventable deaths and suffering, those who benefit most from and are most responsible for perpetuating those incentives and processes should be held liable.
While I have trouble wrestling with the assertion as well, it does hold pretty true to the way the US justice system works. Sentencing is generally far harsher for financial crimes as $ goes up.
In stuff like drug crimes, US even has the death penalty as sanctioned remedy for quantities and enterprises of sufficient organization for mega profits. The thought process seems to be if you provide bad health care in the form of selling illegal drugs, at some level the death penalty is on the table.
In stuff like drug crimes, US even has the death penalty as sanctioned remedy for quantities and enterprises of sufficient organization for mega profits. The thought process seems to be if you provide bad health care in the form of selling illegal drugs, at some level the death penalty is on the table.
>While I have trouble wrestling with the assertion as well, it does hold pretty true to the way the US justice system works. Sentencing is generally far harsher for financial crimes as $ goes up.
Right, but only for financial crimes. You're not going to get off murder by saying you only got $100 for the hit.
Right, but only for financial crimes. You're not going to get off murder by saying you only got $100 for the hit.
If you sell a few hits of fentanyl you aren't going to meet the statutory definition of a criminal enterprise and therefore will not be eligible for federal death penalty even though fentanyl induces death.
If you sell $100M of fentanyl you can get the death sentence, since fentanyl is an element in inducing death at basically any sufficiently large quantity of a criminal enterprise.
It is not exactly the same, but it has a lot of parallels to the argument I see here. If you are an insurance salesman selling contracts you know will not be honored and such denied claims will be an element of death, many will not see it as serious as being the criminal enterprise leader who orchestrated it. Even in such case that the policy can be attributed to a single salesman, the executive is likely to be held more culpable just as the US code holds the criminal enterprise executive to the death penalty whereas it may not hold the low level guy who sold the fentanyl.
If you sell $100M of fentanyl you can get the death sentence, since fentanyl is an element in inducing death at basically any sufficiently large quantity of a criminal enterprise.
It is not exactly the same, but it has a lot of parallels to the argument I see here. If you are an insurance salesman selling contracts you know will not be honored and such denied claims will be an element of death, many will not see it as serious as being the criminal enterprise leader who orchestrated it. Even in such case that the policy can be attributed to a single salesman, the executive is likely to be held more culpable just as the US code holds the criminal enterprise executive to the death penalty whereas it may not hold the low level guy who sold the fentanyl.
Drug dealing isnt a financial crime
The government has had a very hard time classifying what type of crime drug dealing is. First they said it was a tax crime (well before that, an import or tariff crime). Then the 10th amendment was basically gutted, and it became a crime where all the facts could be identical to a pharmacy dispensing a script, but sans paying for a DEA license.
It is definitely a very strange one. The classical liberalism argument is that the most prominent aspect remains essentially a financial crime of failure to pay the licensing tax.
It is definitely a very strange one. The classical liberalism argument is that the most prominent aspect remains essentially a financial crime of failure to pay the licensing tax.
>and it became a crime where all the facts could be identical to a pharmacy dispensing a script, but sans paying for a DEA license.
That describes a bunch of crimes? If you raid a drug dealer's house and kill a bunch of people in the process, you'll go to jail. If it's the police doing it with a "license" (ie. a warrant), it's suddenly fine. More banal is you driving along, following all applicable laws and causing no issues, but if you're doing it without a license or insurance, it's suddenly illegal.
That describes a bunch of crimes? If you raid a drug dealer's house and kill a bunch of people in the process, you'll go to jail. If it's the police doing it with a "license" (ie. a warrant), it's suddenly fine. More banal is you driving along, following all applicable laws and causing no issues, but if you're doing it without a license or insurance, it's suddenly illegal.
Yes of course. All of this seems to me totally psychotic and not at all a dystopia I want to live in. Which is why I lived in an area with almost no government, very weak police services, little to no code/zone enforcement, weak environmental controls, etc etc.
I pointed it out largely because I find the drug laws to be particularly strange.
I pointed it out largely because I find the drug laws to be particularly strange.
[deleted]
for financial crimes, the loss of money IS the harm, and the dollar amount is the magnitude.
Even the smallest understanding of utility of money will prove your assertion wildly inaccurate.
Are you making a legal point or a moral one?
Financial crimes are literally crimes that deprive people of their financial property. They are crimes because property is understood to have utility. This isnt rocket science.
Financial crimes are literally crimes that deprive people of their financial property. They are crimes because property is understood to have utility. This isnt rocket science.
I am the CEO of insurance company Inc (ICI).
Under me is 1000 salesman. Every salesman knows and understands I am selling a plan that will deny or delay for some covered minor ailments that once in a million set off a chain inducing death.
As CEO of ICI I collect $300M in premiums and from that take $3M.
After selling a million policies, a patient dies as a side effect of intentional strategy of denying authorization to pay for care. That plan is traced to going through a single salesman, who collected $5 from that sale and $50k in all his sales. From that same sales, I, the CEO only collected $1. That is, the dollar profit for the death is greater for the salesman than the CEO.
The salesman and I are both direct paths in the death, in fact the salesman more than me, hell the salesman even made more of a commission than I did. The public will likely hold me more in contempt.
Under me is 1000 salesman. Every salesman knows and understands I am selling a plan that will deny or delay for some covered minor ailments that once in a million set off a chain inducing death.
As CEO of ICI I collect $300M in premiums and from that take $3M.
After selling a million policies, a patient dies as a side effect of intentional strategy of denying authorization to pay for care. That plan is traced to going through a single salesman, who collected $5 from that sale and $50k in all his sales. From that same sales, I, the CEO only collected $1. That is, the dollar profit for the death is greater for the salesman than the CEO.
The salesman and I are both direct paths in the death, in fact the salesman more than me, hell the salesman even made more of a commission than I did. The public will likely hold me more in contempt.
Are you talking to me?
Can you explain what point are you making and how does it relate to what we were discussing?
Can you explain what point are you making and how does it relate to what we were discussing?
My point is he (CEO) is viewed by many as most culpable for fraudulently denied claims at UHC -- and there are crimes, even non-financial ones like drug dealing, that tightly couple level of organization and sales of a product to differences in penalty for even a singe death. That is, this line of thinking is embedded in the USC.
Okay, I don't have any objection to any of that. I thought we were talking about financial crimes
Is that a financial crime?
That's the scary part. It's very tempting to just sentence someone like this. But more you dwell on it, the worst it gets. There is a reason why death penalty is considered an extreme.
The entire argument for high CEO renumeration is that they take on total responsibility for all actions of the company. The buck stops with them. So, why do we think it's acceptable for that not to be the case when the company does something bad?
Thats a good argument in a vacuum. But the world has determined "I was just following orders" is not a good defense.
We know the crimes against humanity are bad and subordinates are guilty if they do them. We don;t just let everyone off free except the head of state.
Not to see that united healtcare (as bad as they are) are anywhere near that, but I am saying that its clear that we, as a society, already hold all people complicit in evil as guilty. Not just the person at the top.
We know the crimes against humanity are bad and subordinates are guilty if they do them. We don;t just let everyone off free except the head of state.
Not to see that united healtcare (as bad as they are) are anywhere near that, but I am saying that its clear that we, as a society, already hold all people complicit in evil as guilty. Not just the person at the top.
With a good many exceptions.
The US as a society allows its citizens actions that the US as a country has prosecuted others for.
eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
The US as a society allows its citizens actions that the US as a country has prosecuted others for.
eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.
How much do you think people should pay for some random person to be afforded one more hour of life free of pain? $1000? $1000000? $100000000? More?
How much do you think people should pay for some random person to be afforded one more hour of life free of pain? $1000? $1000000? $100000000? More?
We don't need to know this exact number to know that American patients are getting uniquely fucked by their healthcare system compared to every other developed nation. Once we're on-par with what other countries achieve, then we can have the philosophical debate.
This is a purposefully disingenuous hypothetical. There are people who have real shots at a better life, or continuing their life for that matter, who get denied the insurance they pay for! It isn't only people who are already on death's door.
The thing is, you have to start somewhere and then you can go backwards. And putting a price on what people should shoulder for other is the main job of insurance companies.
Now you can hope for a state owned one which would have "everyone" chipping in so you should be able to cover more extreme cases. Or you can (and should imo) criticize the algorithms used by the current companies. But you cannot expect society to pay for anything, you have to do some triage.
Now you can hope for a state owned one which would have "everyone" chipping in so you should be able to cover more extreme cases. Or you can (and should imo) criticize the algorithms used by the current companies. But you cannot expect society to pay for anything, you have to do some triage.
To your point, there is a concept called "social murder" [1]:
> When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live – forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence – knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.
We can compare this to, say, all the people involved in the death camps in Nazi Germany. Who exactly is culpable for murder? Ther person dropping the Zyklon B? Or were they just following orders? The camp commandant who gave the orders? Or were they just following orders? What about the camp guards? What about the train operators? Those who maintained the trains? Those who built and maintained the camps? Those who loaded the trains? Those who detained Jews and other "undesirables"?
In the case of death-by-denail of health coverage, there are many hands involved (hence "social murder"). Personally, I don't blame the people who man the phones, for example. They are coerced into a job. But someone is responsible and you can make a reasonable claim that the CEO fits that bill. Where you draw the line between those two is another question. There are no doubt people working at United whose job it is to come up with creative ways of denying claims. Their bonuses are probably tied to it. You can make a reasonable case that they're aware of the consequences of their action. Are they culpable too?
Additionallly, people tend to view violence as violence or not depending on who does it. Like tossing tear gas cannisters at protestors is not violence but throwing the cannister back is [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder
[2]: https://fox11online.com/news/local/charges-filed-against-man...
> When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live – forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence – knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.
We can compare this to, say, all the people involved in the death camps in Nazi Germany. Who exactly is culpable for murder? Ther person dropping the Zyklon B? Or were they just following orders? The camp commandant who gave the orders? Or were they just following orders? What about the camp guards? What about the train operators? Those who maintained the trains? Those who built and maintained the camps? Those who loaded the trains? Those who detained Jews and other "undesirables"?
In the case of death-by-denail of health coverage, there are many hands involved (hence "social murder"). Personally, I don't blame the people who man the phones, for example. They are coerced into a job. But someone is responsible and you can make a reasonable claim that the CEO fits that bill. Where you draw the line between those two is another question. There are no doubt people working at United whose job it is to come up with creative ways of denying claims. Their bonuses are probably tied to it. You can make a reasonable case that they're aware of the consequences of their action. Are they culpable too?
Additionallly, people tend to view violence as violence or not depending on who does it. Like tossing tear gas cannisters at protestors is not violence but throwing the cannister back is [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_murder
[2]: https://fox11online.com/news/local/charges-filed-against-man...
This statement is so far outside of the bounds of reality it's laughable.
What about those people that are using United Health Care and getting the support they need? They account for nothing?
What about those people that are using United Health Care and getting the support they need? They account for nothing?
UHC has one of the highest rates of claim denials. Sure, there are some people getting the support they need but there are a lot of people who are not. What justification is there for that? The only justification is "profit", and that is not something that should ever be involved in healthcare.
It should be noted that not all claims denials mean people aren't getting the support they need.
For example I had an insurance company not want to pay for a particular prescription drug my doctor prescribed. They were happy to pay for treating me, but they wanted it be done with some other drug.
They actually had a medical reason for this. The drug I had been prescribed had recently been found to have a risk of bladder cancer. There were other drugs just as effective but that did not have that risk and so they had removed it from their formulary.
In this case I wanted the first drug because I had used it before and knew that it worked well for me and that I didn't get any of the numerous annoying side effects that it and the alternatives could all have, and I had good reason to believe that I'd only need to be back on it for a month or two and then would be permanently done with it.
I concluded that the risk of bladder cancer from a couple months of the drug were negligible and preferable to dealing with drugs I'd never had before.
My doctor probably could have convinced them to go ahead and approve a one month subscription with the possibility of one refill, but I realized the drug was one of the ones that Walmart had on their $4 drug list and so had my doctor send the prescription there and I bought it for the cash price.
BTW, that $4 cash price at Walmart was cheaper than what I would have paid if my doctor had convinced the insurance to cover it and I filled the prescription at my regular pharmacy.
For example I had an insurance company not want to pay for a particular prescription drug my doctor prescribed. They were happy to pay for treating me, but they wanted it be done with some other drug.
They actually had a medical reason for this. The drug I had been prescribed had recently been found to have a risk of bladder cancer. There were other drugs just as effective but that did not have that risk and so they had removed it from their formulary.
In this case I wanted the first drug because I had used it before and knew that it worked well for me and that I didn't get any of the numerous annoying side effects that it and the alternatives could all have, and I had good reason to believe that I'd only need to be back on it for a month or two and then would be permanently done with it.
I concluded that the risk of bladder cancer from a couple months of the drug were negligible and preferable to dealing with drugs I'd never had before.
My doctor probably could have convinced them to go ahead and approve a one month subscription with the possibility of one refill, but I realized the drug was one of the ones that Walmart had on their $4 drug list and so had my doctor send the prescription there and I bought it for the cash price.
BTW, that $4 cash price at Walmart was cheaper than what I would have paid if my doctor had convinced the insurance to cover it and I filled the prescription at my regular pharmacy.
Health insurance companies are also legally bound by payout ratios. Having a higher denial rate doesn't mean they're paying out less money than other companies.
fastball(2)
Ahaha, yeah, right? It's just ridiculous. What a laughable debate, this whole insurance thing is. It's just the free market working to optimize outcomes.
By the way, can you help me understand what a 'pre-existing condition' is? Literally nobody outside of America has experience with this term.
By the way, can you help me understand what a 'pre-existing condition' is? Literally nobody outside of America has experience with this term.
Most health insurance in most of the world has the concept of "pre-existing conditions".
How could it be otherwise? Insurance was invented to hedge risk. In the case of healthcare, if you literally already have a condition that has known and ongoing costs associated with it, it doesn't make any sense for an insurance company to insure you against that risk – the risk has already manifested.
How could it be otherwise? Insurance was invented to hedge risk. In the case of healthcare, if you literally already have a condition that has known and ongoing costs associated with it, it doesn't make any sense for an insurance company to insure you against that risk – the risk has already manifested.
No, that's not right. Public health insurance in the EU does not use that concept. Participating insurance companies are not allowed to set rates that way, since it doesn't serve the public good.
They arent allowed to set rates that way in the US either, so it is an irrelevant point.
Only since the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). Before that, it was common to not be able to get insurance with pre-existing conditions at all without being covered by your employer. And even sometimes your employer’s plan had a waiting period for pre-existing conditions. I got stuck without insurance for a long time after college (being able to stay on your parents’ plan after graduation is also an ACA provision) and still have nightmares about it.
Correct. ACA was passed 15 years ago and I was describing the healthcare system today
You’re implying the situation is as stable as it is in other first-world countries. It’s not. It’s brand new, and Donald Trump has sworn it’s going away.
With respect to pre-existing conditions, it is equal treatment. I don't know what you mean by stability. I'm just reiterating the current state. Policy in other countries is also contingent on government policy and subject to change. Any alternative would be new too.
Believe it or not, there is significantly more to the world than the EU.
Neither Canada, nor Australia nor the UK has this concept.
You’re a legal resident? You have 100% healthcare same as everyone else. There isn’t even a question about pre existing anything
You’re a legal resident? You have 100% healthcare same as everyone else. There isn’t even a question about pre existing anything
Plenty of people outside the US will have experience with pre-existing conditions as a factor in health insurance.
For example many Germans will have experience with it because they have a system that has both a public and a private system. Those with high enough income (around 70k Euros) can opt out of the public system and use the private system instead. Also there are some classes of people that only can get part of their coverage from the public system and so need to buy additional coverage through the private system.
Insurers in that private system can take into account pre-existing conditions. They cannot reject an application over pre-existing conditions but they can charge higher premiums because of those conditions.
Another example is Switzerland. They have a universal healthcare system based on mandatory insurance from private health insurance companies. For that mandatory insurance pre-existing conditions are not a factor, but there is also supplemental insurance available that covers things not included in the mandatory insurance.
The supplemental providers can and do consider pre-existing conditions when deciding whether or not to provide coverage.
For example many Germans will have experience with it because they have a system that has both a public and a private system. Those with high enough income (around 70k Euros) can opt out of the public system and use the private system instead. Also there are some classes of people that only can get part of their coverage from the public system and so need to buy additional coverage through the private system.
Insurers in that private system can take into account pre-existing conditions. They cannot reject an application over pre-existing conditions but they can charge higher premiums because of those conditions.
Another example is Switzerland. They have a universal healthcare system based on mandatory insurance from private health insurance companies. For that mandatory insurance pre-existing conditions are not a factor, but there is also supplemental insurance available that covers things not included in the mandatory insurance.
The supplemental providers can and do consider pre-existing conditions when deciding whether or not to provide coverage.
Only a “laughable debate” and “just the free market” if you haven’t actually had to deal with these insurance companies when you have a health issue and have never paid your dues late. I’m guessing you’re from somewhere in Europe with universal health care?
I'm foreign to the US and no longer work there (Thanks to Trump, literally and directly.)
While I was there... I literally worked for an insurance company. I have also done work for a pharmaceutical company.
The motivation in healthcare in the US is purely profit. It is not like that anywhere else in my experience.
How far does this carry? Is the charge of the insurance company to keep you alive at all costs?
At the very least, it's the charge of the insurance company to serve the customer in a way that passes on savings to the customer in the form of lower premiums or increased amounts of care.
It's insulting to a person's intelligence to tell them "we just don't have the money to cover the surgery recommended by doctors to solve your debilitating injury or illness" and then turn around and give your c-suite seven-figure compensation packages every year while also instituting a dividend for the free riders known as shareholders.
It's insulting to a person's intelligence to tell them "we just don't have the money to cover the surgery recommended by doctors to solve your debilitating injury or illness" and then turn around and give your c-suite seven-figure compensation packages every year while also instituting a dividend for the free riders known as shareholders.
In a healthy society we wouldn't have "health insurance companies" which are profit driven and are motivated to cut costs, not provide care.
I think most people would say that Switzerland is a "healthy society", yet:
>Switzerland has universal health care,[3] regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. There are no free state-provided health services, but private health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
>Switzerland has universal health care,[3] regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. There are no free state-provided health services, but private health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
They operate as non-profits when providing that insurance, so I'm not sure how well that works as a counterexample to his assertion.
The do also offer supplemental insurance for things beyond what the compulsory insurance covers and those supplemental plans are for-profit.
The do also offer supplemental insurance for things beyond what the compulsory insurance covers and those supplemental plans are for-profit.
this is the correct answer, as long as health care is for-profit we will always be the product instead of the consumer
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone will have to bear a cost somewhere along the way.
I would prefer to live in a society that puts the well-being of its people over fretting whether someone is getting a "free lunch" or worrying "how will we make money off of this?" The US is so backwards, we spend so much money on healthcare for the worst impacts in the world, and we pump billions into our military blowing up people abroad. A healthy society would spend that money into taking care of its people, and that includes providing healthcare for everyone no matter the cost.
Why bring the military into it at all? The US government already spends more ON HEALTHCARE than everyone else and still can't seem to figure it out.
I bring the military budget up just as an example of how the priorities of our society, or our government rather, are completely backwards imo. One reason why we haven't "figured it out" is because health insurance companies effectively lobby the US govt to secure their monopoly. They know that we just got rid of the middle man that is insurance companies, we'd spend less money and get better care.
Part of that military spending has been protecting Europe from Russia and South Korea, Taiwan and Japan from China and North Korea.
I meant to say "worst outcomes" here
I am happy to bear the cost of providing care. I am NOT happy to bear the cost of the huge profits generated by the U.S. healthcare system. Insurance companies are increasing profits by denying care.
A separate issue is consolidation. In my area, what used to be locally owned clinics and hospitals are being bought up by national conglomerates. Their first move is often to reduce staffing and cut costs, driving up delays and driving down quality of care.
A separate issue is consolidation. In my area, what used to be locally owned clinics and hospitals are being bought up by national conglomerates. Their first move is often to reduce staffing and cut costs, driving up delays and driving down quality of care.
No one suggested there was a free lunch.
Actually, I take that back. If we think of a "free lunch" as something that isn't earned, the only free lunch here is the one that shareholders (which includes the c-suite given their share grants in the compensation packages) receive quarterly in the form of dividends and earnings-per-share. When you take someone's money (usually $200/month or more... much more actually), find every single excuse to not provide a service a doctor of medicine has declared to be necessary, and then pay yourself more money than most people would even know how to spend in a lifetime, you're pretending you're entitled to a free lunch.
Actually, I take that back. If we think of a "free lunch" as something that isn't earned, the only free lunch here is the one that shareholders (which includes the c-suite given their share grants in the compensation packages) receive quarterly in the form of dividends and earnings-per-share. When you take someone's money (usually $200/month or more... much more actually), find every single excuse to not provide a service a doctor of medicine has declared to be necessary, and then pay yourself more money than most people would even know how to spend in a lifetime, you're pretending you're entitled to a free lunch.
The Health Insurance for my wife, two children, and myself is _$1500_/mo and that's _with_ a $20,000 deductible.
When I started working ~25 years ago, my health insurance was typically fully covered by my employer and I had no deductible that I was aware of. The cost of insurance has only gotten worse, and finding a plan without a outrageous deductible adds to that.
As a society, this is something we can totally solve. So many other countries have socialized healthcare. Its not an impossible goal.
When I started working ~25 years ago, my health insurance was typically fully covered by my employer and I had no deductible that I was aware of. The cost of insurance has only gotten worse, and finding a plan without a outrageous deductible adds to that.
As a society, this is something we can totally solve. So many other countries have socialized healthcare. Its not an impossible goal.
> There's no such thing as a free lunch.
OK, but American "lunch" costs 2-3x what it does everywhere else, with similar/worse outcomes.
(And yes, that's counting taxes.)
We're ordering oatmeal and being charged wagyu filet prices.
I, at this moment, have a syringe with a mililiter of fluid on my desk that's worth more than both of my cars combined. https://imgur.com/a/HzqgLa2
It's about 1/10th that in the UK.
OK, but American "lunch" costs 2-3x what it does everywhere else, with similar/worse outcomes.
(And yes, that's counting taxes.)
We're ordering oatmeal and being charged wagyu filet prices.
I, at this moment, have a syringe with a mililiter of fluid on my desk that's worth more than both of my cars combined. https://imgur.com/a/HzqgLa2
It's about 1/10th that in the UK.
Really? My son hurt his knee on the job, workman's comp paid for him to get an MRI and a pretty detailed workup from the orthopedist, a brace that the orthopedist told him not to wear, etc. The advice in the end was "rest" and "return to activities gradually".
My insurance pays for a colonoscopy every 5-10 years, telehealth therapy appointments with no copay, free vaccinations, really a lot of stuff.
My insurance pays for a colonoscopy every 5-10 years, telehealth therapy appointments with no copay, free vaccinations, really a lot of stuff.
> My insurance pays for a colonoscopy every 5-10 years, telehealth therapy appointments with no copay, free vaccinations, really a lot of stuff.
No, you pay for those. Via your premiums.
(Which your employer may pay a significant part of. That's ultimately lost salary to you; it isn't out of charity on their part either.)
My family health insurance costs $3k/month. Going up ~10% next month, too.
No, you pay for those. Via your premiums.
(Which your employer may pay a significant part of. That's ultimately lost salary to you; it isn't out of charity on their part either.)
My family health insurance costs $3k/month. Going up ~10% next month, too.
I'm not going to disagree that its expensive but I'm not going to say that it is low quantity or low quality.
If the US does worse on population health statistics than other countries do it is not the fault of our healthcare system but rather the fault of social determinants of health such as social disconnection, inequality, etc.
If the US does worse on population health statistics than other countries do it is not the fault of our healthcare system but rather the fault of social determinants of health such as social disconnection, inequality, etc.
> I'm not going to say that it is low quantity or low quality.
That's OK, we have stats for that. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...
> If the US does worse on population health statistics than other countries do it is not the fault of our healthcare system but rather the fault of social determinants of health such as social disconnection, inequality, etc.
Other countries have these things, too.
That's OK, we have stats for that. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2...
> If the US does worse on population health statistics than other countries do it is not the fault of our healthcare system but rather the fault of social determinants of health such as social disconnection, inequality, etc.
Other countries have these things, too.
I pay national insurance every month, its automatically taken from my salary. Most of the time it pays for other people's care - and that's absolutely fine with me. And if at some point I need care, I know it will be there for me and how much money I have won't come into it, the costs of my care won't be weighed against the value of my life, i'll just get the care I need. It doesn't need to be so expensive, the US has just built such an incredibly inefficient system ( or efficient if you accept it is designed to generate outrageous profit from the suffering of humans).
Everybody is born, everybody gets sick, everybody eventually dies.
It is sensible to have a universal health care system: everyone pays for it and everybody will use it.
It is sensible to have a universal health care system: everyone pays for it and everybody will use it.
For-profit health insurance is the ultimate rent-seeking industry. They provide a net-negative to their customers, scraping profit off the transaction between a patient and their care provider.
One of the rhetorical devices I despise the most is what I'll call "stranger in a strange land fallacy", the idea that we should re-litigate the most basic questions at the most basic level over and over and over because people think they're the main character on the debate channel on TV.
> There's no such thing as a free lunch
This is a take that lacks any nuance and it doesn't even pertain to what anyone said. Typical for conservatives.
No one is saying we need to provide healthcare for literally $0 and pretend it has no costs. No, most realize our current cobbled together system with middlemen everywhere isn't working and it's costing lives. Why we can't have a single payer system that gets rid of the paperwork and makes it easier to bargain against prices is beyond me.
Sure, let's keep this system where you have to worry about in/out network hospitals, jump through a bunch of hoops to get treatment, and middlemen causing prices to surge. Madness.
This is a take that lacks any nuance and it doesn't even pertain to what anyone said. Typical for conservatives.
No one is saying we need to provide healthcare for literally $0 and pretend it has no costs. No, most realize our current cobbled together system with middlemen everywhere isn't working and it's costing lives. Why we can't have a single payer system that gets rid of the paperwork and makes it easier to bargain against prices is beyond me.
Sure, let's keep this system where you have to worry about in/out network hospitals, jump through a bunch of hoops to get treatment, and middlemen causing prices to surge. Madness.
Ever done any work for a US health insurance company? You won't find many conservatives. You will find many "free lunch" advocates who spend half their day lobbying to protect their job and their industry. They are playing politics with your healthcare costs. How is that for nuance?
It's great and even more reason to get rid of these useless corporations. The conservative thing to me was the basic take "ummm actually it's not free" which lacks any actual thought. It doesn't further the discussion and perpetuates the suffering all to... own the libs? I'm not sure.
The "libs" who lobbied for so-called universal healthcare? They further empowered these corporations and now they want to get rid of them. The libs owned themselves on this topic, obviously.
The ACA was substantially watered down to get (conservative!) Lieberman's deciding vote in the Senate. "The libs", as always, were told they'd have to wait later for their stuff.
I can rephrase it then to they owned themselves in this case by being so damn gullible, thus further entrenched power given to the insurance industry.
UHC has a profit margin of 6%.
If the company was PERFECTLY run, you're still going to have tons of people getting denied claims. That's what happens with the law of big numbers.
And guess what. You're never going to have a perfectly run company.
If you take the CEOs salary and distribute it to healthcare patients, $50M worth of healthcare is not going to even minutely move the needle.
UHC revenue is $100B PER QUARTER. The CEO's pay is not even a rounding error on a rounding error.
Was the CEO a perfect, honorable guy? No.
Is taking his salary and spending it on patients going to do anything? In the large picture, also, no.
If the company was PERFECTLY run, you're still going to have tons of people getting denied claims. That's what happens with the law of big numbers.
And guess what. You're never going to have a perfectly run company.
If you take the CEOs salary and distribute it to healthcare patients, $50M worth of healthcare is not going to even minutely move the needle.
UHC revenue is $100B PER QUARTER. The CEO's pay is not even a rounding error on a rounding error.
Was the CEO a perfect, honorable guy? No.
Is taking his salary and spending it on patients going to do anything? In the large picture, also, no.
What if this entire sector just didn't exist and the money paid out to health insurance secretaries and janitors who clean their offices and the people in the accounting department who handle their salaries just went into paying for actual healthcare instead?
Like isn't the entire sector just inefficient bloat? What value does it provide that can't be provided much more efficiently?
Like isn't the entire sector just inefficient bloat? What value does it provide that can't be provided much more efficiently?
> What if this entire sector just didn't exist and the money paid out to health insurance secretaries and janitors who clean their offices and the people in the accounting department who handle their salaries just went into paying for actual healthcare instead?
Then healthcare fraud would be 80% of GDP.
Then healthcare fraud would be 80% of GDP.
What is the purpose of a medical license then, if insurance can step in and deny the procedure? Who is right? I think dissolving insurance altogether is extreme (I agree but don't want to waste time on pie in the sky ideas).
Why can't we start by removing insurances ability to deny anything from a licensed doctor? If doctors are padding their wallets or stealing, bring it up with the board of medical examiners or court just like any other malfeasance in any other regulated industry. If you are board-certified in X it means you are entrusted to do X. Insurance should never be involved.
Why can't we start by removing insurances ability to deny anything from a licensed doctor? If doctors are padding their wallets or stealing, bring it up with the board of medical examiners or court just like any other malfeasance in any other regulated industry. If you are board-certified in X it means you are entrusted to do X. Insurance should never be involved.
Is healthcare fraud 80% of the Canadian GDP?
No.
You're still paying the same people the same wages to work for the government.
Or is your solution that we should pay health insurance workers less money?
You originally proposed eliminating all the jobs. Now you've moved all the jobs to the public sector. So unless you're paying them dirt, all that money is still going to people working to make sure healthcare fraud isn't 80% of GDP.
In a perfect world, you have 6% more money to spend on healthcare instead of corporate profits.
That's not going to change the picture that much.
And you're unlikely to arrive in a perfect world.
You'll probably get a 10% more expensive system that's 9% more inefficient and has 0 profits.
You're still paying the same people the same wages to work for the government.
Or is your solution that we should pay health insurance workers less money?
You originally proposed eliminating all the jobs. Now you've moved all the jobs to the public sector. So unless you're paying them dirt, all that money is still going to people working to make sure healthcare fraud isn't 80% of GDP.
In a perfect world, you have 6% more money to spend on healthcare instead of corporate profits.
That's not going to change the picture that much.
And you're unlikely to arrive in a perfect world.
You'll probably get a 10% more expensive system that's 9% more inefficient and has 0 profits.
Canada isn't hypothetical. It is very easy to compare costs and outcomes.
I live in BC, Canada, and we don't have an entire industry built around claims processing, administration, etc. They still pay health care workers, but they don't have to have phone banks filled with people answering questions about claim denials. I'm not even sure if a claim denial is a thing here, or who I would call. We don't have healthcare insurance CEOs making 23mm per year. We don't have customer service reps, we don't have billing specialists in every medical practice, we don't have medical coding experts. These things kind of exist in a bare minimum way, but not anywhere at the scale that I have seen in the US.
I go to the doctor, they make a medical determination about what my needs are, and we proceed from there. There is almost no fraud because the doctor has no real financial incentive to overtreat me, and since it is a single payer system, malicious patterns get picked up quickly and efficiently.
Keep in mind that each province administers their own medical system, so there is no such thing as the Canadian health insurance system.
I live in BC, Canada, and we don't have an entire industry built around claims processing, administration, etc. They still pay health care workers, but they don't have to have phone banks filled with people answering questions about claim denials. I'm not even sure if a claim denial is a thing here, or who I would call. We don't have healthcare insurance CEOs making 23mm per year. We don't have customer service reps, we don't have billing specialists in every medical practice, we don't have medical coding experts. These things kind of exist in a bare minimum way, but not anywhere at the scale that I have seen in the US.
I go to the doctor, they make a medical determination about what my needs are, and we proceed from there. There is almost no fraud because the doctor has no real financial incentive to overtreat me, and since it is a single payer system, malicious patterns get picked up quickly and efficiently.
Keep in mind that each province administers their own medical system, so there is no such thing as the Canadian health insurance system.
> I live in BC, Canada, and we don't have an entire industry built around claims processing, administration, etc.
There certainly must be people doing all of this claims processing, maybe not an "industry" since it's part of the government: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-profe...
> They still pay health care workers, but they don't have to have phone banks filled with people answering questions about claim denials. I'm not even sure if a claim denial is a thing here, or who I would call.
There's a long list of rejected claim codes for BC here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-profe...
And a support center for handling questions and disputes: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-profe... And an appeals process: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-covera...
The Canadian system may be much cheaper to administer, but it isn't magical. There is still a need for staff to administer and adjudicate claims, and you still have to ration limited healthcare resources somehow.
There certainly must be people doing all of this claims processing, maybe not an "industry" since it's part of the government: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-profe...
> They still pay health care workers, but they don't have to have phone banks filled with people answering questions about claim denials. I'm not even sure if a claim denial is a thing here, or who I would call.
There's a long list of rejected claim codes for BC here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-profe...
And a support center for handling questions and disputes: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-profe... And an appeals process: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-covera...
The Canadian system may be much cheaper to administer, but it isn't magical. There is still a need for staff to administer and adjudicate claims, and you still have to ration limited healthcare resources somehow.
Notice how all of the things that you found represent a single department in the provincial government instead of a significant part of national GDP spread across multiple billion dollar conglomerates.
The first link you submitted is actually showing how the automated system processes the huge majority of claims automatically without people in the loop. So not a good argument that BC has phone banks of people answering claims questions.
Yes the claim process exists, and the various appeals parts exist, but that part of MSP is just not the patient's problem. If you read through the reasons for denial that you linked, almost all of them are requests for better paperwork or missing information. The level of administrative overhead just doesn't exist on the scale that I have experienced living in the states.
What I have never had happen, or heard of happening, is a resident getting a bill for seeking medical care (which would happen if a claim was rejected). Or someone not receiving medical care due to inability to pay. Or having to doctor shop for a place that accepts their insurance. In fact, most people I know have never even had to contact MSP.
The first link you submitted is actually showing how the automated system processes the huge majority of claims automatically without people in the loop. So not a good argument that BC has phone banks of people answering claims questions.
Yes the claim process exists, and the various appeals parts exist, but that part of MSP is just not the patient's problem. If you read through the reasons for denial that you linked, almost all of them are requests for better paperwork or missing information. The level of administrative overhead just doesn't exist on the scale that I have experienced living in the states.
What I have never had happen, or heard of happening, is a resident getting a bill for seeking medical care (which would happen if a claim was rejected). Or someone not receiving medical care due to inability to pay. Or having to doctor shop for a place that accepts their insurance. In fact, most people I know have never even had to contact MSP.
>The Canadian system may be much cheaper to administer, but it isn't magical. There is still a need for staff to administer and adjudicate claims, and you still have to ration limited healthcare resources somehow.
But it isn't just the Canadian system -- it's every other system too.[0]
There is a unique form of corruption occurring in the American health system and it is absolutely tied to the insurance industry.
This corruption causes the misallocation of resources in ways that are detrimental to the health of American citizens.
Medical bankruptcy and the cost that it has on a person's health isn't really a thing in Canada. Having to choose between paying for medical bills or healthy food isn't really a thing in Canada. People putting off minor medical issues until they grow into major issues because they can't afford routine checkups or treatments isn't really a thing in Canada.
This results in far less rationing of healthcare because people are able to make better choices that prevent the waste of medical resources.
Don't get me wrong, there are issues with Canadian healthcare -- the biggest being corrupt politicians and business people trying to import American healthcare practices for their personal gain but the issues that the average Canadian face in accessing healthcare are nothing compared to those that the average American faces.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_expectancy_vs_heal...
But it isn't just the Canadian system -- it's every other system too.[0]
There is a unique form of corruption occurring in the American health system and it is absolutely tied to the insurance industry.
This corruption causes the misallocation of resources in ways that are detrimental to the health of American citizens.
Medical bankruptcy and the cost that it has on a person's health isn't really a thing in Canada. Having to choose between paying for medical bills or healthy food isn't really a thing in Canada. People putting off minor medical issues until they grow into major issues because they can't afford routine checkups or treatments isn't really a thing in Canada.
This results in far less rationing of healthcare because people are able to make better choices that prevent the waste of medical resources.
Don't get me wrong, there are issues with Canadian healthcare -- the biggest being corrupt politicians and business people trying to import American healthcare practices for their personal gain but the issues that the average Canadian face in accessing healthcare are nothing compared to those that the average American faces.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_expectancy_vs_heal...
> There is almost no fraud because the doctor has no real financial incentive to overtreat me
The vast majority of healthcare fraud does not come from corrupt dentists convincing you to get root canals you don't need.
The largest source is billing for services not rendered.
That is: some provider just makes up that you came to see them and charges the insurance company and you don't even know about it.
This is a non-trivial problem to solve.
Even in the NHS in the UK - where the entire system, including the providers, are public - there is STILL a large billing for services not rendered problem!
The vast majority of healthcare fraud does not come from corrupt dentists convincing you to get root canals you don't need.
The largest source is billing for services not rendered.
That is: some provider just makes up that you came to see them and charges the insurance company and you don't even know about it.
This is a non-trivial problem to solve.
Even in the NHS in the UK - where the entire system, including the providers, are public - there is STILL a large billing for services not rendered problem!
Weird.
This seems trivially solvable. In BC, Canada, I had an old doctor renew a prescription over the phone. This must have triggered a fraud alert because my address was now in a different health management district. They sent me an automatic notice asking me to confirm that I had been helped by that doctor at that time. I believe I can also log onto a provincial portal and see activity related to my medical care.
Seems like a pretty low cost way to ensure that no fraud is happening. Set up triggers for confirmation like doctors treating people who don't live nearby, treating people who are concurrently seeing other doctors, or any number of other known fraud alerts, and follow up.
Since private practice isn't really allowed here, getting removed from the provincial insurance program means a career death sentence, so I think that it just isn't that big of a problem anyway.
This seems trivially solvable. In BC, Canada, I had an old doctor renew a prescription over the phone. This must have triggered a fraud alert because my address was now in a different health management district. They sent me an automatic notice asking me to confirm that I had been helped by that doctor at that time. I believe I can also log onto a provincial portal and see activity related to my medical care.
Seems like a pretty low cost way to ensure that no fraud is happening. Set up triggers for confirmation like doctors treating people who don't live nearby, treating people who are concurrently seeing other doctors, or any number of other known fraud alerts, and follow up.
Since private practice isn't really allowed here, getting removed from the provincial insurance program means a career death sentence, so I think that it just isn't that big of a problem anyway.
It seems relatively trivial to crack down on the bulk of it by providing people open and transparent access to their digital medical records.
In a situation like that many people can proactively look over their records to determine if such corruption is happening.
In a situation like that many people can proactively look over their records to determine if such corruption is happening.
> It seems relatively trivial to crack down on the bulk of it by providing people open and transparent access to their digital medical records.
Why isn't NHS doing it then?
Why isn't NHS doing it then?
I'm not a citizen of the UK so I can only speculate from a poorly informed position but I would imagine that it has to do with the starve the beast tactics that are being used to weaken the NHS to make it more susceptible to privatization.
Are you sure about this?
I've proposed eliminating those jobs because they're bullshit jobs that have a net negative contribution to society because the American medical system is hopelessly inefficient and corrupt.[0]
It is a curious thing watching people defend the undefendable. What makes you so confident in this system that so many Americans loathe and feel betrayed by?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_expectancy_vs_heal...
I've proposed eliminating those jobs because they're bullshit jobs that have a net negative contribution to society because the American medical system is hopelessly inefficient and corrupt.[0]
It is a curious thing watching people defend the undefendable. What makes you so confident in this system that so many Americans loathe and feel betrayed by?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Life_expectancy_vs_heal...
Because (1) most Americans are satisfied with their healthcare and (2) the CBO doesn't think that a public option would decrease costs much if at all: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57125
In short, you're wrong.
In short, you're wrong.
That's like arguing "there's no anarchy in the streets, why don't we get rid of cops?"
FWIW, 6% is clearly "Hollywood accounting," just look at the stock chart. No business with six percent margins has stock performance like UNH.
"Hollywood accounting" only works because you're transferring the profits of one enterprise (ie. the movie itself) to something else (ie. the production/distribution company). Unitedhealth Group is a publicly traded company. Where are they funneling the profits to?
Subsidiaries and affiliates. For example:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/...
> The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that CVS Health’s Caremark, Cigna’s ESI, and United Health Group’s Optum, and their respective GPOs—Zinc Health Services, Ascent Health Services, and Emisar Pharma Services—have abused their economic power by rigging pharmaceutical supply chain competition in their favor, forcing patients to pay more for life-saving medication. According to the complaint, these PBMs, known as the Big Three, together administer about 80% of all prescriptions in the United States.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/...
> The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that CVS Health’s Caremark, Cigna’s ESI, and United Health Group’s Optum, and their respective GPOs—Zinc Health Services, Ascent Health Services, and Emisar Pharma Services—have abused their economic power by rigging pharmaceutical supply chain competition in their favor, forcing patients to pay more for life-saving medication. According to the complaint, these PBMs, known as the Big Three, together administer about 80% of all prescriptions in the United States.
Wouldn't that still end up on the parent company's financial statements? What are PBMs' margins compared to insurance companies?
Have you seen Carvana's stock?
It just means that their costs have correlated with revenues, which is to be expected in certain industries.
The better comparison would be with other insurance carriers.
The better comparison would be with other insurance carriers.
What's the best way to solve the engineering issue of high load on any given system?
Reduce or eliminate the load.
Of course insurance will reduce their load with tactics such as deny, deny. But systemically, there's a better, good-faith way.
IMHO, without getting into all the nitty gritty details, the good-faith way to improve a ton of healthcare is to extend the efforts of fortification in common foods, expand people's consumption of healthier foods (more plants that provider fiber + minerals), improve people's abilities and motivation around healthier lifestyle choices (exercise, sleep), and significantly reduce or re-engineer illness-causing agents (plastics, VOCs) in our daily lives.
The challenge is how to implement these things in a balanced and sustainable manner, while keeping most industries relatively happy. Of course this would take a decade or more, but the knowledge is out there from some very competent healthspan PHds/MDs and a variety of scientists.
In my personal opinion, if all we did was increase consumption of sulfur, protein (especially collagenic sources), we would improve a tremendous amount of health outcomes drastically. Asian countries are a great example where the food actually has sulfur and collagenic sources built into their culture. Koreans consume cabbage 3x/day (cruciferous veggies with sulfur) and traditionally consume a bone-broth (collagenic) type of soup with 1-3 meals on the daily. I could outline the science here, but a huge amount of chronic illness, such as the shooter's mother may have seen some relief with some of my aforementioned efforts.
The way we can take for granted iodine deficiency because they added it to salt, we really need to do that for others. Omega 3s within milk these days is also a good path forward.
Reduce or eliminate the load.
Of course insurance will reduce their load with tactics such as deny, deny. But systemically, there's a better, good-faith way.
IMHO, without getting into all the nitty gritty details, the good-faith way to improve a ton of healthcare is to extend the efforts of fortification in common foods, expand people's consumption of healthier foods (more plants that provider fiber + minerals), improve people's abilities and motivation around healthier lifestyle choices (exercise, sleep), and significantly reduce or re-engineer illness-causing agents (plastics, VOCs) in our daily lives.
The challenge is how to implement these things in a balanced and sustainable manner, while keeping most industries relatively happy. Of course this would take a decade or more, but the knowledge is out there from some very competent healthspan PHds/MDs and a variety of scientists.
In my personal opinion, if all we did was increase consumption of sulfur, protein (especially collagenic sources), we would improve a tremendous amount of health outcomes drastically. Asian countries are a great example where the food actually has sulfur and collagenic sources built into their culture. Koreans consume cabbage 3x/day (cruciferous veggies with sulfur) and traditionally consume a bone-broth (collagenic) type of soup with 1-3 meals on the daily. I could outline the science here, but a huge amount of chronic illness, such as the shooter's mother may have seen some relief with some of my aforementioned efforts.
The way we can take for granted iodine deficiency because they added it to salt, we really need to do that for others. Omega 3s within milk these days is also a good path forward.
> If you take the CEOs salary and distribute it to healthcare patients, $50M worth of healthcare is not going to even minutely move the needle.
They make $15-20B profit annually. They aren't just funding a single well-paid role off denials.
They make $15-20B profit annually. They aren't just funding a single well-paid role off denials.
> If you take the CEOs salary and distribute it to healthcare patients, $50M worth of healthcare is not going to even minutely move the needle.
I have a hard time buying this. Really? You can't cover a few more cents of a few more claims if you reduce c-suite pay?
I don't pay my premium to just see it go directly to the c-suite and some retirement fund's coffers. I pay it to cover healthcare costs and to keep from being financially ruined by a chance illness or injury.
If the CEO is making a half-million a year and his company is coming to me telling me that there just isn't any money to cover my back injury surgery, they're negotiating in far better faith than if they're paying him ~5x the median lifetime earnings of the American male each year, every year.
Good faith matters.
I have a hard time buying this. Really? You can't cover a few more cents of a few more claims if you reduce c-suite pay?
I don't pay my premium to just see it go directly to the c-suite and some retirement fund's coffers. I pay it to cover healthcare costs and to keep from being financially ruined by a chance illness or injury.
If the CEO is making a half-million a year and his company is coming to me telling me that there just isn't any money to cover my back injury surgery, they're negotiating in far better faith than if they're paying him ~5x the median lifetime earnings of the American male each year, every year.
Good faith matters.
>>$50M worth of healthcare is not going to even minutely move the needle.
>I have a hard time buying this. Really? You can't cover a few more cents of a few more claims if you reduce c-suite pay?
Nice job moving the goalposts from "moving the needle" to "a few more cents of a few more claims". UnitedHealth Group had 371.6 billion in revenue last year. $50 M means they can provide 0.01% more care to their customers. I think it's fair to describe that as "not going to even minutely move the needle".
>I have a hard time buying this. Really? You can't cover a few more cents of a few more claims if you reduce c-suite pay?
Nice job moving the goalposts from "moving the needle" to "a few more cents of a few more claims". UnitedHealth Group had 371.6 billion in revenue last year. $50 M means they can provide 0.01% more care to their customers. I think it's fair to describe that as "not going to even minutely move the needle".
It moves the needle for the premium-paying customer.
Either the numbers matter or they don't. Pick one.
Either the numbers matter or they don't. Pick one.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/move_the_needle#English
>1. (idiomatic) To change a situation to a noticeable degree
Emphasis mine.
>1. (idiomatic) To change a situation to a noticeable degree
Emphasis mine.
You think over years and a number of bills that cents wouldn't start adding up?
It's 100% noticeable. If it weren't, then it wouldn't matter to people like the c-suite who are so focused on making money for themselves.
It's 100% noticeable. If it weren't, then it wouldn't matter to people like the c-suite who are so focused on making money for themselves.
The numerator might so up but so will the denominator, so it effectively cancels each other out. More to the point, I feel like this argument is over relative vs absolute. It might be noticeable" to a single person, but given that we're talking about the healthcare system as a whole, it's fair to say that it's not "noticeable".
[deleted]
> I have a hard time buying this. Really? You can't cover a few more cents of a few more claims if you reduce c-suite pay?
A single Tylenol in a hospital costs $15.
If you think a few cents is going to do anything, you are completely bamboozled.
A few cents is nothing in healthcare.
A single Tylenol in a hospital costs $15.
If you think a few cents is going to do anything, you are completely bamboozled.
A few cents is nothing in healthcare.
I work in healthcare technology.
I'm well aware of what things cost.
Maybe instead of paying for the c-suite's bonuses, they need to be paying someone to air the dirty laundry of the health system that's charging $15 for an acetaminophen. When someone's f*cking both you and your customer like that, you go after them. But it's not about that, is it? It's about transferring value to shareholders, not reducing the costs of care. Hell, doing actual work to reduce the cost of care is expensive, and we can't possibly expect the retirement funds and major shareholders of America to pay for that.
I'm well aware of what things cost.
Maybe instead of paying for the c-suite's bonuses, they need to be paying someone to air the dirty laundry of the health system that's charging $15 for an acetaminophen. When someone's f*cking both you and your customer like that, you go after them. But it's not about that, is it? It's about transferring value to shareholders, not reducing the costs of care. Hell, doing actual work to reduce the cost of care is expensive, and we can't possibly expect the retirement funds and major shareholders of America to pay for that.
> When someone's f*cking both you and your customer like that, you go after them. But it's not about that, is it? It's about transferring value to shareholders, not reducing the costs of care.
It's almost as if it's not an easy problem to solve, or some other health insurance company would do it and put all the other ones out of business.
It's almost as if it's not an easy problem to solve, or some other health insurance company would do it and put all the other ones out of business.
It's not an easy problem to solve if you're not interested in solving the problem.
And they're not. Like I said, the goal of for-profit health insurance companies is not to maximize economic benefits for customers; it's to maximize economic benefits for shareholders. It's a lot easier to transfer value to shareholders by just denying the claim submitted by the customer for that pill than it is to actually (legally) beat the entity charging for the pill into permanent submission. So that's what they do.
And they're not. Like I said, the goal of for-profit health insurance companies is not to maximize economic benefits for customers; it's to maximize economic benefits for shareholders. It's a lot easier to transfer value to shareholders by just denying the claim submitted by the customer for that pill than it is to actually (legally) beat the entity charging for the pill into permanent submission. So that's what they do.
> it's to maximize economic benefits for shareholders
Except health insurance is regulated, and you can only maximize profits to a small degree (which is the only reason UHC's profit margin is 6% instead of 40%).
This incentivizes health insurance companies to provide a good enough service that people want their insurance. Capturing a lot of the market is their ONLY way to make money.
They literally don't have the option to ask, "how do we just take more of our customers money and stuff it in our pockets?"
That's not really that terrible if the company is Apple and selling products that nobody NEEDS. It is terrible if you've only got a few choices and their selling something everyone needs - hence the regulation of profits.
It's almost as if our country isn't run by complete idiots.
Is it a perfect system? No.
Is there an obvious, far superior system? Also, no.
Except health insurance is regulated, and you can only maximize profits to a small degree (which is the only reason UHC's profit margin is 6% instead of 40%).
This incentivizes health insurance companies to provide a good enough service that people want their insurance. Capturing a lot of the market is their ONLY way to make money.
They literally don't have the option to ask, "how do we just take more of our customers money and stuff it in our pockets?"
That's not really that terrible if the company is Apple and selling products that nobody NEEDS. It is terrible if you've only got a few choices and their selling something everyone needs - hence the regulation of profits.
It's almost as if our country isn't run by complete idiots.
Is it a perfect system? No.
Is there an obvious, far superior system? Also, no.
>Is there an obvious, far superior system? Also, no.
Yes there is.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_exp...
Yes there is.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_exp...
Here's the chart. [0]
Review it, then come back to us.
[0]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health...
Review it, then come back to us.
[0]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health...
It's almost as if healthcare spending isn't the only variable that matters - and it matters how fat and sedentary your population is, and how much you pay doctors and nurses.
It's almost as if the world isn't so reductive complex issues can be reduced to cute little charts.
It's almost as if the world isn't so reductive complex issues can be reduced to cute little charts.
Canada's more-or-less the same setup of a society and they live longer and spend less on their healthcare.
You didn't look at the chart, did you?
You didn't look at the chart, did you?
In an ideal world the insurance company would operate more like a fiduciary than a custodian. Their job should be to guide you towards the best possible outcome not just the outcome that suits their best interest. But, that would require everyone along the chain from physicians, pharmacies, nurses, back office, front office, billing and scheduling to all operate in that same manner -- which unfortunately doesn't lead to profit so we end up with the system we have.
I agree, but demonizing the profit motive isn't the ideal path. The system, as far as I can tell, needs work. The fiduciary model works in other places, it will probably work in insurance and healthcare as well.
In fact as someone who pays the premiums I might feel better off when somebody else gets declined because it keeps my premiums down.
At some point declines are a protection against quackery.
At some point declines are a protection against quackery.
Given insurance companies are not a necessary component of a functioning healthcare system why do we normalize debates around what level of resource extraction constitutes murder on their part?
Obligatory "I do not condone murder."
The principle carries in so far as you hold up your contract for covered claims until bankrupt.
Or to use an analogy, which HN absolutely hates and will nitpick since an analogy is never the same thing: you do not get to trespass someone from your airplane while you are in flight. If the airplane catastrophically fails and someone is sucked out, then there is a pass.
It does not appear these denied claims are just people getting sucked out of a catastrophically failed aircraft.
The principle carries in so far as you hold up your contract for covered claims until bankrupt.
Or to use an analogy, which HN absolutely hates and will nitpick since an analogy is never the same thing: you do not get to trespass someone from your airplane while you are in flight. If the airplane catastrophically fails and someone is sucked out, then there is a pass.
It does not appear these denied claims are just people getting sucked out of a catastrophically failed aircraft.
[deleted]
Refusing to pay for medical care is hardly murder. It’s a standard monetary dispute, and we have a due process for these. If you think that so many claims are being unreasonably denied, why not start a company offering bridge loans, and funding legal challenges?
Maybe the courts are too inefficient to handle these disputes, but that’s an argument for reforming the courts, not for shooting executives.
Maybe the courts are too inefficient to handle these disputes, but that’s an argument for reforming the courts, not for shooting executives.
In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder.
This is what these health insurance companies are doing routinely. Murder by inaction and calling it anything else is playing in their hands.
The fact that courts are costly and slow is exactly why these companies use them to "delay".
This is what these health insurance companies are doing routinely. Murder by inaction and calling it anything else is playing in their hands.
The fact that courts are costly and slow is exactly why these companies use them to "delay".
> In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder.
So everyone in said countries is guilty of murder because they're not donating 100% of their time and energy to helping cure cancer?
That's not at all how this works. You can't just legislate infinite resources into existence. And infinite resources is exactly what it would take to give everyone a 100% perfect standard of care.
Deciding what's covered and what isn't is literally the whole job of an insurance company. Otherwise we could just put money into a pot and let anyone take out any amount they feel like, whenever they feel like it, for whatever purpose they deem necessary at their sole discretion. (And if that sounds like a good idea to you, I'd urge you to think things through a bit more carefully before you waste your money by trying it.)
So everyone in said countries is guilty of murder because they're not donating 100% of their time and energy to helping cure cancer?
That's not at all how this works. You can't just legislate infinite resources into existence. And infinite resources is exactly what it would take to give everyone a 100% perfect standard of care.
Deciding what's covered and what isn't is literally the whole job of an insurance company. Otherwise we could just put money into a pot and let anyone take out any amount they feel like, whenever they feel like it, for whatever purpose they deem necessary at their sole discretion. (And if that sounds like a good idea to you, I'd urge you to think things through a bit more carefully before you waste your money by trying it.)
> In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder.
Certainly not murder, involuntary manslaughter maybe. In any case, what is the basis for this obligation? You would concede that, as a consequence of imposing involuntary obligations on their citizens, these countries are less free? And you would also concede that reasonable people can disagree about the priorities of their values, and that valuing personal autonomy over collective well-being is a reasonable position?
> Murder by inaction and calling it anything else is playing in their hands.
What about doctors and nurses who refuse to work for free? Should we also shoot them? What about pharmaceutical companies that refuse to invest billions into drug development, or hospitals that refuse to purchase expensive facilities and equipment, without without a reasonable expectation of a return on their investment? Are they murderers too?
This worldview of holding people accountable for failing to intervene is simply not tenable. People are responsible for their direct actions. If you injure someone, you are responsible for your actions and the outcome they produced. If you simply come across an injured (or sick) person, you are in no way more obligated to them than you are to such a person on the other side of the world.
You also seem to be operating from the presumption that insurance companies do not add any value to the system, and that careful scrutiny of claims is motivated only by greed. I beg to differ. I want to be insured alongside other people with a similar risk profile to myself (eg. no drinking/drugs/smoking, daily exercise, good sleep, healthy body composition) to the exclusion of others. I want my insurance company to carefully scrutinize its applicants and claimants, on my behalf, to ensure that my interests are being well-represented. Insurance does not mean absolution from personal responsibility.
Certainly not murder, involuntary manslaughter maybe. In any case, what is the basis for this obligation? You would concede that, as a consequence of imposing involuntary obligations on their citizens, these countries are less free? And you would also concede that reasonable people can disagree about the priorities of their values, and that valuing personal autonomy over collective well-being is a reasonable position?
> Murder by inaction and calling it anything else is playing in their hands.
What about doctors and nurses who refuse to work for free? Should we also shoot them? What about pharmaceutical companies that refuse to invest billions into drug development, or hospitals that refuse to purchase expensive facilities and equipment, without without a reasonable expectation of a return on their investment? Are they murderers too?
This worldview of holding people accountable for failing to intervene is simply not tenable. People are responsible for their direct actions. If you injure someone, you are responsible for your actions and the outcome they produced. If you simply come across an injured (or sick) person, you are in no way more obligated to them than you are to such a person on the other side of the world.
You also seem to be operating from the presumption that insurance companies do not add any value to the system, and that careful scrutiny of claims is motivated only by greed. I beg to differ. I want to be insured alongside other people with a similar risk profile to myself (eg. no drinking/drugs/smoking, daily exercise, good sleep, healthy body composition) to the exclusion of others. I want my insurance company to carefully scrutinize its applicants and claimants, on my behalf, to ensure that my interests are being well-represented. Insurance does not mean absolution from personal responsibility.
>In some countries if you don't give care to someone who is in danger of dying you are yourself responsible for murder.
That's the case in US as well? If you show up to an ER they have to at least stabilize you.
That's the case in US as well? If you show up to an ER they have to at least stabilize you.
Not american. But how people will get to the ER in the first place? Not sure if true, but I heard people will run away from ambulances in the US because the costs are so high.
It’s not a standard monetary dispute - one party is under duress and holding a potential time bomb that the other party needs to defuse, but is arguing over.
Agreed.
The mess is deeper, but starting an insurance company is not easy either, one could blame the regulations. And then one cannot blame regulations either, it's the regulators/govt who are ultimately voted/allowed by the people. It's a case where every one passes the buck, and so no one single entity is responsible for the mess.
The mess is deeper, but starting an insurance company is not easy either, one could blame the regulations. And then one cannot blame regulations either, it's the regulators/govt who are ultimately voted/allowed by the people. It's a case where every one passes the buck, and so no one single entity is responsible for the mess.
You're ignoring a litany of intentional efforts by powerful people to keep the system as broken as possible so that they can take advantage of it. Things didn't just get this bad on their own; this is the result of decades of strategizing, billions of dollars in lobbying, and intentional efforts to profit off of the sickness and death of others. It's not like there's a lack of responsibility to go around.
What you say is true, but collectively people are ultimately to blame for their non-vigilance when their rights are slowly eroded.
Look at even small groups of common people, the most power hungry get to the top, common people vote for the most charismatic/popular, not the most competent. Blaming the powerful evil people is self defeating and absolves personal responsibility.
Common people are also a divided lot. Petty issues, bickering and entertainment keep them engaged. As the saying goes: divide and rule.
Look at even small groups of common people, the most power hungry get to the top, common people vote for the most charismatic/popular, not the most competent. Blaming the powerful evil people is self defeating and absolves personal responsibility.
Common people are also a divided lot. Petty issues, bickering and entertainment keep them engaged. As the saying goes: divide and rule.
"When all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing."
-- Hannah Arendt
-- Hannah Arendt
> Refusing to pay for medical care is hardly murder. It’s a standard monetary dispute, and we have a due process for these.
> Maybe the courts are too inefficient to handle these disputes, but that’s an argument for reforming the courts, not for shooting executives.
You do realize that these companies lobby to make sure that it stays inefficient, right?
In the cases where they don't use the court system, they use arbitration, which is usually tilted in the favor of insurance companies.
If you want a fair shake at getting the benefits you paid for, you have to go through the courts. Given the nature of the subject of the lawsuit, there's a real chance that you'll be dead or bankrupt before you get your day in court. That's not a system that works. And when there are systems that don't work, there are on occasion people who will go outside the system to make their own. There is no scenario in which vigilantism is completely eliminated when you have people making massive sums of money off of refusing to do business in good faith.
More people need to read the cautionary tale of Ken Rex McElroy and the town of Skidmore, MO.
> Maybe the courts are too inefficient to handle these disputes, but that’s an argument for reforming the courts, not for shooting executives.
You do realize that these companies lobby to make sure that it stays inefficient, right?
In the cases where they don't use the court system, they use arbitration, which is usually tilted in the favor of insurance companies.
If you want a fair shake at getting the benefits you paid for, you have to go through the courts. Given the nature of the subject of the lawsuit, there's a real chance that you'll be dead or bankrupt before you get your day in court. That's not a system that works. And when there are systems that don't work, there are on occasion people who will go outside the system to make their own. There is no scenario in which vigilantism is completely eliminated when you have people making massive sums of money off of refusing to do business in good faith.
More people need to read the cautionary tale of Ken Rex McElroy and the town of Skidmore, MO.
> If you want a fair shake at getting the benefits you paid for, you have to go through the courts.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but my health insurance makes it very clear what the benefits I paid for are. There’s guidance after guidance and tool after tool to help minimize any surprise costs.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but my health insurance makes it very clear what the benefits I paid for are. There’s guidance after guidance and tool after tool to help minimize any surprise costs.
Good for you, but there's an entire branch of the law profession dedicated to cases where that's not true and insurance companies have to be held to the letter of the contracts that they came up with.
> Maybe I’m in the minority, but my health insurance makes it very clear what the benefits I paid for are. There’s guidance after guidance and tool after tool to help minimize any surprise costs.
...and how has it gone when you tried to use them? Just as a personal anecdote: I once tried to get UHC to partially reimburse me for an out-of-network mental health expense. My policy explicitly covered such reimbursement (at a lower rate, of course). I tried for months to get the claim reimbursed. My employer at the time retained the services of a "healthcare concierge", and one of the main things they did was fight insurance companies on your behalf. That concierge service tried for six months to get a single claim reimbursed.
We all gave up.
It was such a small dollar amount; UHC likely spent more time and effort denying the claim than it would have cost to reimburse. It boggles my mind, to this day.
Just because your health insurance "makes it very clear what the benefits I paid for are" has no relation to whether or not they will actually pay those benefits out to you. If you haven't really experience this yet in America, I can only conclude that you are either rather healthy (and haven't used the benefits much), very lucky, or possibly both.
...and how has it gone when you tried to use them? Just as a personal anecdote: I once tried to get UHC to partially reimburse me for an out-of-network mental health expense. My policy explicitly covered such reimbursement (at a lower rate, of course). I tried for months to get the claim reimbursed. My employer at the time retained the services of a "healthcare concierge", and one of the main things they did was fight insurance companies on your behalf. That concierge service tried for six months to get a single claim reimbursed.
We all gave up.
It was such a small dollar amount; UHC likely spent more time and effort denying the claim than it would have cost to reimburse. It boggles my mind, to this day.
Just because your health insurance "makes it very clear what the benefits I paid for are" has no relation to whether or not they will actually pay those benefits out to you. If you haven't really experience this yet in America, I can only conclude that you are either rather healthy (and haven't used the benefits much), very lucky, or possibly both.
Can't wait to use the phrase "standard monetary dispute" the next time a collections agent threatens a family member with jail. That will show them.
> Refusing to pay for medical care is hardly murder.
This is crazy. Maybe it's not "murder" in the traditional sense but you are making a choice on whether someone gets life-saving care, or lives in immense pain for the rest of their lives until they commit suicide. Again, this kind of normalized violence is justified when it's a business making choices to increase profits. We are so disconnected from our humanity that rounding errors in an Excel sheet mean actual lives are being ended, but that's okay.
This is crazy. Maybe it's not "murder" in the traditional sense but you are making a choice on whether someone gets life-saving care, or lives in immense pain for the rest of their lives until they commit suicide. Again, this kind of normalized violence is justified when it's a business making choices to increase profits. We are so disconnected from our humanity that rounding errors in an Excel sheet mean actual lives are being ended, but that's okay.
Countries with universal health care still have to make these decisions.
They budget differently, but they won't use unlimited resources on every situation.
They budget differently, but they won't use unlimited resources on every situation.
> you are making a choice on whether someone gets life-saving care, or lives in immense pain
Is the care life-saving or pain-preventing?
There is an additional option: the person pays for it. Or someone else pays for it. Since the 1980s U.S. emergency rooms have been required to provide life-saving care regardless of whether someone can pay.
> normalized violence
It is not violence to fail to reimburse someone.
If someone cannot pay his bills, then he declares bankruptcy, the debts are wiped out, his creditors take a haircut and he moves on with his life. In many/most states he will get to retain his home and perhaps his vehicle. It’s not the end of the world?
Is it ideal? No, of course not. It’s better than dying, and of course it’s not murder.
Is the care life-saving or pain-preventing?
There is an additional option: the person pays for it. Or someone else pays for it. Since the 1980s U.S. emergency rooms have been required to provide life-saving care regardless of whether someone can pay.
> normalized violence
It is not violence to fail to reimburse someone.
If someone cannot pay his bills, then he declares bankruptcy, the debts are wiped out, his creditors take a haircut and he moves on with his life. In many/most states he will get to retain his home and perhaps his vehicle. It’s not the end of the world?
Is it ideal? No, of course not. It’s better than dying, and of course it’s not murder.
> Is the care life-saving or pain-preventing?
Those can be the same thing for some people. Chronic pain patients have a dramatically worse mortality rate.
> If someone cannot pay his bills, then he declares bankruptcy, the debts are wiped out, his creditors take a haircut and he moves on with his life.
I’ve done this. Due to medical expenses, in fact. It costs money up front, and was difficult to navigate as a well educated person with family support.
The idea that this is an easy option for a single person with no supports and a disabling condition is insane.
Many doctors won’t see you after, either. Bankruptcy doesn’t mean people you burned have to keep doing business with you.
Those can be the same thing for some people. Chronic pain patients have a dramatically worse mortality rate.
> If someone cannot pay his bills, then he declares bankruptcy, the debts are wiped out, his creditors take a haircut and he moves on with his life.
I’ve done this. Due to medical expenses, in fact. It costs money up front, and was difficult to navigate as a well educated person with family support.
The idea that this is an easy option for a single person with no supports and a disabling condition is insane.
Many doctors won’t see you after, either. Bankruptcy doesn’t mean people you burned have to keep doing business with you.
What's stopping people from switching to a better insurance provider?
Most Americans get their health insurance through their employers. You are technically free to not sign up for this and purchase your own health insurance, but when you consider that you then give up the employer subsidy to your monthly premium, and that said subsidy often amounts to thousands of dollars each year, it does not make financial sense to participate in the market.
Most health insurance (and the lowest cost insurance) in the US is tied to a person's employer, a system that shifts the balance of power substantially to large corporate employers over workers and small companies.
Furthermore, absent major life events (job change, marriage, new child, etc) there is only one time of year when health insurance changes can be made, a time of year called Open Enrollment.
Finally, if you are self employed and you don't live in a state with a well functioning Obamacare market, your health insurance options are often quite limited.
Furthermore, absent major life events (job change, marriage, new child, etc) there is only one time of year when health insurance changes can be made, a time of year called Open Enrollment.
Finally, if you are self employed and you don't live in a state with a well functioning Obamacare market, your health insurance options are often quite limited.
You can only switch providers during an open enrollment period, or a qualifying life event.
In other words, it is frequently made impossible, by law, to switch providers.
In other words, it is frequently made impossible, by law, to switch providers.
[deleted]
Well, in the US, most people get insurance through their employer, who pays part of the cost. Switching would mean having to pay all the cost yourself, which would be economically painful.
And why doesn't the employer switch? Because health care plans typically have doctors that they like more than other doctors ("in network" vs "out of network"), so most people gravitate toward the preferred doctors. ("Like" means "cover better", so the patient pays less.) If your company changes health care insurers, then many people would have economic pressure to switch away from their current doctors, which is a hassle.
TL;DR: There's a lot of friction in various forms here. That's why. Yes, people can switch, but it's expensive and painful, so most don't, even though the option is technically there.
And why doesn't the employer switch? Because health care plans typically have doctors that they like more than other doctors ("in network" vs "out of network"), so most people gravitate toward the preferred doctors. ("Like" means "cover better", so the patient pays less.) If your company changes health care insurers, then many people would have economic pressure to switch away from their current doctors, which is a hassle.
TL;DR: There's a lot of friction in various forms here. That's why. Yes, people can switch, but it's expensive and painful, so most don't, even though the option is technically there.
Affordability, restrictive "open enrollment periods", simple lack of variety/choice in the plans being offered, etc.
Surely you are not that naive, please carry yourself in these conversations with a modicum of self-respect.
Surely you are not that naive, please carry yourself in these conversations with a modicum of self-respect.
Yes. Crazy as in truly psychopathic. Not the name calling version. Here’s chatgpt on the medical/psychological definition of psychopathy:
Key traits associated with psychopathy include: 1. Affective Traits: • Lack of empathy (emotional detachment from others’ suffering) • Shallow emotions (restricted emotional range) • Absence of guilt or remorse • Callousness 2. Interpersonal Traits: • Superficial charm • Grandiosity (inflated sense of self-worth) • Manipulativeness • Deceptiveness or pathological lying
People defend planetary scale psychopathy because it’s quite literally business as usual.
Key traits associated with psychopathy include: 1. Affective Traits: • Lack of empathy (emotional detachment from others’ suffering) • Shallow emotions (restricted emotional range) • Absence of guilt or remorse • Callousness 2. Interpersonal Traits: • Superficial charm • Grandiosity (inflated sense of self-worth) • Manipulativeness • Deceptiveness or pathological lying
People defend planetary scale psychopathy because it’s quite literally business as usual.
Keeping a lot of the incriminating evidence on him (including, it seems, the jacket) can't be a careless mistake (in my opinion). So what are some of the possible reasons?
- He committed the crime and had another target in mind
- He committed the crime and really didn't think he'd get away with it so he kept it to keep some unknown options open.
- He committed the crime and didn't want any doubt that he was guilty when he got caught. Perhaps he wanted the media to be focussed more on the "why" than "is it him?" speculation.
How about some of the possible reasons he was at a McDonalds instead of many other ways to get food that wouldn't have security cameras
- He was ready to be caught as the media cycle was moving on and he perceived momentum of empathy for him right now
- He was ready to be caught because being on the run was too hard and not inline with his goals
- He wasn't thinking clearly and didn't really have much of a post-shooting plan outside of getting out of NYC
- He felt safe in that town
- He overestimated his support
- He committed the crime and had another target in mind
- He committed the crime and really didn't think he'd get away with it so he kept it to keep some unknown options open.
- He committed the crime and didn't want any doubt that he was guilty when he got caught. Perhaps he wanted the media to be focussed more on the "why" than "is it him?" speculation.
How about some of the possible reasons he was at a McDonalds instead of many other ways to get food that wouldn't have security cameras
- He was ready to be caught as the media cycle was moving on and he perceived momentum of empathy for him right now
- He was ready to be caught because being on the run was too hard and not inline with his goals
- He wasn't thinking clearly and didn't really have much of a post-shooting plan outside of getting out of NYC
- He felt safe in that town
- He overestimated his support
- He wasn't thinking clearly and didn't really have much of a post shooting plan outside of getting out of NYC
Seems pretty likely that this was the case. Getting away from the site of the crime is challenging enough!
Seems pretty likely that this was the case. Getting away from the site of the crime is challenging enough!
Getting in and out of NYC leaving as little as he did was the challenge. Getting across the border or camping out in the Forrest for a few weeks shouldn’t be that much of a challenge in comparison.
A few weeks in an NY forest in December? That's a challenge even if you're prepared.
You're missing one of the most obvious reasons: he might not be as smart or as clever as the internet's romanticized version of the assassin.
Plenty of smart and clever people make mistakes all of the time and you’re only oppressing yourself if you think otherwise. For fear of making mistakes is foolish pride.
Crime and Punishment (Dostoyevski) illustrates this. It's probably wasn't a conscious process or well thought out plan, and it's difficult to imagine and prepare for the pressures of a life-and-death situation in advance.
Any sane person would discard the evidence by scattering it. Any homeless will take anyone of the items.
He was smart enough to carry away the feat without getting caught. He is not smart socially, his demise doesn't serve his purpose. Sounds like fit to be an engineer. And kind of suicidal.
He was smart enough to carry away the feat without getting caught. He is not smart socially, his demise doesn't serve his purpose. Sounds like fit to be an engineer. And kind of suicidal.
Most likely he realized once the authorities have his name - he can't run forever.
That being said - some obvious stuff he could have done like grow a beard and shave it after and fly out of the country to somewhere cheap like Thailand with $10k
That being said - some obvious stuff he could have done like grow a beard and shave it after and fly out of the country to somewhere cheap like Thailand with $10k
> (including, it seems, the jacket)
Just 2 days ago, the police reported they found his backpack with jacket inside and a veterinary gun nearby... now he had the same jacket, backpack and another unlicenced gun with him. His eyebrows and nose are different, can clearly see it from the few released pictures.
Just 2 days ago, the police reported they found his backpack with jacket inside and a veterinary gun nearby... now he had the same jacket, backpack and another unlicenced gun with him. His eyebrows and nose are different, can clearly see it from the few released pictures.
It's surprising how many people are missing this crucial step.
CCTV footage shows a guy with certain features.
Days later, after no leads whatsoever, another photo shows a guy with markedly different features.
Now authorities say they have caught a guy matching the second footage. He conveniently walked into a McDonalds with his manifesto, fake ID, and a 3d printed gun. ???
Idk man, could be legit I guess... But it is a bit wild that so many people are taking all this at face value, unquestioned; as if there isn't tremendous pressure on authorities to deliver a neatly packaged conclusion to the story at almost any cost.
CCTV footage shows a guy with certain features.
Days later, after no leads whatsoever, another photo shows a guy with markedly different features.
Now authorities say they have caught a guy matching the second footage. He conveniently walked into a McDonalds with his manifesto, fake ID, and a 3d printed gun. ???
Idk man, could be legit I guess... But it is a bit wild that so many people are taking all this at face value, unquestioned; as if there isn't tremendous pressure on authorities to deliver a neatly packaged conclusion to the story at almost any cost.
Side note: I guess the original typo was the AP or someone, but I assume Fixarixis is supposed to be Firaxis, given the suspect's connections to Maryland and the fact that all search results for Fixarixis are copies of this story. It's interesting how that spreads.
Yeah, he worked on Civ VI as a software intern.
Whoa... I might've actually tinkered with some of this guy's code back in my modding days. What a strange contradiction it is to think that we can unknowingly interact with so many different people and never once get to know any of them.
Lol this has an extra badge it didn't have when i seen it an hour ago.
Because 16 people have starred his "Halite-III" repo
There's some _interesting_ issues being created: https://github.com/lnmangione/Halite-III/issues
His followers count keeps going up every time I refresh. It’s not like he’ll be pushing commits for a while haha.
It's too bad: they really should give prisoners like this computers with some limited access so they can work on coding projects. What else are they going to do with their time, after all? Perhaps they could spend it contributing to open-source projects and helping society.
Part of prison is that you can't communicate to the external world without being monitored. Any shared code would also have to be reviewed. Even in Norway internet use is banned, except for educational purposes, which presumably limits you to wikipedia and .gov
That's understandable, but perhaps they could just give him an isolated PC, and let him pick some github projects he wants to clone, download those (after approval of course) and put them on the PC, let him work away on it for a while, perhaps allow periodic pulls from those repos, and then when he has something to contribute, give those to someone to review for anything disallowed (like a manifesto in the comments or whatever), and once they confirm it's just working source code, allow it to be contributed somehow to the project so they can accept it or not, understanding where it's coming from.
It would be a good project but you need people to review all code. I think effort/money could be spent on more pressing matters in this environment; open-source contribution is rather niche.
I'm sure they can find outsiders happy to review code contributions. Any decently-run OSS project would already do this, after all, so it wouldn't be hard to just contact them and find a person already active in that organization willing to do the review and communicate back to the prison, assuming it's a project that really would like some extra full-time help for the next ~50-75 years (not all might, but some definitely would).
What other "more pressing matters" could there be anyway? Making license plates? This guy is smart and experienced with software development. It would be a waste for him to do something as mundane as making license plates or digging ditches (I don't even think they use prisoners for that these days).
What other "more pressing matters" could there be anyway? Making license plates? This guy is smart and experienced with software development. It would be a waste for him to do something as mundane as making license plates or digging ditches (I don't even think they use prisoners for that these days).
> Any shared code would also have to be reviewed.
Random thought, but this made me imagine him reviewing code as a punishment: A chain gang of reviewers if you will.
Random thought, but this made me imagine him reviewing code as a punishment: A chain gang of reviewers if you will.
> What else are they going to do with their time, after all?
ONE OF the main functions of the prison system today is access to prison slave labor, so I imagine they'll keep him busy.
ONE OF the main functions of the prison system today is access to prison slave labor, so I imagine they'll keep him busy.
They could try teaching other inmates, or becoming the jailhouse lawyer.
People who are good at coding frequently aren't very good at teaching or lawyering.
Jailhouse lawyering involves the aspects of law that most correspond to code - reading documentation to learn a system and converting a human language request into a very strictly formatted request. If they can't do that then they should spend their time in jail learning what they're missing.
The glazing in the issues of this repo - https://github.com/lnmangione/Halite-III/issues
What's important is what we learned about society's appetite for political violence against the upper class. What isn't important is the actual actor.
And it's not even a divisive story. Most of the left and right seem to agree on this one. Specially younger people.
Ignore the media stories, their paychecks are written with corporate ad money. On the Internet people of all kinds seem to like the guy.
Ignore the media stories, their paychecks are written with corporate ad money. On the Internet people of all kinds seem to like the guy.
I think you mean the appetite for political violence of people who are chronically online and lacking connection with reality
January 6th showed that at least the far-right is OK with political violence. Lynchings show that racists are OK with political violence. Anti-Semites burning synagogues shows that they're OK with political violence. The government has never had a problem with political violence against minorities and people pushing for a more socially supportive system. But somehow when average people are OK with violence against a greedy CEO whose policies lead to thousands of preventable deaths it's a step too far.
Frankly, everyone is sick of being raped by insurance companies. Online or not, people I know view insurance companies as absolute scum. Its not much of a stretch to condone violence against their leadership
His Goodreads comment on Ted Kacyzinski's book (better known for other work).
https://i.redd.it/j9n3oplojv5e1.jpeg
Final sentence is telling (among others):
"Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators.
Presumably he means those in power who say it because they don't want anyone to challenge their power.
Do note that he apparently quoted someone elses sentence there. A quote from the review before this paragraph:
"A take I found online that I think is interesting:"
"A take I found online that I think is interesting:"
I see nothing wrong with this comment, what it's implying, predators want to be the only ones inflicting the damage and have its prey not defend itself.
He's basically correct though. This statement has also sat terribly with me. Especially given how much we glorify documents like the constitution or declaration of independence.
Like many absolute statements, this claim is just plain wrong. America (and many other countries) were started by revolutions. The revolutionaries had guns.
Countries like India are unique for gaining freedom without violence.
I mean just look at Syria. I don't have any feelings good or bad towards the rebels. But people have been trying to get rid of Assad for ages and it just took the right people with guns.
One man's violence is another's righteous revolution. All political power is at the end of the barrel of a gun.
Like many absolute statements, this claim is just plain wrong. America (and many other countries) were started by revolutions. The revolutionaries had guns.
Countries like India are unique for gaining freedom without violence.
I mean just look at Syria. I don't have any feelings good or bad towards the rebels. But people have been trying to get rid of Assad for ages and it just took the right people with guns.
One man's violence is another's righteous revolution. All political power is at the end of the barrel of a gun.
> Countries like India are unique for gaining freedom without violence.
There was a lot of violence leading up to and, sadly, after the independence of India. Gandhi was nonviolent, but many of the freedom fighters for India's independence were not.
There was a lot of violence leading up to and, sadly, after the independence of India. Gandhi was nonviolent, but many of the freedom fighters for India's independence were not.
Additionally, the British couldn't hope to hold onto India without the support of the British Indian army which at that point seemed ready to revolt.
The US's antiviral anti colonial stance also helped.
The US's antiviral anti colonial stance also helped.
Sure. There's basically no examples of non-violent revolutions. India is the closest thing I can think up today.
What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
-Jefferson
-Jefferson
The founding fathers of the United States were -- above all -- realists
>glorify documents like the constitution or declaration of independence.
It's worth the paper it's written on, perhaps less. It gives fools the fodder for the braying the rhetoric they speak and argue.
It's worth the paper it's written on, perhaps less. It gives fools the fodder for the braying the rhetoric they speak and argue.
My guess is he was referring to financial predators. Greed and lust rather than wrath.
No, he's saying that predators tell their prey not to fight back.
[flagged]
I don't think this is true. How many popular movies are war movies where the heroes are most certainly not pacifists? Even the movie starring a real-life pacifist (Hacksaw Ridge) is about how he, too, fit into the war machine.
First, I meant pacifism is promoted as the only recourse for the general citizen, not for the government. Of course, war movies promote the acceptability of violence by the state. Two totally separate phenomena.
The state promotes violence by the state, and being docile for the citizen.
The state promotes violence by the state, and being docile for the citizen.
Ok, but the word pacifism means something specific. I agree with your statement about docility, I think many would call it "civility." Same thing that black people were accused of, being "uncivil," when they were rioting for civil rights.
That is true. It's an important definition distinction.
> I meant pacifism is promoted as the only recourse for the general citizen
What media are you consuming? Take a look at any list of top-grossing films of the past few decades and it's riddled with non-state lone wolf actors using violence to solve their problems.
You're saying that John Wick, Creed, Spider-Man, The Fall Guy, Furiosa, Venom, etc. are teaching Americans to be pacifists?
What media are you consuming? Take a look at any list of top-grossing films of the past few decades and it's riddled with non-state lone wolf actors using violence to solve their problems.
You're saying that John Wick, Creed, Spider-Man, The Fall Guy, Furiosa, Venom, etc. are teaching Americans to be pacifists?
Of course. Movies are an outlet to let off steam. We experience the violence in the theatre that is increasingly precisely because the pacified masses need a strong outlet to escape the lack of recourse for injustice in the real world.
This is a good explanation without supporting the idea that there is no propaganda of violence. There is. And btw, the US are one of the most violent advanced countries.
Only because the violence is a side effect of having fairly unregulated capitalism. But eventually the system will stop that.
You're moving the goal posts. First you said that "pacifism is heavily promoted in mainstream media". When I pointed out that American mainstream media is absolutely riddled with "non-state invidualist hero uses personal violence to solve their problems", now you claim that the media is for "letting off steam".
[deleted]
This misunderstanding was already solved in a sibling comment.
> why pacifism is heavily promoted in mainstream media and society
Yes, America's problem is it's just too peaceful, at home and abroad.
Like, it's a neat hypothesis. The data just don't fit, certainly not for America. We have high rates of gun ownership and gun violence (as well as other violence, e.g. at bars and schoolyards) precisely because we like taking justice into our own hands.
Yes, America's problem is it's just too peaceful, at home and abroad.
Like, it's a neat hypothesis. The data just don't fit, certainly not for America. We have high rates of gun ownership and gun violence (as well as other violence, e.g. at bars and schoolyards) precisely because we like taking justice into our own hands.
Predators try to dissuade use of violence in their victims while freely using it themselves.
They are monopolists.
I think Putin and his lackeys have exemplified this countless times in recent years. They perpetrate horrors but will cry foul when someone dares punch back.
Also see... that other war.
More or less lays out his motive right there.
I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse.
I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse.
Violence is very effective. The authorities use it to subjugate the population and the American military uses the threat of violence and the action of actual violence to keep the United States the way it is. Except when it is used by governments, it is often called defense and when it is used by the police it is often called 'keeping the peace'. Violence as a tool for revolution is quite effective -- only pacifism is strongly ingrained in us to make us "good citizens".
>Recent research suggests that nonviolent civil resistance is far more successful in creating broad-based change than violent campaigns are, a somewhat surprising finding with a story behind it.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen...
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen...
There's a lot of flaws with Chenoweth & Steph's widely-lauded study; in many respects it tells a certain class of people what they want to hear.
https://roarmag.org/essays/chenoweth-stephan-nonviolence-myt...
Chenoweth's own subsequent research indicates the issue is far more nuanced, and that states have to some extended adapted to/exploited the strategic challenges posed by nonviolent resistance.
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annur...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002234332210929... (paywalled, sorry)
https://roarmag.org/essays/chenoweth-stephan-nonviolence-myt...
Chenoweth's own subsequent research indicates the issue is far more nuanced, and that states have to some extended adapted to/exploited the strategic challenges posed by nonviolent resistance.
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annur...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002234332210929... (paywalled, sorry)
>in many respects it tells a certain class of people what they want to hear.
I'm no health plutocrat. In fact, I've been unemployed for the past several years due to a chronic health condition. I'm currently getting private health coverage through Medicaid.
Recall that Chenoweth started out believing that violence was more effective, then changed her mind after looking at the data.
The internet's response to the CEO shooting has revealed that there is a huge appetite for violence. People with an appetite for violence appear to vastly outnumber those without on sites such as reddit. I'm seeing a lot of arguments in favor of violence, and nearly all of them strike me as quite shoddy. I wish I had the time and energy to respond to all of the bad arguments, but I don't have it.
I started reading your roarmag article (found through the internet archive), and it doesn't seem very compelling.
* The author starts from the premise that BLM succeeded through violence, which seems dubious.
* He seems to assume that "a counterhegemonic and politically radical viewpoint became perplexingly commonsensical overnight" due to violence, and doesn't seem to understand that correlation isn't the same as causation.
* He points out various issues with the study, which weaken the strength of its conclusion, but also seem sort of inescapable when doing this kind of research.
I stopped reading when it became clear to me the author was "telling the audience what they wanted to hear", to use your phrasing. ("ROAR was an online journal of the radical imagination...")
As long as we're going to assume that correlation is causation, I notice that your second link states that
"the success rate of nonviolent resistance campaigns has declined since 2001"
and also
"incidental violence by dissidents has become a more common feature of contemporary nonviolent campaigns compared with earlier cases"
Wonder if those facts are related? Nonviolence isn't what it used to be, and also it's now become less effective?
>states have to some extended adapted to/exploited the strategic challenges posed by nonviolent resistance.
Sure -- and they've adapted to the strategic challenges posed by violent resistance as well, I'd argue.
I'm no health plutocrat. In fact, I've been unemployed for the past several years due to a chronic health condition. I'm currently getting private health coverage through Medicaid.
Recall that Chenoweth started out believing that violence was more effective, then changed her mind after looking at the data.
The internet's response to the CEO shooting has revealed that there is a huge appetite for violence. People with an appetite for violence appear to vastly outnumber those without on sites such as reddit. I'm seeing a lot of arguments in favor of violence, and nearly all of them strike me as quite shoddy. I wish I had the time and energy to respond to all of the bad arguments, but I don't have it.
I started reading your roarmag article (found through the internet archive), and it doesn't seem very compelling.
* The author starts from the premise that BLM succeeded through violence, which seems dubious.
* He seems to assume that "a counterhegemonic and politically radical viewpoint became perplexingly commonsensical overnight" due to violence, and doesn't seem to understand that correlation isn't the same as causation.
* He points out various issues with the study, which weaken the strength of its conclusion, but also seem sort of inescapable when doing this kind of research.
I stopped reading when it became clear to me the author was "telling the audience what they wanted to hear", to use your phrasing. ("ROAR was an online journal of the radical imagination...")
As long as we're going to assume that correlation is causation, I notice that your second link states that
"the success rate of nonviolent resistance campaigns has declined since 2001"
and also
"incidental violence by dissidents has become a more common feature of contemporary nonviolent campaigns compared with earlier cases"
Wonder if those facts are related? Nonviolence isn't what it used to be, and also it's now become less effective?
>states have to some extended adapted to/exploited the strategic challenges posed by nonviolent resistance.
Sure -- and they've adapted to the strategic challenges posed by violent resistance as well, I'd argue.
>The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide how violent the confrontation with — and reaction to — the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other security elites, economic and business elites, state media.
Get the violent ones on your side to ultinately win. Got it.
I don't think she's making the point she thinks she's making. And yes, I read the rest of the article. It focused primarily on events taking place in places where, lets face it, there's not quite the ah... oomph in gen pop that exists in the U.S. It's ulitimately a nice thought. It's absolutely accurate in that things like generalized striking and boycotts are great preambles as well. They're also considered illegal in the U.S. to coordinate btw, because of previous run ins with said efficacy during wartime in WWII. Secondary striking was outlawed. So formal unions can't use that as a tactic. You can thank the Taft-Hartley act for that.
So... Yeah. Might want to meditate on that one a bit harder.
Get the violent ones on your side to ultinately win. Got it.
I don't think she's making the point she thinks she's making. And yes, I read the rest of the article. It focused primarily on events taking place in places where, lets face it, there's not quite the ah... oomph in gen pop that exists in the U.S. It's ulitimately a nice thought. It's absolutely accurate in that things like generalized striking and boycotts are great preambles as well. They're also considered illegal in the U.S. to coordinate btw, because of previous run ins with said efficacy during wartime in WWII. Secondary striking was outlawed. So formal unions can't use that as a tactic. You can thank the Taft-Hartley act for that.
So... Yeah. Might want to meditate on that one a bit harder.
1) The changes there are changes _within_ the system. That narrative only covers changes that are compatible with the industrial capitalist system. Indeed, the author focuses only on "transition to democracy". But I'd argue that nonviolent push for capitalism already has capitalism as a foregone conclusion because it is also more efficient, so even "doing nothing" can often bring it about.
2) Therefore, one could say that nonviolent action is most effective and bringing about the current corporate-controlled system.
Of course, that makes sense. But let's say you want to take down a corporate-controlled system. Then violence is likely to be much more effective.
2) Therefore, one could say that nonviolent action is most effective and bringing about the current corporate-controlled system.
Of course, that makes sense. But let's say you want to take down a corporate-controlled system. Then violence is likely to be much more effective.
You haven't explained why the effectiveness of violence should differ depending on the change that's desired.
The change to democracy doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's the most likely system to come about due to an advance in technology. So people advocating for it are already swimming with the tide. Also, if a large majority want democracy, then it's more likely to happen, especially due to pressure from other countries who are also democratic and have a vested interest in democracy.
If you want to make a change where the majority (or at list the rich majority) don't want, then violence will be much more effective. For example, I think it's likely that this one killing will do more to cause a renewed vigor in revamping America's health care than any nonviolent protest, because the richest capitalists and shareowners are against it.
If you want to make a change where the majority (or at list the rich majority) don't want, then violence will be much more effective. For example, I think it's likely that this one killing will do more to cause a renewed vigor in revamping America's health care than any nonviolent protest, because the richest capitalists and shareowners are against it.
>If you want to make a change where the majority (or at list the rich majority) don't want, then violence will be much more effective.
So you're saying violence is a morally acceptable way for a minority to force its will on a majority? This just sounds like an argument for dictatorship.
- - -
I think whatever argument you make in favor of violence, you should anticipate that your political opponents will make the exact same argument to excuse their violence. So whatever argument you make -- be sure it's an argument you are OK with your political opponents using.
A social contract regarding the times and places where it's acceptable to use violence is actually a really valuable thing. Confucius was actually on to something.
So you're saying violence is a morally acceptable way for a minority to force its will on a majority? This just sounds like an argument for dictatorship.
- - -
I think whatever argument you make in favor of violence, you should anticipate that your political opponents will make the exact same argument to excuse their violence. So whatever argument you make -- be sure it's an argument you are OK with your political opponents using.
A social contract regarding the times and places where it's acceptable to use violence is actually a really valuable thing. Confucius was actually on to something.
Violence creates a lot of problems, but it does solve some issues. Morals is a totally different topic, and whether "political opponents" will resort to violence is yet another topic.
Heck, even the mere fact that the suspect was arrested was based on state-sanctioned "violence". If the police didn't have guns and weren't allowed to use force to arrest people, no amount of non-violent actions would convince a murder suspect to voluntarily present themselves and subject themselves to trial in court.
Violence is probably generally bad overall, but the original statement that "Violence never solved anything" is just plainly false and a lie. It's not a defensible position.
> A social contract regarding the times and places where it's acceptable to use violence is actually a really valuable thing.
Right, this statement itself shows violence does work in a particular context and situation. Far from "violence never solved anything".
Heck, even the mere fact that the suspect was arrested was based on state-sanctioned "violence". If the police didn't have guns and weren't allowed to use force to arrest people, no amount of non-violent actions would convince a murder suspect to voluntarily present themselves and subject themselves to trial in court.
Violence is probably generally bad overall, but the original statement that "Violence never solved anything" is just plainly false and a lie. It's not a defensible position.
> A social contract regarding the times and places where it's acceptable to use violence is actually a really valuable thing.
Right, this statement itself shows violence does work in a particular context and situation. Far from "violence never solved anything".
>Violence creates a lot of problems, but it does solve some issues. Morals is a totally different topic, and whether "political opponents" will resort to violence is yet another topic.
Degradation of the social contract and the response of those who disagree are potential problems with violence. That makes them on-topic.
>Heck, even the mere fact that the suspect was arrested was based on state-sanctioned "violence". If the police didn't have guns and weren't allowed to use force to arrest people, no amount of non-violent actions would convince a murder suspect to voluntarily present themselves and subject themselves to trial in court.
Indeed. I'm arguing that lawful violence should not, in general, be considered morally equivalent to unlawful violence.
When the state punishes a violent robber, that's not morally equivalent to me randomly punishing someone because I don't like their face. If people are able to successfully argue that these two situations are morally equivalent, expect your society to become a miserable place rather quickly.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on the specific phrase "violence never solved anything", given that it doesn't seem to appear in this comment's grandparent chain.
Degradation of the social contract and the response of those who disagree are potential problems with violence. That makes them on-topic.
>Heck, even the mere fact that the suspect was arrested was based on state-sanctioned "violence". If the police didn't have guns and weren't allowed to use force to arrest people, no amount of non-violent actions would convince a murder suspect to voluntarily present themselves and subject themselves to trial in court.
Indeed. I'm arguing that lawful violence should not, in general, be considered morally equivalent to unlawful violence.
When the state punishes a violent robber, that's not morally equivalent to me randomly punishing someone because I don't like their face. If people are able to successfully argue that these two situations are morally equivalent, expect your society to become a miserable place rather quickly.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on the specific phrase "violence never solved anything", given that it doesn't seem to appear in this comment's grandparent chain.
I think you're confusing an argument about violence's effectiveness with one about its morality.
> So you're saying violence is a morally acceptable way for a minority to force its will on a majority? This just sounds like an argument for dictatorship.
No, I think it's a much more subtle concept than just giving a binary yes or no. Definitely willing to discuss away from this forum though.
> I think whatever argument you make in favor of violence, you should anticipate that your political opponents will make the exact same argument to excuse their violence.
They (capitalists) already use violence to enforce their society.
No, I think it's a much more subtle concept than just giving a binary yes or no. Definitely willing to discuss away from this forum though.
> I think whatever argument you make in favor of violence, you should anticipate that your political opponents will make the exact same argument to excuse their violence.
They (capitalists) already use violence to enforce their society.
It's quite effective at causing _something_ to happen, but what that something is isn't controllable; the volatility in outcome can be sculpted via a lot of different approaches, but smaller actors have fewer tools to sculpt the outcome. And it's very easy to enter a state of total commitment from both sides no matter the other costs, essentially forcing other systems to be sacrificed toward what is now a "totally committed conflict." This happens on the small scale (person to person) and on the large scale (state to state). Violence forces shifts in every facet and system at every scale, shifts towards total commitments to more violence. Violence is the final means of trying to enact social change; there's nowhere else to go.
Those who've lived total commitment to violence are it's loudest opponents. I hope we can continue to listen to their stories.
Those who've lived total commitment to violence are it's loudest opponents. I hope we can continue to listen to their stories.
Violence can be very effective. Violence is not effective by definition.
Somehow people miss the fact that the difference and power to effect change resides in the context, not with violence itself.
The list of failed revolutions that left everyone worse off is far longer the the list of revolutions that resulted in the betterment of society.
Somehow people miss the fact that the difference and power to effect change resides in the context, not with violence itself.
The list of failed revolutions that left everyone worse off is far longer the the list of revolutions that resulted in the betterment of society.
Depends how you define betterment. I'd say putting society under global capitalism was worse for society (especially native tribes, but everyone I'd argue).
Colonialism predated global capitalism, and there's always been various forms of trade routes and wars over the course of civilization, and likely going back far before then. Global capitalism has raised the standard of living over the past century.
Depends how you define standard of living. In some respects, such has being able to live close to nature, global capitalism has made that worse.
Violence certainly can be effective, but also not. Everything is situational. See the Black Panthers vs. peaceful protesting during the civil rights movement. See also the American Revolution. Whether or not violence makes sense likely depends on how strong you and your friends are.
>See the Black Panthers vs. peaceful protesting during the civil rights movement. See also the American Revolution.
Some believe King was successful in part because of the threat of violence from alternative groups like the Black Panthers.
Some believe King was successful in part because of the threat of violence from alternative groups like the Black Panthers.
King was originally for violent protest until Bayard Rustin convinced him of nonviolent protest
This is also why the state apparatus like it incite violence in the opposition, this gives them authority to respond with violence.
Nonviolent protest and organizing is more dangerous because it could quickly become a populist movement. A small group of people incited into violence, is already fringe and can be quickly suppressed.
Nonviolent protest and organizing is more dangerous because it could quickly become a populist movement. A small group of people incited into violence, is already fringe and can be quickly suppressed.
Yup, this is why you always shut down instigators at protests. Could very well be an agent provocateur.
True. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Obviously, in order for it to be effective, you need a good strategy.
Violence is only ineffective when you lose.
I wasn't suggesting that violence is ineffective. The French Revolution is an obvious example. I'm thinking about the "Reign of Terror" that followed though.
The French revolution was extremely ineffective. It turned a short term food crisis due to drought and hailstorms into a long term food crisis that lasted decades. It was a complete failure at addressing the suffering of the people, which only got better after they abandoned their revolutionary ideals, embraced an emperor, and raped and looted the rest of Europe.
Is it the period between 1789 and 1804 that you are quantifying as "decades"? A bit overeasy on the rounding, no?
In my post, I thought it was clear that I blamed the Napoleonic wars on the French revolution, carrying the resulting damage and suffering longer than that. An estimated 2 million French (more than 5% of France's population) died during the Napoleonic wars, and that obviously doesn't include the maimed, injured, or otherwise harmed.
I must have gotten confused by "which only got better after they [...] embraced an emperor".
Is that how kids use quotation marks these days?
"...embraced an emperor, and raped and looted the rest of Europe."
"...embraced an emperor, and raped and looted the rest of Europe."
Then I'm genuinely confused. The meaning of that sentence, to me, was that pillaging has helped with the famine. It would have been a sentence that was consistent with your previous one, except for the "decades" rounding error. Isn't it not what you meant?
yes, pillaging the rest of Europe helped with famine and other economic issues at home. This is consistent with claim of decades because we are looking at 1789-1815(ish) although I think the end is a blur, not line. The Consequences of actions cascade throughout the future, even to today, and just become more dilute as time passes on.
The number of years is really besides the point, which was to call out the consequences were long lasted, not just limited to the terror, and and included the wars.
The number of years is really besides the point, which was to call out the consequences were long lasted, not just limited to the terror, and and included the wars.
You aren't going to gain much by arguing with Curtis Yarvin.
Never heard of him. Wikipedia lists him as an alt-right blogger.
I assure you, criticism of the French revolution is not a hot new take.
I assure you, criticism of the French revolution is not a hot new take.
Paine wrote Rights of Man in defense of the revolution against Burkes critiques.
I deeply appreciate the sentiments of the French revolutionary philosophers, and think we should strive for many of their ideals.
I just dont think mobs parading around the heads of bakers helps advance those ideals, let alone get the bread that doesn't exist for their hungry children.
I just dont think mobs parading around the heads of bakers helps advance those ideals, let alone get the bread that doesn't exist for their hungry children.
Am I arguing? I didn't notice. I like Napoleon too and I'm intrigued that someone blames the casualties of the Napoleonic wars on the Revolution rather than, you know, Napoleon.
Blame isn't zero sum or mutually exclusive.
Events can have an unlimited number of necessary causes or preconditions.
Great men of History can have huge impacts, but usually ride massive tides of population level phenomenon, like economics, culture, and public sentiment.
Events can have an unlimited number of necessary causes or preconditions.
Great men of History can have huge impacts, but usually ride massive tides of population level phenomenon, like economics, culture, and public sentiment.
Of course, it goes without saying. But at some point, I think one has to keep a certain restraint on that blame game. I think blaming the Revolution for Napoleonic wars causalities is crossing the threshold of acceptability.
The Zionist movement had a certain role to play in the Holocaust, didn't it? But most people would consider it a grave error in judgment to attribute blame to this movement for a certain part of Holocaust victims.
The Zionist movement had a certain role to play in the Holocaust, didn't it? But most people would consider it a grave error in judgment to attribute blame to this movement for a certain part of Holocaust victims.
Why does everyone forget the French Revolution led to dictatorship and a war of conquest?
You don't know beforehand what bold collective actions lead to. Abolishing slavery lead to a pretty ugly civil war in the US. Does it mean it wasn't worth it?
And the first truly global war didn't? The 7 years war is overlooked.
If the revolutoon Led to it, what led it was what was there before the revolution
It’s effective if you’re fine with your own life and other regular peoples lives sucking for 20+ years vs. The status quo
> I disagree with his thoughts on violence. When you try to solve a problem by inviting violence to dinner you'll find you have a guest you are unable to excuse.
This is a pretty shallow opinion imo. The government operates on violence. America was founded in a violent revolution. The question people are asking isn't about whether violence has its place (it does); it's about how bad things have to get before you stop considering your government to have a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence, and people can start justly using violence themselves.
This is a pretty shallow opinion imo. The government operates on violence. America was founded in a violent revolution. The question people are asking isn't about whether violence has its place (it does); it's about how bad things have to get before you stop considering your government to have a legitimate monopoly on the use of violence, and people can start justly using violence themselves.
"Non-violence is a very non-functional approach in a society that's based entirely on organized force and violence."
Non-violent economic power is an extremely powerful tool within systems that restrict the use of force.
If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days.
The allure of violence is that people mistakenly think that they make change without support, when in reality, they are usually just creating effects, not the change that they want.
Shooting a school or rioting has a lot of effects, but they almost never make the desired change.
If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days.
The allure of violence is that people mistakenly think that they make change without support, when in reality, they are usually just creating effects, not the change that they want.
Shooting a school or rioting has a lot of effects, but they almost never make the desired change.
If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something, they could non-violently change anything in days.
This might be more persuasive if you supplied some examples.
This might be more persuasive if you supplied some examples.
> If the vast majority of the public actually agreed on something
Huge ask right at the beginning. If that is met, there are several examples such as The Velvet Revolution, Iceland's Financial Crisis Protest, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, Philippine People Power Revolution (1986) etc.
Huge ask right at the beginning. If that is met, there are several examples such as The Velvet Revolution, Iceland's Financial Crisis Protest, The Women’s Suffrage Movement, Philippine People Power Revolution (1986) etc.
Such a huge ask, I think that most of western society is not in a state to be able to fulfil it. Especially in the US and UK (but probably many others), we've become so polarised that there's some kind of perceived honour in opposing the other 'side', regardless of your own actual opinion. If we needed to fight for suffrage today, for example, I don't think there would be a "vast majority", just two roughly equal sides taking opposing views for the sake of it.
Well, the internet has finally helped realize the politician's dream - making the voter believe that:
1. They are in the right (no pun intended) group
2. All other groups are in the wrong
3. Their leader cares about them
4. He/she has the solution
1. Most of us are in the same group
2. The group is of screwed over people
3. The leaders only care about gaining and staying in power
4. Why would the leaders find any solution that won't help with gaining and staying in power?There is no difference between economic power and violence, it is it's currency. Rioting begot the civil rights act.
Sure seems different when my employer pays me to work instead of beating me.
They don't have to, it's outsourced. If you don't take it you'll end up on the street and the cops will beat you.
Do you have any idea just how bad a violent revolution in modern day America would get? The recent Civil War movie doesn't do it justice. I'm assuming anyone advocating for this has swallowed Russian propaganda.
I was there during the revolution in Ukraine.
Life isn’t the movies.
I’m not advocating for violence. On the contrary. But one has to wonder sometimes what percentage of the population has to work full time while not being able to afford basic necessities, until violence becomes an option
I’m not advocating for violence. On the contrary. But one has to wonder sometimes what percentage of the population has to work full time while not being able to afford basic necessities, until violence becomes an option
Even if we see 20 Luigi Mangione copycats in 2025, this isn't doing to start a violent revolution nor a civil war in the US.
It would actually do the opposite - the great positive effects from those 20 Luigis would reduce the chance of such a thing occuring.
It would actually do the opposite - the great positive effects from those 20 Luigis would reduce the chance of such a thing occuring.
People act based on incentives and disincentives. As of 2024, there are big incentives to cause great damage to society at large for pure personal gain in a manner like this CEO, with no disincentives.
This brings back a potential disincentive, and is what has been incredibly sorely needed.
The French revolution is often brought up here as a case that is supposed to show that this kind of violence leads to horrific outcomes. This is ironic as on the whole, its results were fantastic. Reason being that it didn't just affect France - all over Europe, the monarchies were suddenly much more willing to restrain their power and care a lot more about the peasants.
This is exactly what is needed. This doesn't have to happen to every similar CEO to have an incredibly positive effect.
This brings back a potential disincentive, and is what has been incredibly sorely needed.
The French revolution is often brought up here as a case that is supposed to show that this kind of violence leads to horrific outcomes. This is ironic as on the whole, its results were fantastic. Reason being that it didn't just affect France - all over Europe, the monarchies were suddenly much more willing to restrain their power and care a lot more about the peasants.
This is exactly what is needed. This doesn't have to happen to every similar CEO to have an incredibly positive effect.
Part of the reason we established courts was to avoid angry mobs dispensing justice, but we've let the courts become captured to a large extent.
If you don't allow folks to seek justice in the courtroom, they'll inevitably return to "the jungle" so to speak.
It's our job as participants in society to do our best to avoid that, but we have to make changes. We can't be idle and wring our hands saying "it can't be helped" or "it's not illegal". We have to change things so that folks will be held accountable.
If we don't, this sort of thing is inevitable.
If you don't allow folks to seek justice in the courtroom, they'll inevitably return to "the jungle" so to speak.
It's our job as participants in society to do our best to avoid that, but we have to make changes. We can't be idle and wring our hands saying "it can't be helped" or "it's not illegal". We have to change things so that folks will be held accountable.
If we don't, this sort of thing is inevitable.
monero-xmr(2)
Tell that to the Syrian rebels.
This is a great one. There were plenty of nonviolent protests in Syria throughout the years. They were executed and imprisoned without accomplishing a single thing.
xyst(5)
Personally, I don't put a lot of weight on that. Particularly for people who are terminally online, the Unabomber manifesto is kinda "edgy content". A lot of these people want to come off as "edgy". He had Mein Kampf in his Goodreads profile too. Without other evidence, I don't think that really says anything either.
Good example: his Goodreads had "Introduction to Algorithms" in it. This is the de facto textbook at MIT, Stanford, etc and likely UPenn (where he got his undergrad and Masters). Does that mean he read it? Not necessarily.
Put it this way: the number of people who have read Knuth's volumes is a lot smaller than those who own them as essentially expensive bookends or paperweights. But it's a nice way to signal your technical chops.
All of these things need to be taken in a broader context.
Good example: his Goodreads had "Introduction to Algorithms" in it. This is the de facto textbook at MIT, Stanford, etc and likely UPenn (where he got his undergrad and Masters). Does that mean he read it? Not necessarily.
Put it this way: the number of people who have read Knuth's volumes is a lot smaller than those who own them as essentially expensive bookends or paperweights. But it's a nice way to signal your technical chops.
All of these things need to be taken in a broader context.
Ted K's book is a lucid commentary on technology and society and recommends the dismantling of technological society. Not sure why it would be considered "edgy".
Dismantling technological society isn't realistic and wouldn't be remotely a good thing, so yeah, that's very edgy.
It would be a good thing for every other species besides humans, that's for sure.
There are domesticated species that depend on human for their survival.
Think crops like maize, pets like dogs (some breeds more so than others), etc.
Think crops like maize, pets like dogs (some breeds more so than others), etc.
I am only concerned with wild species, not domesticated ones.
The take he mention in that is an old reddit comment:
https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone...
https://old.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/has_anyone...
Only four stars though...
[deleted]
Back in June, an innocent Latino student was shot in Dolores Park around 10pm. (Dolores being one of the most popular parks in SF, with people walking their dogs and playing tennis late into the night.) His family put up fliers all over the neighborhood begging for any leads. I've barely heard a peep from the media or authorities about the murder since it happened.
In contrast, how many man-hours went into investigating Mr. Thompson's assassination? The wealthy and powerful will sleep more soundly with the suspect under arrest, yet I still feel a bit nervous walking around my neighborhood after dark.
Is there even a question that we have a two-tiered justice system?
In contrast, how many man-hours went into investigating Mr. Thompson's assassination? The wealthy and powerful will sleep more soundly with the suspect under arrest, yet I still feel a bit nervous walking around my neighborhood after dark.
Is there even a question that we have a two-tiered justice system?
I understand the fear of living near such a heinous crime, but you have to see the difference between the two situations. Random crime is scary, but is random. All signs point to this being an assassination. Brian Thompson wasn't the victim of a random criminal, nor was he murdered by some person he has a connection with. He was assassinated. So the right question is why do we investigate assassinations differently than murders? And to me, the answer is clear - an assassination has far larger societal implications than a murder.
Yes, the purpose of an assassination is to have societal implications. In this case, the implications primarily threaten the people in power. Thus, those people direct their forces at preventing and prosecuting such acts.
This is all totally consistent with OP’s charge that there is a two-tiered justice system. Personally, I would much rather see the man who murdered OP’s neighbor in jail than Luigi Mangione.
This is all totally consistent with OP’s charge that there is a two-tiered justice system. Personally, I would much rather see the man who murdered OP’s neighbor in jail than Luigi Mangione.
The average citizen is more at risk of being the victim of random crime than they are being the victim of a targeted assassination.
Other links:
https://github.com/lnmangione
https://x.com/pepmangione - more of a reposter than a commenter, for example
* reposts link on mental health titled "Seasonality of brain function: role in psychiatric disorders"
* view on what's wrong with society: "I believe this book will go down in history as the most important philosophical text of the early 21st century." [Tim Urban's "What's Our Problem?"]
* [ironically] on intelligence, liking the quote "Being smart makes you more prone to confirmation bias"
* likes John Haidt's new book "The Anxious Generation"
etc
https://github.com/lnmangione
https://x.com/pepmangione - more of a reposter than a commenter, for example
* reposts link on mental health titled "Seasonality of brain function: role in psychiatric disorders"
* view on what's wrong with society: "I believe this book will go down in history as the most important philosophical text of the early 21st century." [Tim Urban's "What's Our Problem?"]
* [ironically] on intelligence, liking the quote "Being smart makes you more prone to confirmation bias"
* likes John Haidt's new book "The Anxious Generation"
etc
TBH, this feels like some kind of psychotic break. He just kind of stops posting out of nowhere. On twitter there are some attempts from others to reach him that seem concerned for his wellbeing: https://x.com/DanielleFong/status/1866211089660477490
26? I was thinking schizophrenia as soon as I heard the age. The weirdness of the situation, unclear motive, and how it seems very out of character all scream onset of some kind of mental illness yes.
These are all strange things to tweet publicly. I would expect all of these to be DMs. Unless he had somehow closed his DMs / forced their hand.
Some say he had a medical issue and saw first hand the reality of being sick and not an elite in America (even though, by all accounts he probably had good insurance and was quite wealthy in his own right).
Totally agree.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on an adderall bender that he never recovered from. Adderall and rabbit hole topics without a resolution (societal change) are not a good mix.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went on an adderall bender that he never recovered from. Adderall and rabbit hole topics without a resolution (societal change) are not a good mix.
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/55354261-luigi-mangione
Gave a 4 star review to the Unabomber manifesto!
quote from his review:
"Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators.""
Gave a 4 star review to the Unabomber manifesto!
quote from his review:
"Violence never solved anything" is a statement uttered by cowards and predators.""
nice investigative journalism! how did you find this when the profile is private? is there an easy way to search reviews by name?
It wasn't private not too long ago
Interesting. It was private for me too. But I clicked to read the full list of the 474 4-star reviews and scrolled and found it. From there I found a direct link to his review which still works (as of a few hours after his name leaked) at:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4065667863
He justifies Ted Kaczynski saying: "He was a violent individual - rightfully imprisoned - who maimed innocent people. While these actions tend to be characterized as those of a crazy luddite, however, they are more accurately seen as those of an extreme political revolutionary."
The quote about "Violence never solved anything..." it turns out are not his words, they are part of him quoting someone else in his review; but I wasn't able to find the source of the long message he quoted; just news articles from the last few hours mentioning the quote.
EDIT: nevermind, found the origin of the quote on reddit r/climate: https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/comment/j5...
Another notable GoodReads comment (from Luigi) regarding another book: "I love Steve-O. His life is full of wild stories, and his addictive personality is one I relate to. "
He justifies Ted Kaczynski saying: "He was a violent individual - rightfully imprisoned - who maimed innocent people. While these actions tend to be characterized as those of a crazy luddite, however, they are more accurately seen as those of an extreme political revolutionary."
The quote about "Violence never solved anything..." it turns out are not his words, they are part of him quoting someone else in his review; but I wasn't able to find the source of the long message he quoted; just news articles from the last few hours mentioning the quote.
EDIT: nevermind, found the origin of the quote on reddit r/climate: https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/10j1le5/comment/j5...
Another notable GoodReads comment (from Luigi) regarding another book: "I love Steve-O. His life is full of wild stories, and his addictive personality is one I relate to. "
His IG was https://www.instagram.com/luigi.from.fiji/ but they obviously took it down
that tim urban book is so bad. dude wrote an entire adult graphic novel dismantling marxist theory without ever reading the source text!
So he meticulously planned the rest of the murder, disappeared for almost a year before now, and we are to believe that everything he did in the last year was NOT also staged?
Come on.
Come on.
After seemingly acting so carefully right before and after the shooting I’m perplexed as to why he had so much evidence still on him (Gun/silencer, Fake ID, manifesto) during the arrest. One would think he would have discarded or destroyed those things as soon as possible after the incident.
The three possibilities I see:
1. He wanted to get caught
2. This isn't him, and they're framing this guy
3. He figured the safest place to have that stuff was on his person, but then why go and get arrested at McDonald's? To be fair I don't know about that interaction.
I don't buy 3 because there were so, so many places to ditch shit between Altoona and Manhattan. The Susquehanna for starters.
1. He wanted to get caught
2. This isn't him, and they're framing this guy
3. He figured the safest place to have that stuff was on his person, but then why go and get arrested at McDonald's? To be fair I don't know about that interaction.
I don't buy 3 because there were so, so many places to ditch shit between Altoona and Manhattan. The Susquehanna for starters.
My guess is that initially he intended to avoid being caught, but at some point changed his mind and embraced it.
Maybe he was suffering from a mental illness and so he simply wasn't thinking clearly and carefully from the beginning.
Subconsciously, he wanted to be caught.
Just to put the hypothesis out there: because he's a fall guy to placate the people afraid of being killed like the UHC CEO, which the authorities desperately need.
(Although a brief perusal of the photos in the article doesn't show anything obviously different between them.)
(Although a brief perusal of the photos in the article doesn't show anything obviously different between them.)
You would probably want the fall guy to be someone who can't defend themselves easily, like someone with substance abuse issues and prior convictions, not an attractive 26 year old valedictorian with an affluent family.
This seems extremely unlikely in practice considering how many people would need to play along. Also what happens if more evidence appears afterwards or the actual killer gives himself up? You just end up playing whack a mole to keep the lie working. No it really doesn't make sense.
Not saying it's impossible but in those cases they need to A) know who the real killer actually is, and B) kill/suicide the fall guy.
Not saying it's impossible but in those cases they need to A) know who the real killer actually is, and B) kill/suicide the fall guy.
With is face pretty much being captured on camera in the hostel and in an Uber I'm not sure there was much point hiding it. He was going to get caught shortly whatever he did.
If he ditched the gun, fake IDs and any other evidence he had tying him to the crime and just gave the cops his real id and denied being in NYC recently, it would have made it much harder to prosecute. Without any physical evidence, he just looked like the shooter.
Not sure I agree with that. Had he stayed in hiding for months, he wouldn’t have been ID’d. Why is he walking around bare-faced a few days later? My take is he planned the actual act but didn’t think about much beyond that.
Maaaan, The NYPD will take credit for oxygen. Right now their talking like they solved it. a "combination of old-school detective work and new age technology"
it was an employee at McDonalds. McDonalds solved this crime. Like god intended.
it was an employee at McDonalds. McDonalds solved this crime. Like god intended.
Does it matter?
The point is, the NYPD was compiling evidence for the media to release. Part of that evidence nobody had included:
- the original surveillance video of the murder
- the video capture of him at the hostel (with his mask down)
- the video capture of him inside the cab after the murder with his mask
Without a decent photo, he probably would still be on the run. Had it not been for the NYPD releasing the images of him, the patron or employee would not have recognized him and called the cops.
The cops were closing in on him regardless. The photos being so widely circulated were a primary reason he got caught. He was probably forced to try and wear a mask to conceal his identity, but at the same time, doing so made me stick out enough that they called the cops.
The point is, the NYPD was compiling evidence for the media to release. Part of that evidence nobody had included:
- the original surveillance video of the murder
- the video capture of him at the hostel (with his mask down)
- the video capture of him inside the cab after the murder with his mask
Without a decent photo, he probably would still be on the run. Had it not been for the NYPD releasing the images of him, the patron or employee would not have recognized him and called the cops.
The cops were closing in on him regardless. The photos being so widely circulated were a primary reason he got caught. He was probably forced to try and wear a mask to conceal his identity, but at the same time, doing so made me stick out enough that they called the cops.
You can use makeup to change your skin color (ashen, icteric, black). And fake facial hair covering bone features. And contact lenses.
Enough for a cab camera
Enough for a cab camera
That seems quite unfair. The NYPD was the one that located multiple pictures of the suspect, and I'm assuming did a good bit of detective work to ensure the pictures they released actually were of the suspect in question. Of course at some point after releasing photos of the suspect one would anticipate that someone who recognized them would turn them in.
So, eyes like every human being has?
Let me guess, you're the type of developer that says "Hah, it's crazy they have so many people, I could code up that project in a weekend!!"
Downvoted because you are flinging personal insults
Did you intentionally skip over this part of their comment?
> did a good bit of detective work to ensure the pictures they released actually were of the suspect in question
> did a good bit of detective work to ensure the pictures they released actually were of the suspect in question
“Detective” work is carrying a lot here which is really just comparing clothing, pictures, following the journey etc. all made possible from the surveillance resources and not their work. And after all that they didn’t even have him as a suspect lol.
> “Detective” work is carrying a lot here which is really just comparing clothing, pictures, following the journey etc. all made possible from the surveillance resources and not their work
Do you remember the Boston Marathon bombings [1]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi
Do you remember the Boston Marathon bombings [1]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi
It was actually a patron at McDonalds.
That's gotta be the cover-up so they can quickly so, "oh! It was an anonymous tip. No one to blame or possibly endanger for you crazed vigilantes--sorry, thanks!"
I firmly believe it was an employee.
I firmly believe it was an employee.
I feel like when you start conspiracy theorizing you're obligated to follow it to its logical conclusion. If I thought it were a cover-up to protect the store from crazed vigilantes, the last thing I'd do is try and put the store back in danger!
If the ice-cream machine was working properly, then they have one or more competent employees; which points to employee involvement.
If the ice-cream machine was broken, then the likelihood is less and the employees may not have been involved.
It's all very logical.
If the ice-cream machine was broken, then the likelihood is less and the employees may not have been involved.
It's all very logical.
Those machines are broken by design. Another instance of corporate capture.
https://www.wired.com/story/they-hacked-mcdonalds-ice-cream-...
Plot twist, he hates McDonald's.
He may have been there to kill that McDonald's manager
Based on your last sentence: Looks like my conspiracy theory holds some water then!
Giving the reward to a minimum wage worker seems like something he would do if he wanted to give himself up to the police, like why just go to the cops, the reward would be wasted. Although his politics seem incongruent so maybe not.
Even better
Basically the same thing that happened with the rapist in June who kidnapped and raped two random middle schoolers in broad daylight. Prints & and DNA were in the system, he was living in an apartment NYC was paying for and people called into the tip line with his name. It wasn't NYPD, it was a guy working at a bodega who apprehended him 5 days later.
If you're more conspiratorial, nobody called from McDonalds. That was just a cover for whatever creepy spy tech they used.
How did someone recognize him from that half-face photo?
There must be millions of people in the East Coast who look like that.
There must be millions of people in the East Coast who look like that.
Judging by the mugshot, he might have been wearing the same clothes as well.
A young guy wearing a mask in Altoona would stand out. He probably would have been better off not wearing the mask in that case.
Conspiracy theory below, so beware, I warned you.
What are the odds that since case is high profile they probably used some grey area or illegal surveillance tool from their 3 letter agency friends and made up some story how a patron recognized him.
Convinently guy also had a copy of all the incriminatint stuff with him. (In russia he would also have sims3).
Since he talked on phone, they used some voice recognition software. They probably record all the calls and the system recognized him when he made a new one (or even worse - from someone elses' phone).
Then they used this whole doctrine of not revealing the real source.
What are the odds that since case is high profile they probably used some grey area or illegal surveillance tool from their 3 letter agency friends and made up some story how a patron recognized him.
Convinently guy also had a copy of all the incriminatint stuff with him. (In russia he would also have sims3).
Since he talked on phone, they used some voice recognition software. They probably record all the calls and the system recognized him when he made a new one (or even worse - from someone elses' phone).
Then they used this whole doctrine of not revealing the real source.
Why stop there? Thompson was allegedly set to testify on some insider trading hearing while he knew about an anti-trust case before the public. Maybe those same TLAs found a guy with a grudge and nudged him up to take care of a witness who might testify to something they didn't want public, or maybe some of their superiors were just upset about the $25B in lost shareholder value in the whole situation.
> Maybe those same TLAs found a guy with a grudge and nudged him up to take care of a witness who might testify to something they didn't want public, or maybe some of their superiors were just upset about the $25B in lost shareholder value in the whole situation.
Since he got caught alive this theory does not look plausible. Those guys who were to hire him would make sure that he will not be talking to police.
Since he got caught alive this theory does not look plausible. Those guys who were to hire him would make sure that he will not be talking to police.
I think police only released half-face photo to media. They had more angles and pictures of the person. Could also be that they got additional photos from a car ride that has been mentioned in many reports.
What if they first noticed a gun bulging in a pocket, and then made the connection?
>Police revealed that finding the 26-year-old was a complete surprise, and that they did not have his name on a list of suspects prior to today
So when they said they knew who he was yesterday it was a lie.
So when they said they knew who he was yesterday it was a lie.
It was specifically Eric Adams who sort of implied that - but it was a bit of a cagey response, and NYPD later stated that day they had no ID:
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5028239-mayor-adams-sa...
Given Adam’s past year, there was never a reason to take what he says at face value.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5028239-mayor-adams-sa...
Given Adam’s past year, there was never a reason to take what he says at face value.
I don't think that's a fair characterization.
> When asked by a reporter if police had the suspect’s name, Adams said, “We don’t want to release that now. If you do, you’re basically giving a tip to the person we are fine with seeking, and we do not want to give him an upper hand at all. Let him continue to believe he can hide behind a mask.”
Grammatical flub aside ("the person we are fine with seeking"), he is just saying that he doesn't want to say anything about the info being requested. The police release information that they have decided is in their interest to release. Everything else is classified confidential by default.
> When asked by a reporter if police had the suspect’s name, Adams said, “We don’t want to release that now. If you do, you’re basically giving a tip to the person we are fine with seeking, and we do not want to give him an upper hand at all. Let him continue to believe he can hide behind a mask.”
Grammatical flub aside ("the person we are fine with seeking"), he is just saying that he doesn't want to say anything about the info being requested. The police release information that they have decided is in their interest to release. Everything else is classified confidential by default.
[deleted]
"Let him continue to believe he can hide behind a mask" implies that he can't hide and they know his name. A lie in other words.
Police lie all the time, but this is police _implying_ a lie. To me it (clearly?) read as if they were keeping their cards close to their chest, not saying either way.
> implies that he can't hide
I agree with this.
> and they know his name.
That is not implied anywhere at all.
I agree with this.
> and they know his name.
That is not implied anywhere at all.
It hinges on what the word “that” in “release that” is referring to. If it’s referring to releasing his name, then he’s implying not releasing his name is a choice which implies they have the option to release it, so they must know it. If it’s referring to releasing whether or not they know his name, then it’s not implying anything. If this was said by someone with a history of well-spoken and thoughtful public statements, then it’d most likely be the latter interpretation. Given it’s Eric Adams, either is plausible. In fact, the bullshit-ness of the former may make it even more probable here.
>"Let him continue to believe he can hide behind a mask"
To me that implies that they don't know who he is, because he is hiding.
To me that implies that they don't know who he is, because he is hiding.
Eric Adams doesn't have a strong reality filter, and it's usually good to cross-check things he says, especially if he's the only person saying them. I don't think he consciously makes things up, he just tends to gravitate towards saying things that sound good in the moment.
Or, if we're being really charitable, they were chasing the wrong guy.
Or, if we're being really charitable, they were chasing the wrong guy.
All you did was make the phrase "makes things up" more palatable. It still means the same thing. He lies.
> He lies.
He's a cop turned politician.. cows moo, crocodiles chomp, and these critters lie. It's their nature.
He's a cop turned politician.. cows moo, crocodiles chomp, and these critters lie. It's their nature.
Cops protect and serve. I'm not sure who you're thinking of.
They protect their own and serve themselves. But they have the state backing them up and we don't.
Whoosh
Too late to edit, but it seems the implied /s here should have been explicit.
Too late to edit, but it seems the implied /s here should have been explicit.
Lolol. Were thinking of the ones who break into your house and kill you thinking it was their’s, the ones that killed Breonna Taylor, chased a black man running etc.
Oh I know, I meant this to be sarcastic and didn't quite land that plane.
[deleted]
some don’t
I like understanding why people are making things up.
Edit: sorry, I was a bit snarky there and I shouldn't have been. I was in fact splitting a hair there; it's a useful one for me but it's far from obligatory.
Edit: sorry, I was a bit snarky there and I shouldn't have been. I was in fact splitting a hair there; it's a useful one for me but it's far from obligatory.
What lies has Eric Adams said?
He lies constantly. Like, he lives in New Jersey and pretends to live in NYC. He pretends to be a vegan.
Also continually uses strange phrases in speeches that he made up, like "all your haters will be waiters when you sit down at the table of success", or saying "New York City is the Dublin/Istanbul/Port au Prince of America" whenever he's talking to an a cultural group.
Also continually uses strange phrases in speeches that he made up, like "all your haters will be waiters when you sit down at the table of success", or saying "New York City is the Dublin/Istanbul/Port au Prince of America" whenever he's talking to an a cultural group.
He's currently indicted for criminal fraud. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/25/nyregion/eric-adams-...
He’s a former cop and a current politician, I’d be surprised if anything he says publicly is true.
Not sure why you got downvoted, no one familiar with either profession can argue that it’s not a part of being a cop or a politician
He's a compulsive liar.
To give you one specific - he lied about accidentally firing a gun at school and then he claimed that a book that is available for purchase "never got to print."
https://apnews.com/article/eric-adams-book-gun-e2179cd82fc41...
To give you one specific - he lied about accidentally firing a gun at school and then he claimed that a book that is available for purchase "never got to print."
https://apnews.com/article/eric-adams-book-gun-e2179cd82fc41...
If Books Could Kill podcast got you covered
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unlocked-eric-adams/id...
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unlocked-eric-adams/id...
Let me remind you here that it is the job of the government and specifically the police to lie to you. So if he was lying, he was doing his job.
I don't know why you are being downvoted. My father was a cop, went through the academy when I was 15. I distinctly remember him explaining to me about how they are taught to lie to get people to cross their stories up.
I think the objection was to the centrality of lying and intent.
My home contractors might lie to me, but that certainly is not what I hired them to do
I'm assuming your father did more than just tell tall tales.
My home contractors might lie to me, but that certainly is not what I hired them to do
I'm assuming your father did more than just tell tall tales.
Eric Adams, the brilliant detective.
The job is not lying. If anything, lying is a situational means to an end.
We can argue against that fact without resorting to hyperbole and twisting reality ourselves
We can argue against that fact without resorting to hyperbole and twisting reality ourselves
Jesus Christ thank you. I understand the political climate means the word "lie" is somehow a bad word but thank you for saying it. It's still a fucking lie. It might even be worse, because the bullshitters like that are often so oblivious that it makes it harder to tell they're lying. And yet, it has the same damn effects in every measurable way.
It's a lie. Call it a non malicious lie, sure, whatever. But it's still a lie. I swear. The bar is buried under the fucking ground. In the US, anyway.
It's a lie. Call it a non malicious lie, sure, whatever. But it's still a lie. I swear. The bar is buried under the fucking ground. In the US, anyway.
That's a common tactic to try and get a suspect to turn themselves in.
Sometimes it works. (Most suspects turn themselves in for crimes they've committed. It's actually the exception when police need to go out to arrest a criminal suspect.)
Sometimes it works. (Most suspects turn themselves in for crimes they've committed. It's actually the exception when police need to go out to arrest a criminal suspect.)
That's when the suspect's identity is known, and the suspect would rather face a bail hearing then try to keep hiding.
Sure, for nonviolent criminal offenses. It helps that accepting responsibility for one's actions (as demonstrated by turning oneself in) generally results in significantly reduced sentencing.
For violent offenses, and especially for high-profile murder cases, they don't give the suspect the option of turning themselves in.
For violent offenses, and especially for high-profile murder cases, they don't give the suspect the option of turning themselves in.
> they don't give the suspect the option of turning themselves in
That seems a lot like the responsibility of the suspect? Like, if you're planning on shooting a high profile target in midtown Manhattan isn't the exit something to think about? Based on what information we might actually have, the shooter had plenty of carelessly missed opportunities to not be caught. Poor planning, in retrospect, is a choice.
That seems a lot like the responsibility of the suspect? Like, if you're planning on shooting a high profile target in midtown Manhattan isn't the exit something to think about? Based on what information we might actually have, the shooter had plenty of carelessly missed opportunities to not be caught. Poor planning, in retrospect, is a choice.
RE "....when they said they knew who he was yesterday it was a lie....."
Was an obvious lie ...was my first reaction.
If they did know the name - it could have been used to retrieve numerous photos - and other evidence. That said the accused person left several of their online profiles online . even a facebook profile !!!
Was an obvious lie ...was my first reaction.
If they did know the name - it could have been used to retrieve numerous photos - and other evidence. That said the accused person left several of their online profiles online . even a facebook profile !!!
It's hard to believe that this is true. There seems to be enough people who knew him, from friends and family who were worried about him, to people who went to school or worked with him. Do you want to tell me that not even a single person identified him in the pictures and notified the police? Not to mention that his friends and family didn't know where he is, so it fit the narrative perfectly.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes, they do that. Lying is how they operate, especially when questioning or trying to mess with suspects. You can never trust anything a cop says.
They weren't lying, but it was the wrong thing to say. They had a list of suspects and they may have had high confidence that one of them was their guy. But they couldn't know that at least until they took someone into custody.
...and? Do you think police should be bound to be truthful at all times, even if hinders their investigation?
His x posts read like he was on an adderall bender.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went into psychosis after losing a lot of sleep and never really got back to stability.
Adderall and a passion rabbit-hole like societal change are a dangerous combination. The more deep you dive, the more disinterested people become with you, and the more disconnected you become with other people.
I wouldn't be surprised if he went into psychosis after losing a lot of sleep and never really got back to stability.
Adderall and a passion rabbit-hole like societal change are a dangerous combination. The more deep you dive, the more disinterested people become with you, and the more disconnected you become with other people.
i don't know how it is on adderall but he posted like, once a week, and they often are just retweets.
Have you, perhaps, had an adderall problem before? I have, and I used to say things like this a lot, but really I think its projection. How could you possibly know?
Yeah, speaking from experience, unfortunately.
Yeah I feel you. Hope things have gotten better for you.
Quitting was one of the best decisions I have ever made
Same. It was relatively short lived and not a huge deal. I can see how it can develop into a big deal, though.
Did you ever deal with any of the paranoia?
Did you ever deal with any of the paranoia?
Sorry we're talking about the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter. Not Elon Musk.
In one of the BBC articles when talking about the ghost gun in his possession, they have added "possibly 3d printed". This is the only place I have seen this mentioned and it's really annoying because there is already enough rhetoric about 3d printed guns and various groups trying to regulate 3d printers, the last thing we need is something as big as this for them to attach to!
Everything is a ghost gun if you're a journalist. Just like how everything is an ar15.
> Police revealed that finding the 26-year-old was a complete surprise, and that they did not have his name on a list of suspects prior to today.
"I'd rather be lucky than good!" Impressive that they do seem to have found the right guy, based on the documents in his possession, and this was apparently due solely to the one photograph of his face that the police found and released.
I also note that this guy apparently had back surgery a few months ago.
"I'd rather be lucky than good!" Impressive that they do seem to have found the right guy, based on the documents in his possession, and this was apparently due solely to the one photograph of his face that the police found and released.
I also note that this guy apparently had back surgery a few months ago.
I wonder if the McDonald's employee really recognized him from those couple of off-angle photos or if Mr. Mangione himself initiated the action in order to let someone "deserving" collect the reward. It seems to me that he wanted to be caught, and the amount of evidence that he was carrying on him is obviously meant to establish his identity beyond any doubt. The amount of meticulous planning he undertook for the actual shooting contrasts with the trail of evidence that he kept dropping along the way. He would've basically never been found if he had just worn a pair of sunglasses.
>in order to let someone "deserving" collect the reward.
Government rewards are always fake. They never pay out. Ever. The one guy who made it possible to catch Chapo is still "waiting" for his payout. If you're going to be a snitch, I guess you need to do it for the principle of the thing, there won't be any cash in your future.
Government rewards are always fake. They never pay out. Ever. The one guy who made it possible to catch Chapo is still "waiting" for his payout. If you're going to be a snitch, I guess you need to do it for the principle of the thing, there won't be any cash in your future.
Don't forget, the insurance company here (UHC) didn't bother to offer any reward at all.
>or if Mr. Mangione himself initiated the action in order to let someone "deserving" collect the reward.
this is a really interesting idea
this is a really interesting idea
Very - if he hates corporate elite than a random underpaid McDonalds employee getting 50K or 60K or whatever it is might line up with that
I thought it was a customer?
Both are being reported, at least here in the UK.
Customer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2zwqqr1ro
Employee: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/09/unitedhealth...
Customer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2zwqqr1ro
Employee: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/09/unitedhealth...
Yeah, the way I read it, it was some elderly customer at the McDonald's who tipped off the cops.
"We dragged our feet as hard as we could, but some idiot decided to call us"
Programming language inventor or serial killer?
https://vole.wtf/coder-serial-killer-quiz/
https://vole.wtf/coder-serial-killer-quiz/
Kinda amazing someone with enough foresight to plan this and conceal their identity doesn't burn their ID and destroy the weapon as like the priority 1 after getting out of the city.
If he planned to go after others he'd still need that gun, and he might have needed the IDs to get to his next target.
Even if this were the case, I think that the fake ID would no longer be helpful to him once investigators were aware of it. I'd assume that scanning it anywhere would set off some alarms.
> I'd assume that scanning it anywhere would set off some alarms
I'd be worried about that too, but certainly better than using his actual ID. I've never tried, but I'm guessing it's not easy to get good fakes on short notice in strange cities and lots of people these days demand ID, even just to get a room for the night.
I'd be worried about that too, but certainly better than using his actual ID. I've never tried, but I'm guessing it's not easy to get good fakes on short notice in strange cities and lots of people these days demand ID, even just to get a room for the night.
You stand at the fork in the tracks. Pulling the lever will divert the train from a track with 10,000 people on it, to a track with 1 person on it. Do you pull the lever?
Well, I know the one person will die if I pull the lever. But I don’t have any reason to think that pulling it will save the other ten thousand. In fact, it probably won’t—it’s a big train that will find its way to that track eventually, and the only way people have been saved in other countries is legislation to move everybody off the tracks, but that’s too much work for me. What pulling the lever will do is make me feel important. I can convince everybody to read my manifesto that’s equal parts Unabomber and the Joker; if I don’t pull the lever nobody will care what I have to say. What’s a human life in comparison to that?
I believe the OP was referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
That much was obvious. The trolley problem is so famous because it really is an ambiguous moral problem. The OP brought it up to imply murdering Brian Thompson was justified, in that now some other people will live who would otherwise die. This idea is a fantasy, however, which besides having no evidence to back it, doesn’t even make sense once examined with a modicum of criticality. Once the remnants of the dream of vigilantism are brushed away, this wannabe trolley problem becomes plain: it’s nothing but an unjustifiable murder by a mentally disturbed egotist who thinks he has the right to play executioner.
This is real life, not a Punisher comic. Democracy ain’t easy, and as soon as a hurdle appears people itch to find an easy workaround, but there’s no way around doing the hard work of fixing the system.
This is real life, not a Punisher comic. Democracy ain’t easy, and as soon as a hurdle appears people itch to find an easy workaround, but there’s no way around doing the hard work of fixing the system.
You didn’t read the link.
> This variation is similar to The Fat Man, with the additional assertion that the fat man who may be pushed is a villain who is responsible for the whole situation: the fat man was the one who tied five people to the track, and sent a trolley in their direction with the intention of killing them. In this variation, a majority of people are willing to push the fat man.[38] Unlike in the previous scenario, pushing the fat villain to stop the trolley may be seen as a form of retributive justice or self-defense.
> This variation is similar to The Fat Man, with the additional assertion that the fat man who may be pushed is a villain who is responsible for the whole situation: the fat man was the one who tied five people to the track, and sent a trolley in their direction with the intention of killing them. In this variation, a majority of people are willing to push the fat man.[38] Unlike in the previous scenario, pushing the fat villain to stop the trolley may be seen as a form of retributive justice or self-defense.
the Fat Villain variation still prevents the death of the innocents.
No such direct relationship can be assumed about murdering a healthcare CEO
No such direct relationship can be assumed about murdering a healthcare CEO
There are 10,000 people waiting to take the place of the now unfortunate after the train runs over him.
So, more trains with hundreds of thousands will topple over until the tracks are fixed.
Your healthcare system principles are the problem. Healthcare can't function the same way Automotive industry or Oil Wells work. Heck, it can't even work the same as Auto insurance. For moral reasons only, because profitability is great.
So, more trains with hundreds of thousands will topple over until the tracks are fixed.
Your healthcare system principles are the problem. Healthcare can't function the same way Automotive industry or Oil Wells work. Heck, it can't even work the same as Auto insurance. For moral reasons only, because profitability is great.
This is less a trolley problem and more of a fat villain problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#The_Fat_Villai...
How exactly does killing a CEO save 10k people?
Hint: it doesn't. In fact, the only result I can imagine from this is the opposite. After all, UHC will probably need to pay their CEO (if anyone takes the job) more for a while, to overcome the risk of being murdered. So if CEO pay meant fewer claims being paid out, after this they'll probably pay out even fewer.
Hint: it doesn't. In fact, the only result I can imagine from this is the opposite. After all, UHC will probably need to pay their CEO (if anyone takes the job) more for a while, to overcome the risk of being murdered. So if CEO pay meant fewer claims being paid out, after this they'll probably pay out even fewer.
Your argument is that the reason they were not paying out more claims is because they had to compensate their CEO?
This isn't my argument. This is the argument of many people who think the murder is justified, including the parent comment which implied this is a simple 1 person vs 10,000 people trolley problem.
I am pointing out how silly that line of thinking is.
I am pointing out how silly that line of thinking is.
With this line of reasoning, the french revolution was about the stipend of the King.
Have you ever seen The Dark Knight? There's this quote about sending a message.
Have you ever seen The Dark Knight? There's this quote about sending a message.
Technically two people on it, one of them being yourself. Changes the rationale quite a bit.
[deleted]
Is the manifest avaiable somewhere in the open?
I would like to see for myself and avoid lurking in the darker corners of the internet to go find it myself. A quick search turned out nothing, but tableoid garbage enjoying the whole thing of speaking about it, but not sharing the sources.
I would like to see for myself and avoid lurking in the darker corners of the internet to go find it myself. A quick search turned out nothing, but tableoid garbage enjoying the whole thing of speaking about it, but not sharing the sources.
Thanks. Looks genuine, but I don't know much about the case to judge. I did a OCR of the pictures:
The Allopathic Complex and Its Consequences luigi mangione's last words lor DEC 09, 2024
The second amendment means I am my own chief executive and commander in chief of my own military. I authorize my own act of self-defense in response to a hostile entity making war on me and my family. Nelson Mandela says no form of viooence can be excused. Camus says it's all the same, whether you live or die or have a cup of coffee. MLK says violence never brings permanent peace. Gandhi says that non-violence is the mightiest power available to mankind. That's who they tell you are heroes. That's who our revolutionaries are. Yet is that not capitalistic? Non-violence keeps the system working at full speed ahead. What did it get us. Look in the mirror. They want us to be non-violent, so that they can grow fat off the blood they take from us. The only way out is through. Not all of us will make it. Each of us is our own chief executive. You have to decide what you will tolerate. In Gladiator 1 Maximus cuts into the military tattoo that identifies him as part of the roman legion. His friend asks "Is that the sign of your god?" As Maximus carves deeper into his own flesh, as his own blood drips down his skin, Maximus smiles and nods yes. The tattoo represents the emperor, who is god. The god emperor has made himself part of Maximus's own flesh. The only way to destroy the emperor is to destroy himself. Maximus smiles through the pain because he knows it is worth it. These might be my last words. I don't know when they will come for me. I will resist them at any cost. That's why I smile through the pain. They diagnosed my mother with severe neuropathy when she was forty-one years old. She said it started ten years before that with burning sensations in her feet and occasional sharp stabbing pains. At first the pain would last a few moments, then fade to tingling, then numbness, then fade to nothing a few days later.
The first time the pain came she ignored it. Then it came a couple times a year and she ignored it. Then every couple months. Then a couple times a month. Then a couple times a week. At that point by the time the tingling faded to numbness, the pain would start, and the discomfort was constant. At that point even going from the couch to the kitchen to make her own lunch became a major endeavor She started with ibuprofen, until the stomach aches and acid reflux made her switch to acetaminophen. Then the headaches and barely sleeping made her switch back to ibuprofen. The first doctor said it was psychosomatic. Nothing was wrong. She needed to relax, destress, sleep more. The second doctor said it was a compressed nerve in her spine. She needed back surgery. It would cost $180,000. Recovery would be six months minimum before walking again. Twelve months for full potential recovery, and she would never lift more than ten pounds of weight again. The third doctor performed a Nerve Conduction Study, Electromyography, MRI, and blood tests. Each test cost $800 to $1200. She hit the $6000 deductible of her UnitedHealthcare plan in October. Then the doctor went on vacation, and my mother wasn't able to resume tests until January when her deductible reset. The tests showed severe neuropathy. The $180,000 surgery would have had no effect. They prescribed opioids for the pain. At first the pain relief was worth the price of constant mental fog and constipation. She didn't tell me about that until later. All I remember is we took a trip for the first time in years, when she drove me to Monterey to go to the aquarium. I saw an otter in real life, swimming on its back. We left at 7am and listened to Green Day on the four-hour car ride. Over time, the opioids stopped working. They made her MORE sensitive to pain, and she felt withdrawal symptoms after just two or three hours. Then gabapentin. By now the pain was so bad she couldn't exercise, which compounded the weight gain from the slowed metabolic rate and hormonal shifts. And it barely helped the pain, and made her so fatigued she would go an entire day without getting out of bed. Then Corticosteroids. Which didn't even work. The pain was so bad I would hear my mother wake up in the night screaming in pain. I would run into her room, asking if she's OK. Eventually I stopped getting up. She'd yell out anguished shrieks of wordless pain or the word "fuck" stretched and distended to its limits. I'd turn over and go back to sleep.
All of this while they bled us dry with follow-up appointment after follow-up appointment, specialist consultations, and more imagine scans. Each appointment was promised to be fully covered, until the insurance claims were delayed and denied. Allopathic medicine did nothing to help my mother's suffering. Yet it is the foundation of our entire society. My mother told me that on a good day the nerve pain was like her legs were immersed in ice water. On a bad day it felt like her legs were clamped in a machine shop vice, screwed down to where the cranks stopped turning, then crushed further until her ankle bones sprintered and cracked to accommodate the tightening clamp. She had more bad days than good. My mother crawled to the bathroom on her hands and knees. I slept in the living room to create more distance from her cries in the night. I still woke up, and still went back to sleep. Back then I thought there was nothing I could do. The high copays made consistent treatment impossible. New treatments were denied as "not medically necessary." Old treatments didn't work, and still put us out for thousands of dollars. UnitedHealthcare limited specialist consultations to twice a year. Then they refused to cover advanced imaging, which the specialists required for an appointment. Prior authorizations took weeks, then months. UnitedHealthcare constantly changed their claim filing procedure. They said my mother's doctor needed to fax his notes. Then UnitedHealthcare said they did not save faxed patient correspondence, and required a hardcopy of the doctor's typed notes to be mailed. Then they said they never received the notes. They were unable to approve the claim until they had received and filed the notes. They promised coverage, and broke their word to my mother. With every delay, my anger surged. With every denial, I wanted to throw the doctor through the glass wall of their hospital waiting room. But it wasn't them. It wasn't the doctors, the receptionists, administrators, pharmacists, imaging technicians, or anyone we ever met. It was UnitedHealthcare. People are dying. Evil has become institutionalized. Corporations make billions of dollars off the pain, suffering, death, and anguished cries in the night of millions of Americans.
We entered into an agreement for healthcare with a legally binding contract that promised care commensurate with our insurance payments and medical needs. Then UnitedHealthcare changes the rules to suit their own profits. They think they make the rules, and think that because it's legal that no one can punish them. They think there's no one out there who will stop them. Now my own chronic back pain wakes me in the night, screaming in pain. I sought out another type of healing that showed me the real antidote to what ails us. I bide my time, saving the last of my strength to strike my final blows. All extractors must be forced to swallow the bitter pain they deal out to millions. As our own chief executives, it's our obligation to make our own lives better. First and foremost, we must seek to improve our own circumstances and defend ourselves. As we do so, our actions have ripple effects that can improve the lives of others. Rules exist between two individuals, in a network that covers the entire earth. Some of these rules are written down. Some of these rules emerge from natural respect between two individuals. Some of these rules are defined in physical laws, like the properties of gravity, magnetism or the potential energy stored in the chemical bonds of potassium nitrate. No single document better encapsulates the belief that all people are equal in fundamental worth and moral status and the frameworks for fostering collective well-being than the US constitution. Writing a rule down makes it into a law. I don't give a fuck about the law. Law means nothing. What does matter is following the guidance of our own logic and what we learn from those before us to maximize our own well-being, which will then maximize the well-being of our loved ones and community. That's where UnitedHealthcare went wrong. They violated their contract with my mother, with me, and tens of millions of other Americans. This threat to my own health, my family's health, and the health of our country's people requires me to respond with an act of war. END
The Allopathic Complex and Its Consequences luigi mangione's last words lor DEC 09, 2024
The second amendment means I am my own chief executive and commander in chief of my own military. I authorize my own act of self-defense in response to a hostile entity making war on me and my family. Nelson Mandela says no form of viooence can be excused. Camus says it's all the same, whether you live or die or have a cup of coffee. MLK says violence never brings permanent peace. Gandhi says that non-violence is the mightiest power available to mankind. That's who they tell you are heroes. That's who our revolutionaries are. Yet is that not capitalistic? Non-violence keeps the system working at full speed ahead. What did it get us. Look in the mirror. They want us to be non-violent, so that they can grow fat off the blood they take from us. The only way out is through. Not all of us will make it. Each of us is our own chief executive. You have to decide what you will tolerate. In Gladiator 1 Maximus cuts into the military tattoo that identifies him as part of the roman legion. His friend asks "Is that the sign of your god?" As Maximus carves deeper into his own flesh, as his own blood drips down his skin, Maximus smiles and nods yes. The tattoo represents the emperor, who is god. The god emperor has made himself part of Maximus's own flesh. The only way to destroy the emperor is to destroy himself. Maximus smiles through the pain because he knows it is worth it. These might be my last words. I don't know when they will come for me. I will resist them at any cost. That's why I smile through the pain. They diagnosed my mother with severe neuropathy when she was forty-one years old. She said it started ten years before that with burning sensations in her feet and occasional sharp stabbing pains. At first the pain would last a few moments, then fade to tingling, then numbness, then fade to nothing a few days later.
The first time the pain came she ignored it. Then it came a couple times a year and she ignored it. Then every couple months. Then a couple times a month. Then a couple times a week. At that point by the time the tingling faded to numbness, the pain would start, and the discomfort was constant. At that point even going from the couch to the kitchen to make her own lunch became a major endeavor She started with ibuprofen, until the stomach aches and acid reflux made her switch to acetaminophen. Then the headaches and barely sleeping made her switch back to ibuprofen. The first doctor said it was psychosomatic. Nothing was wrong. She needed to relax, destress, sleep more. The second doctor said it was a compressed nerve in her spine. She needed back surgery. It would cost $180,000. Recovery would be six months minimum before walking again. Twelve months for full potential recovery, and she would never lift more than ten pounds of weight again. The third doctor performed a Nerve Conduction Study, Electromyography, MRI, and blood tests. Each test cost $800 to $1200. She hit the $6000 deductible of her UnitedHealthcare plan in October. Then the doctor went on vacation, and my mother wasn't able to resume tests until January when her deductible reset. The tests showed severe neuropathy. The $180,000 surgery would have had no effect. They prescribed opioids for the pain. At first the pain relief was worth the price of constant mental fog and constipation. She didn't tell me about that until later. All I remember is we took a trip for the first time in years, when she drove me to Monterey to go to the aquarium. I saw an otter in real life, swimming on its back. We left at 7am and listened to Green Day on the four-hour car ride. Over time, the opioids stopped working. They made her MORE sensitive to pain, and she felt withdrawal symptoms after just two or three hours. Then gabapentin. By now the pain was so bad she couldn't exercise, which compounded the weight gain from the slowed metabolic rate and hormonal shifts. And it barely helped the pain, and made her so fatigued she would go an entire day without getting out of bed. Then Corticosteroids. Which didn't even work. The pain was so bad I would hear my mother wake up in the night screaming in pain. I would run into her room, asking if she's OK. Eventually I stopped getting up. She'd yell out anguished shrieks of wordless pain or the word "fuck" stretched and distended to its limits. I'd turn over and go back to sleep.
All of this while they bled us dry with follow-up appointment after follow-up appointment, specialist consultations, and more imagine scans. Each appointment was promised to be fully covered, until the insurance claims were delayed and denied. Allopathic medicine did nothing to help my mother's suffering. Yet it is the foundation of our entire society. My mother told me that on a good day the nerve pain was like her legs were immersed in ice water. On a bad day it felt like her legs were clamped in a machine shop vice, screwed down to where the cranks stopped turning, then crushed further until her ankle bones sprintered and cracked to accommodate the tightening clamp. She had more bad days than good. My mother crawled to the bathroom on her hands and knees. I slept in the living room to create more distance from her cries in the night. I still woke up, and still went back to sleep. Back then I thought there was nothing I could do. The high copays made consistent treatment impossible. New treatments were denied as "not medically necessary." Old treatments didn't work, and still put us out for thousands of dollars. UnitedHealthcare limited specialist consultations to twice a year. Then they refused to cover advanced imaging, which the specialists required for an appointment. Prior authorizations took weeks, then months. UnitedHealthcare constantly changed their claim filing procedure. They said my mother's doctor needed to fax his notes. Then UnitedHealthcare said they did not save faxed patient correspondence, and required a hardcopy of the doctor's typed notes to be mailed. Then they said they never received the notes. They were unable to approve the claim until they had received and filed the notes. They promised coverage, and broke their word to my mother. With every delay, my anger surged. With every denial, I wanted to throw the doctor through the glass wall of their hospital waiting room. But it wasn't them. It wasn't the doctors, the receptionists, administrators, pharmacists, imaging technicians, or anyone we ever met. It was UnitedHealthcare. People are dying. Evil has become institutionalized. Corporations make billions of dollars off the pain, suffering, death, and anguished cries in the night of millions of Americans.
We entered into an agreement for healthcare with a legally binding contract that promised care commensurate with our insurance payments and medical needs. Then UnitedHealthcare changes the rules to suit their own profits. They think they make the rules, and think that because it's legal that no one can punish them. They think there's no one out there who will stop them. Now my own chronic back pain wakes me in the night, screaming in pain. I sought out another type of healing that showed me the real antidote to what ails us. I bide my time, saving the last of my strength to strike my final blows. All extractors must be forced to swallow the bitter pain they deal out to millions. As our own chief executives, it's our obligation to make our own lives better. First and foremost, we must seek to improve our own circumstances and defend ourselves. As we do so, our actions have ripple effects that can improve the lives of others. Rules exist between two individuals, in a network that covers the entire earth. Some of these rules are written down. Some of these rules emerge from natural respect between two individuals. Some of these rules are defined in physical laws, like the properties of gravity, magnetism or the potential energy stored in the chemical bonds of potassium nitrate. No single document better encapsulates the belief that all people are equal in fundamental worth and moral status and the frameworks for fostering collective well-being than the US constitution. Writing a rule down makes it into a law. I don't give a fuck about the law. Law means nothing. What does matter is following the guidance of our own logic and what we learn from those before us to maximize our own well-being, which will then maximize the well-being of our loved ones and community. That's where UnitedHealthcare went wrong. They violated their contract with my mother, with me, and tens of millions of other Americans. This threat to my own health, my family's health, and the health of our country's people requires me to respond with an act of war. END
Another commenter linked to the archived version of the Substack post: https://archive.is/2024.12.09-230659/https://breloomlegacy.s...
And both seem to be wrong.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto
I just think it’s great that for a short time, we got to live this fantasy that being a rich CEO is no guarantee that someone couldn’t easily just walk up to you one day, kill you off, and then disappear without a trace as a hero to those you did wrong.
The fantasy of jury nullification is still alive, but very unlikely to happen. If someone can turn the guy in, then someone could easily find him guilty.
The fantasy of jury nullification is still alive, but very unlikely to happen. If someone can turn the guy in, then someone could easily find him guilty.
This CEO is just an employee of a company that makes a 4% profit margin, killing him achieves nothing and is sociopathic.
This CEO could've decided to stop having his company frivolously deny claims at any point. Pretending this man is 0% complicit in the deaths of the people covered by the insurance provided by the company _he is chief executive officer of_ is absurd.
There is a lot of debate to be had on whether or not this shooting is a good thing or not but "The CEO is innocent actually" is not it. You cannot be at the steering wheel of a steam roller that is currently in the process of crushing orphans and has been for years and then disclaim yourself of any responsibility.
There is a lot of debate to be had on whether or not this shooting is a good thing or not but "The CEO is innocent actually" is not it. You cannot be at the steering wheel of a steam roller that is currently in the process of crushing orphans and has been for years and then disclaim yourself of any responsibility.
The manifesto posted on X and other social media is a fake. The actual manifesto he had on his person has not yet been made public aside from a few lines.
Supposedly this is the real one: https://t.co/fbjBtDDIkS
Of course it gets released a couple hours after I can no longer edit my HN comment. Thanks. :-)
It will not be published unless it makes it into evidence at the trial. The prosecutor may try to block it as prejudicing the jury.
This guy is going to end up in his hero Uncle Ted's old supermax cell where barely anything can go in or out.
Having the narrative set by a CEO murderer with double digit % cheering support in the entire US is not something the authorities will permit.
This guy is going to end up in his hero Uncle Ted's old supermax cell where barely anything can go in or out.
Having the narrative set by a CEO murderer with double digit % cheering support in the entire US is not something the authorities will permit.
Blows my mind that no ones suggesting mental illness in their analysis. Especially given that he's cut off contact from his family...
The phrase 'mental illness' has expanded as a category a thousand-fold this millennium. I see no evidence he has any mental illness, other than a particular kind that is fully voluntarily and reversible.
He seems pretty rational.
If you start from premises that are disconnected from reality, you can use perfect rationality to reach insane conclusions.
Are you armchair diagnosing him? He seems pretty sane.
No, I'm using his actions to diagnose his conclusions. The conclusions ("killing this guy on a public street is the right way to deal with this situation") are insane, whether or not he is.
anyone find his hacker news account yet?
No but here is the github
https://github.com/lnmangione
https://github.com/lnmangione
Horrible as it was what he did, I can’t help but wonder what he could have done differently so that he wouldn’t get caught. Seems like a few small slip ups did him in, but if they never saw his face, he had a new disguise, immediately left the country, could he have evaded law enforcement?
> Civilization VI Team
> Fixed over 300 UI bugs (25% of UI bug count) using Lua language, Jira software, and Perforce version-control system
> Fixed over 300 UI bugs (25% of UI bug count) using Lua language, Jira software, and Perforce version-control system
Jira and Perforce alone are enough to cause someone to snap
Making Civ VI playable locks in the folk hero status
With programmers, hackers, computer scientists, systems designers/engineers carrying some of the most privileged skillsets needed for designing and implementing replacements to systems of oppression (and disruptions to said systems), I've been wondering where the ones working to do this can be found.
I learned in Computer Ethics 101 about how the history of the development of radiological machines led to the realization that the ethical path to creating systems for our lives involves stopping using them when they accidentally/repeatedly harm.
I'm looking for different paths than murder to accomplish this. Anyone else want to get together around these ideas to start designing?
I learned in Computer Ethics 101 about how the history of the development of radiological machines led to the realization that the ethical path to creating systems for our lives involves stopping using them when they accidentally/repeatedly harm.
I'm looking for different paths than murder to accomplish this. Anyone else want to get together around these ideas to start designing?
> I'm looking for different paths than murder to accomplish this.
It seems like our entire system has been intentionally designed and refined over centuries specifically to ensure that nothing short of radical, even violent, acts will have any meaningful impact on those in power.
Corporations in particular have insulated themselves from any accountability whatsoever and there are literal serial killers who knowingly sold products and took actions that they knew would kill people who have never and will never see a single day behind bars.
I sure hope that programmers, hackers, computer scientists, or systems designers/engineers find some means to improve the situation, and I'd certainly support the effort but I'm far from optimistic.
It seems like our entire system has been intentionally designed and refined over centuries specifically to ensure that nothing short of radical, even violent, acts will have any meaningful impact on those in power.
Corporations in particular have insulated themselves from any accountability whatsoever and there are literal serial killers who knowingly sold products and took actions that they knew would kill people who have never and will never see a single day behind bars.
I sure hope that programmers, hackers, computer scientists, or systems designers/engineers find some means to improve the situation, and I'd certainly support the effort but I'm far from optimistic.
>Corporations in particular have insulated themselves from any accountability whatsoever and there are literal serial killers who knowingly sold products and took actions that they knew would kill people who have never and will never see a single day behind bars.
Exactly: look at the people behind the Ford Pinto (with the exploding gas tank), and more recently the people behind the Boeing 737MAX.
Exactly: look at the people behind the Ford Pinto (with the exploding gas tank), and more recently the people behind the Boeing 737MAX.
Philip Morris, DuPont, Philips Respironics, Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Nestlé, the list just goes on and on.
I hate to defend them, but at least with Philip Morris, they warn you outright that their products cause cancer, right on the package, yet people keep buying them anyway. (Yes, I know they had to be forced into this years ago by the government, but still that's better than Boeing where the government said their product was safe.)
Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds didn't put such labels on the foods they developed after buying major food companies in the 80s and applying their addiction tech to our diets.
I haven't fully fact checked this, but I have read that some of the same scientists the tobacco industry hired to fake research and lie to the public about the harms of smoking have been working as GRAS panelists tasked with convincing the FDA that food additives are totally safe. Seems like nothing could go wrong there.
The speed with which we are poisoning ourselves has long outpaced our ability to detect it at the collective level.
[deleted]
It is reasonable that corporations and individuals "protect themselves". No one wants to work for a company that's been damaged by bad judgement or bad luck. So companies have boards of directors and stockholders to oversee operations, hold officers liable to varying degrees, and purchase insurance against risks.
But corporations are guided by human beings so, in the end, we have ourselves to blame. If making any accusation you'd best put a name or names to it and forgo accusing a corporation purely.
But that doesn't make corporations a bad thing. They have, quite the contrary, proven to be a wonderful economic construct, along with such tools as capitalism and insurance.
But corporations are guided by human beings so, in the end, we have ourselves to blame. If making any accusation you'd best put a name or names to it and forgo accusing a corporation purely.
But that doesn't make corporations a bad thing. They have, quite the contrary, proven to be a wonderful economic construct, along with such tools as capitalism and insurance.
If you want better healthcare you don't need to invent anything new or "disrupt systems of oppression". Just pick another country where it's working and do what they do.
Largely, they have a lot more doctors, hospitals and MRI machines per capita than we do, and they pay their doctors less and require less education from them.
This is particularly safer in America because the #1 thing voters hate is anyone doing anything new. If you ever try doing anything new you'll immediately get voted out. That's what happened after the ACA passed.
Largely, they have a lot more doctors, hospitals and MRI machines per capita than we do, and they pay their doctors less and require less education from them.
This is particularly safer in America because the #1 thing voters hate is anyone doing anything new. If you ever try doing anything new you'll immediately get voted out. That's what happened after the ACA passed.
The United States is #2 in the OECD for MRI machines per capita [1], with double that of France and nearly four times as many as Canada. Of the 38 nations of the OECD, only Japan has more MRI machines per person.
[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282401/density-of-magnet...
[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282401/density-of-magnet...
I was indeed thinking of Japan but didn't go look up any other countries.
There is additional nuance here. Not all of the MRI machines are the same.
The USA typically uses machines with higher magnetic field strength, which are more expensive but produce higher spatial resolution. These machines are based on large superconducting solenoid magnets.
In Japan, there are many MRI machines with lower magnetic field, which makes them much more affordable while still quite useful. Some of such machines even use ordinary permanent magnets, which have much lower upkeep costs compared to the large superconducting devices.
The USA typically uses machines with higher magnetic field strength, which are more expensive but produce higher spatial resolution. These machines are based on large superconducting solenoid magnets.
In Japan, there are many MRI machines with lower magnetic field, which makes them much more affordable while still quite useful. Some of such machines even use ordinary permanent magnets, which have much lower upkeep costs compared to the large superconducting devices.
Unfortunately we have the AMA which won’t let us import or bulk train doctors to the point of depressing their salaries
> If you want better healthcare you don't need to invent anything new or "disrupt systems of oppression". Just pick another country where it's working and do what they do.
Sure. That's like telling me that if I want to win an Olympic gold medal, I should just do what Phelps does. It'll work, right?
Even those countries may only have metastable healthcare economics, and while it looks as if it works now it could fail in the future. In the short term.
> Largely, they have a lot more doctors, hospitals and MRI machines per capita than we do,
So you're saying that all we need to do is have more resources that we don't have more of?
Sure. That's like telling me that if I want to win an Olympic gold medal, I should just do what Phelps does. It'll work, right?
Even those countries may only have metastable healthcare economics, and while it looks as if it works now it could fail in the future. In the short term.
> Largely, they have a lot more doctors, hospitals and MRI machines per capita than we do,
So you're saying that all we need to do is have more resources that we don't have more of?
The AMA artificially caps the number of doctors and hospitals we have to increase salaries and costs. So no it doesn't necessarily take more resources to do these things
They've backed off on that and I think support more residency slots for training doctors now, but it actually is a funding issue because Medicare pays for a lot of that.
We also have very high to impossible standards for training doctors, and our residency rotation program requires you to not sleep because it was designed by a literal coke addict.
We also have very high to impossible standards for training doctors, and our residency rotation program requires you to not sleep because it was designed by a literal coke addict.
medical school admissions is such a zero sum pissing contest of schmoozing profs for research positions, building houses for free in africa, grinding academics far past the point where the knowledge is beneficial, sheer perseverence, and sometimes being the right skin colour. the US could 10x the number of residency spots (and therefore med school spots) without significantly diminishing the capability of the incoming class to be good doctors.
Which is dumb because there’s plenty of money to pay the residents otherwise.
The AMA has reversed position from their 1990s lobby to limit residency slots (which got enacted under the Republican "Contract with America"). At this point, increasing funding for residency slots would be seen as increasing government spending and is politically unpalatable.
You can simply buy more MRI machines and open more hospitals, yes.
The US has "certificate of need" laws saying you can't open a hospital unless all the nearby competitors allow it first. We could just not do that.
> Sure. That's like telling me that if I want to win an Olympic gold medal, I should just do what Phelps does. It'll work, right?
America is the #1 country at a lot of things. Surely you're not going to let Australia, Japan, the Netherlands etc beat you on this.
The US has "certificate of need" laws saying you can't open a hospital unless all the nearby competitors allow it first. We could just not do that.
> Sure. That's like telling me that if I want to win an Olympic gold medal, I should just do what Phelps does. It'll work, right?
America is the #1 country at a lot of things. Surely you're not going to let Australia, Japan, the Netherlands etc beat you on this.
>If you want better healthcare you don't need to invent anything new or "disrupt systems of oppression". Just pick another country where it's working and do what they do.
This is completely impossible. We're talking about America here: it's utterly impossible for America to look at other countries and just copy them. It doesn't matter how much sense it would make; if America has a choice between sticking with some brain-dead system (perhaps, a measurement system for instance), or adopting a very logical and sensible alternative that America didn't invent, America will stick with its own brain-dead system, and claim that the alternative somehow can't possibly work in America because America is "different" and "exceptional". The only way America will adopt something new and better is if it's invented in America.
This is completely impossible. We're talking about America here: it's utterly impossible for America to look at other countries and just copy them. It doesn't matter how much sense it would make; if America has a choice between sticking with some brain-dead system (perhaps, a measurement system for instance), or adopting a very logical and sensible alternative that America didn't invent, America will stick with its own brain-dead system, and claim that the alternative somehow can't possibly work in America because America is "different" and "exceptional". The only way America will adopt something new and better is if it's invented in America.
I've seen enough of American politics to consider that copying a better system and lying your ass off that it's American made would work (tbh this would work for most modern democracies).
Not as a direct response to the call to action, but this comment reminded me of the entire plot of the 2014 videogame Watch Dogs[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Dogs_(video_game)
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_Dogs_(video_game)
This is the main reason I built https://chitchatter.im/. I hope to see it be used as a tool to safely organize around building a better world.
https://chitchatter.im/public/a15225a7-cf8c-4f6c-955a-e5fe15... to join a hackernews public chat!
Thanks for this! Gonna ask around for help in evaluating it for security.
Awesome! Let me know if I can help or answer any questions. :)
Oddly a talk from emacsconf a few days ago comes to mind:
https://emacsconf.org/2024/talks/blee/
https://emacsconf.org/2024/talks/blee/
civic tech! https://civictech.guide/
I have some ideas. randyselimi on Discord
I'm peculiarlyrevokingconsent on Discord. Sent FR.
You’re on the right path my friend, hang on to the feeling that drove you to write this. Not everyone has it, and you may even find yourself having woken up with it missing one day. So use it while you have it
Thanks for the encouragement! I care for a 6-year old I've nurtured through anarchic principles. This feeling, if it can go missing, is reignited by things they say and normalized forms of childhood oppression they experience/witness.
I find that the gun and silencer were 3D printed really quite fascinating (also maybe why people were saying the gun jammed -- less reliable?) I knew you could 3D print guns (not sure if the whole thing can be 3D printed.) But it would seem that most parts (including the ammo) can be easily moved. That would make it trivial to bypass firearm restrictions the world over? Though I imagine getting caught with a ghost gun would ruin your life.
Note: I am a law abiding citizen, don't raid me, lol...
Note: I am a law abiding citizen, don't raid me, lol...
The only parts that really need to be metal are the barrel and bolt to contain the burning of the powder, and springs. Although, you can get by with plastic barrel and bolt if your design is sufficiently strong, and you don't have to have non-manual reloading, obviating the need for springs. The silencer's important parts are simply pressure baffles that don't need to be metal (although it helps significantly).
In this case, the design was replicating that of a Glock 43 IIRC, which is already mostly plastic. Guns are modular of course, and so there's a part that's legally designated the firearm to avoid ship-of-Theseus problems. For the Glock that's the frame, which includes the handle. That part's made out of plastic (except for a metal plate that has the serial number and can be detected by metal detectors). Since the frame on the original gun is plastic, it's designed not to have much force put on it, so it's not a technically difficult 3d print either. In the US (federally; states may have further restrictions) it's not illegal to manufacture your own firearm as long as it's for your own use. All the other parts, like the barrel, trigger, etc (not the silencer though), are unregulated, so it's perfectly legal to 3d print your own or just buy them and have them shipped to your house. (There's also the concept of an "80% lower": at what point does a piece of metal become a gun? Generally it's held to be that before the gun's than 80% complete then it's just a piece of metal, so you can buy <80% complete guns with no regulation that include a jig and instructions for completing the last 20% work yourself to make a ghost gun at home. Selling any unregistered firearm is very legally fraught.) Silencers (aka suppressors) are heavily regulated and it's not legal for just anyone to make one, but if you're not concerned with longevity or legality you can make one out of plastic easily with a minimum of design work.
The Glock uses a tilting barrel system: the barrel and slide are joined by a set of lugs on the barrel that fit into recesses in the slide, and after the bullet is fired are pushed back together by the force of recoil. The slide slides on linear rails, but the barrel has a pivot, so eventually as the barrel and slide travel back together, the barrel will tilt out of the recesses in the slide and allow the slide to continue backwards, opening space between the barrel and slide for the previous round to be extracted and a new round to be loaded automatically. You can imagine that hanging a big heavy tube off the barrel in the form of a silencer can be detrimental to the working of this system. In fact, you're supposed to use a recoil booster to increase recoil while using a silencer on tilting-barrel pistols to ensure more reliable operation. It's unlikely that malfunctions were because any parts were 3d printed in this case.
In this case, the design was replicating that of a Glock 43 IIRC, which is already mostly plastic. Guns are modular of course, and so there's a part that's legally designated the firearm to avoid ship-of-Theseus problems. For the Glock that's the frame, which includes the handle. That part's made out of plastic (except for a metal plate that has the serial number and can be detected by metal detectors). Since the frame on the original gun is plastic, it's designed not to have much force put on it, so it's not a technically difficult 3d print either. In the US (federally; states may have further restrictions) it's not illegal to manufacture your own firearm as long as it's for your own use. All the other parts, like the barrel, trigger, etc (not the silencer though), are unregulated, so it's perfectly legal to 3d print your own or just buy them and have them shipped to your house. (There's also the concept of an "80% lower": at what point does a piece of metal become a gun? Generally it's held to be that before the gun's than 80% complete then it's just a piece of metal, so you can buy <80% complete guns with no regulation that include a jig and instructions for completing the last 20% work yourself to make a ghost gun at home. Selling any unregistered firearm is very legally fraught.) Silencers (aka suppressors) are heavily regulated and it's not legal for just anyone to make one, but if you're not concerned with longevity or legality you can make one out of plastic easily with a minimum of design work.
The Glock uses a tilting barrel system: the barrel and slide are joined by a set of lugs on the barrel that fit into recesses in the slide, and after the bullet is fired are pushed back together by the force of recoil. The slide slides on linear rails, but the barrel has a pivot, so eventually as the barrel and slide travel back together, the barrel will tilt out of the recesses in the slide and allow the slide to continue backwards, opening space between the barrel and slide for the previous round to be extracted and a new round to be loaded automatically. You can imagine that hanging a big heavy tube off the barrel in the form of a silencer can be detrimental to the working of this system. In fact, you're supposed to use a recoil booster to increase recoil while using a silencer on tilting-barrel pistols to ensure more reliable operation. It's unlikely that malfunctions were because any parts were 3d printed in this case.
How do you make the 'spike' that sets of the primer in plastic? Does that work?
Edit: Maybe only rifles have those?
Edit: Maybe only rifles have those?
whether or not it would ruin your life largely depends on your skin color
I don't get it. Why would an American need to make the gun himself? Just go to Walmart. Was he on psychopharmaca maybe.
Might be fake, but looks like he may have had a dead man's switch upload a YouTube video: https://youtu.be/bdhs9g3Wwg0
Confirmed as fake. CNN reports: "YouTube on Monday removed three channels belonging to Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, as well as a channel that was altered Monday to look as if it belonged to him..."
"... channel was removed for violating YouTube’s impersonation policies, after the channel name and handle were updated on Monday following news of Mangione’s arrest to appear as if it belonged to the suspect. That channel on Monday posted a cryptic countdown video that said, “If you see this, I’m already under arrest.”
"... channel was removed for violating YouTube’s impersonation policies, after the channel name and handle were updated on Monday following news of Mangione’s arrest to appear as if it belonged to the suspect. That channel on Monday posted a cryptic countdown video that said, “If you see this, I’m already under arrest.”
Fine, confirmed as fake but he also had three real ones, "YouTube on Monday removed three channels belonging to Luigi Mangione ..."
What was the content in those channels and why were they removed?
All other online footprint of this guy is still online (even his github!), what content was there on YT to grant it being removed?
Lack of transparency will just generate more questions and doubt.
What was the content in those channels and why were they removed?
All other online footprint of this guy is still online (even his github!), what content was there on YT to grant it being removed?
Lack of transparency will just generate more questions and doubt.
[deleted]
>All other online footprint of this guy is still online (even his github!)
Not true, Meta removed his Facebook and Instagram.
https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/luigi-mangione-social-me...
Not true, Meta removed his Facebook and Instagram.
https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/luigi-mangione-social-me...
>the channel name and handle were updated on Monday following news of Mangione’s arrest to appear as if it belonged to the suspect. That channel on Monday posted a cryptic countdown video that said, “If you see this, I’m already under arrest.”
I guess that's one way to get a LOT of clicks on your account.
I guess that's one way to get a LOT of clicks on your account.
Apparently his other social media doesn't link to this YT account. Also there's an active "live premiere" which I don't think you can automate.
random comment on said live premiere:
> the account is fake. the video wouldve been made public instantly. there would be no premire time. you can change your youtube handle. this account isnt linked to his x account
random comment on said live premiere:
> the account is fake. the video wouldve been made public instantly. there would be no premire time. you can change your youtube handle. this account isnt linked to his x account
The video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCvKPBebNTk) was taken down 33 minutes before it was set to premiere, and now the account (https://www.youtube.com/@PepMangione) is deleted. The thumbnail had "The Truth will set me free" written in binary. Screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/ovODSvx.png
Here is a mirror of the short video linked in the OP (no real content, just a countdown and date): https://files.catbox.moe/jxtf97.mkv
Here is a mirror of the short video linked in the OP (no real content, just a countdown and date): https://files.catbox.moe/jxtf97.mkv
Probably was fake, but if it was real, not very smart of him to have it take so long. Should have been an immediate upload so people could download it.
Maybe he was thinking they would leave it up so police could use it as potential evidence.
Maybe he was thinking they would leave it up so police could use it as potential evidence.
It would have been a thumbnail of a magnet link to a torrent if anything
I'd be shocked if someone used normal social media to distribute something like that. Meanwhile, drugs and warez and pirated content have developed a well known, well supported, internationally censorship resistant ecosystem.
Why would you not use that?
I'd be shocked if someone used normal social media to distribute something like that. Meanwhile, drugs and warez and pirated content have developed a well known, well supported, internationally censorship resistant ecosystem.
Why would you not use that?
> Apparently his other social media doesn't link to this YT account.
But according to another comment in the thread YT confirms they removed the fake account AND _three_ real accounts associated with the guy.
Begs the question of why did they remove those? What content was in the real accounts to grant removal?
But according to another comment in the thread YT confirms they removed the fake account AND _three_ real accounts associated with the guy.
Begs the question of why did they remove those? What content was in the real accounts to grant removal?
I would guess you could automate premiers, since they're used by large companies and such, but maybe not?
Probably is fake, can someone decode the binary in the thumbnail? I can't ATM.
Probably is fake, can someone decode the binary in the thumbnail? I can't ATM.
YouTube account was terminated at 4:11PM MST, I was watching it live as it switched to this message:
“This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.”
“This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.”
CNN quoted someone from Google saying it was a fake (old account that just changed its handle today).
IMHO there ought to be restrictions and transparency on channel name changes because it gets abused all the time.
IMHO there ought to be restrictions and transparency on channel name changes because it gets abused all the time.
At the very least they should display when the username/display name was last changed.
Did the premiere video provide any useful information before it got terminated?
It flashes "Dec 11th" at the 1:20 mark. I thought for sure this must be a prank, but the account says "Joined Jan 20, 2024". It seems it's possible to change your YouTube username, though. Could it be that it was a different account and someone just changed the username as a troll?
A 2nd video is premiering in like 40ish minutes, might be fake.
It ends with "All is scheduled, be patient". Presumably it means more videos are coming, explaining his motivation.
At 1:20, a small bit of text pops up in the lower right, just right of the "Soon..." which says "Dec 11th".
From the font and awkwarding positioning I'm guessing the date was overlayed on the video with a script or something (i.e. "two days after whenever this deadman's switch gets triggered")
Deadman’s switch crypto token launch?
There was one after McAffee died as well. I think there is a group who just does this. Costs nothing and if their shitcoin launches, they exit scam as quickly as they appeared. Probably the same people. There are people who fake recent obituaries to drive advertising traffic and rob peoples houses when they are at funerals. There are also people who withold lifesaving care and deny legitimate claims using bullying tactics. It's a dark world.
.com
look at his youtube profile pic
Why not use the original title ("Luigi Mangione: What we know about CEO shooting suspect")? Why the need for sensationalism over his status as a software engineer?
We've reverted it now. (Submitted title was "Software developer arrested in connection with murder of healthcare executive")
https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/9/24317259/unitedhealthcare...
Perhaps should have submitted this article instead.
Perhaps should have submitted this article instead.
Some perspective: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/insurance-companies-arent-the-...
Kind of a silly take in my opinion. While it's may be true that the majority of money in a medical transaction (which is inflated) doesn't go to the insurer, it goes to the provider, it doesn't change the fact that "insurers" absolutely add a layer of uncertainty to the process. In times of uncertainty (ie: getting sick) anything that adds uncertainty will rightfully be hated.
In Canada, their system has a number of major shortcomings. But in college when my girlfriend got appendicitis, I just took her to the hospital without worry about in/out of network, and without worrying about if we'd get a claim rejected after the fact and have our small college student bank accounts drained. That is huge, and should not be underestimated. Here I do not have that luxury. Even though I have plenty of money saved up, it doesn't ever feel like enough. If one of us has a major illness, it can get wiped out due to a claim denial. And who makes the approve/deny choice?
The author of that post does some bad thinking here by completely missing the source of the vitriol directed at insurers. While providers do charge out the ass, at least they are doing something useful, while in these times of great uncertainty and pain, insurers only rent seek, blood suck, and do not offer anything of value.
In Canada, their system has a number of major shortcomings. But in college when my girlfriend got appendicitis, I just took her to the hospital without worry about in/out of network, and without worrying about if we'd get a claim rejected after the fact and have our small college student bank accounts drained. That is huge, and should not be underestimated. Here I do not have that luxury. Even though I have plenty of money saved up, it doesn't ever feel like enough. If one of us has a major illness, it can get wiped out due to a claim denial. And who makes the approve/deny choice?
The author of that post does some bad thinking here by completely missing the source of the vitriol directed at insurers. While providers do charge out the ass, at least they are doing something useful, while in these times of great uncertainty and pain, insurers only rent seek, blood suck, and do not offer anything of value.
I think most of what you said is on the mark, but the core problem is still what the providers are charging. I wouldn't worry so much about in/out-of-network or claim denials, and might not even worry about having insurance coverage at all, if: a 90-minute ER visit (even for a false alarm) didn't cost $10k; or if one night in the hospital (just for observation and a couple blood tests) didn't cost $50k; or if anything actually serious didn't cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
[deleted]
>it doesn't change the fact that "insurers" absolutely add a layer of uncertainty to the process.
Not relative to the case of having no insurance.
You're implicitly blaming insurers for the fact that the US doesn't have universal public healthcare. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Not relative to the case of having no insurance.
You're implicitly blaming insurers for the fact that the US doesn't have universal public healthcare. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Now, why doesn’t the United States have universal public healthcare? Because every time it’s been proposed since the 19th century there’s been stiff opposition from doctors, hospital owners, and private insurance companies. So while it’s true that they didn’t start the problem, it’s fair to blame all of them for the problems of a system they’ve poured enormous amounts of money into preserving.
The US doesn't have universal public healthcare because it is a country of 350M people and would probably be a disaster. Significantly smaller countries (UK/Canada) have major issues with their systems with a fraction of the population.
That’s just silly. What mechanism do you believe makes healthcare fall apart in a larger country but not, say, the larger EU? Similarly, these alleged major problems don’t seem to show up in stats where residents of those countries live longer and healthier lives at much lower cost, and medical bankruptcy is rare.
The EU is not one country. It is certainly not one healthcare system.
But yes, I 100% agree with you. If the US wants to implement public healthcare, it should follow the EU's lead and implement it at the state level with very limited (if at all) top-down interference from the Federal government. Imo, the only thing that it makes sense to do at a nationwide level is negotiating drug prices.
To answer your (flawed) question though, humans have demonstrated time and time again that they struggle to top-down manage large economical undertakings at scale. It seems that at a small scale, we have the capacity to do all sorts of things with all sorts of means of management. But past a certain point we start to get in our own way with internal strife, graft, poor abstractions and assumptions, etc. Some people think AI will help us figure this out, but I'm skeptical. So far the only consistent tool that helps us work against this is the invisible hand of a free market, which does enough to align incentives that the problems become tractable.
But yes, I 100% agree with you. If the US wants to implement public healthcare, it should follow the EU's lead and implement it at the state level with very limited (if at all) top-down interference from the Federal government. Imo, the only thing that it makes sense to do at a nationwide level is negotiating drug prices.
To answer your (flawed) question though, humans have demonstrated time and time again that they struggle to top-down manage large economical undertakings at scale. It seems that at a small scale, we have the capacity to do all sorts of things with all sorts of means of management. But past a certain point we start to get in our own way with internal strife, graft, poor abstractions and assumptions, etc. Some people think AI will help us figure this out, but I'm skeptical. So far the only consistent tool that helps us work against this is the invisible hand of a free market, which does enough to align incentives that the problems become tractable.
> The EU is not one country. It is certainly not one healthcare system.
That was my point: even if there is some hypothetical property of size where a national healthcare system would fall apart, which we have no reason to believe exists, letting each of the 50 states run their own should be similar to the European model where a larger population is covered by a variety of programs and that provides natural experiments for the efficacy of different approaches.
That was my point: even if there is some hypothetical property of size where a national healthcare system would fall apart, which we have no reason to believe exists, letting each of the 50 states run their own should be similar to the European model where a larger population is covered by a variety of programs and that provides natural experiments for the efficacy of different approaches.
Is anything actually preventing each of the 50 states from doing this?
> probably be a disaster
disaster is a strong word, but yes, it would definitely have issues. but would it be an improvement over what we currently have, for most people? that is the standard that matters.
no system will be perfect. i'd argue that no healthcare system will even be that good, knowing human nature, especially given the culture in the US which values the individual's right to obtain money over most everything else. but even given these facts, i think it's defeatist to think that this is honestly the best we can do.
disaster is a strong word, but yes, it would definitely have issues. but would it be an improvement over what we currently have, for most people? that is the standard that matters.
no system will be perfect. i'd argue that no healthcare system will even be that good, knowing human nature, especially given the culture in the US which values the individual's right to obtain money over most everything else. but even given these facts, i think it's defeatist to think that this is honestly the best we can do.
I didn't say it was the best that we can do, merely that I don't think humans currently have the capacity to manage a project of that nature and scope effectively.
My alternate proposal would be for states to implement public healthcare on their own, which they can already do.
My alternate proposal would be for states to implement public healthcare on their own, which they can already do.
How does that make any sense? Would having public healthcare per state suddenly work? What prevents scaling the healthcare to more people?
Yes, why don't we already have public healthcare per state?
And why do you think that a nationwide system (which by necessity needs to be vastly more complex) is more achievable?
And why do you think that a nationwide system (which by necessity needs to be vastly more complex) is more achievable?
> Yes, why don't we already have public healthcare per state?
I don’t know, but what does that have to do with my point?
> And why do you think that a nationwide system (which by necessity needs to be vastly more complex) is more achievable?
I never said that nationwide would be more achievable. I think both options would work.
I’m asking why you think public healthcare works for countries with 90 million inhabitants but doesn’t work for 330 million. What’s the thing that prevents scaling?
I don’t know, but what does that have to do with my point?
> And why do you think that a nationwide system (which by necessity needs to be vastly more complex) is more achievable?
I never said that nationwide would be more achievable. I think both options would work.
I’m asking why you think public healthcare works for countries with 90 million inhabitants but doesn’t work for 330 million. What’s the thing that prevents scaling?
Humanity is what prevents scaling. We've demonstrated time-and-time again that we struggle to administer something at scale without the benefit of free market dynamics like supply and demand.
So there’s a hard border somewhere between 90 and 330 million people? But per-state would work in your opinion?
Nope, no hard border. Just progressively more difficult (and not linearly). My assumption is that, because any such large-scale human endeavor is a network, the complexity increases by some superlinear rate with size unless a almost superhuman effort is effected to counteract that.
Even in the 50-90M range, healthcare systems start to show serious orchestration/efficiency/coordination issues. Healthcare is just the final boss of this type of thing, because everybody needs it and there actually isn't enough to go around.
Regardless yes, I think the US should definitely have states try to figure this out at a smaller scale before even thinking about trying to achieve it at a national level for 300+ million people. Added benefit that some friendly competition amongst states might actually help move things along.
Even in the 50-90M range, healthcare systems start to show serious orchestration/efficiency/coordination issues. Healthcare is just the final boss of this type of thing, because everybody needs it and there actually isn't enough to go around.
Regardless yes, I think the US should definitely have states try to figure this out at a smaller scale before even thinking about trying to achieve it at a national level for 300+ million people. Added benefit that some friendly competition amongst states might actually help move things along.
I would actually say it can only scale linearly or slower than that. Either you gain efficiency due to economies of scale, or worst case, you make 10 smaller systems.
But I still don’t see how the scaling would be worse than linear.
How is managing 300 million people more than 3 times harder than 100 million people? The effort per person shouldn’t increase, and everything common scale lower than linear.
But I still don’t see how the scaling would be worse than linear.
How is managing 300 million people more than 3 times harder than 100 million people? The effort per person shouldn’t increase, and everything common scale lower than linear.
This reminds me of two excellent back-to-back episodes of This American Life in 2009, when the debate leading up to the Affordable Care Act was at its peak: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/391/more-is-less and https://www.thisamericanlife.org/392/someone-elses-money
It has been a while since I listened to these episodes, but my main recollection is the argument that insurers are the only entities in the system actually fighting to reduce costs (and, of course, high costs are what underlie most of the other problems with the US healthcare system).
To be clear, I don't think insurers (and United Healthcare in particular) and their owners (all of us with index funds in our retirement accounts?) and boards and executives are blameless, but I do think this idea should be more central to the discussion and less contrarian.
It has been a while since I listened to these episodes, but my main recollection is the argument that insurers are the only entities in the system actually fighting to reduce costs (and, of course, high costs are what underlie most of the other problems with the US healthcare system).
To be clear, I don't think insurers (and United Healthcare in particular) and their owners (all of us with index funds in our retirement accounts?) and boards and executives are blameless, but I do think this idea should be more central to the discussion and less contrarian.
I don't think modern health insurers want to lower costs. Middlemen benefit from an increase in costs because they operate by skimming off the cashflows passing through them. This has been codified with the 85-15 rule in the ACA but there were less formal incentives pointing broadly in the same direction even before then. If you take a fixed percentage of every dollar you get, you're going to want to get more dollars.
So one of the problems is indeed that insurers have conflicting incentives, as you correctly described one of them, and it's possible (although I don't know enough to argue either way) that ACA actually made this worse. I think one of the big arguments for a single-payer system, or at least the "public option," is that those middlemen could (ideally, in theory) embrace the position they're in to fight for lower costs without the conflicting incentives that come with being a for-profit entity. I guess that's basically what Noah Smith (author of the parent's linked article) is saying in his conclusion. There are, of course, other arguments for and against. Healthcare is a fascinatingly (and maddeningly) complex problem.
I agree this is a bad incentive, but a conflict of interest alone does automatically mean an ability to act on it.
In the case of health insurance, driving up the costs requires a monopoly or collaboration of firms without defection. As a result, this means one firm cant act in isolation, and cost increases usually come from the industry not pushing back on outside changes that impact all the firms equally. Examples could be more training for healthcare workers, more expensive standards of care, more regulation and paperwork, ect.
It is pretty telling that UHC prices are not that different than similar plans at Kaiser (which is a vertically integrated non-profit insurance, hospital, pharmacy, and PBM provider). About 15% different when I was picking between them during open enrollment this year.
In the case of health insurance, driving up the costs requires a monopoly or collaboration of firms without defection. As a result, this means one firm cant act in isolation, and cost increases usually come from the industry not pushing back on outside changes that impact all the firms equally. Examples could be more training for healthcare workers, more expensive standards of care, more regulation and paperwork, ect.
It is pretty telling that UHC prices are not that different than similar plans at Kaiser (which is a vertically integrated non-profit insurance, hospital, pharmacy, and PBM provider). About 15% different when I was picking between them during open enrollment this year.
The incentives go both ways. In the short term, the minimum medical loss ratio rule incentivizes payers to approve more claims and allow network providers to charge higher rates. But longer term payers can only maintain market share with their most important customers (the large self-funded employers) by lowering total medical expenses.
Additional perspective: https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...
The health insurance industry is effectively a maximally hostile middleman. It's hostile to service providers, and it's hostile to service users. (The most charitable thing you can say about it is that it creates enormous amounts of paperwork, thereby creating jobs and boosting GDP.) It's not difficult to see how it has become so widely hated.
The health insurance industry is effectively a maximally hostile middleman. It's hostile to service providers, and it's hostile to service users. (The most charitable thing you can say about it is that it creates enormous amounts of paperwork, thereby creating jobs and boosting GDP.) It's not difficult to see how it has become so widely hated.
The guy was charged with fraud and insider trading, his company denied 2x claims than industry average - in this case it wasn't the providers..
It's the healthcare industrial complex. Just like the military. You get back some percentage of what you charge. They're incentivized to charge more because they'll get more, and sometimes it's an all-or-nothing.
I have doctor friends who quote they spend over 60% of their time dealing with insurance and it's intricacies. It's the fault of the system, with large foundations on insurance and perverse government policy to enrich the leaders therein, and the providers are simply making do with the system they must operate in.
I'll never forget the story I heard about a military squadron that needed like one bolt to fix a relatively important piece of equipment, and it cost like $10 itself.
But the only way they could get it was through a package deal of a million dollars of other insane amounts of equipment that was entirely superfluous and they ended up getting shitloads too many guns and threw away thousands of hardware bits just to get that one screw.
Similar systems at play here.
I have doctor friends who quote they spend over 60% of their time dealing with insurance and it's intricacies. It's the fault of the system, with large foundations on insurance and perverse government policy to enrich the leaders therein, and the providers are simply making do with the system they must operate in.
I'll never forget the story I heard about a military squadron that needed like one bolt to fix a relatively important piece of equipment, and it cost like $10 itself.
But the only way they could get it was through a package deal of a million dollars of other insane amounts of equipment that was entirely superfluous and they ended up getting shitloads too many guns and threw away thousands of hardware bits just to get that one screw.
Similar systems at play here.
Imo, spherical cow economist take on a field they know little about. The graphic lumps all "Inpatient & outpatient care" together, which is insane. Is it saying all that money is going to physicians, nurses, etc? It seems to imply that, but my guess is much of it ends up in hospital administration costs. Also in this way the cost of UHC etc isn't just their own admin overhead; it also add the hospital's admin and billing costs of dealing with them.
As for the author's claim that the doctor/nurse/admin assistant should know how much your treatment costs beforehand, lol. Yes, in an ideal world they absolutely would tell you. No, in reality they do not know. There's a whole apparatus of administrators and software spanning the hospital and insurance companies with bajillions of codes and negotiated rates. Noah Smith instead thinks doctors/nurses/admin assistants know ahead of time what each treatment costs but decline to inform consumers? A slightly dated but still relevant book is O'Reilly Hacking Healthcare. Iirc there are whole chapters on billing. It's just very complicated to figure out costs before treatment, and that's the fault of insurance/administration, not doctors/nurses/admin assistants.
It at least implies 2 anti medical worker claims. 1) excess healthcare costs are driven by medical worker salaries 2) medical workers could clarify prices but do not in order to mislead patients. Both totally miss the real problems of healthcare cost: the complexity of admin/billing leads to not just increased costs in insurance companies but also in hospital administration, and obscures costs for patients.
As for the author's claim that the doctor/nurse/admin assistant should know how much your treatment costs beforehand, lol. Yes, in an ideal world they absolutely would tell you. No, in reality they do not know. There's a whole apparatus of administrators and software spanning the hospital and insurance companies with bajillions of codes and negotiated rates. Noah Smith instead thinks doctors/nurses/admin assistants know ahead of time what each treatment costs but decline to inform consumers? A slightly dated but still relevant book is O'Reilly Hacking Healthcare. Iirc there are whole chapters on billing. It's just very complicated to figure out costs before treatment, and that's the fault of insurance/administration, not doctors/nurses/admin assistants.
It at least implies 2 anti medical worker claims. 1) excess healthcare costs are driven by medical worker salaries 2) medical workers could clarify prices but do not in order to mislead patients. Both totally miss the real problems of healthcare cost: the complexity of admin/billing leads to not just increased costs in insurance companies but also in hospital administration, and obscures costs for patients.
Btw, there are good ways of reducing physician costs. Allow straight to med school with no college, reduce med school requirements, maybe let residents change programs. If you make it much easier to become a physician without hurting care too much you then naturally pass savings on to patients. You can have legitimate criticisms of the AMA or hospital administration without jumping to ah greedy providers.
This is a bit ridiculous, because part of the reason that providers are overcharging you is that they need huge finance departments to get their cash back from you or your insurer, which wouldn't be necessary if you had a single government insurer.
Also, the quote from the Courtney Barnett song about Australian healthcare only applies if you somehow end up in a private emergency department, which is extraordinary unlikely since they're often underprepared for critical emergencies and for non-critical stuff you can ask to be taken to a public hospital in the ambulance. You're likely to get charged a couple of thousand dollars for the ambulance ride (depends on state; in mine, membership of the ambulance org is $53 a year and automatically covers you for any ambulance trip Australia-wide, no denials; others are free), plus a few hundred for the consultation. I believe Medicare will pay for some private care in an emergency department.
She's talking about calling 000 because of an asthma attack but also alludes to a panic attack, which means she's not rationally discussing how much it will cost. It's not a scenario where she will have actual crippling debt like it would be in the US. A non-artistic non-panic-attack analysis of the situation is that she'd pay literally nothing as a public patient in a public hospital, and would pay a few thousand in the unlikely possibility she got admitted to a private hospital. Which, yes, would suck, but her worst case is an order of magnitude or two away from the expected cost in the US.
Also, the quote from the Courtney Barnett song about Australian healthcare only applies if you somehow end up in a private emergency department, which is extraordinary unlikely since they're often underprepared for critical emergencies and for non-critical stuff you can ask to be taken to a public hospital in the ambulance. You're likely to get charged a couple of thousand dollars for the ambulance ride (depends on state; in mine, membership of the ambulance org is $53 a year and automatically covers you for any ambulance trip Australia-wide, no denials; others are free), plus a few hundred for the consultation. I believe Medicare will pay for some private care in an emergency department.
She's talking about calling 000 because of an asthma attack but also alludes to a panic attack, which means she's not rationally discussing how much it will cost. It's not a scenario where she will have actual crippling debt like it would be in the US. A non-artistic non-panic-attack analysis of the situation is that she'd pay literally nothing as a public patient in a public hospital, and would pay a few thousand in the unlikely possibility she got admitted to a private hospital. Which, yes, would suck, but her worst case is an order of magnitude or two away from the expected cost in the US.
As a counterpoint to many of the other commenters, it is 100% true that providers way overcharge for healthcare in the US. Specialized nurses and doctors have salaries that exceed nearly every other profession in the US. But they are not even the main employees! The healthcare industry in the US employs a substantial chunk of all of America, largely in bloated administrative jobs that aren't really necessary for patients.
I'd say, it's also true that this specific company UHG, specifically had policies in place that led to people dying over denied claims. The author of this piece himself said 10-20% of claims are outright, flatly denied by health insurance. That leads to a world where people die unable to afford healthcare they already paid for. I think both parties are at fault here, and yeah insurance is easier to be mad at, that's an idea that makes sense to me.
I'd say, it's also true that this specific company UHG, specifically had policies in place that led to people dying over denied claims. The author of this piece himself said 10-20% of claims are outright, flatly denied by health insurance. That leads to a world where people die unable to afford healthcare they already paid for. I think both parties are at fault here, and yeah insurance is easier to be mad at, that's an idea that makes sense to me.
> [United Healhcare] net profit margin is just 6.11%
Is this before or after their CEO's 23.5 million compensation?
Is this before or after their CEO's 23.5 million compensation?
Both?
If the guy worked for free, it would have increased margin by about 0.002%.
If the guy worked for free, it would have increased margin by about 0.002%.
He's not the only person being compensated at United Healthcare though.
I've asked this in a different thread, but I'll repeat it here: how much of the remaining "operational expenses" actually add meaningful value to the patients' healthcare?
I've asked this in a different thread, but I'll repeat it here: how much of the remaining "operational expenses" actually add meaningful value to the patients' healthcare?
What a garbage milketoast read.
"I'm a Substack Author and Lemme Tell You How I'm Going to Make It About Me This Time."
BS diatribe trying to tell that since asshole X does not do as much damage as asshole Y is not an asshole.
Well they both are
Well they both are
I think he overestimated his chances and kept the stuff and also same with deciding to eat at Macdonalds, I’m far from NY nobody’s gonna recognize me from those shtty pics
A few days ago, HN had "The pitchforks are coming for us plutocrats."[1]
I wrote, no, otherwise the US wouldn't have elected a billionaire as a populist president.
Maybe that was wrong.
The US has historically been a safe space for the rich. There's never been anything like the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the Maoist revolution. The people in charge of the American Revolution were mostly well off. The US hasn't even had a period of high taxes intended to impoverish the rich, as the UK did after WWII.
Occupy Wall Street, the Reparations movement, and its predecessors, such as the National Welfare Rights Organization, went nowhere. Organized labor is barely alive in the private sector. Don't expect much from that direction.
There's the possibility that the coalition the incoming president created might go beyond what he intended and become a radical populist movement. That's happened in other countries when some rabble-rouser got the population wound up, then lost control of them.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42335797
Maybe that was wrong.
The US has historically been a safe space for the rich. There's never been anything like the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the Maoist revolution. The people in charge of the American Revolution were mostly well off. The US hasn't even had a period of high taxes intended to impoverish the rich, as the UK did after WWII.
Occupy Wall Street, the Reparations movement, and its predecessors, such as the National Welfare Rights Organization, went nowhere. Organized labor is barely alive in the private sector. Don't expect much from that direction.
There's the possibility that the coalition the incoming president created might go beyond what he intended and become a radical populist movement. That's happened in other countries when some rabble-rouser got the population wound up, then lost control of them.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42335797
Unlikely. Here’s what will happen instead:
Corporations will beef up security and keep doing what they were doing before. Police and government will increase surveillance budgets, citing this event as reasoning. And no one will interpret this act of violence as anything other than a random event to prevent.
You don’t get structural change by extreme singular events. That’s not how it works.
Corporations will beef up security and keep doing what they were doing before. Police and government will increase surveillance budgets, citing this event as reasoning. And no one will interpret this act of violence as anything other than a random event to prevent.
You don’t get structural change by extreme singular events. That’s not how it works.
> You don’t get structural change by extreme singular events.
The word _singular_ is doing a lot of work there.
Historically 'propagande par le fait' has had a massive effect on policy.
The implication that you have to not only focus on EBITDA but also on social responsibility (in a real non-PR way) is ever lasting if this propagates to more than a single occurrence.
Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.)
The word _singular_ is doing a lot of work there.
Historically 'propagande par le fait' has had a massive effect on policy.
The implication that you have to not only focus on EBITDA but also on social responsibility (in a real non-PR way) is ever lasting if this propagates to more than a single occurrence.
Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.)
Historically 'propagande par le fait' has had a massive effect on policy.
What examples are you thinking of, exactly? When, precisely, did a person/group assassinate someone and have that act push forward their cause?
Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.)
Or, maybe the idea that killing a random healthcare CEO and acting like that will solve the healthcare disaster is a childish idea that belongs in a movie like The Purge or a Marvel film?
The world isn't that simple. It's incredible that people have such a one-dimensional moral worldview.
What examples are you thinking of, exactly? When, precisely, did a person/group assassinate someone and have that act push forward their cause?
Which is why mainstream media and authorities are so worried about controlling the narrative of the events (depicting Brian as a loving father etc.)
Or, maybe the idea that killing a random healthcare CEO and acting like that will solve the healthcare disaster is a childish idea that belongs in a movie like The Purge or a Marvel film?
The world isn't that simple. It's incredible that people have such a one-dimensional moral worldview.
Being charitable, it's not that it will *solve* the disaster, but that its justice applied. Does locking up a single drug dealer solve the war on drugs, or jailing a murderer solve anything for the victim of the murder?
No serious definition of justice includes shooting people in the street because they committed a supposed crime. This is literally the basis of civilization.
It is illegal, for obvious reasons, but justice is a moral question.
We have trials to apply justice because it's not always clear who did what and it would be terribly unjust to lock someone up for something they didn't do.
We have trials to apply justice because it's not always clear who did what and it would be terribly unjust to lock someone up for something they didn't do.
And precisely what wise, intelligent definition of "moral justice" includes shooting people on the street?
The answer is: none. This wasn't some elaborate ethical act, nor is the pathetic justification of it online. It is boring old mob mentality, combined with class resentment and a number of other things.
The answer is: none. This wasn't some elaborate ethical act, nor is the pathetic justification of it online. It is boring old mob mentality, combined with class resentment and a number of other things.
Imagine someone has taken something of yours- would it be just to take it back, even if it could not be proven in court? I'd argue yes, though the trick is convincing everyone else that it was just.
Imagine someone murders your brother. They are friends with the judge so they are let to walk. Have you been denied justice?
Again, the reason not to shoot people on the street is not because it is always unjust but because its not always clear what is just and we would like a fair consistent way to decide that, in a way that's legible to other people.
If you think the death penalty is fair, then you admit that you are fine with people being killed in the name of justice. The only question is, is the person the one who did the crime. Normally a judge would decide that but I don't see why that's a prerequisite
Imagine someone murders your brother. They are friends with the judge so they are let to walk. Have you been denied justice?
Again, the reason not to shoot people on the street is not because it is always unjust but because its not always clear what is just and we would like a fair consistent way to decide that, in a way that's legible to other people.
If you think the death penalty is fair, then you admit that you are fine with people being killed in the name of justice. The only question is, is the person the one who did the crime. Normally a judge would decide that but I don't see why that's a prerequisite
No, the reason not to shoot people on the street is because it undermines a basic function of civilization. Even when someone is clearly guilty, the legal system must still have a monopoly on violence. Otherwise, you get anarchy. This has been a basic assumption of civilization going back thousands of years.
And there's still the question of exactly what culpability a CEO of a major insurance corporation actually has, what supposed crime he has committed, and what the appropriate punishment should be. As far as I can tell, pretty much no one applauding this act has any real understanding of how corporations actually work, or what this specific CEO did that warranted him being murdered. As I said above, there is no intelligent defense here. It's just populist street violence.
And there's still the question of exactly what culpability a CEO of a major insurance corporation actually has, what supposed crime he has committed, and what the appropriate punishment should be. As far as I can tell, pretty much no one applauding this act has any real understanding of how corporations actually work, or what this specific CEO did that warranted him being murdered. As I said above, there is no intelligent defense here. It's just populist street violence.
I don't see how it divolves into anarchy if you only go after people who ~everyone agrees is guilty. The point of judges is to decide who that is and communicate it so people can convince themselves that justice is done, or at least close enough.
It devolves if its unclear, or someone takes it too far and then there's a reprisal etc.
It devolves if its unclear, or someone takes it too far and then there's a reprisal etc.
Because there is no scenario where everyone agrees. Even if someone agrees that the person is guilty, they may disagree on the punishment.
And to use the recent situation as an example: no one other than the shooter decided that the victim was guilty, or what his punishment ought to be.
And to use the recent situation as an example: no one other than the shooter decided that the victim was guilty, or what his punishment ought to be.
Archduke Ferdinand has entered the chat ...
>The US hasn't even had a period of high taxes intended to impoverish the rich, as the UK did after WWII.
Effective US Corporation tax was as high as 50% post WWII. Effective income taxes were between 70% and 90%.
Effective US Corporation tax was as high as 50% post WWII. Effective income taxes were between 70% and 90%.
UK: "One for you nineteen for me."[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman
> There's never been anything like the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the Maoist revolution.
US culture has long actively reviled and denied power to aristocracy.
The story that the rich are in physical danger is used by Trump's supporters to create a paranoid victim mentality among the wealthiest and most powerful. (America - anyone can be a victim!)
US culture has long actively reviled and denied power to aristocracy.
The story that the rich are in physical danger is used by Trump's supporters to create a paranoid victim mentality among the wealthiest and most powerful. (America - anyone can be a victim!)
It's hard not to see this person as being the fall guy.
Regarding the title, "Software developer arrested in connection with murder of healthcare executive," what is the significance of him being a software developer and why is that relevant to the assassination? "Software developer" is not even mentioned once in the article. Is this BBC article the wrong link? Am I missing something?
The significance is that this has been posted on HN if you hadn't noticed.
> Mr Mangione previously worked as a programming intern for Fixarixis, a video game developer.
What? Do they mean Firaxis? Devs of some Civilization and X-Com versions?
What? Do they mean Firaxis? Devs of some Civilization and X-Com versions?
Yeah, there are screenshots of his LinkedIn floating around that show he apparently did Bugfixes on CIV 6. (The profile has since been scrubbed of course)
It's not scrubbed, still here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigi-mangione/
Interesting. The relation with Civ gives a kind of grand scheme. Let's see what his dead man account brings up:
https://youtube.com/@PepMangione
https://youtube.com/@PepMangione
no telling whether that account is just somebody who renamed after the guy's Twitter handle leaked. it wasn't archived on the way back machine
Aaaaand it's gone.
[deleted]
Valedictorian in high school, from a well-off family, studied computer science in college that too from a pretty good college, founded / involved-in a game dev club in college, had people around him refer to him as nice, also had familial relations to someone in a good post such as in his case in a state legislature.
He unfortunately sounds very similar to people like you and I here on Hacker News, rather than what we all had in mind about his possible persona.
He unfortunately sounds very similar to people like you and I here on Hacker News, rather than what we all had in mind about his possible persona.
Sounds like drug abuse hurt him.
Boy, they are gonna have a hard time, picking a jury for this kid.
No, most normal people are not psychos who can rationalize murder
That's why most people celebrate the death of this CEO, because they're well-adjusted. Roughly 25k Americans die each year for lack ability to afford health insurance. Normal people don't cry over one filthy rich guy accused of insider trading and known to have overseen implementation of AI to deny claims, while giving zero apparent fucks for the orders of magnitude more people who are actually decent.
You mean like the health insurers that deliberately denied coverage for AIDS patients and cancer patients, knowing that would hasten/cause their deaths?
Those types of people?
Those types of people?
To answer that question, first I would need to understand how a normal person would behave in the same circumstance.
The sum of requests for insurance money is far greater than the total amount an insurance company brings in. Denials will need to happen, and I do not have the ability to judge whether a denial was appropriate or inappropriate in a vacuum.
The sum of requests for insurance money is far greater than the total amount an insurance company brings in. Denials will need to happen, and I do not have the ability to judge whether a denial was appropriate or inappropriate in a vacuum.
I happened to be in a population of folks, in the 1980s and 1990s, who had a high incidence of AIDS. They currently still have a high incidence of cancer, so I guess you could say that I have a "front-row seat" to the horror.
There were actually some leaked memos, that made it clear that the goal of many denials -especially irt AIDS, because nobody likes gays and addicts- was to hasten or cause the death of the patient (thus, decreasing the cost). If a hospital can't guarantee payment, they won't do the surgery/treatment, so the insurer definitely knows that their action will likely kill the patient. In fact, that's the goal.
I would consider that first-degree, premeditated, murder.
I understand that they are now turning the denials over to AI, so that actual humans don't have to live with the knowledge that they deliberately killed someone else.
But it isn't cool to just kill folks you don't like. The kid needs to be tried for first-degree murder. I do not condone his action, and I'm glad they got him. I just wish they were as circumspect, when it came to the murder of non-CEOs.
I was just commenting that it will be very difficult to find an impartial jury. There's definitely a downside to pissing off every single person in the US.
There were actually some leaked memos, that made it clear that the goal of many denials -especially irt AIDS, because nobody likes gays and addicts- was to hasten or cause the death of the patient (thus, decreasing the cost). If a hospital can't guarantee payment, they won't do the surgery/treatment, so the insurer definitely knows that their action will likely kill the patient. In fact, that's the goal.
I would consider that first-degree, premeditated, murder.
I understand that they are now turning the denials over to AI, so that actual humans don't have to live with the knowledge that they deliberately killed someone else.
But it isn't cool to just kill folks you don't like. The kid needs to be tried for first-degree murder. I do not condone his action, and I'm glad they got him. I just wish they were as circumspect, when it came to the murder of non-CEOs.
I was just commenting that it will be very difficult to find an impartial jury. There's definitely a downside to pissing off every single person in the US.
I should also mention that folks will be desperate to make him take a plea deal, because a public trial will definitely have scores of health insurance horror stories.
Oh, you can't judge this, but you can declare hundreds of millions of Americans as "not normal" and yourself better than them. Is this a joke?
joshua citarella stays ahead of the curve:
> 5D chess: UHC Brian Thompson assassination represents the ideological victory of Right accelerationism bc they already argue a built-in feature of monarchy (CEO dictatorship) is that when it isn’t working well you can just kill the king. Many seem to agree?
https://x.com/JoshuaCitarella/status/1864663475814805638
> 5D chess: UHC Brian Thompson assassination represents the ideological victory of Right accelerationism bc they already argue a built-in feature of monarchy (CEO dictatorship) is that when it isn’t working well you can just kill the king. Many seem to agree?
https://x.com/JoshuaCitarella/status/1864663475814805638
Found his github
https://github.com/lnmangione
https://github.com/lnmangione
[deleted]
It’s one thing to be upset and angry about capitalism and businesses. How does a person go from there to being able to commit premeditated murder because it means seeing a human being die in agony. That’s a jump of several magnitudes. It’s terribly sad.
Whatever his motivation, it has seemed to me that if you put enough people in a certain kind of pressure cooker, with no way up, no way out, and a clear target, you've created a pretty volatile situation where rational people start acting rationally.
Granted, you'd need to be in a very dark place, but it doesn't take the greatest stretch of the imagination to create a hypothetical scenario in which someone just thinks to themselves "Well shit, I guess I don't have too many options here, and the only thing stopping me is the tacit acceptance that I shouldn't use violence". People do have addresses after all, and perhaps should be more afraid than they are of screwing people at a large scale.
Granted, you'd need to be in a very dark place, but it doesn't take the greatest stretch of the imagination to create a hypothetical scenario in which someone just thinks to themselves "Well shit, I guess I don't have too many options here, and the only thing stopping me is the tacit acceptance that I shouldn't use violence". People do have addresses after all, and perhaps should be more afraid than they are of screwing people at a large scale.
There's a lot of comments coming out now that both he and his mother suffered from some kind of terrible chronic back pain, and he himself had some kind of surgery on his back and that he and his mother both had big problems with UHC in this regard. It might still be a bit early to say if these stories are correct or not, but if they are, it would provide ample motive for the crime. It's a very small step from seeing your mother suffer greatly (and you too) because of insurance company malfeasance to wanting to kill the guy in charge.
Also, this is a quibble, but I don't think he saw the CEO "die in agony": he fired his 3 shots (with some difficulty because of the particular way the gun and suppressor worked), and then took off to get his bicycle. The CEO later died in the hospital.
Also, this is a quibble, but I don't think he saw the CEO "die in agony": he fired his 3 shots (with some difficulty because of the particular way the gun and suppressor worked), and then took off to get his bicycle. The CEO later died in the hospital.
I wonder how many denied claims both pumped up his yearly bonus and resulted in an innocent person dying in agony?
This CEO may as well have pulled the trigger.
This CEO may as well have pulled the trigger.
Exactly. The only difference is the layers of abstraction.
This seems like the 20-something version of a school shooter. Some people just lose it and go after their current list of enemies in their mind with lethal force.
Disclaimer: I don't know shit about this guy. I can't speak about his particular case or personal motivations and circumstances. With this in mind, let me instead answer the more generic aspect of your question.
---
Some illnesses are hard. But even so, they are temporarily bad. You suffer some time, get some treatment or procedure and then it's -mostly- over. You may lose something in the process, but generally you can go on with your life after it.
Sometimes there are permanent effects. Like maybe you lose an eye, or maybe you have to be medicated for the rest of your life, or have to keep a special diet or something. Or you may get some permanent discomfort. But again, even with this, you can generally continue otherwise "well enough".
Some other illnesses are hard, and lethal. You may suffer, go through some process -or not- and then die. These are hard to endure because, well, you know you're dying. But then again, it happens fairly quickly.
Some other illnesses can be hard and recurring. Like a cancer or lymphoma. The treatment is hard and exhausting. But you go through it and it either works and you get some additional years to live fairly ok, or it doesn't work and you rapidly go away. Then they return and you repeat the loop. But again, you mostly live mostly ok some years and then get hit again, go through treatment and then the fork of either having some years more or dying "quickly".
Some are constantly hard. In the sense that they don't kill you but make you live with constant and relentless suffering. The psychological impact this has is hard to overestimate and while you don't die, it can be said that they take you life because they change it so completely that you have almost nothing else but fighting constantly against the pain and suffering.
When you are the subject yourself of such a situation, the effect can be devastating. Different people react differently, of course, but there's always some psychological damage. This can sometimes produce its own neurological illnesses that pile on top of it all.
But you may not be the subject of such an illness and still suffer the psychological impact. If you're a person that cares and someone close to you falls into that situation it's very easy to be affected. You won't experience it first-hand but you will see a person you love suffering every single day. It's worse when it also happens at night. Because then they will suffer and they will be significantly impacting their own health through sleeping badly or not sleeping at all. And if you're close enough to be there, chances are you will also sleep badly and affect your own health too.
Sometimes the situation means that you really can't do shit about it. Sure, you can be there, give them support, your love, your care, etc. And that is indeed a lot. But it has no particular effect on the illness itself so it can easily feel worthless, pointless, useless. The psychological effect of all this is both subtle, in the sense that you may not even be aware of it, and fairly impactful, producing changes in your personality and mental health.
Sometimes, other circumstances work together with the illness for the caring person to have to make big sacrifices. Like maybe quitting their job or career, or their own family or friends, or whatever. Sometimes they end up developing their own maladies because of this situation -or sometimes apparently because of it-.
And so, a person who is generally healthy gets to see someone they care for suffer continuously every moment of their life, and they are forced to renounce big parts of their own life to care for them, and then they are impacted with subtle but deep psychological problems. The description of "it breaks your heart" is quite appropriate because you may be giving all your love and effort while simultaneously feeling completely useless, and end up inflicting hard damage on yourself.
Different people will react differently to all this. But it's hard to predict how any of us would react until you've actually gone through it. Sure, you can say "I'd seek help" or "I'd try to stay positive" or even "I'd certainly go crazy", but the truth is you don't actually know.
For some people it's not uncommon to react by looking for an "ultimate cause", something they can attribute all the problems to. It can be a generic cause like "life sucks" and they may end up bitter against life in general. Some turn religious. Some do the opposite. Or it may be that they find fault on something they did or didn't and so they end up blaming themselves, with various outcomes. It may also be that they blame another close person, a parent, a sibling, and it's not uncommon to see families split over such illnesses. Sometimes they may find a cause in "the system", in a negligent doctor, in an "uncaring" administration, in causes with different degrees of distance and specificity.
The problem has many aspects contributing to it and each person, again, will react differently. But sometimes it just happens that this one person under the accumulated effects of suffering, of seeing someone not die but live in agony every moment, finds this "ultimate cause" personified on some organization or some one specific person who can maybe -in reality or in their reality- have caused that pain or have profited from it or whatever, through their actions or inactions. With enough persistence, it's not hard for all of that to transform into rage or hate and, sometimes, produce the effect you see here.
I'm not saying this reaction is inevitable, or logical, or forgivable, or anything. That's up to you to think. Just that it's not impossible to understand and that there may be circumstances that push people... that crush people and them push them into tragic actions.
Finally, yes, I agree with the conclusion that it's terribly sad. In a lot of ways.
---
Some illnesses are hard. But even so, they are temporarily bad. You suffer some time, get some treatment or procedure and then it's -mostly- over. You may lose something in the process, but generally you can go on with your life after it.
Sometimes there are permanent effects. Like maybe you lose an eye, or maybe you have to be medicated for the rest of your life, or have to keep a special diet or something. Or you may get some permanent discomfort. But again, even with this, you can generally continue otherwise "well enough".
Some other illnesses are hard, and lethal. You may suffer, go through some process -or not- and then die. These are hard to endure because, well, you know you're dying. But then again, it happens fairly quickly.
Some other illnesses can be hard and recurring. Like a cancer or lymphoma. The treatment is hard and exhausting. But you go through it and it either works and you get some additional years to live fairly ok, or it doesn't work and you rapidly go away. Then they return and you repeat the loop. But again, you mostly live mostly ok some years and then get hit again, go through treatment and then the fork of either having some years more or dying "quickly".
Some are constantly hard. In the sense that they don't kill you but make you live with constant and relentless suffering. The psychological impact this has is hard to overestimate and while you don't die, it can be said that they take you life because they change it so completely that you have almost nothing else but fighting constantly against the pain and suffering.
When you are the subject yourself of such a situation, the effect can be devastating. Different people react differently, of course, but there's always some psychological damage. This can sometimes produce its own neurological illnesses that pile on top of it all.
But you may not be the subject of such an illness and still suffer the psychological impact. If you're a person that cares and someone close to you falls into that situation it's very easy to be affected. You won't experience it first-hand but you will see a person you love suffering every single day. It's worse when it also happens at night. Because then they will suffer and they will be significantly impacting their own health through sleeping badly or not sleeping at all. And if you're close enough to be there, chances are you will also sleep badly and affect your own health too.
Sometimes the situation means that you really can't do shit about it. Sure, you can be there, give them support, your love, your care, etc. And that is indeed a lot. But it has no particular effect on the illness itself so it can easily feel worthless, pointless, useless. The psychological effect of all this is both subtle, in the sense that you may not even be aware of it, and fairly impactful, producing changes in your personality and mental health.
Sometimes, other circumstances work together with the illness for the caring person to have to make big sacrifices. Like maybe quitting their job or career, or their own family or friends, or whatever. Sometimes they end up developing their own maladies because of this situation -or sometimes apparently because of it-.
And so, a person who is generally healthy gets to see someone they care for suffer continuously every moment of their life, and they are forced to renounce big parts of their own life to care for them, and then they are impacted with subtle but deep psychological problems. The description of "it breaks your heart" is quite appropriate because you may be giving all your love and effort while simultaneously feeling completely useless, and end up inflicting hard damage on yourself.
Different people will react differently to all this. But it's hard to predict how any of us would react until you've actually gone through it. Sure, you can say "I'd seek help" or "I'd try to stay positive" or even "I'd certainly go crazy", but the truth is you don't actually know.
For some people it's not uncommon to react by looking for an "ultimate cause", something they can attribute all the problems to. It can be a generic cause like "life sucks" and they may end up bitter against life in general. Some turn religious. Some do the opposite. Or it may be that they find fault on something they did or didn't and so they end up blaming themselves, with various outcomes. It may also be that they blame another close person, a parent, a sibling, and it's not uncommon to see families split over such illnesses. Sometimes they may find a cause in "the system", in a negligent doctor, in an "uncaring" administration, in causes with different degrees of distance and specificity.
The problem has many aspects contributing to it and each person, again, will react differently. But sometimes it just happens that this one person under the accumulated effects of suffering, of seeing someone not die but live in agony every moment, finds this "ultimate cause" personified on some organization or some one specific person who can maybe -in reality or in their reality- have caused that pain or have profited from it or whatever, through their actions or inactions. With enough persistence, it's not hard for all of that to transform into rage or hate and, sometimes, produce the effect you see here.
I'm not saying this reaction is inevitable, or logical, or forgivable, or anything. That's up to you to think. Just that it's not impossible to understand and that there may be circumstances that push people... that crush people and them push them into tragic actions.
Finally, yes, I agree with the conclusion that it's terribly sad. In a lot of ways.
This is an insightful take on the impact. I will say, having been a caregiver multiple times around serious medical situations, that looking back, that care I gave had great meaning in my life, despite the pain for all concerned.
I'm glad you found that positive side in your experiences. I know it can be very hard on some people, but it's important to keep up the spirits and think that, while you may not be able to do anything about the illness itself, your help does make a difference in their quality of life while going through the whole ordeal.
> It’s one thing to be upset and angry about capitalism and businesses.
Right, we should all continue grumbling about it for the rest of our lives as law and government intended. Nothing will change and the meat grinder will continue churning. Imo, this line of thinking of "they're angry and upset in a way that upsets me!" is easily exploitable towards complete inaction.
Also I'm so sorry but having sympathy for effective oligarchs? Come on. Wishing their death might be a bridge too far but at best these people deserve ambivalence, not pity.
Right, we should all continue grumbling about it for the rest of our lives as law and government intended. Nothing will change and the meat grinder will continue churning. Imo, this line of thinking of "they're angry and upset in a way that upsets me!" is easily exploitable towards complete inaction.
Also I'm so sorry but having sympathy for effective oligarchs? Come on. Wishing their death might be a bridge too far but at best these people deserve ambivalence, not pity.
Absolutely senseless murder by a deranged human. I feel incredibly bad for the family and friends of the CEO, especially with all of the BS from Reddit/TikTok.
Are you sensitized by the death of thousands of people due to automated coverage deny systems he put in place?
Replies like this prove that humans are incredibly morally malleable and that is disheartening. Murder is wrong, 100% of the time.
My pet theory is this is the form of "elite overproduction" where affluent kids lacking meaning in their life are drawn to stupid ideas combined with exaggerated sense of self-importance. Explains all kinds of morons from mild like Dean Preston (prep school? check, "change the world"? check) to crazy like this guy (prep school? check, "change the world"? check), and across the political spectrum from random Ivy-educated non-profit workers to Trump (prep school? check, "change the world"? check; although he was satisfied with being a rich asshole for most of his life and developed this syndrome later).
I'd like to call it "prep school scumbag syndrome". Trump is actually a good illustration of a related fact that hereditary rich who are content with being hedonistic assholes are much less harmful than the same in search of impact and meaning.
To fix it, we need new rule - if, adjusted for median same-ages pairings, you have/make less money than expected compared to your parents, you don't get to participate in politics in any way! Just kidding (sorta).
Notably, the slain CEO appears to have been from a working class family and a university of nowhere, and worked his way up. This is the kind of person I, personally, admire.
I'd like to call it "prep school scumbag syndrome". Trump is actually a good illustration of a related fact that hereditary rich who are content with being hedonistic assholes are much less harmful than the same in search of impact and meaning.
To fix it, we need new rule - if, adjusted for median same-ages pairings, you have/make less money than expected compared to your parents, you don't get to participate in politics in any way! Just kidding (sorta).
Notably, the slain CEO appears to have been from a working class family and a university of nowhere, and worked his way up. This is the kind of person I, personally, admire.
[deleted]
The memes popping up around and comments about this guy really really highlights pretty privilege lol
One too many retros
I knew you guys were all psychos/s
[deleted]
Every dip shit claiming this was pro are now quiet.
I don't know if this has been posted already, but here is his manifesto
https://archive.is/2024.12.09-230659/https://breloomlegacy.s...
Sounds like both he and his mother were suffering from chronic pain and UHC dicked them around and refused to act in good faith
https://archive.is/2024.12.09-230659/https://breloomlegacy.s...
Sounds like both he and his mother were suffering from chronic pain and UHC dicked them around and refused to act in good faith
Was this linked from any of his existing social medias? Do we have any way of knowing it's actually him? I'd be just a tad cautious at this stage, given that the Substack page says it was 'Launched an hour ago' as of writing. The article, sure, dead man's switch, but the Substack publication itself was only created after his arrest?
Edit: also worth noting that whatever this is, it's not the document he had with him when he was arrested, since that apparently contained[0] the following excerpt, while this doesn't
> “These parasites had it coming,” one line from the document reads, according to a police official who has seen it. Another reads, “I do apologize for any strife and trauma, but it had to be done.”
[0]https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian...
Edit: also worth noting that whatever this is, it's not the document he had with him when he was arrested, since that apparently contained[0] the following excerpt, while this doesn't
> “These parasites had it coming,” one line from the document reads, according to a police official who has seen it. Another reads, “I do apologize for any strife and trauma, but it had to be done.”
[0]https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/us/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian...
this archive link is floating around on blind and reddit. I have no idea if it's authentic. I didn't find a link to his other social media but the part about back pain lines up with this bit I found in a nymag article [0]
> Something seems to have changed in recent months. Martin told a Hawaii publication that his friend had suffered chronic back pain and texted him images after getting surgery before going “radio silent” over the summer. Asked in court if he was in contact with family, Mangione said “until recently.”
[0] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/luigi-mangione-unite...
> Something seems to have changed in recent months. Martin told a Hawaii publication that his friend had suffered chronic back pain and texted him images after getting surgery before going “radio silent” over the summer. Asked in court if he was in contact with family, Mangione said “until recently.”
[0] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/luigi-mangione-unite...
The Substack is still live[0]. Anyway, one of the images in his Twitter banner[1] is an X-ray of a spine with a bunch of screws in it. The Substack is also named after Breloom and has a picture at the bottom, and that's also in the Twitter banner but doesn't seem otherwise prominent in any of his social medias. Not very hard to figure out a spinal issue as a potential motive and guess at an interest based on the banner and cook up a quick viral post. I'm not saying it's definitely fake, just urging a bit of caution for the time being.
[0]https://breloomlegacy.substack.com/p/the-allopathic-complex-...
[1]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeYOLH2WgAA16X7.jpg
[0]https://breloomlegacy.substack.com/p/the-allopathic-complex-...
[1]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GeYOLH2WgAA16X7.jpg
> The Substack is still live
This might be a bug in substack? If you go to https://substack.com/@breloomlegacy it says "Profile not found", so they might've tried to scrub it
maybe some cache ttl hasn't run out yet or something :/
This might be a bug in substack? If you go to https://substack.com/@breloomlegacy it says "Profile not found", so they might've tried to scrub it
maybe some cache ttl hasn't run out yet or something :/
I dunno, but the article continues to be live, and I can't imagine Substack doesn't know how to scrub posts from their platform if they wanted to. We'll find out eventually I guess, so I'll continue to urge people to be cautious with this and wait a bit.
It's gone from Substack now, but I agree with you that we should be cautious in assuming anything at this point.
[deleted]
Why would substack scrub it? I thought they were anti censorship.
I'm guessing they are afraid of inspiring copy-cats.
Not that it would stop a really determined copy-cat from taking notes from Luigi Mangione.
Not that it would stop a really determined copy-cat from taking notes from Luigi Mangione.
My buddy sent me a link to that archive.ph version of the substack, but it showed it was published today??
This is an extremely obvious fake.
Here’s a description of the actual manifesto from the NYT:
> The 262-word handwritten manifesto that the police found on Luigi Mangione begins with the writer appearing to take responsibility for the murder, according to a senior law enforcement official who saw the document. It notes that as UnitedHealthcare’s market capitalization has grown, American life expectancy has not. “To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone,” he wrote. The note condemns companies that “continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allowed them to get away with it.”
> The handwritten manifesto found on Mangione contained the passages “These parasites had it coming” and “I do apologize for any strife and trauma, but it had to be done,” according to a senior law enforcement official who saw the document.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/12/09/nyregion/unitedhealt...
Here’s a description of the actual manifesto from the NYT:
> The 262-word handwritten manifesto that the police found on Luigi Mangione begins with the writer appearing to take responsibility for the murder, according to a senior law enforcement official who saw the document. It notes that as UnitedHealthcare’s market capitalization has grown, American life expectancy has not. “To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone,” he wrote. The note condemns companies that “continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allowed them to get away with it.”
> The handwritten manifesto found on Mangione contained the passages “These parasites had it coming” and “I do apologize for any strife and trauma, but it had to be done,” according to a senior law enforcement official who saw the document.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/12/09/nyregion/unitedhealt...
I doubt this is real. The New York Times mentions that he comes from a prosperous family - seems incongruous with his mother lacking healthcare desperately.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/nyregion/who-is-luigi-man...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/09/nyregion/who-is-luigi-man...
I would buy that a wealthy person would have the anger and the resources to learn how to stalk, make a plan, use a weapon. Poverty is a drain on your mental capacity for nearly everything else besides survival.
Also I don’t doubt that his mother would lack healthcare desperately even when wealthy. Women in pain are one the biggest demographics of denied healthcare. Even extremely wealthy, well-connected women.
Also I don’t doubt that his mother would lack healthcare desperately even when wealthy. Women in pain are one the biggest demographics of denied healthcare. Even extremely wealthy, well-connected women.
So instead of using her money to find care elsewhere with a different company or even in a different country, he just decided to murder the CEO of the company that denied his coverage?
How absolutely insane does that sound?
My buddy was a pro hockey player. He retired and a few years later, he blew out his knee. He didn't have insurance and was in a lot of pain every day. He knew he couldn't afford a 25K bill for surgery so he got on a plane, flew to Argentina, got his surgery done, stayed for two weeks and flew back. The whole ordeal cost him around 8K for the whole deal.
Instead of plotting to kill the CEO of some healthcare company, he found a solution to his problem instead.
This is the difference between this guy and thousands of other people who are in chronic pain. Some smoke weed, some find treatments in other countries, some find homeopathic remedies and many other combinations therein. They don't just go off the deep end and plot to murder someone because they felt so wronged by a health care company.
What has he accomplished by doing what he did? Nothing. There's already been a video of the new CEO to employees about how they intend to stay the path of denying necessary treatments and expenditures. All of that pent up hate and anger and instead of channeling that into doing something positive for himself and his mother, he just took out on the CEO of a company instead.
How absolutely insane does that sound?
My buddy was a pro hockey player. He retired and a few years later, he blew out his knee. He didn't have insurance and was in a lot of pain every day. He knew he couldn't afford a 25K bill for surgery so he got on a plane, flew to Argentina, got his surgery done, stayed for two weeks and flew back. The whole ordeal cost him around 8K for the whole deal.
Instead of plotting to kill the CEO of some healthcare company, he found a solution to his problem instead.
This is the difference between this guy and thousands of other people who are in chronic pain. Some smoke weed, some find treatments in other countries, some find homeopathic remedies and many other combinations therein. They don't just go off the deep end and plot to murder someone because they felt so wronged by a health care company.
What has he accomplished by doing what he did? Nothing. There's already been a video of the new CEO to employees about how they intend to stay the path of denying necessary treatments and expenditures. All of that pent up hate and anger and instead of channeling that into doing something positive for himself and his mother, he just took out on the CEO of a company instead.
As someone dealing with a similar health journey of loved ones as the killer's, it takes a tremendous amount of time and effort to finally come to the conclusion that the medical system as a whole isn't very helpful for certain conditions, before one takes treatment into their own hands.
Doctors fear of malpractice and pressure to fit in as many billable moments in a day means that there's really no deep "engineering" of someone's problems that doesn't fit neatly into their mental diagnostic flow chart. So it's presented as needing expensive diagnostic work, to which the insurance companies also put up their hoops. And doctors are also not trained in nutrition and its effect on chronic illness such as this shooter's mothers.
So what it ends up feeling like is that if only the insurance companies were efficient, we could have an efficient route to hope while the insurance companies block such efforts.
Healthcare in America is one of those areas where unintuitive solutions are needed, and I would argue that it starts at the lifestyle prevention level before it even gets to the medical doctors and insurance companies.
Doctors fear of malpractice and pressure to fit in as many billable moments in a day means that there's really no deep "engineering" of someone's problems that doesn't fit neatly into their mental diagnostic flow chart. So it's presented as needing expensive diagnostic work, to which the insurance companies also put up their hoops. And doctors are also not trained in nutrition and its effect on chronic illness such as this shooter's mothers.
So what it ends up feeling like is that if only the insurance companies were efficient, we could have an efficient route to hope while the insurance companies block such efforts.
Healthcare in America is one of those areas where unintuitive solutions are needed, and I would argue that it starts at the lifestyle prevention level before it even gets to the medical doctors and insurance companies.
[flagged]
>Instead of plotting to kill the CEO of some healthcare company, he found a solution to his problem instead.
invoking "bootstraps" unironically in this exact, specific context is one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever, ever seen
invoking "bootstraps" unironically in this exact, specific context is one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever, ever seen
So you acknowledge a problem and think it’s perfectly acceptable to have our healthcare broken and using some other country’s resources is an ok substitute? Laughable. And this isn’t even getting into all of the denied cases under the direction of this CEO for actual insurance that is supposed to cover you. Kids not getting cancer meds. Give me a break.
How does your buddy feel about the shooter, given his experience with the medical system? Would he approve of you using him as an example of why an elderly woman with a severe, largely untreated nervous system chronic illness, which cannot be solved by any one procedure domestically or abroad, should just fix herself somehow?
This reads very “I have black a black friend, so I can speak on race issues”.
This reads very “I have black a black friend, so I can speak on race issues”.
>> How does your buddy feel about the shooter, given his experience with the medical system?
He's already said he would never support what he did, regardless of what happened to him or how he was treated.
>> Would he approve of you using him as an example of why an elderly woman with a severe, largely untreated nervous system chronic illness, which cannot be solved by any one procedure domestically or abroad, should just fix herself somehow?
He's already told multiple people in multiple conversations I've been around him that he felt compelled to leave the country to get treatment because the system is so broke here. I don't need his approval or permission to use his experience.
Its been widely reported the shooters family is wealthy. With such financial resources, both the shooter and his mom could've easily sought treatment elsewhere, but did not. Apparently people don't like the idea that life is hard and sometimes caring for your loved ones isn't easy, is time consuming and takes a lot of energy to endure.
Its clear the shooter decided he didn't have the constitution to do something different and instead of taking the decision process out of UHC's hands and do something himself to help his family, he merely acquiesced to what UHC was doing until he decided he needed to murder the CEO of the company.
>> This reads very “I have black a black friend, so I can speak on race issues”.
"Those who preach about tolerance and acceptance rarely, if ever, practice it themselves."
Thanks for confirming this is your level of discourse.
He's already said he would never support what he did, regardless of what happened to him or how he was treated.
>> Would he approve of you using him as an example of why an elderly woman with a severe, largely untreated nervous system chronic illness, which cannot be solved by any one procedure domestically or abroad, should just fix herself somehow?
He's already told multiple people in multiple conversations I've been around him that he felt compelled to leave the country to get treatment because the system is so broke here. I don't need his approval or permission to use his experience.
Its been widely reported the shooters family is wealthy. With such financial resources, both the shooter and his mom could've easily sought treatment elsewhere, but did not. Apparently people don't like the idea that life is hard and sometimes caring for your loved ones isn't easy, is time consuming and takes a lot of energy to endure.
Its clear the shooter decided he didn't have the constitution to do something different and instead of taking the decision process out of UHC's hands and do something himself to help his family, he merely acquiesced to what UHC was doing until he decided he needed to murder the CEO of the company.
>> This reads very “I have black a black friend, so I can speak on race issues”.
"Those who preach about tolerance and acceptance rarely, if ever, practice it themselves."
Thanks for confirming this is your level of discourse.
> I don't need his approval or permission to use his experience.
But you are using his experience to justify your own positions. I’m just pointing out that you’re merely speaking from authority that you don’t have just because you know some guy. That’s your dismissal speaking from a position of assumed knowledge you don’t actually have.
Also, it’s strange you consider polite disagreement to be intolerance. I’m not shooting you or advocating violence, I’m merely saying I think your logic is dumb. That you seem to equate the two the level of discourse you are bringing, not me.
But you are using his experience to justify your own positions. I’m just pointing out that you’re merely speaking from authority that you don’t have just because you know some guy. That’s your dismissal speaking from a position of assumed knowledge you don’t actually have.
Also, it’s strange you consider polite disagreement to be intolerance. I’m not shooting you or advocating violence, I’m merely saying I think your logic is dumb. That you seem to equate the two the level of discourse you are bringing, not me.
Joe Biden, the vice president of the United States at the time, was seriously struggling with healthcare costs. Prosperous families can quickly become unprosperous from healthcare in this country.
[deleted]
The underlying point of the manifesto is that insurers have corrupted medicine itself. Regardless of whether the care would be covered, the doctors were trained to diagnose and treat in a way that isn’t designed to cure, but to “care.” Sure, she had visits and specialists and diagnoses and it was largely incompetent, because incompetent doctors are cheap in a system where inaction has no real consequence.
Which is total nonsense. There is certainly plenty of room for improvement in the healthcare system. But the average competence level of doctors is higher now than ever before. If you think we have problems now than look how many quacks there were a century ago, before health insurance even really existed.
I think both views are partially right. Yes, medicine has advanced. There are many areas where the treatments simply didn’t exist, even 20 years ago. There are different people involved with different incentives. However, that doesn’t mean that insurance hasn’t also had a negative effect on quality of care. The example that comes to mind the standard of care for back injuries. Treatment begins maybe with an x-ray to check for fractures, but then NSAIDs. If that doesn’t work, then physical therapy a couple times a week for a few weeks. Then patients may get an MRI a couple months later… after it’s too late to see bruising to the spinal cord. So, there’s almost never direct evidence that a herniation is work-related, and thus it isn’t covered by workers compensation. The path of escalation is designed to reduce costs, but starting with an MRI on day one is decidedly better for patient outcomes.
Medicine, like engineering, is a domain of trade-offs.
You could order MRIs for every back pain complaint, which would improve outcomes for some % of patients, while probably worsening outcomes for others (due to red herring findings that lead to unnecessary treatments), but at what cost? Who will bear this cost? Regardless of health care system, someone will have to. Most back pain self-resolves with home care, so it makes sense to try that first, unless you have reason to suspect severe trauma that needs immediate treatment (e.g. the patient just fell off a ladder).
You could order MRIs for every back pain complaint, which would improve outcomes for some % of patients, while probably worsening outcomes for others (due to red herring findings that lead to unnecessary treatments), but at what cost? Who will bear this cost? Regardless of health care system, someone will have to. Most back pain self-resolves with home care, so it makes sense to try that first, unless you have reason to suspect severe trauma that needs immediate treatment (e.g. the patient just fell off a ladder).
Regardless of insurance issues, are there actually evidence-based medicine guidelines to support an immediate MRI for back injuries? By injury do you mean some kind of specific trauma, or any serious back pain regardless of suspected cause? Many patients do recover with OTC analgesics, proper physical therapy, and time.
https://peterattiamd.com/stuartmcgill/
What you'll find with imaging for those structures is that many patients appear to have abnormalities or apparent pathologies, including patients who don't have any pain. So while MRI can be helpful for diagnosis and treatment it isn't necessarily definitive.
There is always going to be a resource allocation and care rationing issue with expensive services like MRI. Other countries with socialized healthcare often have long queues for non-emergency MRIs. In fact, we often see affluent Canadians coming to the USA as medical tourists to skip the queues.
https://peterattiamd.com/stuartmcgill/
What you'll find with imaging for those structures is that many patients appear to have abnormalities or apparent pathologies, including patients who don't have any pain. So while MRI can be helpful for diagnosis and treatment it isn't necessarily definitive.
There is always going to be a resource allocation and care rationing issue with expensive services like MRI. Other countries with socialized healthcare often have long queues for non-emergency MRIs. In fact, we often see affluent Canadians coming to the USA as medical tourists to skip the queues.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is a front page reddit post showing bushy eyebrows vs none. So more likely not the guy
Some say it’s fake, some say it’s real. I think it’s very well written and raw and therefore if it is fake, it’s very convincing.
He could have help on the outside to post things also.
He could have help on the outside to post things also.
And I was right. This is fake and his real manifesto is here: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto
I was suspicious from the link and “last words” BS and even moreso with the cringe gladiator references. Typical weirdo fan fan material.
I was suspicious from the link and “last words” BS and even moreso with the cringe gladiator references. Typical weirdo fan fan material.
No idea if this is real or not but neuropathy is horrible. I had a mild case of it after hurting my back which caused spinal inflammation.
Sensations of tiny zaps all over my body 24/7, most noticeable when falling asleep. Ibuprofen helped a bit, fortunately it went away after a few months.
Sensations of tiny zaps all over my body 24/7, most noticeable when falling asleep. Ibuprofen helped a bit, fortunately it went away after a few months.
Hopefully this is the catalyst to major reform. Insurance companies have a deal with us, yet constantly find ways to deny claims. Even pregnancy I had a claim denied, from a procedure the INSURANCE demanded I get.
He would be awaken in the night to his mother screaming in pain while United healthcare denied claims and refused new treatment. She had severe neuropathy.
Holy shit this would leave a scar on anyone. I couldn't even imagine the emotional pain this causes.
Not saying this justifies murder but what would you do if a close loved one was screaming in agony daily and there's nothing you can do about it because the insurance company is blocking treatments?
Holy shit this would leave a scar on anyone. I couldn't even imagine the emotional pain this causes.
Not saying this justifies murder but what would you do if a close loved one was screaming in agony daily and there's nothing you can do about it because the insurance company is blocking treatments?
A good lawyer might argue insanity from that. You never know what the jury will buy. Insurance companies are not loved.
I agree that murder is not a solution, but the reality is that we need a real health care system.
I agree that murder is not a solution, but the reality is that we need a real health care system.
And then later: "Now my own chronic back pain wakes me in the night, screaming in pain."
What an interesting coincidence that he developed a medical condition that wakes him with screaming as well.
What an interesting coincidence that he developed a medical condition that wakes him with screaming as well.
His X profile picture showed an X-ray of him with 4 screws in his lower spine that was likely due to an injury he suffered as he was very athletic.
Reposting since my other comment is hidden under a flagged comment.
It really sounds like he has hEDS. Hypermobile Ehlers Danlos (hEDS) can cause Small Fiber Neuropathy and back pain, as well as poor healing from surgery. It’s also more common in engineering type people, higher IQ, ADHD, anxiety disorder etc
It’s probably the most under-diagnosed condition in general. It’s also autosomal dominant. Can present as psychosomatic - gaslighting from doctors is typical.
It’s a shame more people don’t know about it because there are ways to effectively treat it - it’s an area where patient communities are far ahead of the medical community. So this could be a failure on two fronts, a failure of insurance but even if they had unlimited coverage there still would have been a failure in treatment.
It really sounds like he has hEDS. Hypermobile Ehlers Danlos (hEDS) can cause Small Fiber Neuropathy and back pain, as well as poor healing from surgery. It’s also more common in engineering type people, higher IQ, ADHD, anxiety disorder etc
It’s probably the most under-diagnosed condition in general. It’s also autosomal dominant. Can present as psychosomatic - gaslighting from doctors is typical.
It’s a shame more people don’t know about it because there are ways to effectively treat it - it’s an area where patient communities are far ahead of the medical community. So this could be a failure on two fronts, a failure of insurance but even if they had unlimited coverage there still would have been a failure in treatment.
[flagged]
Hypermobile Ehlers Danlos (hEDS) can cause Small Fiber Neuropathy and back pain, as well as poor healing from surgery. It’s also more common in engineering type people, higher IQ, ADHD, anxiety disorder etc
It’s probably the most under-diagnosed condition in general. It’s also autosomal dominant. Can present as psychosomatic - gaslighting from doctors is typical.
It’s a shame more people don’t know about it because there are ways to effectively treat it - it’s an area where patient communities are far ahead of the medical community. So this could be a failure on two fronts, a failure of insurance but even if they had unlimited coverage there still would have been a failure in treatment.
It’s probably the most under-diagnosed condition in general. It’s also autosomal dominant. Can present as psychosomatic - gaslighting from doctors is typical.
It’s a shame more people don’t know about it because there are ways to effectively treat it - it’s an area where patient communities are far ahead of the medical community. So this could be a failure on two fronts, a failure of insurance but even if they had unlimited coverage there still would have been a failure in treatment.
My grandfather suffered chronic sciatic nerve pain. My father suffered chronic sciatic nerve pain. Now I, too, suffer chronic sciatic nerve pain.
I wonder why that is?
You have no idea how bad it can get.
No, surely it's made up. Nevermind: how foolish was I...
I wonder why that is?
You have no idea how bad it can get.
No, surely it's made up. Nevermind: how foolish was I...
I don't have sciatic pain, thank God, but I have bulging discs from a spinal compression injury. The first few months were excruciating -- I couldn't exist without horrific pain, no position I could lay in, sit in, stand in, etc., would provide any relief. I couldn't stand fully upright for weeks. And, even post-recovery, the last 2 years haven't exactly been pleasant. I am still managing my lower back on a day-to-day basis but I am primarily pain-free today.
Chronic pain really takes you somewhere else mentally. Now that I am, for the time being, on the other side of it, it has also made me extremely empathetic to people who suffer through it.
Chronic pain really takes you somewhere else mentally. Now that I am, for the time being, on the other side of it, it has also made me extremely empathetic to people who suffer through it.
He could have asked for charity, or asked hi multi-millionaire grandfather or fabulously wealthy family for help, or sued the insurance company, or taken out loans, or made a ton of money of his own and paid cash and negotiated directly with the providers, or mortgage the family mansion, sell everything he owns. There are millions of things he could have done.
"Nothing you can do about it" is just a lie people tell themselves to justify violence.
"Nothing you can do about it" is just a lie people tell themselves to justify violence.
[deleted]
anon-3988(1)
That is an intense read.
I really don’t think we should be giving it any attention right now without any verification of it. Probably some loser asked ChatGPT to spit shit out.
[flagged]
Why is this comment so similar to this tweet: https://x.com/peruvian_bull/status/1866213955687022656
Are you a bot?
Are you a bot?
Yeah, we can't have people doing this kind of thing, so I've banned the account, at least until we have some reason to believe it won't happen again.
Probably not a bot. Just reposting content from twitter over here.
It's quite entertaining though that this particular conspiracy theory is catnip to HN users. Perhaps it's for the same reason it's blowing up on twitter: vague enough to capture the imaginations of people who might be imagining wildly different concrete scenarios?
It's quite entertaining though that this particular conspiracy theory is catnip to HN users. Perhaps it's for the same reason it's blowing up on twitter: vague enough to capture the imaginations of people who might be imagining wildly different concrete scenarios?
I've banned this account for reasons explained in the sibling subthread.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you won't do this in the future.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you won't do this in the future.
Putting on my tinfoil hat for this: It sounds like parallel construction to me. I wonder if the FBI doesn't want it to get out what kind of technology the US government can use to track citizens in real time. Something like 24/7 facial recognition running in major chains like McDonalds.
The police showing up for a random tip in the boonies in PA fast enough to actually catch the guy at McDonalds and he just happens to have method and motive on him 5 days later seems too convenient. I think they ultimately got the right guy, but I don't think the 'tip' was a phone call from a McDonald's employee.
The police showing up for a random tip in the boonies in PA fast enough to actually catch the guy at McDonalds and he just happens to have method and motive on him 5 days later seems too convenient. I think they ultimately got the right guy, but I don't think the 'tip' was a phone call from a McDonald's employee.
The guy's face has been plastered over the news for several days and there's a $60,000 reward. Getting a tip from a fast food worker is very plausible.
More plausible in my opinion than the FBI having some kind of agreement with McDonald's to access their store surveillance network in real time.
More plausible in my opinion than the FBI having some kind of agreement with McDonald's to access their store surveillance network in real time.
People vastly overestimate the ability of giant bureaucracies to keep secrets. It only works if a few people are in on it (that's part of what compartmentalization is for). I'm always suspicious of claims that federal agencies are colluding with companies for the purposes of mass surveillance because while I trust those agencies to keep secrets, I absolutely do not trust the vast majority of companies to do so. There are narrow exceptions--defense industry, telecommunications, aerospace industry--but mostly secrets like that are hard to keep unless your org is built around keeping secrets. The orgs I've worked for are the opposite of compartmentalized. I doubt McDonalds' software engineering org is, but I'd be curious to be surprised!
Now I'm feeling really paranoid about finding a McDonald's ordering kiosk broken mid-software-update on Friday 6th: I bet that was when they were updating the facial recognition tech to spy and track everyone walking past. :p
It also seems like there might have been some "regular police work" going on at the beginning but when that didn't work fast enough, some bigger tools were called in.
Yeah I think it's very easy to forget we live in a surveillance state. Periodically something happens that lets us see it but we somehow, as a society, stop talking about it and next time something like this happens we're surprised.
We have the DEA and other three-letter agencies stashing cameras all over highways and even in residential areas.
We have mass surveillance of communications.
We have license plate readers everywhere.
We literally carry tracking devices everywhere we go.
Our cars also have their own tracking devices.
Facial recognition(and probably other recognition tech like gait) is widespread.
We have systems that can mass surveil entire cities from the sky.
And these are just the confirmed systems that we know about.
Parallel construction is frequently used and it's not even a secret at this point.
That said, don't underestimate the ability of a criminal, even a smart one, to screw up. As a group of smart engineers, we all know too well that even smart people make mistakes. They make even more mistakes when they're operating outside of their domain and under pressure/nervous. It shouldn't be surprising that the perp got caught.
We have the DEA and other three-letter agencies stashing cameras all over highways and even in residential areas.
We have mass surveillance of communications.
We have license plate readers everywhere.
We literally carry tracking devices everywhere we go.
Our cars also have their own tracking devices.
Facial recognition(and probably other recognition tech like gait) is widespread.
We have systems that can mass surveil entire cities from the sky.
And these are just the confirmed systems that we know about.
Parallel construction is frequently used and it's not even a secret at this point.
That said, don't underestimate the ability of a criminal, even a smart one, to screw up. As a group of smart engineers, we all know too well that even smart people make mistakes. They make even more mistakes when they're operating outside of their domain and under pressure/nervous. It shouldn't be surprising that the perp got caught.
No need for conspiracy here. I'd be surprised at this point if McDonald's wasn't running that type of software on all their cameras 24/7 and using to better profile their customers. Is there actually a law against it? There should be, but is there? It likely isn't hard and I am positive the data could be useful to them in many ways so if they aren't then it would only be because they thought it wasn't legal.
I don't think they should tell people exactly how much tech they have. Why give people intelligence briefs on your capabilities? The point is to catch criminals and terrorists. If those criminals and terrorists believe that Palantir or whatever is the most they need to worry about, then society has the advantage.
Why even have public trials or juries then? Just slows down the process.
Right. Transparency is a really important aspect of a functioning democracy. Without it, there’s less and less separating democracy from authoritarianism
Most important is the appearance of transparency.
The point is to define who a "criminal" and a "terrorist" is and use that as justification for mass surveillance. Palantir is far worse for me as a US citizen than any "terrorist".
yet 50% of murders go unsolved
This has been my thought over and over as this. has been going on. So many people are murdered in this country and this one murder probably got 1000x the resources applied to it compared to the rest. Justice should be impartial so this case makes it look like some people's lives are more important than others.
With justice and healthcare, people are absolutely, explicitly, and intentionally treated differently based on their position in society. If you’re a CEO you get treated 1000x better.
> makes it look like some people's lives are more important than others.
Sorry but they are. That's not me saying that. That's pretty much the entirety of human civilization. It's nice to think otherwise, but we as a species have made it clear that people are far from being equally important.
Sorry but they are. That's not me saying that. That's pretty much the entirety of human civilization. It's nice to think otherwise, but we as a species have made it clear that people are far from being equally important.
They only care about certain murders.
If they solve every murder then they make it obvious. Maybe they just solve the ones involving millionaire victims and let the murders of the poors go unsolved.
Maybe? Thatʻs fairly obvious.
Is it? I thought I was sounding like a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Thanks for validating me :)
If you’re interested in such statistics, there’s a related data set at https://linzmacd.github.io/Final_Project/
Much simpler explanation: he wanted to get caught to increase coverage of his political views.
He took his mask off at the hostel, the kind of place that often requires its employees to verify that a photo ID matches the holder’s face. “Let me see you smile” is a common thing that service employees learn to say to get strangers to take off their masks without angering them
Exactly. I don't think anyone in the media commenting on this ever worked in the service industry and therefore doesn't understand the obvious.
Where’d you get that IQ? His GitHub isn’t active either.
He went to a selective school.... but 130 isn't particularly high. It's common in engineers.
Sharing a fact as a defence of someone (he has an IQ of 130 but did X) without having any basis for that fact is worth calling out.
Same way they said an active GitHub while the repo is the opposite of that.
If your argument is "This is weird because of X and Y and Z" but Z is false and Y is unsubstantiated then it breaks the argument.
Same way they said an active GitHub while the repo is the opposite of that.
If your argument is "This is weird because of X and Y and Z" but Z is false and Y is unsubstantiated then it breaks the argument.
It's in the 98th percentile, lol. Yes, it's very high.
High, but not particularly rare. IF you see a movie, there are probably several people >130 in the audience with you. When you filter by education and other factors, it goes up quickly. Depending on your line of work, a majority of your coworkers might be over 130.
Very few people understand this. It's why it's very hard to understand how normal people think wrt politics.
While "normal people" often have crude political opinions, the stupidest political takes often (usually?) come from high IQ, well educated, people.
And among those are also the ones with real influence and power to promote and/or enforce them.
And among those are also the ones with real influence and power to promote and/or enforce them.
> Depending on your line of work, a majority of your coworkers might be over 130.
This seems pretty reasonable, but once you start to get to know people a bit...
This seems pretty reasonable, but once you start to get to know people a bit...
Then you realise that trying to quantitatively test intelligence only goes so far :D
The road to hell is paved with smart people who think they can become experts in something just by reading some blog posts and thinking about the subject for a few hours. As one example, see successful poker players who become amateur economists, geneticists and virologists.
I don't know that means anything, I score well above 130, yet I will likely make ton of mistakes even if thought it about it and planned for months.
IQ tests are a single dimensional psychometric measurement tool that when if administered correctly only measures some attributes of what would be considered intelligence.
While those skills correlate to your ability to perform as a engineer it doesn't always translate to aptitude towards this sort of crime.
There are plenty of people who will score poorly in IQ tests but are "street smart". the good criminals (i.e. those have a long successful run or never get caught) are of this category.
For example Al Capone never got caught tied to any of his actual crimes, he had intimate understanding of the legal system and how not to get tied to evidence, he wouldn't score over 130 in IQ test probably
IQ tests are a single dimensional psychometric measurement tool that when if administered correctly only measures some attributes of what would be considered intelligence.
While those skills correlate to your ability to perform as a engineer it doesn't always translate to aptitude towards this sort of crime.
There are plenty of people who will score poorly in IQ tests but are "street smart". the good criminals (i.e. those have a long successful run or never get caught) are of this category.
For example Al Capone never got caught tied to any of his actual crimes, he had intimate understanding of the legal system and how not to get tied to evidence, he wouldn't score over 130 in IQ test probably
> While those skills correlate to your ability to perform as a engineer it doesn't always translate to aptitude towards this sort of crime.
A smart n00b is still a n00b.
A smart n00b is still a n00b.
Al Capone had the police working for him.
I am sure the various other parts of judiciary too, bribing takes skill, knowing who to bribe, how to make them vulnerable to bribery and so on, all these are important street skills that a criminal of his stature has to have. IQ doesn't teach you those
Well, "very high" according to what comparison group?
The overall general public? Sure.
People with STEM graduate degrees? Maybe not so much.
The overall general public? Sure.
People with STEM graduate degrees? Maybe not so much.
Not really. Half of people are barely literate. Maybe the top 10% have writing and language skills cogent and coherent enough to hang out on a website like this. So realistically we're talking about maybe 20% of the people you're interacting with. Possibly more, since this is the modern USENET where all the shape rotators hang out. People who can rotate shapes at all probably score at least that on tests.
Shart taters
Unless he went to a tiny high school it's unlikely that he was the smartest person in the school. Possibly in his year.
There are two people that smart in every NYC subway car during rush hour.
Sometimes people do crime to be famous, this pattern would fit that.
Since when did making small talk become "flirting"?
I agree. The media seemed to have jumped on the flirting angle because he was smiling. Isn’t that a little insulting to the hostel employee? I smiled at my barber today. Definitely wasn’t flirting.
>Isn’t that a little insulting to the hostel employee?
Why would that be "insulting"? HE was supposed to be flirting, not necessarily her.
Plus, even if both were flirting, there's nothing insulting about that.
Why would that be "insulting"? HE was supposed to be flirting, not necessarily her.
Plus, even if both were flirting, there's nothing insulting about that.
If I am the employee, I don’t want my employer to think I’m flirting with customers when it’s just small talk. And..uhh..if I’m married, etc. Anyways, we don’t know for sure either way
As I've heard it, it was characterized as flirting by the employee.
Filtered through the police and then through the media. It's a game of Chinese telephone and a lot gets lost in the translations, which leads to a huge amount of misinformation. Case in point b and t 9.
Since when is it "chinese telephone" and not just "telephone"?
It’s a mixture of Chinese Whispers and Telephone, two names for the same game.
Pick a common language in a different language family that results stilted translations. It was always Chinese telephone.
Since the Millennial generation, pretty much, at least among the (over-)educated. It kills me; I'd prefer to pretend we're all participating in some shared project called "civilization".
But, as the shooting in the street and the cheering on the Internet have shown (and the price gouging before that), our society has been coarsening along a great many dimensions.
But, as the shooting in the street and the cheering on the Internet have shown (and the price gouging before that), our society has been coarsening along a great many dimensions.
This post is dumb in many ways not worth listing. And because of that, I realized I just read something nearly word-for-word on twitter (@peruvian_bull). Is that you or is this just copy pasta?
https://x.com/peruvian_bull/status/1866213955687022656
https://x.com/peruvian_bull/status/1866213955687022656
Some criminals want to get caught.
Or push their luck to the limit because they think they’re invincible. To be fair I was losing confidence they’d ever find him until today.
lol, those videos of the NYPD ‘searching’ Central Park look like my kids looking for a homework assignment they don’t want to turn in. Until the FBI got involved I thought he was pretty much off the hook.
Probably a kind of "boundary-pushing" personality type.
The Unabomber case was more complex to track [1]. I'm not suggesting it was because he had a higher IQ, as someone with an average IQ could have executed similar actions successfully.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
It was also in a time where not everything got recorded. You have to think that having cameras everywhere and much more complex package tracking systems like we do now would have made staying hidden quite a bit harder.
If you were a murderer on the run and there was a manhunt for you, wouldn't you still be carrying a gun?
That's the sort of thinking that helps them get caught. McVeigh was initially caught because his car didn't have a license plate and he had a concealed weapon. If he'd had an ordinary vehicle with a tag and no weapon, he wouldn't have been found so quickly and might have even evaded capture for years (even if his identity as the bomber were discovered).
He was always going to be the fall guy. The groups he was involved in was full of federal informants and agents. Why such elements didn't try to stop him is another question for a FOIA that won't be returned for 100 years.
A gun perhaps, not the same gun used in the murder, that would be dumb to be caught with evidence directly connecting you with the murder. This is America, getting guns is not that hard. Gun owners tend to usually own more than one.
Also you would want to carry a weapon in a manhunt only if you intend not to be caught alive, because firing your weapon in a manhunt would only end in one way for the hunted.
Also you would want to carry a weapon in a manhunt only if you intend not to be caught alive, because firing your weapon in a manhunt would only end in one way for the hunted.
The weapon used in the murder? I've seen enough movies to know to get rid of it as soon as possible.
Hell no. Try to blend in as much as possible and book it to South America via Mexico or something.
[deleted]
No, not at all. You're extremely unlikely to win a shootout in the event law enforcement catches you, and having a gun makes it much more likely you get arrested and convicted. But even if a gun seems worth it, it should absolutely not be the famous murder weapon you just used! I mean, JFC, keeping the distinctive murder weapon on himself was either incredibly dumb or something shady is going on with the story.
A smart person like that would now it would have been a matter of days until they were caught.
It's just too high profile, everybody would be on the case, all the experts in everything.
It's just too high profile, everybody would be on the case, all the experts in everything.
He actually flirted with an employee at the hostel he stayed at, probably days before the murder. But yeah, the rest seems about right.
Nit
https://github.com/lnmangione
...."Active" GitHub?
https://github.com/lnmangione
...."Active" GitHub?
..And he was smart enough to ditch the burner phone, clothes, and the backpack but he kept the untraceable weapon and the fake ID? Seriously what..? I hope we'll learn something that brings this all to a sensible narrative but here and now it seems like completely incoherent behavior.
sounds like bs. it's parallel construction
Yes, he's not acting rationally because he's having a mental health crisis.
If you look at his Twitter account, he disappeared a few months ago and all the replies were friends asking where he went.
(Also, he's a tpot poster, which is a kind of tech bro that likes tweeting about how great it is to do psychedelic drugs. This is bad for your mental health!)
If you look at his Twitter account, he disappeared a few months ago and all the replies were friends asking where he went.
(Also, he's a tpot poster, which is a kind of tech bro that likes tweeting about how great it is to do psychedelic drugs. This is bad for your mental health!)
ahhh mental health humans have figured out how to read and rewrite neural pathways
>Inactive GitHub profile
>how did you decide his iq was >130?
he threw his life in the dumpster and will spend the next 30 years in a 2x2 cell. smart guy indeed.
>how did you decide his iq was >130?
he threw his life in the dumpster and will spend the next 30 years in a 2x2 cell. smart guy indeed.
I'm weirdly not too surprised due to this belief I have that software developers would make effective criminals. A lot of this boils down to a belief I have that not getting caught in the first place is easy. Murders have something like a 50% solve rate and you can decrease your chances of getting caught with a little knowledge on how to evade common forensic techniques along with some planning. Those who get caught doing one crime or another either were dumb to begin or eventually got lazy and made a dumb mistake in hindsight.
Besides that though, the ethos that we have lends itself well to acquiring advanced knowledge in more-or-less all domains, crime and forensics included.
Besides that though, the ethos that we have lends itself well to acquiring advanced knowledge in more-or-less all domains, crime and forensics included.
Careful. That solve rate is overall. When planning your life in crime you probably want to use the solve rate for the particular type of people you plan to murder.
The solve rate for murders of white people is generally in the 80+% range, which is probably what you'd want to use if going after CEOs.
The solve rate for murders of white people is generally in the 80+% range, which is probably what you'd want to use if going after CEOs.
I think race of victim is probably not the root cause in the solve rate.
There is a high correlation between being a non-white murder victim (in America) and being targeted by or involved in gang violence.
Gang violence seems to be less moderated by the police, for probably a variety of reasons both practical and political.
But yes, if you aren’t killing a rival gang member, you do probably have worse odds than the overall stat.
There is a high correlation between being a non-white murder victim (in America) and being targeted by or involved in gang violence.
Gang violence seems to be less moderated by the police, for probably a variety of reasons both practical and political.
But yes, if you aren’t killing a rival gang member, you do probably have worse odds than the overall stat.
- Gang-related homicides are less than 20% of all homicides in the US.
- Gang-related homicides includes the homicides of innocent bystanders of gang-related shootings.
- Over half of all homicide victims are non-white.
These three facts make it obvious that well above 60% of all non-white homicides are NOT “gang-targeted or -involved”.
If it is true that 80% [EDIT: not true (I misread stat in another comment) but gist of argument still stands] of non-white cases go unsolved, then more than 50% of all unsolved non-white homicides are NOT gang-related in any way.
And this is an extremely conservative estimate. Just fixing unfavorable rounding adjusts the percentage of unrelated unsolved homicides to above 65%.
Given that, it doesn’t seem wise to presume gang-involvement on the part of non-white unsolved homicide victims solely on the basis of them being… non-white unsolved homicide victims.
- Gang-related homicides includes the homicides of innocent bystanders of gang-related shootings.
- Over half of all homicide victims are non-white.
These three facts make it obvious that well above 60% of all non-white homicides are NOT “gang-targeted or -involved”.
If it is true that 80% [EDIT: not true (I misread stat in another comment) but gist of argument still stands] of non-white cases go unsolved, then more than 50% of all unsolved non-white homicides are NOT gang-related in any way.
And this is an extremely conservative estimate. Just fixing unfavorable rounding adjusts the percentage of unrelated unsolved homicides to above 65%.
Given that, it doesn’t seem wise to presume gang-involvement on the part of non-white unsolved homicide victims solely on the basis of them being… non-white unsolved homicide victims.
> If it is true that 80% of non-white cases go unsolved [...]
It's not nearly that bad. Around 40-50% are solved. There are around 30% more non-white homicides than there are white homicides per year in the US, which means that the overall homicide solve rate is closer to the non-white solve rate than to the white solve rate.
It's not nearly that bad. Around 40-50% are solved. There are around 30% more non-white homicides than there are white homicides per year in the US, which means that the overall homicide solve rate is closer to the non-white solve rate than to the white solve rate.
Thanks for catching my mistake and updating. I misread earlier comment.
Gang violence would often be random offender, random victim too. I imagine a motivated murder by a related party is significantly easier to solve than a random shooting where the perpetrator hightails it immediately.
Related parties are easy to name and find, unrelated murderers which you don't find immediately are only going to get harder to catch - where do you even start when with something like that?
Related parties are easy to name and find, unrelated murderers which you don't find immediately are only going to get harder to catch - where do you even start when with something like that?
A lot of gang violence is at parties and (sadly) funerals. The demographics of the injured bystanders thus tend to reflect the demographics of people who attend those events.
> A lot of gang violence is at parties and (sadly) funerals
Nice just-so argument.
Any basis in fact? Stats maybe?
Nice just-so argument.
Any basis in fact? Stats maybe?
And 50% is a horrible baseline for 25 years to life in jail. Even 5%, with no statute of limitations, would make me uncomfortable my whole life.
With the ubiquity of cameras, tracking, I suspect any murder can be solved if we are suitably motivated.
Any one murder can be, or almost any one. It's generalising that effort to all murders that's hard.
More importantly, engineers are for some reason especially likely to be terrorists.
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29836/1/Why_are_there_so_many_Engi...
I think it's related to old physicist brain where you decide you know everything about everyone else's field.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29836/1/Why_are_there_so_many_Engi...
I think it's related to old physicist brain where you decide you know everything about everyone else's field.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21
"Engineers are more likely to be terrorists" is different from "terrorists are more likely to be engineers".
You can imagine that engineering is a useful skill for terrorism and thus terrorist organizations might spend extra effort trying to recruit engineers. They may also have a higher survival rate working on behind the scenes tasks rather than firefights and suicide missions, which could cause a survivorship bias in data collection.
(It's also interesting how many foreign leaders and dictators have engineering or science degrees, and/or went to US universities prior to becoming leading figures in their home countries.)
You can imagine that engineering is a useful skill for terrorism and thus terrorist organizations might spend extra effort trying to recruit engineers. They may also have a higher survival rate working on behind the scenes tasks rather than firefights and suicide missions, which could cause a survivorship bias in data collection.
(It's also interesting how many foreign leaders and dictators have engineering or science degrees, and/or went to US universities prior to becoming leading figures in their home countries.)
> More importantly, engineers are for some reason especially likely to be terrorists.
Seems more likely you learn about engineers who become terrorists because they have the tools/knowhow/resources to pull something off. Without that it seems like it is more likely to get caught, give up, or do something no one would label terrorism.
edit - and it seems likely that this stat encourages terrorists organization to send members to get those degrees and recruit from engineers so it might be self reenforcing to boot.
Seems more likely you learn about engineers who become terrorists because they have the tools/knowhow/resources to pull something off. Without that it seems like it is more likely to get caught, give up, or do something no one would label terrorism.
edit - and it seems likely that this stat encourages terrorists organization to send members to get those degrees and recruit from engineers so it might be self reenforcing to boot.
Also, this assumes a similar demographic distribution to identified terrorists to unidentified ones. It's quite possible another class of people are more likely to be terrorists murders etc but don't show up in the data because for whatever reason they're better at hiding it.
Osama bin Laden had a degree in civil engineering. I wonder how mathematicians rank against engineers
I remember reading something like this but in relation to elite overproduction, how if you have engineers sitting with their thumbs up their asses instead of working, they will disrupt society in a bad way
Overproduction theory, whether you believe it or not isn't really about engineers.
The idea is that you get a lot of elites which are highly educated and expect high positions in society, but end up bitter because reality falls short. Engineers break with this because in general they are actually quite well compensated.
The targets of the theory are essentially people with non-stem post-secondary degrees
The idea is that you get a lot of elites which are highly educated and expect high positions in society, but end up bitter because reality falls short. Engineers break with this because in general they are actually quite well compensated.
The targets of the theory are essentially people with non-stem post-secondary degrees
This doesn't align with the scholarship on the subject. See Gambetta and Hertog https://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta/engineers%20of%20ji...
Im not saying it is impossible, so I dont see that as some sort of gotcha.
From Wikipedia: >Elite overproduction is a concept developed by Peter Turchin that describes the condition of a society that is producing too many potential elite members relative to its ability to absorb them into the power structure.[1][2][3] This, he hypothesizes, is a cause for social instability, as those left out of power feel aggrieved by their relatively low socioeconomic status.
Im focusing on the USA, where engineers, STEM, and the like have high social standing, and do relatively well economically. Your "scholarship on the subject" is from 2007 and is from before the term elite overproduction was even coined.
From Wikipedia: >Elite overproduction is a concept developed by Peter Turchin that describes the condition of a society that is producing too many potential elite members relative to its ability to absorb them into the power structure.[1][2][3] This, he hypothesizes, is a cause for social instability, as those left out of power feel aggrieved by their relatively low socioeconomic status.
Im focusing on the USA, where engineers, STEM, and the like have high social standing, and do relatively well economically. Your "scholarship on the subject" is from 2007 and is from before the term elite overproduction was even coined.
You hadn't mentioned that your focus was on the USA, but rather a general "The targets of the theory are essentially people with non-stem post-secondary degrees" which is why I provided a paper that directly contradicts your statement. Elite Overproduction is not a US-specific topic, and the paper being from 2007 does nothing to invalidate its findings or lessen its relevance to Elite Overproduction.
Funnily enough, I hadn't checked astrange's reference that prompted this discussion, which is Gambetta and Hertog.
Engineers are technicians/craftspeople, not elites. They are compensated well much of the time, and respected, which means that many of them have more opportunities to become elites, especially when considering the intelligence that engineering degrees tend to filter/correlate with.
[deleted]
Probably fairly peaceful, intelligence or weirdness aren't at play here. The dangerous ones are those who deal in the practical realities of the world in ways that can effect change - they are more likely to have the means to do something. Engineers and chemists are ones to watch (whoever did the script for Breaking Bad knew his chemist stereotypes).
In my mind, the common threads with organize terrorism is utilitarianism and consequentialism. This way of thinking has a big overlap with stem fields based in logic and physics.
The perhaps concerning thread socially is the rise of utilitarian and consequentialist morality.
The perhaps concerning thread socially is the rise of utilitarian and consequentialist morality.
Hm... Widespread adoption of utilitarianism is a net negative for society°, therefore utilitarianism says that promoting utilitarianism is bad?
°I guess because it's too easy to make calculation errors that lead to major badness?
°I guess because it's too easy to make calculation errors that lead to major badness?
[deleted]
But not physicists (at least, scientists), according to the article.
Reminds me of the Salem Hypothesis.
Reminds me of the Salem Hypothesis.
It's not Dunning-Kruger, it's because engineers have a very black-and-white view of the world. When they're engineering something, either it works according to specs or it doesn't. Also, engineers tend to be more religious and conservative for some reason; this is very different from scientists who are the opposite. I think this all works together somehow to make engineers more prone to extremism, to try to force the world to act the way they think it should.
I think that, more generally, intelligent people don't get arrested for crimes for several reasons. First, because they are smarter, they just don't get themselves into jams where murdering someone seems like the best way to get out of the jam. Second, because they are more successful they have more to lose in terms of wealth, happiness, good living situation, so they risk more when choosing crime, so they're less likely to choose it. Only thirdly is actual proficiency in the planning and execution of the crime.
Software developers are also more likely to have weird eccentric beliefs, and to take them to extreme endpoints.
Given enough resources dedicated to hunting you, it doesn't seem that easy to be sure, considering how many cameras there are, how easy it becomes to narrow down DNA considering services like 23andme etc.
Most murders wouldn't have this much resources dedicated to it though.
Most murders wouldn't have this much resources dedicated to it though.
Hans Reiser was far too smart to ever get caught.
Reiser killed his wife. Suspicion was always going to immediately fall on him.
> Those who get caught doing one crime or another either were dumb to begin or eventually got lazy and made a dumb mistake in hindsight.
>Besides that though, the ethos that we have lends itself well to acquiring advanced knowledge in more-or-less all domains, crime and forensics included.
I wouldn't give too much credit to law enforcement. Perpetrators need to get it (opsec/disposal of evidence/etc.) right every single time, sometimes for decades. Law enforcement only needs to get it right once. And yet, clearance rates for murder are still pretty low.
>Besides that though, the ethos that we have lends itself well to acquiring advanced knowledge in more-or-less all domains, crime and forensics included.
I wouldn't give too much credit to law enforcement. Perpetrators need to get it (opsec/disposal of evidence/etc.) right every single time, sometimes for decades. Law enforcement only needs to get it right once. And yet, clearance rates for murder are still pretty low.
Location seems to be a factor. NYC has better statistics. Overall it is 54% since 2020. Washington DC had 1,088 murders, 559 clearances (51%) from 2020-2023. Baltimore is 1,042 and 315 (30%). NYC is notably better: 1,740 and 1,190, (68%). https://www.murderdata.org/p/blog-page.html
[deleted]
Murder is a really interesting crime. There are really two kinds of murder: those where the perpetrator and victim are known to each other and those where they are not. The first category is way more common [1]:
> Among homicides in which the relationship could be determined, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims
Another data point is that the recidivism rate for murder is incredibly low, roughly 2% [2], among the lowest of any crime.
The point is that the vast majority of murders are personal in nature. Police will tell you that when someone dies, it's always the spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend as the prime suspect until it isn't. Murders with no personal relationship (eg serial killings) are quite rare.
So if you, as a software developer, want to get away with murder you first have to be irrational and/or insane enough to murder people for pretty much no reason, which will get you pretty far to not getting caught, but still want to murder people you really have no reason to.
You can further increase your odds of not getting caught by not leaving a crime scene or a body but also picking a victim who won't necessarily be missed. It's why serial killers end up preying on runaways and prostitutes. There's also the MMIW phenomenon [3]. Lastly, going outside your geographical area would further help your odds.
This suspect allegedly had no relationship to the victim but they still had a reason (it seems). Now it so happens that being upset about private health insurance quite literally would leave police with millions of suspects. But the point is, they weren't necessarily acting rationally even if it was premeditated and planned.
I still find it insane that the suspect didn't rid himself of every identifiable possession. Had they done that, I think they'd have a shot at acquittal (depending on DNA evidence from the water bottle and/or coffee cup). Now? Almost impossible.
As much as we talk about jury nullification, people like there to be something to hang their hat on in terms of doubt. If a blurry partial photo was the only evidence I could see that as being way more likely. Having the ID used in the hostel and the mask, bag and clothes as well as the gun makes that harder to justify.
[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf
[2]: https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/a-new-lease-on-lif...
[3]: https://www.nativehope.org/missing-and-murdered-indigenous-w...
> Among homicides in which the relationship could be determined, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims
Another data point is that the recidivism rate for murder is incredibly low, roughly 2% [2], among the lowest of any crime.
The point is that the vast majority of murders are personal in nature. Police will tell you that when someone dies, it's always the spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend as the prime suspect until it isn't. Murders with no personal relationship (eg serial killings) are quite rare.
So if you, as a software developer, want to get away with murder you first have to be irrational and/or insane enough to murder people for pretty much no reason, which will get you pretty far to not getting caught, but still want to murder people you really have no reason to.
You can further increase your odds of not getting caught by not leaving a crime scene or a body but also picking a victim who won't necessarily be missed. It's why serial killers end up preying on runaways and prostitutes. There's also the MMIW phenomenon [3]. Lastly, going outside your geographical area would further help your odds.
This suspect allegedly had no relationship to the victim but they still had a reason (it seems). Now it so happens that being upset about private health insurance quite literally would leave police with millions of suspects. But the point is, they weren't necessarily acting rationally even if it was premeditated and planned.
I still find it insane that the suspect didn't rid himself of every identifiable possession. Had they done that, I think they'd have a shot at acquittal (depending on DNA evidence from the water bottle and/or coffee cup). Now? Almost impossible.
As much as we talk about jury nullification, people like there to be something to hang their hat on in terms of doubt. If a blurry partial photo was the only evidence I could see that as being way more likely. Having the ID used in the hostel and the mask, bag and clothes as well as the gun makes that harder to justify.
[1]: https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf
[2]: https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/a-new-lease-on-lif...
[3]: https://www.nativehope.org/missing-and-murdered-indigenous-w...
I think it was insane to go somewhere like McDonalds or anywhere, even the Starbucks anytime near that time period. There was just no need. Unless he was toying with the idea of getting caught, surely he would have just gone to some prebooked motel type of thing somewhere far away and huddled in there for quite a bit.
You have to eat. If you're in a strange city with limited transportation options a fast food place seems pretty reasonable. I'd have probably taken the food to go, but realistically you can eat in ~15 minutes and depending on the route back to where you're staying you might be seen by fewer people.
There's always delivery.
"due to this belief I have that software developers would make effective criminals. A lot of this boils down to a belief I have that not getting caught in the first place is easy."
Ummm.... You understand that the software developer was just caught by a McDonald's cashier?
Ummm.... You understand that the software developer was just caught by a McDonald's cashier?
[deleted]
I don't think it's particularly relevant that the suspect is a software dev. Many people in the US are software devs nowadays. It has become a completely mainstream career option.
According to his LinkedIn he worked on Civilization VI
Poking through some more conservative news outlet, they are using some loosely tied together facts to insinuate he's left leaning.
That’s just basic engagement strategy. Speculation and “the other tribe did it, those assholes!” Go hand in hand and will boost engagement on the site which is going to make _somebody_ money they otherwise wouldn’t have made…
Yeah, was glad to see some Reddit posts that when folks like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh tried to say "This is why the crazy left is OK with CEOs being shot" that they were bombarded with comments saying "It's not just the left".
On that point, Zeynep Tufekci once again shows to me how she has the most insightful analysis (I became a big fan of her during Covid, I thought she had the most measured takes). I totally agreed with what she wrote in https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/opinion/united-health-car...
On that point, Zeynep Tufekci once again shows to me how she has the most insightful analysis (I became a big fan of her during Covid, I thought she had the most measured takes). I totally agreed with what she wrote in https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/opinion/united-health-car...
I mean tribalism is already at play. Apparently finding cheering somebody’s murder incredibly tasteless and gross puts you in the wrong tribe.
But it's pretty obvious left-wing communities are supporting this guy, while right-wing ones are condemning .
It's pretty obvious that's bullshit. I was pretty shocked at how broad-based the lack of sympathy for the CEO was.
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh got destroyed in their comments when they tried to make this into a "look how evil the left is" issue, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bimRF1K3Bzw , and note his YouTube comments are usually very supportive. The contrast in the audience reaction to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agu2gRzUSDY , his commentary on the Daniel Penny case, is stark.
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh got destroyed in their comments when they tried to make this into a "look how evil the left is" issue, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bimRF1K3Bzw , and note his YouTube comments are usually very supportive. The contrast in the audience reaction to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agu2gRzUSDY , his commentary on the Daniel Penny case, is stark.
You realize you linked to a video of a right-wing persona condemning the killing?
I can't determine who is downvoting/commenting on the video, but I know for sure the speaker is a right-winger.
I can't determine who is downvoting/commenting on the video, but I know for sure the speaker is a right-winger.
Yes, my point is that right-wing talking heads are trying to make this into a "right vs left" issue, and they are getting destroyed for that characterization by their right-wing fan base. When you say "I can't determine who is downvoting/commenting on the video", that's specifically why I added the Walsh's video of the Daniel Perry case. Or heck, look at any of his videos, which normally always upvote his main ideas and tilt heavily right. If you think it's just a left-wing brigade flooding his comments, why don't you think they'd do the same on any of his Daniel Perry videos?
It could easily be a brigade by the left-wingers, because he is explicitly blaming them.
Daniel Perry video doesn't blame anyone. And most people, even on the left (though definitely not everyone), seem to have a normal reaction to the outcome.
Daniel Perry video doesn't blame anyone. And most people, even on the left (though definitely not everyone), seem to have a normal reaction to the outcome.
>It could easily be a brigade by the left-wingers
I am surprised that more people don't know this type of brigading to influence public opinion. Left-wing brigades are orchestrated on private Discord servers. Smaller right-wing brigades are orchestrated on private Telegram channels.
The left-wing brigaders pretending to be right-wing CEO-killing-supporters could have gotten away with it if they had limited themselves to populist MAGA spheres.
However the Ben Shapiro fanbase are boring middle of the road pro-capitalist/neocons who would never support killing CEOs. Pretending to be his fanbase was their fatal mistake.
I am surprised that more people don't know this type of brigading to influence public opinion. Left-wing brigades are orchestrated on private Discord servers. Smaller right-wing brigades are orchestrated on private Telegram channels.
The left-wing brigaders pretending to be right-wing CEO-killing-supporters could have gotten away with it if they had limited themselves to populist MAGA spheres.
However the Ben Shapiro fanbase are boring middle of the road pro-capitalist/neocons who would never support killing CEOs. Pretending to be his fanbase was their fatal mistake.
The amount of conservative comments stating to the effect of, "today I learned that I'm a left winger." would say otherwise.
To quote a Reddit comment:
looks like he followed/retweeted rogan, trevor noah, ezra klein, elon, AOC, rfk jr, peter thiel, bernie on twitter. very concerned with falling birthrates, anti-capitalist but pro musk, supports AI, dislikes overwatch but is a pokemon enjoyer. eats mcdonalds but is super ripped, gave positive reviews to ted kaczynski's manifesto as well as jd vance's hillbilly elegy
looks like he followed/retweeted rogan, trevor noah, ezra klein, elon, AOC, rfk jr, peter thiel, bernie on twitter. very concerned with falling birthrates, anti-capitalist but pro musk, supports AI, dislikes overwatch but is a pokemon enjoyer. eats mcdonalds but is super ripped, gave positive reviews to ted kaczynski's manifesto as well as jd vance's hillbilly elegy
Lotta folks like that online, STRONG feelings but it’s not at all clear if their opinions are thought through… lots of sentiment and mismatched identities.
The problem with tribal (political) identities is that to hold independent and opposing tribal ideologies (ie pro-choice but also pro-gun) is isolating from all groups. Thus, many people end up choosing to belong at the expense of the inconsistencies in the respective group they have decided to be a part of.
I'd say that to hold anti-capitalist ideals while liking Musk is reconciled through varying lenses. Musk can be idolized for his impact on the environment and moving various initiatives forward such as self-driving. One could argue that Musk is capitalist, but it could also be argued that Musk would drive these "good" initiatives even in a non-capitalist structure, thus the respect.
I'm not supporting musk, but merely illustrating how a certain level of rationalization can take place, counter to your insinuation that "opinions may not be thought through." It's the same thinking that also gives way when understanding the psyche behind various voters in this recent election.
I'd say that to hold anti-capitalist ideals while liking Musk is reconciled through varying lenses. Musk can be idolized for his impact on the environment and moving various initiatives forward such as self-driving. One could argue that Musk is capitalist, but it could also be argued that Musk would drive these "good" initiatives even in a non-capitalist structure, thus the respect.
I'm not supporting musk, but merely illustrating how a certain level of rationalization can take place, counter to your insinuation that "opinions may not be thought through." It's the same thinking that also gives way when understanding the psyche behind various voters in this recent election.
Sounds like most 20-something terminally online people out there.
Sounds like a terminally online edgelord.
He sounds very confused, and reminds me of the kid who tried to shoot Trump.
It’s relevant to this forum.
The funniest thing about the whole thing to me is that we have had privacy taken away or even voluntarily given it up to the police state in the name of security and then this guy randomly walks up and offs a member of the 1% and the only reason he got caught was because the feds got lucky.
Well, it's not really luck. It's exactly because there's cctv in enough places that they were able to get his photo from the one moment he lowered his mask at the hostel, but even more significantly that they were able to piece together his movements enough to be able to suspect that the guy at the hostel was the same one that carried out the shooting. Then it was a matter of distributing the photo and hope someone recognizes him. And offering the reward ofc. Very simple but not luck.
It still came to down to a crappy photo from a security cam and not the drones, internet surveillance, or facial recognition software in constant use against us.
This crime could have been solved the exact same way in the 1980s. The only difference being that the guy's picture would have been distributed over the 6 o'clock news instead of the internet.
This crime could have been solved the exact same way in the 1980s. The only difference being that the guy's picture would have been distributed over the 6 o'clock news instead of the internet.
Security cameras were not nearly as prevalent in the 80's.
Their picture quality was also much worse.
It wasn't just the one crappy photo where he lowered his mask - the taxicab photos were quite clear even if they just showed his eyes.
And they also made use of other tech, like the fact that the Citibike has GPS.
And they also made use of other tech, like the fact that the Citibike has GPS.
Not only were security cameras not as prevalent as they are now, they had terrible video quality. We'd have an extremely grainy grey photo of a face. Not enough to visually recognise him later.
The surveillance state is good at deterring people who don't want to get caught. If you're ready to lay down your life or freedom for an assassination, it's really pretty hard to stop such a person with the patience to prepare for it - multiple cops have told me this.
No, because he was sloppy and lowered his mask...
It still came down to an old guy recognizing him in a McDonalds.
Even then he might have escaped further notice if he'd ditched all the incriminating stuff. It's one thing to kind'a look like a guy in a low-quality pic; it's quite another to have the cops checking you out find all your murder gear with you.
Yeah, that part really surprised me too. He had advanced degrees and top grades, so he was clearly a smart guy, so why did he make such a dumb mistake that anyone who's watched a few murder mysteries would know not to do? Like some others have said, it seems like he probably wanted to get caught.
It sounds like he had a mental break. Not saying he didn't have good reasons for doing what he did, but the twitter detectives posted that his family and friends have been looking for him for the past 6 months.
You can be smart and still slip up, especially under pressure (and as we're learning, possibly mental and physical pain). Presumably one of the reasons why professionals are better is that, beyond working experience, they have a lot of practice.
(In Dr. Strangelove voice) "Of course, the whole point of a ghost gun is lost if you keep it!"
Seriously tho, the fact that he went to the trouble of obtaining one shows that he gave that some thought. But then didn't follow through. So yeah, maybe he did want to get caught.
Doesn't really matter. Even if the cops didn't find anything on him they'd ID him for real, there's no point trying to hide after that.
> Even if the cops didn't find anything on him they'd ID him for real
Sure thing. They would know what the guy who kinda look like a photo of a wanted man is called. Doesn’t necessarily means they can pin anything on him. Obviously increases their chances, since they can work both backwards and forwards, but that is about it.
Assuming of course that the “he got just unlucky, a random person recognised them” is true, and not paralel construction for some other mean they don’t want to reveal.
Sure thing. They would know what the guy who kinda look like a photo of a wanted man is called. Doesn’t necessarily means they can pin anything on him. Obviously increases their chances, since they can work both backwards and forwards, but that is about it.
Assuming of course that the “he got just unlucky, a random person recognised them” is true, and not paralel construction for some other mean they don’t want to reveal.
Can cops "randomly" ID people in US?
There wouldn't be any face to recognize if he didn't pull his mask down during his trip.
Old guy didn't get the memo to buy him a coffee and forget he saw anything
\s murder is wrong
\s murder is wrong
[deleted]
Maybe not the _only_ reason he got caught, but a major reason is exactly what OP mentioned: the victim was a member of the 1%.
Waaay back in the late-80s, I was at an underground dance party. Some dude shot and killed another dude in the parking lot. At least a dozen witnesses saw it (I only heard it). Everyone knew the identities of both people involved. No arrests were ever made. I saw the dude on the street a few years later, walking around like he never shot and killed someone - thanks to the fine work of the Modesto PD.
Waaay back in the late-80s, I was at an underground dance party. Some dude shot and killed another dude in the parking lot. At least a dozen witnesses saw it (I only heard it). Everyone knew the identities of both people involved. No arrests were ever made. I saw the dude on the street a few years later, walking around like he never shot and killed someone - thanks to the fine work of the Modesto PD.
I think people assume a lot about the system, based more in movies than real information.
astrange(3)
thread should start consulting crime organizations everyone here would know how to evade the feds lol
[flagged]
Targeted assassinations should get more attention and resources. The ramifications of allowing an assassin to go free are much worse than a random killing. There is a small subset of the population that is both smart enough and crazy enough to successfully plan an assassination, that group of people needs to know that they won't have a chance of escaping and that they'll be hunted down.
Think of it this way: do you want your political enemies to start thinking, "Hey, I bet I could get away with assassinating that activist/politician"? Personally, my disdain of the American Healthcare complex is overruled by my opposition to normalizing political assassinations.
Think of it this way: do you want your political enemies to start thinking, "Hey, I bet I could get away with assassinating that activist/politician"? Personally, my disdain of the American Healthcare complex is overruled by my opposition to normalizing political assassinations.
You are not 100% wrong, but I think it is the media that makes the cops put extra resources on certain cases.
Now the media did bring it to international attention partially because he was rich and had some power. But the main thing really was because he worked on healthcare which everyone is pissed off about in the US.
Now the media did bring it to international attention partially because he was rich and had some power. But the main thing really was because he worked on healthcare which everyone is pissed off about in the US.
I don’t know why people bring this up as if it’s some sort of revelation. That’s literally what status is. People care more because you are actually a more meaningful individual in a real sense. The gunman is hardly a nobody either.
There might be an issue if murders in general were going uninvestigated. Realistically it’s more that you just don’t see it happen.
There might be an issue if murders in general were going uninvestigated. Realistically it’s more that you just don’t see it happen.
Speaking entirely separately from the CEO assassination case, people often have a flawed comic book villain vision of wealthy people as being universally or unambiguously evil but that's just not the case. Wealthy people are often involved in their communities and actually want them to improve. I can think of a few people where I live who are very wealthy and also very generous, and as a result have touched the hearts of many more people in the community.
NYPD has abundant resources with $11 billion budget/36,000 sworn officers and has a high murder clearance compared to other large urban cities in the US. 2023 346/257 cleared (74%). LA was 683/395 (58%). This guy wanted to be caught and didn't make much of an effort.
Eh. Midtown murders are pretty rare. They get solved.
Would they have burned millions in overtime? No.
Would they have burned millions in overtime? No.
[deleted]
brickfaced(1)
>if you are white
Huh, what does this have to do with it? Of course, discriminatory comments like these that segregate people on race are never flagged on HN as long as it's against "the usual suspects".
Huh, what does this have to do with it? Of course, discriminatory comments like these that segregate people on race are never flagged on HN as long as it's against "the usual suspects".
hilux(1)
UltraSane(1)
iambateman(11)
jmyeet(8)
lesuorac(1)
avalys(19)
ziddr(2)
cchance(1)
Jeez young people have it tough in America, unless they are Trump's or Musk's children or grandchildren.
Is that just me or does the head shape not quite match between releases CCTF footage and the BBC picture and (supposed) mugshot I have seen elsewhere.
Like it's similar but not quite the same mainly less pronounced cheek bones, wider less "bubbly at the tip" nose.
But honestly maybe I'm just hallucinating this due to differences in angle light conditioning etc.
EDIT: To be clear I'm not saying "it's not him" (implying conspiracy or similar), but saying "my first reaction was huh did I click the wrong link that looks like someone else".
Like it's similar but not quite the same mainly less pronounced cheek bones, wider less "bubbly at the tip" nose.
But honestly maybe I'm just hallucinating this due to differences in angle light conditioning etc.
EDIT: To be clear I'm not saying "it's not him" (implying conspiracy or similar), but saying "my first reaction was huh did I click the wrong link that looks like someone else".
There is a similar thread on zerohedge.com:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/person-interest-nyc-assa...
It contains much discussion regarding esp.
- the police finding a gun, multiple IDs and a "manifesto" on his person. Much suspicion of the suspect being a "patsy", i.e., someone falsely incriminated.
- questioning of the rationality of the suspect, i.e., was he mentally ill, a drug user, etc.
Best segment [copied here] concerned the suspect's travels: ...
12 hours ago iamtheghostofeustacemullins:
I don't understand how this guy could be on the lam for five days and only get as far as Altoona PA?
12 hours ago iamtheghostofeustacemullins:
Note to self: It takes me around 8 hours to drive to JFK Airport from Wheeling WV.
12 hours ago ElChapocabra:
He rode an actual lamb?
12 hours ago J Jason Djfmam:
Specifically, an escape goat.
12 hours ago _0000_:
lol
7 hours ago PressCheck:
Worth reading thru all the stupid comments just to read ones like this ...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/person-interest-nyc-assa...
It contains much discussion regarding esp.
- the police finding a gun, multiple IDs and a "manifesto" on his person. Much suspicion of the suspect being a "patsy", i.e., someone falsely incriminated.
- questioning of the rationality of the suspect, i.e., was he mentally ill, a drug user, etc.
Best segment [copied here] concerned the suspect's travels: ...
12 hours ago iamtheghostofeustacemullins:
I don't understand how this guy could be on the lam for five days and only get as far as Altoona PA?
12 hours ago iamtheghostofeustacemullins:
Note to self: It takes me around 8 hours to drive to JFK Airport from Wheeling WV.
12 hours ago ElChapocabra:
He rode an actual lamb?
12 hours ago J Jason Djfmam:
Specifically, an escape goat.
12 hours ago _0000_:
lol
7 hours ago PressCheck:
Worth reading thru all the stupid comments just to read ones like this ...
> Worth reading thru all the stupid comments just to read ones like this ...
I'm not sure that's true, given that it's Zero Hedge and therefore like wading through a toxic stew of stupidity and sub-4chan conspiracy theorising.
I'm not sure that's true, given that it's Zero Hedge and therefore like wading through a toxic stew of stupidity and sub-4chan conspiracy theorising.
C'mon, laugh a little!
When I got up this morning I was still laughing about the "escape goat" reference in a long dreary thread raising the possibility of outside actors, planting of evidence, and other wild speculations.
Zerohedge used to be good - maybe it could be good again. It certainly has participation.
When I got up this morning I was still laughing about the "escape goat" reference in a long dreary thread raising the possibility of outside actors, planting of evidence, and other wild speculations.
Zerohedge used to be good - maybe it could be good again. It certainly has participation.
His photo doesn't match the chin we saw. Something doesn't add up.
Easy: run both pics through a biometric check
I did it for you (using AWS compare faces)
Full face pic compared to taxi pic: 81.94% similar
Full face pic compared to hotel pic (not smiling): face matches not found
Full face pic compared to hotel pic (smiling): face matches not found
I am guessing the quality of the hotel pics I found online is too bad for a good test and/or biometrics work better comparing eyes than other face features.
Full face pic compared to taxi pic: 81.94% similar
Full face pic compared to hotel pic (not smiling): face matches not found
Full face pic compared to hotel pic (smiling): face matches not found
I am guessing the quality of the hotel pics I found online is too bad for a good test and/or biometrics work better comparing eyes than other face features.
dang's redirected that here actually, for those reading ChrisArchitect's comment:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42374292>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42374292>
His choice but that was still the earlier post and where the discussion started.
True, but the general usefulness of noting prior submissions is that the principle discussion is / has occured there.
If mods have elected to promote another submission, the comment serves little or no useful purpose.
I'll usually delete my own "dupe" notice comment if I realise that's the case. I commented above to provide clarity to anyone confused by your initial comment.
(I do appreciate that you note dupes with formidable frequency and accuracy. All of us stumble occasionally.)
If mods have elected to promote another submission, the comment serves little or no useful purpose.
I'll usually delete my own "dupe" notice comment if I realise that's the case. I commented above to provide clarity to anyone confused by your initial comment.
(I do appreciate that you note dupes with formidable frequency and accuracy. All of us stumble occasionally.)
Logically, he had a mental breakdown post surgery with all the characteristics and data trail leading to the outcome. However tinfoil hat goes on, his station in Hawaii/Japan and background indicate he may have been recruited by the agency and was completing a task, and/or is just taking the fall on behalf of some random guy who actually committed the crime and is already in a black site.
Check out the PR comments on one of his projects on GH.
> 'Missing Implementation for "Deny, Defend, Depose"'
"Could you clarify:
What machine learning model is best suited for the "Deny" phase? (I'm guessing a GAN for plausible deniability?) Is "Defend" using a reinforcement learning approach with adversarial training? For "Depose," are we looking at a classification problem or full-blown unsupervised chaos?
A README section explaining how to integrate this strategy into Halite III bots would be invaluable to the community. Until then, I feel like I'm shooting blanks here."
https://github.com/lnmangione/Halite-III/issues
> 'Missing Implementation for "Deny, Defend, Depose"'
"Could you clarify:
What machine learning model is best suited for the "Deny" phase? (I'm guessing a GAN for plausible deniability?) Is "Defend" using a reinforcement learning approach with adversarial training? For "Depose," are we looking at a classification problem or full-blown unsupervised chaos?
A README section explaining how to integrate this strategy into Halite III bots would be invaluable to the community. Until then, I feel like I'm shooting blanks here."
https://github.com/lnmangione/Halite-III/issues
I don't understand what is notable about this. Looking at timestamps those are all jokes, not even good ones.
- person clearly had meticulously planned the execution of the hit and exfiltration. Even leaving red herrings on his way out of the city (backpack full of Monopoly money). Yet clumsily keeps _all_ of the evidence that would implicate himself in this murder. Not to mention he is wandering about in public while a multi-state manhunt is underway with the full weight of alphabet soup agencies, and state and local LEOs? To me, this suggests it was part of his plan to get caught. There was no escape to a non-extradition country. The “shaking” mentioned while talking with police could just be a massive surge of adrenaline as he sees his plan unfold before his eyes. Then use the live streamed and televised court to spread his message. Then live out the rest of his life as a political figure as the media continue to analyze this persons life and motivations. Just like Ted.
- Or the internet, media really over-estimated this persons competence. It was really just dumb luck that he even escaped NYC. At that point, he was just improvising after leaving NYC. His arrogance to keep the evidence as some sick mementos or trophies ultimately did him in. Likely try to plead insanity with the manifesto. Probably fail to do so, then eventually get convicted on all charges and end up in a supermax penitentiary for life.