To state the obvious: (1) he is responsible for countless deaths and the attendant suffering of families. The shoe is now on the other foot and suddenly that’s a problem? (2) he could have chosen not to profit off of death and live a life of anonymity, unknown to the world and safe from vigilante justice.
I wouldn’t have shot him. I have no sympathy for him. I have sympathy for his kids and those who loved him. He was complicit in the misery and desperation that would ultimately lead to his own death.
I struggle to see how this is bad for society. Society as it exists right now, that is.
There are many more leeches that must be dealt with. Preferably not through vigilante justice. But that is all that the people have, isn’t it.
It’s an interesting moral case. The current economic system rewards sociopathic wealth hoarding. How can we fight that? Is he an enemy combatant in the class war? I literally don’t know.
You’ll have to forgive me for not feeling sympathy when he oversaw UHC denying claims ten times more often than other insurers. How many families do you think experienced their own worst nightmares as a result of his actions?
Every bad person in history had a family. I understand your point, I even admire your compassion. However, American insurance companies are EVIL. The people who run them are BAD. Maybe we shouldn’t celebrate the death of bad people, but we should at least be able to acknowledge that for us to live in a better world, bad things need to happen to bad people.
Someone up thread brought up that someone in a position such as a health care CEO can cause a tremendous amount more of suffering than death row inmates might have caused. That is an interesting point.
It has also crossed my mind that if, once a week, the richest person on the planet were killed, eventually fear would outweigh greed, and remaining folks of extraordinary means would be likely to be pushed toward justice.
And yet…
I am not a killer. I live in a country where I don’t want to see the kind of assassinations I read about abroad. I want the rule of law to prevail. I’m cognizant that if a movement took off where powerful, “evil” people were killed, there would probably be an opposite reaction that could lead to snowballing violence.
Overall, this is a complex subject. Reasonable arguments can be made and supported by various ethical frameworks. I imagine good people are likely to experience cognitive dissonance when reading this news.
tl;dr murder bad, fairness & widespread prosperity good
also
We still have egalitarian-minded Americans with disposable income and free time who have not yet devoted those resources to agitating for change. I would imagine this factor, of potential opportunities not yet exhausted, diminishes the power of arguments for the righteousness of extrajudicial processes. (Most every night after work I choose to NOT devote my time to activism.) In contrast, if no free personhours remained not occupied by labor, sleep, or activism, I imagine vigilante behavior would be easier to defend in a debate.
Being glad a bad person is gone isn’t being violent. This man chose to take part in what is widely known to be a predatory and sometimes lethal system that can literally place people into poverty. And he chose to take part in an integral way near the top of that structure. He helped perpetuate it from the top.
These are not good people.
The gunman was violent. Anyone that’s glad or indifferent is not.
The other post had it just as bad if not worse before it was removed entirely.
I tried to bring up the point that a system where we kill CEOs because we don’t like their business practices isn’t going to fix anything and the downvotes immediately poured in.
Either this is just the way that a lot of people on Lemmy think, or there’s some concerted effort/psyop trying to stir discontent among the users here.
For a bit there I was doubting if I even wanted to be associated with Lemmy anymore, but at least it looks like the mods have been cleaning up the worst comments.
He has teenage sons who are today experiencing the absolute worst nightmare of their lives. He has a family that will be shattered by this. This isn’t some game or a movie where the bad guys just lost. This is real life.
Sounds like what’s probably happening within dozens of families every day for people who have died because they were denied life saving coverage by UHC.
You think the successor will change shit? This has to be changed politically, not just to hope you have a keen CEO; If you don’t deliver financially shareholders will just replace you
deleted by creator
To state the obvious: (1) he is responsible for countless deaths and the attendant suffering of families. The shoe is now on the other foot and suddenly that’s a problem? (2) he could have chosen not to profit off of death and live a life of anonymity, unknown to the world and safe from vigilante justice.
I wouldn’t have shot him. I have no sympathy for him. I have sympathy for his kids and those who loved him. He was complicit in the misery and desperation that would ultimately lead to his own death.
I struggle to see how this is bad for society. Society as it exists right now, that is.
There are many more leeches that must be dealt with. Preferably not through vigilante justice. But that is all that the people have, isn’t it.
But main street’s still all cracked and broken! Sorry Todd the mob has spoken… Monorail!
Poor teen boys, what are they going to do without their evil oligarch father! :(
I wonder if he had life insurance, and whether it will pay out.
Policy doesn’t cover bullets as a cause of death. DENIED.
It’s an interesting moral case. The current economic system rewards sociopathic wealth hoarding. How can we fight that? Is he an enemy combatant in the class war? I literally don’t know.
not really, sins of the father is a concept older than the bible
You’ll have to forgive me for not feeling sympathy when he oversaw UHC denying claims ten times more often than other insurers. How many families do you think experienced their own worst nightmares as a result of his actions?
Every bad person in history had a family. I understand your point, I even admire your compassion. However, American insurance companies are EVIL. The people who run them are BAD. Maybe we shouldn’t celebrate the death of bad people, but we should at least be able to acknowledge that for us to live in a better world, bad things need to happen to bad people.
Yeah, give the good guys guns so they can defend themselves from the bad guys with guns. This is literally your argument
Someone up thread brought up that someone in a position such as a health care CEO can cause a tremendous amount more of suffering than death row inmates might have caused. That is an interesting point.
It has also crossed my mind that if, once a week, the richest person on the planet were killed, eventually fear would outweigh greed, and remaining folks of extraordinary means would be likely to be pushed toward justice.
And yet…
I am not a killer. I live in a country where I don’t want to see the kind of assassinations I read about abroad. I want the rule of law to prevail. I’m cognizant that if a movement took off where powerful, “evil” people were killed, there would probably be an opposite reaction that could lead to snowballing violence.
Overall, this is a complex subject. Reasonable arguments can be made and supported by various ethical frameworks. I imagine good people are likely to experience cognitive dissonance when reading this news.
tl;dr murder bad, fairness & widespread prosperity good
also
We still have egalitarian-minded Americans with disposable income and free time who have not yet devoted those resources to agitating for change. I would imagine this factor, of potential opportunities not yet exhausted, diminishes the power of arguments for the righteousness of extrajudicial processes. (Most every night after work I choose to NOT devote my time to activism.) In contrast, if no free personhours remained not occupied by labor, sleep, or activism, I imagine vigilante behavior would be easier to defend in a debate.
Being glad a bad person is gone isn’t being violent. This man chose to take part in what is widely known to be a predatory and sometimes lethal system that can literally place people into poverty. And he chose to take part in an integral way near the top of that structure. He helped perpetuate it from the top.
These are not good people.
The gunman was violent. Anyone that’s glad or indifferent is not.
The other post had it just as bad if not worse before it was removed entirely.
I tried to bring up the point that a system where we kill CEOs because we don’t like their business practices isn’t going to fix anything and the downvotes immediately poured in.
Either this is just the way that a lot of people on Lemmy think, or there’s some concerted effort/psyop trying to stir discontent among the users here.
For a bit there I was doubting if I even wanted to be associated with Lemmy anymore, but at least it looks like the mods have been cleaning up the worst comments.
Sounds like what’s probably happening within dozens of families every day for people who have died because they were denied life saving coverage by UHC.
This is real life where a badguy just lost
How can you describe UnitedHealthCare’s practices as anything other than bloodlust? They fired the first shot in this war.
He killed thousands, if not tens of thousands, via his actions and decisions.
Hell, this is a good case of a self defense shooting, to prevent a mass murderer from continuing; if it was due to corporate policies.
Regardless, though, I’m never going to shed a tear for a dead oligarch.
You think the successor will change shit? This has to be changed politically, not just to hope you have a keen CEO; If you don’t deliver financially shareholders will just replace you