It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.
It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn’t save lives…people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.
Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.
I’d encourage everyone to be careful with this type of thinking, because I’m seeing it a lot. Characterizing situations as having only two unpleasant options (“two tracks” in this case) is a classic strategy to rationalize violence. Gangs use it, terrorist groups use it, and even governments trying to justify wars use it (e.g. remember Bush’s “You’re either with us or against us”).
It’s a textbook false dichotomy, and it’s meant to make the least unpleasant option presented seem more palatable. This situation is not as simple as “either you’re in favor of insurance companies profiting off of denied healthcare of millions or you’re ok with murdering a CEO”
I want to live in a world where profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes. The third option here is that CEOs be paid less and be held accountable by their employees similarly to a democracy. But that means changing the system - which won’t happen until the CEOs are convinced the system doesn’t work. Right now, we regular folks are the only ones for whom the system doesn’t work. This uncertain future for CEOs is load sharing.
Precisely. The last few months have been nothing but trolley problem after trolley problem because rich people are never held accountable.
profoundly evil people receive karma instead of golden parachutes.
Give them actual golden parachutes and they get both.
Don’t want to be too much of a downer, but if enough rich folk decide the system does not work for them. These rich folks will fight to change the system to function more like China and Russia. Where the peons have limited political expression and swift removal of ‘subversive’ speech.
Look at the events of the past few years, and especially the past few months in the US, and tell me that they’re not already trying to do so.
Actually, ya. That is on point.
They tried to silence people with social media. I’m banned on every major platform for being anti capitalist anti imperialist anti fascist and pro murdering health insurance CEOs (ok, that’s a new one years after being banned, but my sentiment has always been there).
They can’t stop the fediverse. They can’t silence us like they used to.
Problem is that all the other tracks can’t be switched to.
Well I’m open to other ideas but I haven’t seen any viable ones yet.
tldr: one idea would be challenging their ability to hide behind licensed MDs who are paid to shoulder liability
This is actually my field, and I’ve spent countless hours of my life arguing with these insurance companies on behalf of patients they’ve denied, (losing more often than I’ve won, but you have to try). They suck.
When they’re being exceptionally unreasonable, the bridge-burning hail mary I would throw would be threatening the license of the provider that denied the appealed claim. It has worked a surprising number of times.
Most people don’t realize that it’s not just paper-pushers at insurance companies who are denying claims. Those folks can routinely deny things that policy excludes, but if it’s a judgement call or a challenge that their policy isn’t meeting medical necessity, they hide behind doctors on their payroll who are putting their license on the line when they have to say that the insurance company is justified. Those individuals can be reported to their licensing board or even sued. Short of voting in universal healthcare one day, I think this is the most direct route to challenge this nonsense.
I appreciate your measured takes and inside point of view, more of both are always welcome (not that you need my invitation lol, you’re basically famous around here).
The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I’m not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don’t blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.
Our institutions no longer fix our problems, and that’s growing worse, not better - the deck is getting stacked more and more heavily against us as time goes on.
I’m not advocating mass violence. What I am saying is that executives who create conditions like these, for people suffering under an increasingly-dysfunctional and hopeless system like this, should absolutely expect their lives to be in danger on the daily - out of just pure pragmatism. I’m not putting a value judgment on that, I’m saying it is flat out inevitable.
CEOs frequently measure any and all human events as costs to be managed. Especially these insurance executive pieces of shit. I don’t see why a certain number of fairly predictable CEO murders resulting from their hideous behavior should be any different.
The problem I see, though, is all the most morally defensible and procedural fixes require the healthy functioning of institutions that have been weakened, dismantled and / or perverted and turned against us. And a frightening number of us see that now and feel that normal channels for change are closed. I’m not at quite that point myself, but I know how bad it is for so many and I don’t blame anyone who reads our current situation that way.
Relevantly, I think this also makes a good argument that “how we solve things” as a society is as important the problems we’re solving. When our institutions are weakened or bypassed (through corruption, lobbying, or vigilantism), it’s destabilizing and leads to bigger issues. I hate how much power insurance companies have over care too, and I get it, I just want to urge everyone to be cautious about this familiar type of language that tries to frame violence as the “only remaining option”. It’s almost always pure rationalization coming from people’s anger rather than truly being our only option.
That’s a great point. And truly, it speaks to what may be the root of the problem - skin in the game. Skin in the game shapes how we solve problems. When leaders make it plain they have none, people notice and reasonable problem solving falls apart.
At some point, I personally blame Jack Welch at GE decades ago for pioneering & normalizing this (thanks Behind the Bastards) - companies shifted from prioritizing outcomes for stakeholders to only prioritizing outcomes for shareholders. Historically I think that was because better outcomes for all stakeholders was seen as the primary driver of better outcomes for shareholders. Jack Welch realized they aren’t nearly as coupled as everyone thought - over the short term only, a crucial distinction! To be fair, someone else would have, too, if he were never born.
For an example, he pioneered the tactic of closing profitable manufacturing plants that were not as profitable as he wanted - and despite the net loss of profit, and the sudden deep trauma to a town full of human lives - investors liked it. It’s the origin of “line goes up”.
Oversimplifying a complex issue of course because I don’t want this to get any longer, but that behavior really does make two different systems of inputs and outputs that are often in competition with each other. One system for investors, and one for everyone else. And a growing number of people see it, see the different outcomes, and are rightfully enraged.
With that said, angry people are easy to manipulate and abuse, which is counterproductive and bad, and I’m not so much disagreeing with you as offering another point of view. Cheers!
Fuck yeah behind the bastards out in the wild!
Also… anyone know of Jack Welch’s whereabouts these days? For you know …reasons…
Yup, I think we’re totally on the same page here.
I just want to urge everyone to be cautious about this familiar type of language that tries to frame violence as the “only remaining option
This gets harder and harder to deny when we’re still talking about most of the exact same issues that have gotten worse, not better for almost two decades. How many elections and protests and awareness campaigns and volunteer drives are people expected to do with no meaningful progress?
At some point it starts to simply feel like a parent telling their child ‘not now, later’ over and over again with zero intention of ever actually doing anything. No where in life are you allowed to infinitely delay with no progress (especially to your boss at work), so why should the public accept the same?
Three decades! Three! Not two! I’m 35 and had a sick parent growing up. This has been my entire life, my parents fighting with these ghouls until eventually my father died from lack of proper care.
How do lay people being denied coverage find out who their “doctor” is to go after their license?
Sounds like a lot of paperwork and waiting around and sick people don’t have a lot of time for that. A bullet is faster.
Derail the train
I believe that is in process.
You’re absolutely right and I’d argue it boils down to the fundamental error in OP’s shower thought:
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track. It just adds another dead body to the pile.
Killing the CEO doesn’t save the lives on the other track
Why wouldn’t it, though? Every CEO makes a profit/loss calculation in their head. Now they’ve got one more potential entry in their loss column. We’re not talking about saving lives already taken by UHC, but future lives that other CEOs might cost.
We all know that the death of a CEO is a blip in the actual day to day operations in the company. The teams and departments will continue operating as before, and the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
After all, if they’re already doing cost/benefit analysis with human lives, what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses, and then try to recover their costs through the business (including through stinginess on coverage decisions or policies).
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
That only remains true so long as this doesn’t turn into a copycat situation, which it very well might given how numerous the people with motives are, how easy it is to get guns in this country, and how fervently the people of this country are supporting the gunman.
the broad strategic decisions made by the executives aren’t going to factor in a remote likelihood of violence on a particular executive.
The key word there is ‘remote likelihood’. My point was that if it goes from ‘remote’ to ‘possible’ or ‘likely’, then it will start getting factored into decision making.
what’s another life of a colleague, versus an insurance beneficiary?
There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They’ll just beef up personal security, put the cost of that security into their operating expenses
Unlike fines, which can be passed off as a cost of doing business, their lives are irreplaceable. And once the logic has been hammered into their heads, it can start influencing their decisions.
There’s a difference once they start considering their own lifes on the line.
They won’t. Anyone who has a semblance of belief that their decisions in the job might actually cause their own death just won’t do the job. Instead, it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
And once they’ve internalized the idea that any decision made by any one employee of the company, including their predecessor CEOs, can put them in danger, it’s pretty attenuated from the actual decisions that they themselves make.
It’s a dice roll on a group of people, which isn’t enough to influence the individuals in that group.
it becomes a filter for choosing even more narcissistic/sociopathic people in the role.
Who then get removed from society
It’s a dice roll on a group of people, which isn’t enough to influence the individuals in that group
Depends how many dice you roll. That’s my point. If you roll enough dice, it can start affecting decisions.
This is ludicrous. A person faced with unpopular decisions that might send assassins after him is going to make himself harder to assassinate, not less hated.
No I think most of us recognize there are a lot of other tracks out there. It’s just we’ve tried most of the other tracks (protests, voting, thoughts and prayers, etc) and most of them haven’t made anything better. So… there are only a couple of tracks not tried yet. But already this one sure has made way more waves than 99% of protests ever have.
If a significant portion the US population went on general strike, things would change quickly.
The other option, which is slower, is to build up alternative systems in a network of mutual aid, like cooperatively owned insurance, businesses, housing, energy systems, etc. Essentially slowly replace the state with hundreds of interconnected coops.
also @[email protected]
If a significant portion the US population went on general strike, things would change quickly.
This requires people willing and able to do so. Considering most Americans live paycheck to paycheck I don’t see this as real and viable currently.
The other option, which is slower, is to build up alternative systems in a network of mutual aid, like cooperatively owned insurance, businesses, housing, energy systems, etc. Essentially slowly replace the state with hundreds of interconnected coops.
This issue i see with this approach is that some people will always try to be the opposite and we end up in a stalemate. Also, people can be ignorant and not even understand that there is something that needs to be done. There’s so much misinformation in the world today.
This requires people willing and able to do so. Considering most Americans live paycheck to paycheck I don’t see this as real and viable currently.
I can’t dispute that. More of the US workforce would need to unionize for it to be possible.
This issue i see with this approach is that some people will always try to be the opposite and we end up in a stalemate. Also, people can be ignorant and not even understand that there is something that needs to be done. There’s so much misinformation in the world today.
I think if it reached a certain point of popularity, it would become so self evident of its benefits for the working class that it would snowball. But it would take a lot of education and time.
If we look at how Spain was able to have a libertarian socialist revolution, it apparently took 75 years of steady education (some through independent ferrer schools) and organizing before the populace as a whole was educated enough on the concepts and practiced enough through militant unionization to finally attempt a mass resistance movement.
I suspect the U.S. higher literacy rate combined with the internet may reduce the time needed.
also @[email protected]
Union activity has existed for decades and this utter failure of the social contract has been going on just as long. The unions only fought for themselves (understandably) while non union workers were manipulated by media to be against unionization. That’s unlikely to change in any meaningful way anytime soon. We’re too divided, too manipulated, and most importantly it takes too long when people have already been suffering for decades. I see this going the route of stochastic terrorism. This guy fired the first shot of a lopsided future (current?) war.
I agree with you but we’re too divided to go on a general strike. Stochastic terrorism against the rich? Now we’re talking.
Whilst I can’t disagree with what you say, and I’m glad you’ve pointed it out, I’d include one caveat. “If” capitalism is heading towards an even more extreme iteration of itself then, perhaps, the (currently false) dichotomy you mention may come to exist. I kinda hope we don’t end up in such a binary struggle but… humans. Shrugs broadly.
There’s a lot of other tracks out there that haven’t been taken, such as our government regulating health insurance in the form of single payer so this doesn’t happen, or our government using its justice system to go after it’s worse actors, but no, shareholder value comes first (even when shareholder value requires murder).
So this is the track we’re on and I fully fucking support it and hope he’s just the first of many to meet this well deserved fate.
Fuck around find out. We’re the most armed population on the planet and you think they’re gonna continue to get away with this shit? The public is united across the political spectrum in their support for this guy getting shot. I hope his ilk never sleeps another peaceful night again. I’m just surprised it took this long. I hope there are copycats.
These people killed my father. I am living for this right now. If I had less to lose and more skills to do it I’d be copycatting it myself and taking one for the team. These people need to die. They’re overdue to meet their makers and account for the mass deaths they’ve caused and profited from!!! via capitalism.
FBI: I’ve got an alibi, I was at work.
Well, in the total picture the best option of all would be Justice System which is Just and hence stop people causing massive numbers of deaths for profit, which is not what we have (especially in the US) and is even getting worse.
Ultimately all Just venues (I was going to say “non-violent”, but “lawful” violence is still “violence”, so even in a Just system, Force would still be used on the ones profiting from mass deaths) seem to have been closed in the last couple of decades.
The more options get closed, the more people will only see as options to either meekly accept the death of a loved one (or oneself) due to the actions of the people leading Health Insurance companies or vigilante vengeance, since the State has over the years removed itself from enacting Justice against the wealthiest in society, which would’ve been the best option of all (not least because it prevents the deaths of both the victims of guys like this CEO and of guys like the CEO)
Indeed, dichotomies presented in arguments are more often than not false, but sometimes they’re true.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Always two, there are.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing that it’s a false dichotomy, but do you have viable alternatives?
I don’t presume to have the answers, but there are plenty of alternatives if we’re comparing them to murder in the street.
I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies. It happens all the time, and the more people that know about it, the better. (They rely on people being unfamiliar with how they operate)
Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It’s a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we’ve come close at least twice in recent history.
I replied to another comment about one specific way to introduce licensure risk to insurance company doctors as a way to get them to change their policies
That’s a bandaid solution at best.
Long term, I think our best bet is to keep pushing for universal healthcare that will effectively make health insurance obsolete. It’s a winning message (something like 60% of America already supports it), and we’ve come close at least twice in recent history.
This country couldn’t even turn down the guy paraphrasing Hitler, whose promised to finish gutting the ACA. The chances of us seeing universal healthcare through “the right way” isn’t good.
The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people and hoping for the best, not to solve healthcare reform in a Lemmy comment section.
The point was to throw out some ways that one can push for change without murdering people
And that point is undermind by those ways not being viable.
You’re entitled to that belief, but I’ve seen the first one work in my field firsthand, as I said. We’ve also seen universal work in multiple countries, and I’m optimistic we’ll see ultimately see it in the US too.
No one is questioning whether it’ll work. We know it works. We’re questioning America’s ability to actually pass it into law. Which doesn’t look good (especially as many other countries are slowly eroding their own universal healthcare options as the capitalist class manages to nibble away at it). And in that sense, we’ve been moving backwards
I see what you’re getting at, but this isn’t the trolley problem. The trolley problem is predicated on the idea that killing one will save many, but it’s assumed that everyone involved is innocent. It’s a philosophical question about moral choice; is inaction that allows many to die more moral than an action that directly kills one? If the one person being killed is somehow culpable for the deaths of the other people, that changes the entire equation.
Also, that’s not even what happened here. One person was killed, but just as many people are going to die today because United Healthcare. No one was saved. Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets, that would change something, but one dead CEO isn’t going to do anything.
(And, to any moderators or FBI agents reading this, I’m of course not advocating for that. Can you even imagine? The ruling class that has been crushing the American working class for decades suddenly getting put down like rabid dogs? With the very weapons that the gun manufacturers allowed to flood our streets in order to maximize their profits? Makes me sick just to
fantasizethink about it.)Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets,
How do you think it starts?
but it’s assumed that everyone involved is innocent.
The Wikipedia article for Trolley Problem states that there is a version called “The Fat Villain” so I think that fits here and is still a version of the trolley problem.
but one dead CEO isn’t going to do anything.
You are right about that. But if CEO deaths started matching school shooting numbers things would likely change.
Fair enough, but that’s a variation of a variation, and pretty obscure (I’d heard of the Fat Man variation, but not the Fat Villain).
But if CEO deaths started matching school shooting numbers things would likely change.
I mean, that’s basically what I’m saying, but that’s not really the Trolley Problem. That’s basically the French Revolution. (And, again, should any law enforcement agents happen to read this, I’m definitely not trying to incite violence against the billionaire class, no matter how badly they deserve it or how much better the world would be for it).
Maybe if dozens of CEOs were gunned down in the streets, that would change something, but one dead CEO isn’t going to do anything.
Let’s fucking goooo
The problem with the trolley problem is that this event isn’t a trolley problem. Killing one CEO doesn’t save lives, hell just be replaced and more guarded now.
We need proper reform and regulation.
It’s more like “We found the guy pulling the lever on the trolley problem, only his trolley problem is ‘people die or I get less money’, and he has the trolley run over the people every time”
Unfortunately, there’s a long line of twats behind him drooling over their chance to make the trolley run over human beings in exchange for money, so killing him doesn’t really have the ‘trolley running over people averted’ effect that the trolley problem is usually based around. You’re just punishing a shithead killer by killing him. Which, while hilarious, lacks the moral quandary that the trolley problem is meant to highlight, since no one is actually saved.
It’s one of those things where the institutions of society can and must genuinely pursue the killer (albeit not at the level they actually are, expending a disproportionate amount of resources compared to if one of us commoners was killed), but if I saw the person who killed the CEO, I didn’t.
This is America, so unfortunately gun crime is just something there’s no fix for. 🤷
People in the comments seem to be arguing if this will or will not save lives. I don’t really care if it does. I think it’s ironic that there’s a crowd of people arguing that human life is precious and we can’t celebrate this guy’s death when the guy in question is the antithesis of that philosophy; he dedicated his life to profiting off of the suffering of others. I’m glad to see him go. There are many more I wish would follow.
I’m of the opinion that shooting CEO’s that make decisions to deny insurance claims that cost peoples’ lives is the moral high ground.
It really is a real life trolley problem
I mean, if this was some dictator of a poor country slowly squeezing his citizens for money so they were hungry, some dying of starvation, and had shitty infrastructure so he can jaunt off to holidays in his private jet and live in a mansion with private guards, nobody would be saying this guy deserved to live. But a CEO squeezing sick people and their families for money, actively shortening lifespans and QoL… he’s fine, let him off the hook?
This has been reported a few times for inciting violence. While it is walking a line, I don’t see OP asking for anyone to be harmed. It was presented in the context of a popular thought experiment. Other posts with the trolley problem often include wealthy people in the scenarios, so I think there is good precedence for keeping this post up.
I agree that this post is uncomfortable and possibly insensitive due to timing as someone has actually died and this post is questioning the value of that death. Many fields of economics assign a monetary value to human life, which similarly makes people feel uncomfortable, but those are valuable conversations to have.
I thought this through a bit and try to error on the side of keeping posts up, but I make mistakes and I am open to feedback. If you want to give anonymous feedback you leave a report (I can’t see who writes reports but presumably admins can).
EDIT: Deep breath everyone. Just to be clear, I greatly value people that make reports, I think we all should, its an important part of the ecosystem.
The patterns of behavior between shareholders, boards of directors, and executives is what’s killing people. The same role can be re-cast with different actors.
It’s not that CEOs need to die, it’s that that larger pattern of behavior that gets rich by killing people needs to end. Maybe this spooks other people who are part of that larger pattern into stopping, maybe it makes them do it more, stealthier, and with bodyguards. It’s hard to say.
At the very least, we should all jump at every chance to help things without hurting anybody, wherever we do find it. “Necessary violence” comes with a big ol heap of plausible deniability, and it’s a pretty big ask for somebody to handle it responsibly.
The justification will be alluring even in circumstances where it is not legitimate.
It’s not a real life trolley problem, because there is no mechanism by which killing this CEO saves lives.
There is. There’s reason to think the CEO was targeted specifically because of his shitty policies. If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
(This is not a call for violence, and I am not advocating for it, this is answering a direct question about how and why the mechanic might exist)
If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
No. They’ll hire private security and reduce their public exposure. Ironically, this will end up costing the company more and potentially increasing prices as a result.
The last thing they’ll do is suddenly become introspective and sympathetic.
“this may increase costs for the consumer” argument is flawed. It always implies they would have left profit on the table otherwise, rather than squeeze the system and everyone within it for as much as it’ll give and then some.
Nobody’s expecting them to become more introspective and sympathetic. Unlike fines and regulations, which can be passed off as the cost of doing business, threats to their life carries the risk of succeeding no matter what measures are taken. And the cost of such is not something that can be compensated for with money. Hence at some point simple profit / loss analysis will require them to consider not pissing off the public too badly
I promise you, I would risk getting shot every day for a 10 million dollar salary. Many jobs are dangerous for very little pay, give me the cushiest job and maybe somebody murders me?
Not the point. If you’re already getting 10M with no risk, would you want to raise it to 12M and live in fear for your life?
In general, the employer that purchased the insurance plan decided what they wanted the plan to cover. That’s why you can have great insurance plans when you’re in a union, for example. While for a bottom line, an insurance company wouldn’t want to pay claims, the people actually doing it each day are just following whatever plan guidelines they’re given. This death will do absolutely nothing.
That’s how it works in theory. In reality, insurance companies in the US deny a lot more claims than they should. Somebody posted some stats showing UHC denies about twice as many claims as the other insurance companies, making them the worst of the bunch.
This death will do absolutely nothing.
I’ve already pointed out how it might do something.
This death will do absolutely nothing.
Have you seen other socials?
Have you seen how limp dick fake news is?
I never seen America this united so clearly it did something and some parasite life is a small price to pay for such solidarity haha
If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.
…Or they could go the way of prison gang status, where the system selects its leaders based on their willingness to not only do violence to others but also sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for power. That seems way more likely to me than CEOs suddenly growing a fear based conscience and throwing profits/shareholders under the bus and somehow still being allowed to remain in their positions.
And all that is assuming that would-be assassins are in general coherent and reactive to the relative badness of corporate leaders and credibly applying danger relative to harm caused, which doesn’t seem likely either; rationality and being a killer tend to not usually go together, even if this incident seems like an outlier just from its most obvious narrative.
where the system selects its leaders based on their willingness to not only do violence to others but also sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for power
The system already chooses leaders based on their willingness to do violence to others, so I don’t see any downside if they decide to start sacrificing their safety and wellbeing.
And all that is assuming that would-be assassins are in general coherent and reactive to the relative badness of corporate leaders and credibly applying danger relative to harm caused
That’s not strictly necessary, as long as there’s a general trend of risk increasing along with harm done.
so I don’t see any downside if they decide to start sacrificing their safety and wellbeing.
It’s not that it’s necessarily a downside (though it probably is because people like that are potentially even worse to be ruled by), but you said there’s a mechanism for coercion by assassination to work here. This is why there won’t be; you will just get harder corpos.
That’s not strictly necessary, as long as there’s a general trend of risk increasing along with harm done.
It’s necessary because what if the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all, because of all the people fucked over by it? If regardless of their actual efforts to improve the humanitarian situation, executives are judged shallowly, there is no incentive to do anything except to quit and be replaced by someone who has more of a gangsterish disposition.
This is why there won’t be; you will just get harder corpos.
You’re postulating one possible (and in my mind, unlikely) outcome. I’m pointing out that the usual and straightforward result of threatening punishment is that people stop doing the activity (or at least rethink it).
It’s necessary because what if the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all, because of all the people fucked over by it? If regardless of their actual efforts to improve the humanitarian situation
It’s 2024. Stats and numbers are publicly available and easily searchable on the internet. UHC had double the industry average rejection rate. And the CEO had been in charge for long enough that if he had wanted to make changes, he could have. There’s no ‘hypothetical’ scenario here.
It’s weird how only in the US is it necessary for insurance companies to fuck their customers over to survive. I wonder why insurance companies in the rest of the world can survive without fucking their customers over? I suppose it’s a puzzle we’ll never solve.
I’m pointing out that the usual and straightforward result of threatening punishment is that people stop doing the activity (or at least rethink it).
The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality, and this is backed by both research into individual behavior and collective behavior.
I wonder why insurance companies in the rest of the world can survive without fucking their customers over?
Probably because the insurance companies they compete with are bound by the same (specific, predictable, law-based) rules prohibiting that behavior. Probably not because they are afraid of angry customers with guns.
The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality
The idea that punishment works is the concept behind our entire justice system, and most of society.
Probably because the insurance companies they compete with are bound by the same (specific, predictable, law-based) rules prohibiting that behavior. Probably not because they are afraid of angry customers with guns.
You seem to have missed the point. You claimed that ‘the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all’. I’m pointing out that the industry does not inherently have any risk factor, and it’s entirely possible to be in the industry without murdering tens of thousands of people. The rest of the world manages to do it. The risk factor would be deciding to screw your customers over.
It’s just not a good solution to the agency problem. Coercing someone with a gun to get you $300 from the ATM requires constant presence and the gun sticking into their back continuously. Trying to use the threat of possible assassination to get someone to act in a CEO role in a way beneficial to their millions of customers, that’s just not stable.
Using threat of punishment to motivate behavior is extremely unstable even in the tightest, simplest circumstances. Like you gotta be on the ball to get that person to punch in their ATM code and hand you the bills. Even that straightforward action is barely stable in terms of the incentive structure.
You simply can’t coerce a class of people with targeted assassinations. It’s too loose, too abstract, to unstable as a mechanism of control.
All of how our society operates is under threat of punishment when you have no access to food housing or healthcare by not making an income. If you we have threat of punishment for the working class we can also have threat of punishment for the owners. It’s the only way to fairly enforce the social contract under our current economic system. Obviously it’s bad to operate this way and what we are seeing is a direct result of a class of people not being held accountable for their end of the social contract.
You’re right, the thing that would work is if governments held them accountable, but governments have sided with the CEOs instead. These CEOs should beg the government to hold them accountable so that they don’t have to fear the masses.
Trying to use the threat of possible assassination to get someone to act in a CEO role in a way beneficial to their millions of customers, that’s just not stable.
Nothing about our current situation is stable. So yeah, of course the violent symptoms of the starving and ill masses won’t be stable either.
Using threat of punishment to motivate behavior is extremely unstable even in the tightest, simplest circumstances
Isn’t that our entire justice system?
You simply can’t coerce a class of people with targeted assassinations. It’s too loose, too abstract, to unstable as a mechanism of control.
On what basis? Nobody’s ever tried it, so it’s not like you have data to point to that says otherwise.
CEOs have faced zero consequences for their actions, the people they’ve harmed have exhausted all reasonable peaceful options. This incident alone will probably not change anything for the better but if those in power have no fear of the masses idk what else they expect to happen.
It’s worse than that- they’ve been rewarded for their actions
Which made them feel 100% vindicated.
Don’t worry he’ll be replaced with someone just as bad by the end of next week and they still have the same policies in place now that they did on Tuesday, it’s like the trolley problem but the “diversion” split the train so it could kill both sides of the track and they’ll recouple the cars on the other side.
