Denying people certain services does not equate to murder.
Should I kill a CEO for approving VIOXX which caused heart disease, intense abdominal pain, and GERD? -How about the doctor for prescribing it over an extremely minor issue? -Then there’s the subsequent prescription ant-acids that can cause stomach cancer. -What about their responsibility when lemon water with cayenne worked as good or better?
When I tore rotator cuffs, I was denied surgery from the insurance company because they were only up to 40% tears. -I recovered for the most part and am glad I didn’t get the risky surgery.
I was told I needed a hernia operatation (umbilical). Other people got it and ended up needing follow up surgery. Every surgery is a risk of your life.
So without knowing specifics (I have yet to see any among all this nonsense), I’m not supporting blatant killing which is what Mangione did. -Or show me how the CEO was directly responsible without resorting to propaganda (which statistics typically are).
When it comes to denying claims, multiple reports suggest that UHC, which is the country’s largest health insurer and serves some 50 million people, is an industry leader, with a rate nearly double the industry average. A recent Senate report slammed the company for denying nursing care to patients recovering from falls and strokes on its Medicare Advantage plans, and it currently faces a class action lawsuit for its use of AI algorithms to automatically refuse payment.
Here’s the thing: I specifically selected a passage which had three different types of evidence (the whole article has more) because you wanted specifics but not statistics. So given that, was the senate report convincing?
If not, please think about what sort of information you might want to support the concept that the CEO was culpable. Personally I would look for statistics in this type of situation and simply evaluate them myself to see if they are misleading, because statistics seem like the only way to separate one CEO from another.
If there’s not a type of evidence that would work, you’re not holding a neutral position.
He killed a serial killer. And killing multiple serial killers is a societal good (as long as the state isn’t the one doing the killing).
Denying people certain services does not equate to murder.
Should I kill a CEO for approving VIOXX which caused heart disease, intense abdominal pain, and GERD? -How about the doctor for prescribing it over an extremely minor issue? -Then there’s the subsequent prescription ant-acids that can cause stomach cancer. -What about their responsibility when lemon water with cayenne worked as good or better?
When I tore rotator cuffs, I was denied surgery from the insurance company because they were only up to 40% tears. -I recovered for the most part and am glad I didn’t get the risky surgery.
I was told I needed a hernia operatation (umbilical). Other people got it and ended up needing follow up surgery. Every surgery is a risk of your life.
So without knowing specifics (I have yet to see any among all this nonsense), I’m not supporting blatant killing which is what Mangione did. -Or show me how the CEO was directly responsible without resorting to propaganda (which statistics typically are).
I gotta say… having read your comment a couple of times: You are stunningly ignorant and self-centered.
When it comes to denying claims, multiple reports suggest that UHC, which is the country’s largest health insurer and serves some 50 million people, is an industry leader, with a rate nearly double the industry average. A recent Senate report slammed the company for denying nursing care to patients recovering from falls and strokes on its Medicare Advantage plans, and it currently faces a class action lawsuit for its use of AI algorithms to automatically refuse payment.
Statistics are used for propaganda and lawsuits are not guilty verdicts. Without sitting in that courtroom, we shouldn’t be acting like jurors.
Here’s the thing: I specifically selected a passage which had three different types of evidence (the whole article has more) because you wanted specifics but not statistics. So given that, was the senate report convincing?
If not, please think about what sort of information you might want to support the concept that the CEO was culpable. Personally I would look for statistics in this type of situation and simply evaluate them myself to see if they are misleading, because statistics seem like the only way to separate one CEO from another.
If there’s not a type of evidence that would work, you’re not holding a neutral position.
“because I wasn’t mistreated, I’m ok with the mistreatment of others.”
that’s what you said.
You are right but probably answering to a shit stirring bot or a 13yo edgelord.
Making him a hero is fucked up and cringe, even if the other guy was worse.