Out of 169

I'm an American and a regular appointment is still likely a couple months out because of insurance.

My response to wait times is to train more doctors, nurses and lab techs. Denying poorer workers from having access to healthcare so that wealthier people don't have to wait is cruel and a banal evil.

Rest assured, that's just rhetoric peddled by and for useful idiots to "justify" why things shouldn't change.

oh yea, emergencies, cancer diagnosis usually doesnt wait that long in EU too, just regular appts. even in the states if your own "state subsidized healthcare, you can also be waiting months or even almost 6 months for a appt, secondly you will also encounter rude employees that just hangs up on you too. i was in an insurance based medical facility/hospitals, its barely occupied most of the time, so i think the insurance just like justfying the increasecost of the insurance by building unnecessary facilities, before 26, my previous insurance was doing just that and still doing to this day.

also some insurance in general are allergic to older people too, they price them out, they have no need to "drop people from thier insurance" , when they can just price them out, this also helps them skew results like denials or getting terminated from thier insurance.

It's kinda funny living in Japan. We are all legally required to carry health insurance. It's available (income-based) from the govt, though many companies provide it as well paying half or more. Most of us who grew up in the US are talking about how cheap it is and most of the Europeans and Canadians are talking about how expensive it is (often about the point-of-service cost (30% of bill for most, though much cheaper than prices in the US) though some also the insurance). We also have out-of-pocket max (monthly cap, I think), and spending over 100k in a year opens up tax deductions (think of that like $1000 in USD/EUR for how it feels to spend that; the exchange rates are obviously different).

he would be more akin to PUNISHER? the death note drove the "user" insane.

Did he save it tho?
Nazi US seems pretty unsaved to me, right now 😌
Of course, this is a joke and I know you/he mean “he who trys saving his country..” and I know that is a Trump quote

If you look well there are good health providers in south America.

If you have decent insurance, it's ok. The problem is it either ties you to your job and/or is very expensive. People fall through the cracks.

The US contains some of the best cancer research centers in the world, most of which are non profits. On top of this you genuinely can buy the best care if you can afford it, as top talent across the world go to the US to get rich if they've lost all their morals.

It's just everyone except the super rich and people with rare cancers that might someday affect rich people that can't get care without bankruptcy and have to use enshittified hospitals.

We just want to keep it on the funny sex number so we actually had to suck a little bit more when we rose to 68th.

Nice

No u

He led an enterprise with the goal and the result of making a bit more money by ending and ruining numerous lives. And he made it the most extreme case of such an enterprise.

And yes, when somebody has a life threatening or disabling condition, and their established medical provider prescribes the best standard of care, and the money guy says “nope I don’t think you need that, denied” they are actively doing harm to numerous people for a small monetary return. That is evil.

It is LAWFUL Evil, however. Yes, just like in D&D, but it is an apt description for many real people. Genuinely bad people can appeal to the “rule of law” just as easily as genuinely good people when it suits them.

It is not an accident, or an unforeseen consequence, or even negligence. It is an intentional decision to harm others in order to make a bit more money than he would otherwise.

Compare with something like a drunk driver. They are generally looked down upon, and if somebody drives into a tree at 100mph with a BAC triple the limit, not many people outside their own family will shed a tear for them. But that does not mean those people support the death penalty for DUI convictions. If the driver kills somebody else and lives, then maybe it turns into negligent homicide. They get a pretty bad punishment because their actions can directly be proven to have caused an innocent death. And it may have been predictable, but it wasn’t intentional.

Brian Thompson set policies that caused many orders of magnitude more death and suffering than any drunk driver could hope to. And more importantly, his plans were to continue doing more of the same. So it’s not a question of what punishment he deserved, but of preventing future death and suffering. You know, the #1 thing that makes homicide justifiable.

However, having “the law” on his side, there were legal and corporate structures in place to insulate his decisions from the direct 1:1 cause and effect tied to each individual death and to each individual day of suffering. That gets him off the hook legally, but in no way does it do so morally.

I used to think more like you. Surely since the rule of law is the ideal, we should choose that side of any argument like this. But I have seen too much bad shit done by people whose primary skill is arguing in bad faith to make horrible things sound palatable. The law is not divinely inspired, it is written by humans. And sure, most of us will agree that people can get it wrong. But it is even more important to recognize that laws can be created with malicious intent as well.

And I will not be blocking you, because I would like to hear some of your actual thought process and hopefully not a low effort quip or just crickets.

Yes. We are advocating for more acts. Because their acts have not changed. That's how cause and effect works.

You think none of the decisions of the CEO of UHC affected this statistic at all? I feel like there's a LOT of UNC policy that he was involved in that results in worse healthcare in the US, including but not limited to "AI" for denials.

I don't think we have a uniform moral calculus, but my personal one doesn't justify the death penalty in this case. I can imagine a moral calculus that does though: hours of excess suffering caused > expected lifespan = death penalty.

Benefiting from a system that exists to hurt others so people like him can benefit from it.

I wish people like you weren't so eager to go to bat for your oppressors. Do you think Brian Thompson would ever ask about why someone did something to you that you didn't like? Or was he too busy having fun with your money?

Celebrating the murder of Brian Thompson and especially advocating for more acts like it is abhorrent behaviour.

No, it is not. The owning class must be pressured into respecting us more than profits. By any means necessary. The government and police will not stop mass social murder, so we must do what we can to save lives.

The only reason to avoid advocating these acts is that this style of PotD-like adventurism generally isn't a sustainable tactic, compared to the power of building a mass movement.

They started it

Reframe, it's an expression of how powerless everyone feels that they are willing to support murder as it starts to become the only option that still holds a chance of change. Not the plebs fault, we're literal swine.

Don't worry, you're clearly not engaging in good faith and have been blocked so I won't see which dumbass logical fallacy you pick for your reply.

The insurance companies control our healthcare system. He controlled an insurance company. Get it yet?

We can't really be mad at them. They have been manipulated into the beliefs they think are their own. Oh and their IQ is far below average.

Don't ask for things you won't do yourself, you look like a fool

We should focus on killing rich people and/or redistributing their wealth.

What would you suggest?

🥱