Current Events > Wanted posters for healthcare CEOs up in NYC

(+) Yeah! (+)

This is correct according to my tag.

It doesn't sit quite right with me that it's essentially egging other people on to go commit crimes that you yourself aren't willing to do.

Movement to do what exactly?

Shut the fuck up already.

This is stupid. You're not going to convince me that you support a broader social net than I do because I don't *checks note* support mob mentality for harming CEOs

is the only possible result of collective action harming more CEOs? or are there other things that could happen?

Movement to do what exactly?

This is a hill I'm going to die on. I have a pretty hard line in the sand that it is bad to spur up mob mentality for the extrajudicial violence of people and I'd be disappointed in myself for not speaking my mind about it.

Notice the comments are all people saying it's liberals.

Since when is an insurance company fucking over its member's a political issue?

And that's why I asked.

I think most people would be happy if instead of more CEOs being harmed, they make changes to not deny people coverage or a step further the government takes steps to ensure everyone has healthcare (not going to happen under trump ofc)

the people have spoken. they want change. healthcare is literally a matter of life and death, so if there is no change what should happen?

No one on those pictures is going to die, so it's rather silly for some of these posters to come to their defense, as well as posters who think someone will actually hunt them. I'm taking this for what it is. Trolling. And if it scares some rich assholes, that's a bonus.

I'm fine with those changes. I'm not fine if people try to achieve that through violent means.

I'm fine with those changes. I'm not fine if people try to achieve that through violent means.

No one on those pictures is going to die, so it's rather silly for some of these posters to come to their defense, as well as posters who think someone will actually hunt them. I'm taking this for what it is. Trolling. And if it scares some rich assholes, that's a bonus.

I'm fine with those changes. I'm not fine if people try to achieve that through violent means.

Where have you been the last few days? The entire internet wants these people dead. Copycat killers will probably be on the rise.

You must not have heard, there was actually a healthcare CEO shot to death a few days ago.

Do you condemn all violence throughout history that granted and protected peoples' rights, or do you just not have the stomach for it existing in the present tense?

What, historically, encourages people in power to change?

Do you acknowledge the reality that the chance of those changes happening without at least a little bit of violent means are the same as they've historically been?

I'm glad you're optimistic that whatever happens can be limited to only "a little bit of violent", but I have much more fear of the worst happening.

Do you acknowledge the reality that the chance of those changes happening without at least a little bit of violent means are the same as they've historically been?

No, I don't acknowledge that.

I hope this becomes a full blown movement. Politicians won't resolve these issues, so it's up to the people.

Who knows, maybe another half century of asking will get them to change their ways.

I am not ready to say that we should succumb to violent uprising in order to achieve this goal.

I'm glad you're optimistic that whatever happens can be limited to only "a little bit of violent", but I have much more fear of the worst happening.

This will be like occupy Wall Street

do you agree with the assertion that "denied coverage that leads to death or severely reduced quality of life is violence"?

I don't know. I'm hesitant about saying that.

Even in a universal healthcare model, there'd still be some level of denied coverage right? Should any level of denied coverage be considered violence?

denied coverage that leads to death or severely reduced quality of life

Should any level of denied coverage be considered violence?

I don't know. I'm hesitant about saying that.

Even in a universal healthcare model, there'd still be some level of denied coverage right? Should any level of denied coverage be considered violence?

I think a government run healthcare version would be better and ultimate cheaper than our insurance model, and we'd have more transparency and choice in how it gives our medical care, but I know care rejection can still happen.

This is a hill I'm going to die on. I have a pretty hard line in the sand that it is bad to spur up mob mentality for the extrajudicial violence of people and I'd be disappointed in myself for not speaking my mind about it.

Of course care rejection is inevitable. What's not inevitable is that some small group of rich ghouls profits immensely from such rejection of care, and is therefore mightily incentivized to deny more and more care. That's pretty much why (as you say) any reasonable version of socialized medicine would be an improvement in the US.

Yeah I agree with this.

So yes, the issue is that there's no oversight on that rejection due to it being done by a private company.

I still don't think I would call it violence in that case though.

You know that scene in How the Grinch Stole Christmas where the Grinch smiles so wickedly his entire face curls up? I've been doing a lot of that lately. Dunno why.

You dont actually care about people dying over denied coverage.

Is the only way to show that I care, to agree that it's violence and that we should enact violence on those same people?