It should probably need to be a public grassroots movement. The public would need to be so outraged about the lack of change that democratically elected officials couldn’t ignore the needs of the public if they want to be taken seriously. Public strikes and protests can work. The media and public need to keep speaking out about this issue. Citizens movements and effective messaging is possible, even if you don’t have the corporate world to back you. And honestly most rich people that are not directly involved in healthcare shouldn’t really care. Like whats the benefit for you as someone wealthy to stop public healthcare if you yourself are not invested? You will still be able to purchase additional insurance if public insurance would ever become reality. You would still be able to pay for special treatments. I don’t see them fighting against this like slave-owners fighting against the abolishment of slavery.

What I didn’t know… Is public healthcare actually made illegal by the supreme court? I’m not too deep into US law and such as I don’t personally live there. What are your thoughts?

The man isn’t the only one in the company and the system responsible. He steers the company at large, yes but every hand involved, be it the government, president, ceo to individual worker denying claims is technically at fault. I do not think we should celebrate murder. I do not celebrate Brian Thomson, neither do I celebrate Luigi Magione. I hope he gets his fair sentence.

Seems like the comment writes itself

Rule utilitarianism states that “an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good”. Murder as a general is right. The reason is that this murder is just a short-term thing that doesn’t undo all the deaths that have happened. The general abidance to rule of law without self-justice is worth way more than any single person dying in nearly all cases.

In the categorical imperativ Kant argues that you should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If it became a universal law that you could kill anyone you deemed evil this would end in a worse result for everybody. Thus it cannot be wanted.

The family and friends around him mourn and the new CEO seems like he is not about to roll over and accept every health insurance claim. The death is dividing citizens which believe he is a hero while others believe he is a murderer. The responsibility off of all those unneeded deaths are claimed by not only the CEO but also by legislators who didn’t account for universal healthcare. It is on the sitting government and parties for not supporting change. It is on the employer partly for not buying a higher premium package that includes more things or choosing a different company with a smaller denial rate. It is on the individual employee inside UH denying claims. It is on upper management like Brian Thompson and the people around him who are at fault for making this worse. And then there’s the stakeholders that don’t press on more ethical practices. Then its also on Americans voting against parties that wish to change the healthcare system in a beneficial way for everybody.

As the head of a company Brian Thompson also had the responsibility to steer it in an ethical way which it seems he did not do. His death has sparked public debate which is a good thing. This does not necessarily mean choosing a murder was the right way of doing things that optimizes utility for everybody.

I believe this is just not true. The US is one country. First-Past-The-Post system sucks but systematic change can happen. Its just… you guys elected Trump. I do not think the majority of Americans wants change bad enough. There is also no defeating the system through these actions. It would take a whole as insurrection, not one murder and I doubt anything good would come of it for the average American.

Im European so I really sympathize with the struggle for a decent healthcare system for you guys. I just don’t think this is the right way.

Yet again claiming moral righteousness while promoting murder. Positive change will come through democratic and legislative change. Violence leads to chaos and disturbance. When people like you come to power they use everything to undermine and disrupt critics. How can you label a person a traitor simply for disagreeing with violence? Every single country that became communist has just created a new elite and ruling class. Don’t pretend you’re the good one.

Elect representatives and use non-violent acts to shape public perception so the law is changed. If it is legal and he isn’t actively like murdering/torturing people I don’t think you can really argue he should be imprisoned. Just my take. Also, there are no “good people” and “bad people”. Its not black and white.

The company and system at large remains the same

So you can applaud that this topic has come to focus of the public without celebrating a murder right?

Actively killing someone =/= someone dying by an avoidable cause of death

The legal system isn’t created by the rich. Sure they can afford lawyers and have a higher influence in politics. The country is still a democracy but the people have to vote in their best interest to get better healthcare. Systematic change is needed, so the root cause. You could say by killing this guy all you’re doing is trying to treat a symptom of a broken system, even tho I would say his death doesn’t even fully do that. Its just one more death. An avoidable and unnecessary death. I don’t claim his corporate policies but murder like this has no place in a democracy with rule of law to change things. If a CEO started looking out for the best health of the customer it would be against the interest of the shareholder as it would make the company less profitable. A systematic change like unified public healthcare is needed. No private entities. No healthcare shouldn’t be tied to work.

You can’t claim moral superiority while promoting murder.

This is not about defending billionaires, this is about condemning murder as a matter of principle!

Where do I stop with the murder? Whats the criteria to be evil and deserve to die? Who decides what justice is? I agree that its a slippery slope and its why I think self justice like this is more self righteousness than anything

Then you’d need a majority in democracy to vote in their interests. But they voted for Trump, a man who wants to get rid of the ACA and impose senseless tariffs on all countries while cutting down on regulation that keeps people save and installing his own unhinged lackeys. Harsh rhetoric, but I want to say the American people have voted against their interest, and if political pressure was there change would be possible. I like that this issue is getting attention but I strongly question people calling for more murder and chaos.

You don’t need to be a good person to have a reason not to be killed.

Being a human being is already enough in most cases. His death does not change anything

I am honestly appreciate, that not everyone shares the same bloodlust people on lemmy have

Expanding Medicare has more upvotes than downvotes

You really think this represents US society at large? I think you’ll need a better source than that.

deleted by creator

The Internet has not changed the ideological foundation in the slightest. It has sparked some calls for reform, but the capitalistic ideology hasn’t been changed at all through this murder.

Me too tbh. I really don’t wish to abandon lemmy as I left reddit, since I prefer a federated system to it but all these posts are making me think. I just have this ethical principle where murder in most cases is bad and don’t like seeing violence being advocated.

What does that sentence even mean?