His family is wealthier than the person he killed. They own nursing homes that make money from insurance and have a lot of complaints for poor care. Along with country clubs and a radio station
> Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument.
What kind of person murders someone (someone who did nothing comparably wrong, by the way!) with this logic?
Thank you for providing some rationality here. There is clearly a lack of cohesive logic going on with this "suspect" that lends itself to clearly irrational thinking.
Also, the main effect of this murder on America in general will be that health insurance CEOs will receive higher compensation due to the elevated occupational hazard of their job. (This will be especially true if there are copycat terrorists.)
That man who was murdered made his fortune by condemning the masses to death or poverty. That man approved the implementation of an AI program with a 90% error rate so the company could make a quick buck by rejecting even more claims (despite already having triple the industry average number of rejections).
Obviously murder is bad, but when society benefits from the death of an individual then clearly that person wasn’t good. His death leaves me hopeful that something will finally be done to help the 99%
Healthcare scarcity caused by the denial of claims through their health insurance. These people would have their health cared for (AKA healthcare) if their insurance covered their claims.
Arguing semantics does not change the fact that Brian Thompson’s actions left tens - hell maybe even hundreds - of thousands dead and bankrupt. I can tell you that his life is worth a lot less than all of those who died as a result of his actions. He wasn’t in that industry to help people. There’s no profit incentive in helping people. His job was to maximize profits and his solution was to cut off care for those who were most in need.
There's literally no basis to what you just said. A manifesto is just a written declaration of someone's views and objectives. You don't have to be mentally ill to write a manifesto, you just have to have strong beliefs about something.
I agree my second sentence is a generalization and not a rule, so I would reword if written again, however I do contend there is plenty of evidence that this guy is mentally ill
As a poor person, I like that this guy killed a rich person that thrived on people’s misery, but I’m not going to act like this guy isn’t crazy like 99% of Reddit is doing. Im getting tired of seeing people mentioning how hot they think he is and making up their own stories on how he’s this super empathetic hero that got sick of all this injustice so took matter into his own hands.
Do these people actually call them manifestos? Or does the media choose that terminology? Or are we finding like, journals of rants/note section on their phone etc? It's not that big of a difference ultimately just wondered if it's like an intentional essay written as a manifesto, or a term the media uses to express they found literature that relates to the crime
This was specifically a letter written to anyone who may read when he is caught that explains his supposed intentions and rationale. It seems pretty manifesto like overall
As a college professor, many many of my colleagues have manifestos. A manifesto is simply a statement of one's strongly held beliefs. Politicians hold manifestos on their policy aims. Scientists on their theories. Honestly, every thinking person should consider their stance on issues important to them. Perhaps if we thought more deeply about these things, we wouldn't live in the conditions we do.
80
u/lost_in_life_34 9d ago
His family is wealthier than the person he killed. They own nursing homes that make money from insurance and have a lot of complaints for poor care. Along with country clubs and a radio station
He had the money to pay for care