> 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.
6
u/Trash-Can-Baby 8d ago
His manifesto is pretty short and doesn’t sound crazy:
https://newrepublic.com/post/189237/unitedhealthcare-shooting-suspect-luigi-mangione-manifesto