The killing of a rich person is viewed by many as an " us vs them", but people fail to realize that those we think is as THEM are actually US, amirite?

There's a different between "yeah it's human impulse to be greedy" and a guy who knowingly used faulty a.i to deny people insurance, next thing you'll tell me I should shed a tear for Margaret Thatchet.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Somehow I doubt he was behind all of those things. There is definitely something that needs to change, but somehow I think violence is not going to solve it

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Then why is he a billionaire? If he is not behind all that, what justifies his compensation? Capital investment should be remunerated. But currently the profit is far from evenly distributed between capital and work

by Anonymous 9 months ago

I doubt he was behind all of those things. All? No. But regardless he profited greatly from it.

by ricedenis 9 months ago

No, he wasn't "behind it". That's some idea person several floors below. However, he had to have signed off on it because it is a tremendous change in the way healthcare decisions are made, had already been shown to be a faulty diagnostic tool, and certainly became problematic quickly, which he would then have been responsible to make the decision to continue with it. That's what the C Suite does- makes those decisions. And he led the C Suite. He's not a scapegoat, he was the ultimate decision maker- i.e. he's responsible.

by Jaida67 9 months ago

So I agree that something needs to change there. Insurance should not be' for profit' . . I'm just not sure this is a road we want to go down.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

All? No, but he supported it.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

so basically, no one should ever be a billionaire because its good for no one 👍

by SongCompetitive3867 9 months ago

I agree. It is a sickness to want to consume like that

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Rich =/= Bourgeoisie. If you give a poor guy a bunch of money, yeah, they might end up with a 5 bathroom mansion somewhere, but a mansion is not the problem with rich people. The problem with rich people is where they get their money. The random poor person turned billionaire didn't get their money through unethical means presumably, but all the existing billionaires, with VERY FEW exception, got their money from unethical places. Especially anyone related to the USA's healthcare and insurance system. When people say eat the rich, they don't mean eat people with more than 6 figures in their bank account, they mean eat the people who have extracted their wealth from the pockets of the working class, landlords for example.

by brennaupton 9 months ago

All billionaires are horrible. "They don't make a billion dollars, they take a billion dollars"

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Precisely.

by brennaupton 9 months ago

is op 13?

by Rudy94 9 months ago

What are you talking about? Giving a poor person certain amount of money does not mean that person is rich. Wealth is about more than the money in your bank account. It is "us vs them" if them is the super-rich and us is everyone else. There is a real difference between those two categories, you saying there isn't doesn't make ANY sense at all!

by Anonymous 9 months ago

This is demonstrably not true.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

So greed is simply a "state" (meaning current status or condition) thing rather than a "person" or "character" thing, in your eyes?

by Anonymous 9 months ago

I just think greed is an addiction. Some people have better control over their addictions than others, however, everyone is susceptible to addiction in some way, so it's just a matter of what your addiction is and how it will effect those around you

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Yes greed is the problem I'm not sure there's a cure for greed maybe greed is the loss of empathy and love for others

by Excellent-Candy 9 months ago

Yep. Put most people into the same position and they'll take it every day of the week. The only reason they can criticize is because they can't make that decision in the first place.

by MentionSpecial 9 months ago

Right. I mean.. if you ask some poor guy " you can be the CEO and make millions, but you'll need to take advantage of the poor".. most would say no to that, however, if you start out as just a small guy in that same company, most will accept little tiny advantages over others to end up in that same CEO position. They just ok it in small increments .. and that doesn't make it any better

by Anonymous 9 months ago

I disagree. Some people lean towards good, some lean towards bad. When given the option of getting away with bad, that is when their true nature is revealed. I have ancestors in all social layers. Some spent their money on growing extra crops for the poor. One changed the laws to better the living conditions of his people. Some were hated by all commoners for their ruthless and greedy nature. Power doesn't corrupt. It just shines a light on the darkest corners of a bad persons soul.

by Anonymous 9 months ago

most people wouldn't be happy increasing their already huge and more than sufficient paycheck on the mass deaths of people

by Anonymous 9 months ago

I have never as a part of my job made decisions that caused the deaths of others

by ricedenis 9 months ago

So to you that are think it's ok to go around killing rich people to try and " fix and even things out", you're actually just as bad as the rich guy that takes home a 20 million bonus. You might believe you'd act differently if you were in the others position, and it's true you might for a while, but you will also soon find yourself buying things you don't need. Greed is the problem, and that is what needs to " fixed",.. though I have no clue how that is done :

by Anonymous 9 months ago

Social Murder - The phrase was coined by Friedrich Engels in his 1845 work The Condition of the Working-Class in England whereby "the class which at present holds social and political control" (i.e. the bourgeoisie) "places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death".[1] This was in a different category to murder and manslaughter committed by individuals against one another, as social murder explicitly was committed by the political and social elite against the poorest in society.[1]" I give him as much pity as he gave the families he denied healthcare. By pointing fingers at the general public, it dismisses the real question: What did the insurance company do to deserve such anger. To be clear, I'm against violence and back the blue.

by Anonymous 9 months ago