Seriously though, don’t do violence.
“Your health insurance doesn’t want you to know this one cool trick!”
I certainly agree with that, but that agreement is not a call to violence, and definitely not an incitement of violence…from a legal perspective.
Legal smeagol. When the legal system (jury box) fails us, time to move on to the next box.
I don’t disagree, but I don’t want to get on the wrong side of any of the ToS. Or wind up on a government watch list.
You’re not even willing to risk THAT to help fight against evil?
I mean… I’m not willing to risk that for a meme post.
What do you think that the difference is between a meme post and public conversation?
I’m saying that framing a meme post as the fight against evil is a bit much.
There’s a public, digital record of one and a very slim chance (for most people) that anyone who would care is listening to the other.
The government stopped using watch lists. It’s easier just to watch everyone.
One of the things I remember Snowden saying about the NSA’s data collection is, something to the effect of, “It doesn’t even make sense. If you’re looking for a needle in a haystack, the answer isn’t more hay.” I was still outraged by the government’s collection of my meta data, but it did make me feel a little better about their ability weaponize that data competently.
It’s not so much the excess hay their collecting, it’s the giant electromagnetic they’re building.
If it works it works. Humans have been using as an effective way to accomplish things for millennia.
The current capitalism overlords may not be happy when it’s used the other way around to what they are used to.
Humans? You mean every living thing that ever existed?
“Violence is a precipitation of two sides unwilling to compromise.”
- Sun Tzu The Art of War
deleted by creator
Haiii helloo I’m a bit OOTL and I don’t live in the States.
I hear this CFO got killed and that the health insurance company was exceptionally awful. But I don’t understand the time limit on anesthesia part. What time limits? What’s that about? Like “you only get anesthesia for the first day you’re hospitalized” time limits?
Basically, BCBS was only going to reimburse the amount of anesthesia that government medical agencies estimate a procedure requires. So, an appendectomy is estimated to take an hour, but your surgery takes an hour and a half, then you’re on the hook for the anesthetic costs for the last 30 minutes. There was a lot of backlash to that decision, and I guess they’re taking backlash pretty seriously…for some reason.
Fucking hell… Don’t tell me whoever wrote that policy isn’t fucking evil. You cannot be a normal human being and come up with such cruelty.
So now you can go bankrupt over something that happened while you weren’t even conscious?
What the fuck
I see I see. Awful. Thanks for all the answers
They were considering putting a time limit on the anesthesia they would pay for during procedures. Have a complication and the surgery runs long? Guess you’re going to be in intense pain.
I think it would be the other way around: the doctors don’t stop giving you anesthesia if the surgry goes long, but now you wake up to it costing some extra thousands of dollars.
More like you will be on the hook for the anesthesia bill.
What is an extra several thousand dollars when you are already paying through the nose for insurance.
I bet they would make even more money if they just took your money and refused to ever pay out.
bet they would make even more money if they just took your money and refused to ever pay out.
You got new CEO written all over you. We’re also hiring.
Nice try UnitedHealthcare.
Insurance to COVER HEALTH COMPLICATIONS such as the complication that led to the surgery and THE GODDAMN COMPLICATIONS DURING SURGERY.
They proposed only paying for a certain amount of anesthesia during surgery, ie you are getting a kidney transplant you only get 45 min of anesthesia the rest wouldn’t be covered.
You know how in many industries there is a standard amount of time something takes and that determines the standard cost? Like it takes .5 work hours to change your oil so they charge .5 of labor + cost? Well, as I understand it, the plan was to limit the amount of anesthesia they’d cover based on the standard/expected time a medical procedure would take.
“In other words, if a procedure takes longer than expected, patients may wake up to an unexpected bill.” https://www.prevention.com/health/a63104965/blue-cross-blue-shield-anthem-insurance-anesthesia-time-limit/
Its Afraid.
This is HORRIBLE! Now CEOS might Fear for their LIVES and in Turn make Decisions that HELP US! That’s SICK! We should let them KILL US without Consequence!
The legislature and violence monopoly are there to ensure all people have legal recourse instead of needing to turn to violence. If you corrupt that system and use it to oppress the masses, they become violent.
I neither agree with, nor condone violence, but it does not surprise me at all. Just surprised that it took so long.
Violence from the masses requires the masses to feel like they are starving, sick, and dying with no way out except death. We have been slowly accelerating towards that violence for a while now.
Watch for an increase for those CEO’s, (at least insurance and pharmaceutical CEOs), to have much increased budget for private security measures. Both in surveillance and personnel. I think we will start to see more ‘black limo caravans’ like the the POTUS moves around in. And being surrounded by people in black suits with guns openly visible. They will do whatever it takes to stay alive and be evil.
The next question is: how long before politicians start becoming targets?
🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”
~ Asimov
And here we are, nailed to the fucking wall. I’m fine with expanding this “incompetence”.
The M4A movement was absolutely incompetent if you compared it to health insurance Super PACs. It was basically a bunch unpaid volunteers, many with their own medical debt, against fully salaried lobby groups paid for with our premiums, our denied claims.
So like, one rough day, and I mean really rough? Sounds familiar, wait it’s coming back… dictator but only on day one - that kind of thing?
I feel like Asimov’s statement has to be couched in some larger discussion. Taken in a vacuum, I can see some merit, but I can’t say that I completely agree with it. Incompetent in what aspect? I feel that his quote ignores intention. For some, violence isn’t something that they’re resorting to due to a failure to communicate through conflict, it is the preferred tool for the job. He comes off a little condescending and armchair intellectual-y here. I prefer the Sun Tzu quote someone mentioned earlier in the thread, “Violence is a precipitation of two sides unwilling to compromise.”
yeah I love Asimov but the quote is stupid. What is a slave supposed to do to it’s master? Write a strongly worded letter? Beg for others to save them?
Violence absolutely makes sense when there’s no diplomatic solution and unfortunately quarter into the 21st century - where we should have personal robots and moon bases - that is still a pretty big issue.
If life was a story book probably pleed their case to a rich influence noble or seduce a bishop and have them work to slowly change society and in 70 years it works out by using the system to change things from within… end of story
Real life: Then some dbag who likes the old ways will ruin everything and here we are going back to square one.
Denying healthcare = violence
When you crush folks into the ground for decades, ensure there’s no legal recourse, and bleed them for every dollar until the money runs red. It’s hardly a surprising outcome.
Here’s the song that’s been playing in my head last couple days, for no related reason: https://youtu.be/o9mJ82x_l-E?si=y7r9kDydchPhNPAp
Not sure if you know the reason for the song, but here is the info behind it… the actual footage was brutal as well.
A Song Inspired by an Infamous Suicide
Patrick found the lyrical inspiration for “Hey Man Nice Shot” from the January 1987 suicide of Pennsylvania State Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer. It occurred on the day Dwyer was to be sentenced for 11 counts of bribery for which he had faced up to 55 years in prison and a $305,000 fine, according to an Associated Press article from the time. No money was said to have exchanged hands. The public official spent 20 minutes on live television proclaiming his innocence, then shot himself to death. The incident shocked family, friends, and political associates, not to mention the viewing audience.
Wasn’t that the guy who was later found to be innocent? He tried to fight the charges, got convicted, killed himself, and THEN they figured out he really didn’t do it?
I saw that video when I was in middle school and found out later in my teens that song was about that headshot. It’s a good song.
I prefer this one for obvious reasons.
This is my jam this week
Oh damn, I don’t think I’ve heard that one in since I was in middle school.
I have a soft spot for what my friend calls, “divorced dad rock.”
To me this is, “rock my edgy older sister listened to.” Gave me a nice nostalgia hit too.
Here’s the song I’ve been thinking about
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm1nCYOZB-s&t=175s&pp=2AGvAZACAQ%3D%3D
Only in Connecticut
To most governments and some private citizens, violence is a tool
If violence isn’t a solution why does the government use it?
My experience with human rights acrivists is that they only fight for the assholes. Never saw a human rights activist in a foundraiser for children, but talk about murderers and rapists they are all love.
Yeah, because nobody else speaks up for those who’d be railroaded through court otherwise. You don’t ’see them speak up’ because those same people’s voice get lost in the crowd of everyone else’s outrage/support.
It’s trite but true, failure to defend the fringes leaves a smaller and smaller pool of resistance/solidarity:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Look I’ve heard human rights activists say that over and over again but you know what I think? You can look at a CHILD that was raped and say "sorry he deserves to be treated nicely, your values are crooked.
I’m NOT talking about the legal system that is indeed corrupt, I’m talking about people that confessed to murder and rape and you still go out of your way to defend that “he need nicer food”. He needs to burn in hell
If rights aren’t universal they may as well not exist. To defend the rights of another is to defend your own. Remember that next time you see the rights being violated of someone you feel deserves it.
So are you talking about prison reform? Because MOST people in prison are not there for rape or murder.
They fight to keep government overreach in check
I get that in a lot of circunstances BUT once you have confessed killers what do you want? Them to have a nice life?!
You’re doing violence to grammar with your “an.”
Better now?
Stupendous!
The state is nothing but a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. To a hammer, everything is a nail. To a state, everything is a target for violence.
The state even sometimes uses violence on itself.
See: Civil Wars.
I figure legitimate in this instance just means they won’t have any reason to expect repercussions for their acts of violence.
This sounds super motivational until you stop to think about how the only thing worse than legitimate violence is the endless horrors of ILLegitimate violence. Solidarity is nothing but a stance of pure aggressivity towards those neighbors outside of your community
So just because it’s sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of ‘government’ it’s immediately moral and good violence?
Here’s a freebie thought experiment I had to pay a PoliSci professor for; if tomorrow the democratically elected government passed a law that from today forward, all babies with blue eyes will be euthanized at birth, is that legal?
Yes. 100% legal. And 100% morally bankrupt.
Consent of the governed is the bedrock of civil society - the ghouls that run big business seem to have forgotten/don’t care that legality does not equal morality.
You win my most obvious strawman award. I really tried to find how any of this pertains to any part of my comment and gave up. I still like your pretty metaphors despite the absence of logical meaning
Those look like sentences but it’s weird… I’m not seeing any meaning here.
Precisely what I was trying to highlight–many thanks for the confirmation comrade
The state is nothing but a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
Which, ideally, is pretty much how it has to work. The state is, ideally, composed of elected representatives and their appointees. The alternative to violence monopolized by elected representatives is violence distributed to private interests. State monopoly of legitimate violence is not great and I agree with the problems inherent to that, but realistically the alternative seems worse. I’m racking my brain for another system, but I can’t think of anything that doesn’t devolve to oligarch-led private armies oppressing people.
state is, ideally, composed of elected representatives
oligarch-led private armies oppressing people.
They’re the same picture.
Elections are a venue for competiting oligarchs - US elections are largely just a wealth check - with the bonus that afterwards people feel they’ve chosen their oligarchs and are less likely to notice that 90%+ of elected representatives only represent the interest of elites.
I do the same thing at work when I need mentally ill people to do what I say. “You can do what I want version A, or do what I want version B, which one?” always works better than “Do what I want!”
I agree that violence management is a very difficult problem with no easy solution. But I don’t think giving full control of legitimate violence to the rich is the best solution, which is what a state of elected representatives does.
Still, there’s the friction of checks and balances. It’s certainly not perfect, far from it, but the alternative is still worse.
It’s A solution, just not the preferred one.
Aw man. You’re gonna bring the “I like hospitals and roads but not taxes” crowd out of the wood work, claiming governments are just warlords with good PR.
Because the US government has more guns than any other entity on the planet. There’s no fight it loses.
lol
The Vietnamese peasants and farmers beg to differ.
afganistan, lol
Afghanistan and Vietnam come to mind.
If the us government where to go to war with its own populous it would destroy the very wealth they sought to control.
yeah except for basically all of them
