I've been a little unsure about how to approach this Untied Healthcare murder story because I have friends who worked closely and knew Brian Thompson pretty well. But in short this was an absolute tragedy. Yet, we've seen days of response from the APL who've been almost gloating about his murder, with virtually zero evidence of restraint. Now we find out that the murder is very likely (based on what we know and his background) someone who leans to the left politically, I suspect that things will quiet down pretty quickly in terms of media, especially social.
Regardless of how bad the US health insurance industry seems screwed up, and there is plenty to not like, there is no justification for either the murder or the self satisfied "He got what he deserved" attitude among all too many leftists.
48 comments:
But in short this was an absolute tragedy. Yet, we've seen days of response from the APL who've been almost gloating about his murder, with virtually zero evidence of restraint.
Some large group of outliers - not "the media," not "the Democrats," but actual people who have been actively harmed by the Insurance Industry - have expressed some amount of schaudenfraude about the murder of this industry leader in an industry that has committed great harm to large numbers of people.
The people harmed by the Insurance Industry have not been isolated to "liberals," but has included people across the political spectrum, from what I've seen. Including the wealthy and privileged man from a conservative background who committed the murder.
(For what it's worth, I've seen nothing that says this man from a rich, privileged, conservative background was acting on behalf of liberal ideals. Not sure what you're reading.)
It is a tragedy that this man was murdered by a privileged white man from an apparently conservative background.
AND, it is a tragedy that health policies have been so dominated and harmed by a FOR PROFIT system of "insurance" that causes so much harm.
Do you disagree?
Regardless of how bad the US health insurance industry seems screwed up, and there is plenty to not like, there is no justification for either the murder or the self satisfied "He got what he deserved" attitude among all too many leftists.
Do you have ANY evidence that the schaudenfraude is coming only from "leftists?" I've seen such comments coming from across the political spectrum.
Murder is wrong. So is abusing a medical system with an eye for profit, rather than health care.
Has a Biden or Harris or ANY significant progressive said it was okay to murder someone, even a leader of a morally bankrupt profiteering scheme that has harmed thousands/tens of thousands/millions???
I'd be willing to bet not.
How sad to be touched by such a reprehensible act.
Sadder still is the reality that these types of events are so much more often perpetrated by leftists than by any on the ideological right. This is true regardless of what progressive, grace-embracing liars from Louisville KY would tell you. This fact is validated further by the many social media posts of morons pretending the act was just and righteous. The vile say such things when vile acts are perpetrated. We're seeing more of it with the liars of BLM, for whom black lives don't really matter much at all, but posture in that way when a potential financial windfall is possible.
"Do you disagree?"
Yes. Everything I've seen, most of it either gleeful or attempts to justify the murder is from sources or accounts that are left leaning. I've seen no one who's even remotely right leaning posting justifications for this murder.
That you still identify this guys background as "conservative" given the fact that the DFL is now the party of billionaires (see the last election), and the rich coastal elites, without actually looking at the individual tells me how little you care about actual facts when committing to a narrative. Given the fact that the US higher education system and the Ivy League schools in particular are bastions of left wing philosophy, suggests that he was likely left leaning as well.
The very fact that this notion that the insurance industry has "harmed" people and that the "harm" justifies this action is exactly what I find repugnant. It's strange that y'all don't get as upset about the people "harmed" by waiting months for treatment and being pushed towards euthanasia by Canada's system as you do about the US system. Especially after the ACA raised prices.
What was United Healthare's profit margin for the most recent year with available data? Is that profit margin excessive? If so, by what definition?
Please show objective data that "for profit" health insurance causes "so much harm"? Please show with objective data what exactly "so much harm" is? Please show with objective data, how you determine that "so much harm" is specifically caused only by "for profit" insurance? Please show with objective data, how "so much harm" exceeds some objective standard of harm?
Any comments of yours received after 9:30 AM Central Time on December 11, 2024 which do not address the above questions immediately, specifically, and with objective data from neutral sources will be held in moderation until every single one of the above questions is answered. Further, they will be answered in a 1:1 question to answer format. For example...
Q1.
A1.
There will be no exceptions. If you are going to complain about other not proving their claims, than you will live up to the standard you demand of others on my blog.
Yes, I disagree with your unproven claims.
Yes, I've seen all sorts of crap across multiple platforms from leftists. If you are going to make these sorts of unsupported claims and expect them to be believed, the least you could do is hold others to the same standard.
"So is abusing a medical system with an eye for profit, rather than health care."
1. Please provide objective proof that anyone is "abusing a medical system...".
2. Interesting that you don't seem to scrutinize the "trans" medical industrial complex for it's huge profits the same way you do insurance companies. Please prove that the "trans" medical industrial complex is less profit driven than insurance companies by providing the profit margins for the drs and hospitals that "trans" children and comparing them with the profit margins of insurance companies.
3. Please prove with objective data that insurance companies profit more than any other player in the US healthcare system.
The same rules above apply to any questions in this response as well.
I'll note here, that you haven't once in your two comments actually criticized those who are supportive of, justify, or celebrate this murder.
"even a leader of a morally bankrupt profiteering scheme that has harmed thousands/tens of thousands/millions???"
If you're going to make these sorts of claims, you'll need to actually prove them. So, please provide the type of proof expected in my earlier questions to prove this this claim is objectively True. Obviously, the same rules apply.
That your excuse for the large number of liberals justifying this murder is that Biden or Harris haven't done so is again evidence of your idiocy.
What IS strange is that Biden and Harris have been totally silent on the matter (from what I've seen). No expressions of condolence, no attempts to use this for political gain, nothing. Hell, Harris has been hiding since she lost, and Biden is focused on shoveling cash out of the country before he leaves office.
This turn you've taken where you justify murders and those who threaten violence to innocent people, is interesting. Where you imply that murder is sometimes justified even if it's still somehow "wrong" is a strange position for someone who claims that all harm is bad. Your complete lack of sympathy expressed for the family, coworkers, and friends who've lost a loved one is callous and yet completely expected.
Art,
The very fact the so many recent high profile events of this type have been perpetrated by left wind people, who have been very upfront about their political positions is something that doesn't necessarily surprise me. When the left wing narrative is that everything they don't like is "evil" or done by "NAZIs", how is it surprising that their followers will take them seriously and use violence to get rid of the "evil" or "NAZIs". I shouldn't have to list these events, but Dan'll whine because he's too captured in his echo chamber to be aware, so I'll mention the following. Two assassination attempts on Trump, the assassination attempt on Scalise and others, Covington, and the car ramming the parade in WI, to name a few.
It is strange that seeking profit is evil when those who do so provide a service (a service MANDATED by P-BO), yet the left doesn't seem to care when various left wing grifters (BLM for example) use these tragedies to raise billions of dollars that never seem to go anywhere but into the pockets of the organizers. Again with the double standard.
That Dan, an alleged paragon of concern and follower of a christ, can muster not one tiny bit of sympathy for those who are suffering this loss, speak volumes about his character and what christ he follows. His christ clearly is not the one that said to "love your enemies", nor the one who showed compassion for those bereaved by death. His christ is one who'll take advantage of a tragedy and use it for political purposes.
Dan,
I am absolutely serious about the conditions under which any further comments on this topic will make it through moderation. Let me also be absolutely clear, that I am NOT threatening to delete your comments, nor will I misrepresent them. I have taken the fairly unusual step (based on holding you to the standards you demand of others) and placed some specific restrictions on the content and form of comments where you answer all of the specific and direct questions you've been asked. This is temporary and will immediately be lifted once you do as you've been asked.
Once again, I want to be clear on why this is being done. It is a direct result of your claim that "...when I ask you to support your fact claims or admit that they are only your unsupported, subjective opinions and you opt not to do so, you are spreading harmful gossip and slander which undermines decency and honesty and you won't do that on my page.".
If that's your standard, then live up to the standard you demand of others. It's pretty simple.
FYI, when I ask for profit margin, I expect the net profit margin. That is the only number that really matters. For people who aren't in the business world, and who don't understand who things work, margins are the most critical measure of health of an organization.
For all of the whining about grocery stores price gouging, the profit margins of grocery stores are around 2%, which isn't much by any standard and can easily be erased by a number of factors.
Finally, while we're whining about insurance companies profits, I didn't hear many lefties bitching too much about Biden writing a blank check to various Big Pharma companies for the "vaccine" and what their margins looked like during COVID.
"My concern is that the health care for-profit model as exists in the US has negative results, keeps people away from healthcare and results in less-healthy people, including many who die for lack of healthcare (amongst other reasons)."
Dan has made an attempt to respond to my questions, although his execution is lacking. As we see above he's continuing to make these claims, yet offers (so far) no proof. He's asserting that he's made no claims about "profit margin" (which is technically accurate), yet profit margin is the most common measure of the financial health of a company. It seems germane to know what profit is being made if one is to criticize the making of a profit.
I seriously doubt that Dan can draw a direct line between his above claim and the existence of for profit insurance companies. Non profit insurance companies exist in the US as do programs like Medicare and Medicaid. What we're left with is one more claim that is made with zero proof.
"How much data would you like?"
Data that specifically and directly answers the specific questions I asked, from independent, objective sources.
Continuing with providing hard, objective data to answer Craig's question, as he asked me to do:
"More than 26 260 Americans aged 25 to 64 died in 2006 because they lacked health insurance"
But what of those who don't have insurance in the UK, France, the Netherlands, etc... Oh, wait. They ALL have universal health insurance. My son who got sick while in Peace Corps in the relatively poor nation of Albania was able to be treated... because ALBANIA has universal health care, and he wasn't even a citizen! Same for when he was in Taiwan.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2323087/
I'd say 26,000 people dying a year due to our health system is a problem and a legitimate harm. Do you think so?
More:
"Main takeaways include:
* About half of U.S. adults say it is difficult to afford health care costs, and one in four say they or a family member in their household had problems paying for health care in the past 12 months. Younger adults, those with lower incomes, adults in fair or poor health, and the uninsured are particularly likely to report problems affording health care in the past year...
* The cost of prescription drugs prevents some people from filling prescriptions. About one in five adults (21%) say they have not filled a prescription because of the cost...
* Those who are covered by health insurance are not immune to the burden of health care costs. About half (48%) of insured adults worry about affording their monthly health insurance premium...
* Health care debt is a burden for a large share of Americans. About four in ten adults (41%) report having debt due to medical or dental bills including debts owed to credit cards...
https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/americans-challenges-with-health-care-costs/
As you can see, aside from the harms, illness and death that come from not having universal health care, there are also the harms of the wildly more expensive health care - harms to the economy writ large, harms to household economies and harms to healthcare due to not being able to afford medicines and treatments.
You don't have that so much with universal healthcare systems, apparently. Or so, the data seems to say.
So... you're wanting me to provide support that I don't have about claims I have not made because... why?
Would you like for me to address concerns about long-term space travel on human bodies and how that might impact proposed colonization of Mars, too... or other topics I haven't raised?
That's strange.
Dan posted a link to The Commonwealth Fund. This is not an objective fact finding organization, it is an advocacy group which is pursuing an agenda. According to Dan's standards of not accepting "data" from advocacy groups as objective data, I'll have to disqualify this as proof. Further, if the report says what Dan claims it says, it doesn't specifically answer the specific questions I asked in the form I requested.
As for his second link to the WHS, it provided a graph, but no actual explanation of the factors studied. For example, in the "spending" per person, does that include the high taxes paid for health care or the push for euthanasia in places like Canada as a way to lower costs?
Okay, addressing YOUR questions that have nothing to do with ANYTHING I've said, here's one source:
Despite significant initial financial losses in the individual market after the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took effect,
health insurer profitability in the individual market has risen due to substantial premium increases,
government premium tax credits that pay for those premium increases, and the large, government-funded, Medicaid expansion. Since ACA
implementation on January 1, 2014, health insurance stocks outperformed the S&P 500 by 106 percent."
And who is this sketchy source where I found this?
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Profitability-of-Health-Insurance-Companies.pdf
Ha.
Or, how about a whistleblower FROM the health industry, talking about the great costs of the for-profit/Wall Street/pay investors strategy of health insurance companies:
Restricting patients’ access to needed care made UnitedHealth, Cigna and a handful of other big insurers Wall Street darlings, and made lots of people lots of money while doing little to enhance care...
Hundreds of acquisitions later, UnitedHealth is now the fourth largest U.S. company — just behind Walmart, Amazon, and Apple. At the end of trading on Monday of this week, the share price was $560.62.
That’s an increase of more than 2,100% since June 24, 2009.
By comparison, the Dow Jones average has increased 438%.
https://www.statnews.com/2024/12/11/wall-street-unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-brian-thompson/
As for the Forbes article, again no direct answers to specific questions, no specific proof of Dan's claims, and nothing that contradicts what I said about the US healthcare system being flawed.
Dan's focus on only one aspect of the system, "for profit insurance" and his understanding, sympathetic position toward someone who'd murder an innocent person doesn't prove his claims or answer my questions. Especially not in the form I've asked for.
I rarely ask for questions to be answered in a particular format, but in this case I have. I suspected that Dan would do exactly what he's done, spew a lot of vague, general, and random "data" as a way to cover the fact that he hasn't answered the questions.
"So... you're wanting me to provide support that I don't have about claims I have not made because... why?"
No, I'm asking you to answer specific questions in a specific format, based on the claims you have made.
It's clear that you have chosen not to do so, which puts me in a quandary.
If I post your spewing of random "data", despite the fact that it doesn't answer the specific questions in the format I asked for, it allows you to impose control over my blog and the content thereof.
If I don't, I violate my principle of posting your idiocy for everyone to see and can't demonstrate that you've failed to answer the questions asked, in the format requested.
I'll have to think about it. But for now, they stay in moderation until you answer specific questions in the specific format.
FYI, "I don't know" in regard to information easily found is a really stupid non answer answer.
Your lack of understanding of basic aspects of business and capitalism is showing as you confuse things like stock price and information from 2018 to be relevant in this conversation.
I think I'll copy paste that comment below as an example of your choice not to play by some simple, temporary rules.
"Okay, addressing YOUR questions that have nothing to do with ANYTHING I've said, here's one source:
Despite significant initial financial losses in the individual market after the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took effect,
health insurer profitability in the individual market has risen due to substantial premium increases,
government premium tax credits that pay for those premium increases, and the large, government-funded, Medicaid expansion. Since ACA
implementation on January 1, 2014, health insurance stocks outperformed the S&P 500 by 106 percent."
And who is this sketchy source where I found this?
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Profitability-of-Health-Insurance-Companies.pdf
Ha.
Or, how about a whistleblower FROM the health industry, talking about the great costs of the for-profit/Wall Street/pay investors strategy of health insurance companies:
Restricting patients’ access to needed care made UnitedHealth, Cigna and a handful of other big insurers Wall Street darlings, and made lots of people lots of money while doing little to enhance care...
Hundreds of acquisitions later, UnitedHealth is now the fourth largest U.S. company — just behind Walmart, Amazon, and Apple. At the end of trading on Monday of this week, the share price was $560.62.
That’s an increase of more than 2,100% since June 24, 2009.
By comparison, the Dow Jones average has increased 438%.
https://www.statnews.com/2024/12/11/wall-street-unitedhealthcare-ceo-shooting-brian-thompson/"
"Now, I'm done answering questions about something I haven't stated a position on."
Given that you haven't actually answered any questions in the format requested, it seem strange that you'd say that you are done.
That you think that providing "data" that people aren't happy with healthcare in the US is some kind of big "win" for you, think again. If you think I'm defending the system, you're an idiot.
The issue is whether or not some number of people being some degree of annoyed is justification to kill someone. You clearly seem to lean (maybe slightly) toward the side that is idolizing this guy.
That you don't understand business is clear. That you ignore the excessive waits for basic services, the lack of equipment for things like MRIs in a timely fashion, and the fact that people either die waiting or are encouraged to choose euthanasia in Canada and other countries in you love affair with socialized medicine is your problem. We already pay well over 60% of our income in taxes, but let's add more for healthcare.
Hell, prices went up after the passage of the ACA and it required people to pay for insurance they would never need or use in order to subsidize others. It removed the option for the young and healthy to by policies for catastrophic care only.
If you want to argue that the health care system in the US needs an overhaul, you'll get no argument from me. If you want to argue that "for profit insurance" is the single or even primary cause of the problem, then you're just pushing an agenda.
I still don't know what to do with your comments as they are instructive and give insight into your thought process and tactics for exerting control over someone else's blog post, yet fall so far short of actually complying with my requests...
The problem is you claim that your consistent views allow us to make assumptions about your positions, yet you refuse to specifically condemn this murderer, the antisemitic protests, Trump's would be assassin, the WI parade maniac, and the Christian school shooter. You hide behind your bullshit consistency, then jump into justifications and rationalizations to explain why this or that person had a reason why the murdered/looted/burned/shot/etc.
"No. No. Of course, it's not."
Yet you still can't actually bring yourself to say that Brian Thompson should not have been murdered or express any sympathy to his family, friends, and co workers. You hide behind these generalities, as a way to avoid being as critical of people on "your side" when they do things like this, while excoriating anyone who you can credibly refer to as "right wing" in a similar circumstance. Exactly as you've done here, you try to paint the shooter as some sort of "right wing" person with no evidence (other than it fitting your narrative), while ignoring what he's actually said. You emphasize that people are justifiably angry, yet just can't specifically criticize this angry guy beyond trying to paint him as a conservative. You just have to jam this into your "it's always right wing" types regardless of the facts.
Look. I posted your non answers and I'm not going to post any more of your comments on this thread because you made a choice and your choice has consequences.
OH NO! "CONSEQUENCES!!"
I GAVE a direct and factual answer to your nonsense question that had nothing to do with anything I've said. I LITERALLY do not know what UH profit margin is. THAT is the answer. I spent one minute trying to find it on the google to appease your irrational demand and didn't find it. I don't KNOW and I didn't find it.
When I, on my blog, expect people to give objective data, it's when they make a claim. THAT is rational.
Asking me to provide data about profit margins or about the number of angels who can dance on the head of the pin has NOTHING to do with what I have said.
You're being obtuse and irrational, little buddy.
Are you getting less able to converse at an adult level as you get older? You used to seem more reasonable than this.
you still can't actually bring yourself to say that Brian Thompson should not have been murdered or express any sympathy to his family, friends, and co workers.
ALL MURDER IS WRONG. As I've said. WHICH MEANS THAT BRIAN THOMPSON'S MURDER IS WRONG. It's wrong to kill people, including CEOs, including Brian Thompson.
Would you like me to do a mourning dance and rend my garment and sprinkle my head with ashes, too?
Don't be obtuse.
there is no justification for either the murder or the self satisfied "He got what he deserved" attitude among all too many leftists.
Provide some data that shows those who are rudely celebrating this man's assassination are exclusively or even mainly "leftists." OR admit that you are just guessing and don't really know.
"When I, on my blog, expect people to give objective data, it's when they make a claim. THAT is rational."
You'd think, then, that when you make claims you wouldn't balk at providing objective data to prove your claims.
"Asking me to provide data about profit margins..."
Except it does.
1. If their profit margin showed a loss, that would be vital information, would it not?
2. If their profit margin was 50%, that might also indicate an area of concern.
3. Unless your issue is with the very concept of making a profit for providing a service, in which case it might not mater but it does indicate much about you.
"You're being obtuse and irrational, little buddy."
If by "obtuse and irrational", you mean that I've asked you direct/specific questions and asked that you answer them in a direct/specific way, then yes I am. If you mean that I'm not simply allowing you to take over the thread and exert control, also True. Although neither of those is obtuse or irrational, they're common sense. I'm merely expecting of you what you expect of others. Yet, somehow the notion of living up to the standards you demand of others gets your dander up.
"Are you getting less able to converse at an adult level as you get older?"
Nope, I'm just getting less and less willing to allow you to try to control conversations, avoid answering questions directly and specifically, and doing what I said I'd do. That you refused to do as I asked, and to throw all sorts of random "data" against the wall, (which I expected) got you what I said it would. That you have to resort this this childish crap, is interesting.
"You used to seem more reasonable than this."
Well, maybe years of dealing with you and your bullshit has worn me down and I've chosen to attempt to put limits on your bullshit and hold you to the same standards you hold others to more explicitly.
"Would you like me to do a mourning dance and rend my garment and sprinkle my head with ashes, too?"
Nope, just act like a human being who claims to follow Christ and lead off with at least the tiniest bit of sympathy for the victim and a specific condemnation for the killer. Like you did with Neely. You know, stop with the double standard.
"It's wrong to kill people, including CEOs, including Brian Thompson."
Still can't do it. You just can't simply express sympathy for an individual who was murdered, without tying it to some left wing political statement.
"Provide some data that shows those who are rudely celebrating this man's assassination are exclusively or even mainly "leftists." OR admit that you are just guessing and don't really know."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/what-the-murder-of-the-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-means-to-america
It'll be difficult to go back and dig up more, but usually when the criticism echos stock liberal talking points, it seems reasonable to conclude the comment comes from a liberal. Of course, you aren't even going to bother proving your claim about any of these responses coming from anyone "right wing", because you just don't prove your claims.
""Are you getting less able to converse at an adult level as you get older?""
This is hilarious. Dan doesn't converse at an adult level. An adult doesn't begin respectfully and then devolve rapidly into a petulant little girl and start deleting comments for the any reason the petulant little girl can insist is a valid reason. Adults don't equivocate, deflect, avoid direct questions. Petulant little Danny-girl does.
""Would you like me to do a mourning dance and rend my garment and sprinkle my head with ashes, too?""
Repeatedly hitting your own face with hammer would be extremely satisfying.
"That goes both ways."
Dan wastes an entire comment acknowledging that he has no earthly idea whether or not "conservatives" are engaging in the expressions of glee over this murder, then closes with one more unproven claim.
"Again, I ask you a rather simple question: DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA THAT SAYS ALL OR EVEN MOST of the people acting rudely about this man's murder are liberals?"
Based on what I've observed over the last few days, the majority/entirety of what I have observed is from people who are on the political left. Am I going to dig back through days of various media pull out a bunch of examples then follow the history of the source back to "prove" to you that they are left wing. No. Because nothing I offer will be good enough for you, and you refuse to do what you ask from me.
For example. There was a news story that I'll post a link to (along with some date to counter your claims about life span being the best measure of health care) where the local NBC affiliate (KARE 11) reported that a professor at UM Mankato expressed their wish that Mangione had been a "serial killer". Based on the data we have (https://www.kpcnews.com/opinions/article_72a36307-576f-517e-8a43-64eb7f024e27.html), there is a high percentage chance that the identification as a college professor alone indicates that the poster is left wing. But if you want to assume that this professor advocating additional murder is merely expressing schadenfreude based on their personal harm from an insurance company, go right ahead.
"For instance, ALL the times that your doctors recommend Treatment A but then, an anonymous insurance expert says, "No, we don't agree with your doctor who has actually been with you and knows your case... request denied!""
1. If by "all the times" that this has happened to me, you mean zero then sure.
2. That there is a process to go through to move past an initial denial apparently slipped your mind.
3. That people die in the UK and Canada waiting for access to medical services and diagnostic tools that can be accessed within days in the US apparently doesn't meet your standard of harm.
4. How many of those denials are because the patient has chosen a plan that doesn't cover the condition they've been diagnosed with?
5. Are there not multiple choices of insurance companies, plans within those companies, and non traditional medical cost sharing options available?
6. Are you aware that government run healthcare systems both ration/deny care, and encourage euthanasia as a cost saving measure?
"What the hell kind of arrogance is that?"
Yes, simply accepting every single test or treatment that any given Dr wants to engage in (without regard for the competence and honesty of the Dr), without actually going through a process to make sure that the treatment is the absolute best option is arrogant. Denying name brand drugs prescribed by a Dr (who gets a kickback from Big Pharma for prescribing the name brand) in favor of a generic is "arrogance". Or denying an off label use of a drug or an experimental treatment without even questioning the efficacy is "arrogance".
"HOW is that a just or rational system?"
Who has decreed that the US healthcare system must absolutely be "just and rational" according to Dan's interpretation of "just and rational"?
FYI, if you don't like the US healthcare system Canada is a relatively short drive north. You are completely free to live out your convictions that a healthcare system run by a government is always the objectively better option.
I'm faced with a dilemma. I have no desire to allow Dan's pointless comments to pollute this thread in an attempt to move the conversation in the direction Dan desires it go, yet I also have no desire to go against my standard of posting Dan's idiocy for all to see. Yet I don't want to have them filling up my moderation queue either.
I will agree that Dan showing even a tiny bit of sympathy for the victims of left wing violence would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps if he were to treat the perpetrators of left wing violence with the same disdain, vitriol and hatred as he does those he claims are right wing.
As often happens when Dan graces my blog with his wisdom and manages to drag threads all over the place based on whatever he wants to communicate, I forgot what the point of the post actually is.
The point of the post is that, regardless of your hunches and theories about the state of the US healthcare system, that engaging in premeditated murder is an inappropriate way to express your displeasure, as is demonstrating a "he got what he deserved" or "too bad it wasn't serial killing" attitude on/in various media. Regardless of the political persuasion of those who make those sorts of comments, to do so is vile and disgusting. Further, those that engage in justifying or attempting to minimize the vile behavior are part of the problem, not the solution.
This post isn't the place to bitch about the problems with the US healthcare system, it's not the place for biased "data" from advocacy groups, it's not the place for a one sided glorification of socialized medicine. It's the place to express sympathy for the family, friends, and co workers of the deceased and to decry those who want to encourage, justify, or minimize the murder of someone.
Therefore, I'm done with comments that are off of the topic of this post.
If your response to this murder is anything other than, "How horrible, what an unjustified, evil action." , then you should probably just move along.
Indeed, it IS a tragedy that this man was killed. Whatever the motive, it's wrong to just kill people, as I've been consistently clear about (would that you and yours would hold to the same belief consistently!)
AND, it is a tragedy when people gossip and slander and spread malicious lies about a whole group of people, suggesting that it's "the liberals" who are celebrating this man's murder. I'll remind us all that the Apostle Paul called gossip and slander great crimes, too. Indeed, Paul said that gossips and bad-mouthers were in the same league as murderers, sexual perverts, and God haters -- and that such sins were worthy of a death sentence!
I wish that people would not celebrate a man's death and I wish that others would not try to slander and murder the good name of a whole group of people, especially when he has NO DATA to try to broad brush those who appear to be celebrating a murder.
Right is right.
As regards these many expressions of glee and approval, they seem extraordinarily similar to those expressed by people after the Trump assassination attempt. To assume they are expressions of leftists is an incredibly safe bet to say the least.
But as we see Dan choosing to attack you for this "unsupported claim" instead of expressing sympathy for the victim, we see what his priorities are.
And yes, I will never assume anything about what Dan believes about any given situation, despite his laughable claims of "moral" consistency, because he's neither moral nor consistent, except perhaps on a most superficial level.
You were so close to actually showing sympathy. Then you have to add the bullshit lies and try to create false equivalencies.
Hut hey, y'all have your first copycat.
Oh, and Luigi was never insured by United Health and his back surgery apparently worked just fine.
Art,
This phenomenon seems to be happening more often anytime someone on the right is harmed for "political" reasons. The reason this is "unsupported" is that I have neither the time or inclination to dig back through a weeks worth of various media I've consumed, dig out the quotes, and demonstrate the political leanings of everyone, only to have Dan dismiss it for not being enough. On the scale of issues, hatred of for profit insurance companies tends to be a left wing issue.
I will believe that Dan's "moral consistency" is a very flexible thing that will bend however is necessary in order to avoid showing sympathy for those he opposes or criticism for those on his side.
By the way, have y'all expressed your sympathies in the killing of Jordan Neely? Expressed anger that a homeless, mentally ill man who'd committed no harm was choked to death publicly, with no one stopping the killer?
Again, consistency is often a good thing.
And Marshal, pointing out the inconsistency of opposing the killing of innocents only is SOME situations is not an attack. You and Craig are GLAD to stake the position that it was a moral good to bomb Hiroshima or to slaughter whole villages as in the Bible stories you take literally. I'm just noting the reality that you approve of some slaughters as acceptable and even moral.
It's not an attack to point out another's actual positions.
Dan
Given that this is off topic, I should ignore it, but it proves my point about Dan having a pathological need to force every thread off topic and exert control.
1. It's irrelevant, apples and oranges.
2. Jordan Neely was anything but innocent. I posted some of the highlights of his criminal career. Most notably his penchant for assaulting people.
3. Jordan Neely brought what happened to him on himself. He chose to threaten innocent people, he chose to continue to do so, he chose to resist the attempts of multiple people to subdue him.
4. On the other hand, Jordan Neely had the opportunity to control his own destiny. He could have beaten Penny physically. He could have run away. He could have stopped his behavior. He wasn't gunned down from behind for no reason.
5. He'd committed plenty of harm, he should have been incarcerated instead of threatening more people.
6. He was not dead when Penny released the choke hold.
7. We have ample evidence of Neely's lengthy criminal resume, yet I've seen nothing that definitively diagnoses him as "mentally ill".
8. If he was "mentally ill" and had an extensive history of harming innocent people, why was he not being treated?
9. We know that Neely refused both housing and treatment, is he not responsible for his own actions and choices?
10. Why are you ignoring the role of Penny's accomplice?
The problem is that both Art and I are both against the "killing of innocents", as well as against physically harming or threatening physical harm to innocents. The problem we have is when people like you try to gaslight others into believing that the not innocent are actually innocent.
Well, if your misrepresenting my position helps you feel better, then by all means, misrepresent away.
Except when you claim to be pointing out other's positions, but are really just making shit up.
But I appreciate that you have more sympathy for a career criminal, who'd actually harmed multiple innocent people and who was threatening multiple innocent people, than for a man with a family who was shot from behind in cold blood for nothing.
https://www.newsweek.com/jordan-neely-arrest-record-outrage-grows-subway-death-1798248
"Jordan Neely, 30, was yelling and pacing back and forth on an F train in Manhattan on Monday afternoon when he was restrained by at least three people,"
Strangely enough, you only want to pretend that it was only the white guy who was responsible, racist.
"They include four for alleged assault, while others involved accusations of transit fraud and criminal trespass. At the time of his death, Neely had one active warrant for an alleged assault in connection with a 2021 incident."
Your poor, innocent victim had an active warrant for assault, but you believe that he wasn't going to assault anyone on the train, despite his HISTORY of ASSAULT.
Strangely enough, all these folx who're using Neely's death to advance their various agendas did nothing to help him when he was alive.
If you really want to blame someone other than Neely for his predicament, blame the NYC justice system that kept letting him off.
A quick note. What Dan was attempting to do was to draw a (false) equivalence between his utter lack of sympathy for the brutal, premeditated, cowardly murder of an innocent man, and his fantasies about others lack of sympathy for someone who had the ability to prevent his own death. It's all about directing focus away from Dan's selective sympathy.
Regarding Neely and his mental illness, as reported in The Guardian and multiple other sources...
"Neely was struggling to stay afloat. After his mother was murdered by his stepfather in 2007, when Neely was 14, he developed severe depression and PTSD, and also had autism and schizophrenia, according to relatives. He bounced between homes before ending up in the foster care system. In 2013, the year he started riding the train with Espinal, he also began crossing paths with police – telling them he was hearing voices."
We don't blame people in wheelchairs for not climbing stairs. We ought not blame people with mental health concerns for having those. He needed help, not to be killed or criminalized.
Dan
Craig said, with no proof...
his fantasies about others lack of sympathy for someone who had the ability to prevent his own death. It's all about directing focus away from Dan's selective sympathy.
Stupidly false, of course. Have you ever known someone with serious mental health concerns, someone with delusions? Do you think it's just a simple, "Ignore that monster over there that's about to eat you, it's not real..." and the person in the midst of that sort of crisis can just turn it off?
If we can have sympathy for the utra-wealthy businessman killed by a rich white man because the privileged white man who killed the other was angry about what he perceived to be real policy problems from the first man, then can we NOT also have sympathy for a poor black man with mental health problems who was killed by another whilst having a mental health crisis?
WHY is it only the ones YOU decide deserve sympathy should have sympathy expressed for them?
Are you expressing ANY sympathy to the thousands (tens of thousands?) of children killed in Gaza? Is it only privileged wealthy white men who are deserving of sympathy?
re: "Dan's 'selective' sympathy..."
I've made it clear that the killing of BOTH of these men (the CEO and Neely) was a tragedy. I've made it clear that the killing of hundreds of innocent Jewish people on Oct 7 AND the killing of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians are both tragedies. WHO has selective sympathy, then?
We do, however, hold people responsible for their actions. In this case, multiple assaults and other crimes against people. Either that of just tell his victims that it's just too damn bad and that they just have to take their beatings because he chose not to get help.
Well done, you've manged to try to move the focus away from your lack of sympathy for an innocent man killed for no reason (although you have finally expressed some pro forma sympathy), to your excessive sympathy for a man who literally harmed innocent people, and was threatening to do so again.
I've never once claimed that I get to decide anything for other people. I leave that to you. The problem is that I'm not the one harping about harm as some sort of definitive measure, while making excuses for those who actually harm innocent people.
Sure, I've expressed all sorts of sympathy in Gaza to the thousands of children and elderly people sacrificed by Hamas in their quest to eliminate Israel and Jews from the face of the earth. I have plenty of sympathy for those brainwashed into attacking those who are innocent and who are used as human shields.
You finally, grudgingly expressed sympathy directly for Thompson although nothing for his family, friends, of co workers. You have offered pro forma sympathy for those innocent Israelis brutally killed, raped, and kidnapped, while simultaneously blaming them for the actions of Hamas. You've spouted pro Hamas propaganda and ignored the actions of Hamas and their responsibility for the majority of the deaths in Gaza.
No, your selective sympathy is on full display.
So... NO. You are NOT willing to express any sympathy for Neely.
And the only sympathy you're willing to express towards tens of thousands of slaughtered (by Israelis) Palestinian innocents is couched in terms of blaming Palestinians, not assigning blame between ALL the violent actors, Palestinian and Israeli.
Yes, we can see who has selective sympathy.
Dan
Not at all. However, my sympathy is tempered by his actions. To ignore his choices, actions, and behavior makes absolutely no sense.
If you're going to make shit up, at least make an attempt to stay close to reality.
As I actually said (ignoring the reality that "Palestinians" are not a race/creed/nationality), I do have great sympathy for the people of Gaza who are being used and sacrificed by Hamas. That I am sympathetic to their plight, does not require me to ignore reality or history. Had Hamas not continued their reprehensible series of attacks on innocent civilians in Israel, had Hamas not used the young and elderly as human shields and sacrificed them to gain favor with people like you, there would not be hundreds/thousands of casualties in Gaza. Let alone hundreds/thousands of casualties in Israel. Your bizarre attempt to create this false equivalence between the attacker and the attacked as a way to mitigate the evil of Hamas might be noble if it didn't involve ignoring reality.
As far as "blame " for Israel, I admire their restraint and their commitment to engage in eradicating this group of terrorists while maintaining a historically low amount of "collateral damage" and staying far below the Geneva Conventions guidelines. Given the insistence of Hamas in placing the very young and the very old in places where their casualties will be maximized purely for PR purposes, I find the "collateral damage" regrettable and deserving of sympathy for being used as literal sacrifices by those who's job it should be to protect them.
You're right. I have less sympathy for those who instigated the current fighting, who blatantly violated multiple terms of international law, a
and who are using their own people to protect themselves.
Your silence on the continued holding of hostages and the Biden administrations complete lack of effort to get the hostages released indicate your total lack of sympathy for them.
But really, excellent job of shifting the topic away from the vile individuals who celebrate the murder of an innocent man, to sympathy for those who Hamas victimizes.
Neely wasn't "killed". He died as a result of his own physical condition. Choke holds don't kill and he was alive when the cops showed up. They refused to administer mouth to mouth because he was filthy and disgusting, so maybe the cops protecting their own health "killed" him.
Stop pretending you care.
Art,
I've mentioned this multiple times and Dan's ignored it, because it doesn't fit the narrative, just like failing to prosecute his accomplice doesn't fit the narrative.
Post a Comment