• 0 Posts
  • 87 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2024

help-circle


  • Then you’d need a majority in democracy to vote in their interests. But they voted for Trump, a man who wants to get rid of the ACA and impose senseless tariffs on all countries while cutting down on regulation that keeps people save and installing his own unhinged lackeys. Harsh rhetoric, but I want to say the American people have voted against their interest, and if political pressure was there change would be possible. I like that this issue is getting attention but I strongly question people calling for more murder and chaos.






  • I personally think even in this case a precious life is lost. I haven’t dug into the potential use of AI to deny claims which is highly unethical. I come more from an approach of utilitarianism: Every life/lifetime has some sort of potential joy and value to it. If for example a regime falls and a dictator causing a lot of loss of value (in this case life and quality of life) dies, the equation is a positive one if people get to live longer better lives. The dictator is the main reason for suffering.

    In the case with the CEO he isn’t the main reason for suffering, rather the system is. He has to bear part of the responsibility but his death doesn’t have a positive outcome in our equations because the death changes nothing. He also isn’t fully responsible for the system which is the root problem of the health system.

    I myself also believe generally murder is in nearly all cases wrong, and does while I am against the Genocide in Gaza I do think you’re at least partially talking about my group and generalizing it to make an obscene argument. Your example is actually perfect valid and if a person doesn’t care about genocide/death in gaza they can’t claim the moral high ground if they only value this kind of life. Its also distracting a bit from the main point of life and especially a life of good quality having value.



  • One side follows rule of law, while the company and shareholders he is working from require him to maximize profits at the cost of the insured customers.

    The other side caused mass destruction across europe, millions dead, millions displaced, left countries in ruins and starving, gassed millions of Jews and caused mass chaos.

    If he was to excel the expectations of the people he worked for he was supposed to decline health treatments. If he started performing worse for the shareholders he would’ve been at fault in the eyes of the shareholders and thus replaced.

    Hitler on the other way acted on his own accord. There were no democratic institutions above him or really any to hold him accountable. The healthcare system on the other hand can be changed in a democratic system and political pressure. A dictator like Hitler certainly not through peaceful protest, as those were answered with violence and suppression








  • Systematic (and alleged automated) denials of claims are highly immoral, unethical and possibly illegal thing to do. I just think this doesn’t solve the root problem and just adds one more death without fixing it. I don’t think this is both a sensible way as well as right way to fix this. Also, I don’t think you can just stamp each CEO as immoral automatically. General thinking for specific groups of people is frowned upon based on ethnicity, origin or gender, yet when we look at socioeconomic groups it suddenly becomes right? I think the freedom of movement should exist for even those in power and political//legal issues should be handled the right way. Peaceful protests and movements for a healthcare reform are the only right way long term to support this if you’re American and really care about the issue. Short term violence LARPing just causes polarization and makes the people fighting against this system seem crazy.