[maybelsyrup]

> But that did not stop social media commenters from leaping to conclusions and from showing a blatant lack of sympathy over the death of a man who was a husband and father of two children.

The journalists' tone and choice of words here, which I've italicized, isn't helping the overall feeling many Americans have of "the people running the show have active and unceasing contempt for us", which of course is what's driving the "torrent of hate for health insurance industry" that this article sets out to document.

I'm sorry, but where do these writers get off wagging their fingers and tut-tutting people who'd prefer not to spend their neurons on sympathy for someone at the helm of an inhuman system? The point's already been made, but plenty of monsters are husbands and fathers.

[bodegajed]

Unfortunately, it is the same system where journalists have bills to pay and mouths to feed, and their wages comes from advertising of these Fortune 500 companies.

[tptacek]

There's a distinction to be drawn between challenging norms of discourse like not speaking ill of the dead, and actively cheerleading murders, like "we should boycott Starbucks for providing evidence about the murderer to police", or Taylor Lorenz calling for the assassination of Anthem's CEO by name.

[vundercind]

The incoming President told his supporters that if he lost they’d still have to the option of shooting his opponent, when he ran in 2016. Instead of being ejected from politics forever by an outraged public, he went on to win that election. Then another one more recently.

What’s this norm you mention?

[UncleOxidant]

Norm died in 2016.

[tptacek]

I don't understand why you think pointing to another odious person rebuts my argument.

[vundercind]

Another extremely popular person. Who violated that norm on camera and had it broadcast all over the place. And remained extremely popular.

What norm?

[tptacek]

I don't think you understand me. I'm not saying people are taking to fainting couches over norms violations. They're reacting to people like Taylor Lorenz literally calling for the assassination of people by name. In my case, past that, for Lorenz doing so based on a comically flawed understanding of what her target was doing.

[vundercind]

I’m saying not-cheerleading-murder isn’t exactly a firm norm here anymore. Not even among the elites.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"The point's already been made, but plenty of monsters are husbands and fathers."

For example, the ones establishing and profiting from so-called "social media" at the expense of organisations that employ journalists.

Advertisers choose between supporting organizations that employ journalists versus supporting ones that do not, the ones profiting instead from the "torrent of hate". NYT has plenty of paying subscribers; it is not 100% dependant on ads, unlike "social media", generally.

Indeed "the people running social media have active and unceasing contempt for us". They prefer computers over people. Surveillance over sympathy.

[gerdesj]

I'm terribly sorry, but all of your italicized fragments, taken in isolation, do paint a stark picture of the murder of a person.

You might have beef (or whatever you call it these days) with his job and industry but in the end a man was murdered. You may not like and "hate" seems appropriate to describe how you feel about a legitimate industry in the USA. Your issue is with a deeply embedded part of the US experience - health insurance, and not with this man.

Please attack the industry that you hate and not the individual ... who was murdered. That is what the journos are doing.

[cocacola1]

> Please attack the industry that you hate and not the individual ... who was murdered. That is what the journos are doing.

Depending on the shooters motivation, I think they're of the opinion that the time for dialogue has passed.

[gerdesj]

I wasn't talking to the shooter.

Given your spelling of dialogue, I think it's unlikely we'll ever really understand the shooter's motivation.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont find the "lack of sympathy" to be an issue.

What I do find disappointing is the lack of concern over people being gunned down in the street, and the not so subtle glee some people are expressing.

Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. It isn't healthy for a society and doesn't lead to progress.

[justinclift]

> Murder should not be normalized or endorsed.

Sure. That includes the US health care system too.

The company that person was the key decision maker for has apparently been murdering people for years legally.

So, karma?

[s1artibartfast]

No, I disagree. We have a system of laws and courts to decide what is criminal.

People should not kill law abiding citizens they disagree with because everyone has a different opinion.

[bdangubic]

I pay around $20k/year for health insurance for myself, my wife and my daughter. I need insurance coverage to save my life and it is denied and I die. Under what US Statute (any state or federal) can a prosecutor charge the people responsible for my death? surely on the system of laws and courts you say we have there is something… I’ll wait…

also people should most definitely NOT kill law abiding citizens! we do have laws for that

[s1artibartfast]

I guess this is the crux of it. The law does not hold anyone responsible for your death, and nobody is responsible for providing you life saving services.

These are the laws that your fellow citizens have chosen and established.

[bdangubic]

you know, our history says that at times, injustices may need to be fought with a touch of violence…

killing CEOs is not the kind of violence any reasonable human being can condone, but people tragically affected by someone’s actions may not be all that reasonable

[UncleOxidant]

> We have a system of laws and courts to decide what is criminal.

We do, but unfortunately it heavily favors the party with the most money. If you want to take a health insurance company to court it's gonna cost you a lot of money in lawyer fees and you'll face a phalanx of corporate lawyers who have a lot of experience in crushing cases brought by their customers. That's not to say that people should go out and take matters into their own hands, but there is a lot of pent-up frustration out there and we really need to start addressing some of these issues before more of this happens.

[vouaobrasil]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that one killing implies anarchy and and discarding of the system. It does not. Chances are, most reasonable people believe there should be a chain of justice with courts, laws, and investigations.

Someone has turned to vigilante justice here not because they believe that the courts are useless, but because they believe that this is such an extreme case that courts would not have worked in this case.

What I believe people fear is not the rise of anarchy due to one killing, but a fundamental shift in attitudes of the ordinary people in response to the unreasonable rise of the power structure. This threatens not order but the very power structure itself, which implies that a lot of people who benefit from injustice will suddenly be at risk of losing those benefits (money).

[kerkeslager]

> People should not kill law abiding citizens they disagree with because everyone has a different opinion.

That's not what happened.

Brian Thompson isn't a "law abiding citizen I disagree with" he's a law abiding citizen who killed people. If you or your loved one died because of his actions, would you "have a disagreement with him"? Is that what you'd call that?

[s1artibartfast]

There is a massive difference between not helping and killing someone. If you attribute the deaths from healthcare denials to him, did he also save every life that wasnt denied?

How many millions of people did he save?

[kerkeslager]

> There is a massive difference between not helping and killing someone.

Tell that to the people whose family members died due to his actions.

I'm not arguing this with you again for you to ignore what I say again.

> If you attribute the deaths from healthcare denials to him, did he also save every life that wasnt denied?

> How many millions of people did he save?

None that wouldn't have been saved by anyone doing his job. Literally, it was just his job, and he was close to as bad at is as he could get away with. All the evidence I've seen is that this guy was an obstacle to saving lives at every opportunity he got.

Even if we somehow pretend he made any effort to saving lives, how many lives do you have to save to get a free pass for a murder in your mind? Is that how you think this works?

Honestly, I think there's something wrong with your conscience. Grow some compassion for other humans.

[justinclift]

> We have a system of laws and courts to decide what is criminal.

Good when it works, but what happens when it fails?

[s1artibartfast]

yeah, blood in the street and mass death and destruction. Everyone killing everyone.

[coldpie]

So, what do you propose to do to fix it? I don't think scolding people on HN is going to accomplish much.

[vouaobrasil]

No way. Humanity since the dawn of time has always had the potential to mob when things became dire. We still have it today, only it is more controlled via technology and rationality. This killing will not start anarchy. But it does have the capability to start a resistance against existing power structures, and that is what everyone is actually (consciously or unconsciously) worried about. We are only conditioned to believe that anarchy might ensue as that is the easiest way to instill fear of rebellion against the power structure.

[justinclift]

That sounds pretty extreme. There's a large amount of possibility between those two positions. ;)

[giardini]

Jumped the shark there, dude! But some of these posts are hilarious over-the-top horseshit. Seriously...

Get a grip. For all we know the shooter was pissed b/c his girlfriend was banging the health insurance executive while babysitting for him!

[I would loooove for HN to have optionally-visible meta-threads, so onlookers like me could sit in the gallery, drink a beer, joke and remark about what is posted w/o affecting the stream of thought. Now back to y'all...]

[vouaobrasil]

> Murder should not be normalized or endorsed. It isn't healthy for a society and doesn't lead to progress.

I guess the American revolution didn't lead to progress then. Or any of the other revolutions, many of which had assassinations. And murder is not being endorsed. Putting an end to it is.

[vundercind]

This is one of those things we state as a normative absolute in general society and you usually only see the nuance (or how it’s basically just a polite lie, in some cases) in relevant college classes or spaces dominated by certain kinds of professionals and nerds (the kind who took those college classes, usually).

[DrillShopper]

People only care about this because of who he was

If this were you or I it would be a segment on the 6 o'clock news and a cold case

[Dalewyn]

I actually think the murderer would have been found and either arrested or killed for resisting arrest by now, were that the case.

That the murderer, who killed someone in literal broad daylight on the sidewalk of one of the biggest cities in the world, is still on the loose speaks volumes to me about all sorts of things.

[DrillShopper]

It speaks volumes as to how incompetent the NYPD is. NYC is one of the most policed cities with the most cameras constantly watching people, and the fact that a crime like this can happen in broad daylight and the perpetrator can remain a ghost is an indictment of that whole dystopian atmosphere and system

[hirvi74]

I feel a sense of hope in a weird way. Maybe we are farther away from living in "1984" or "A Brave New World" than I previously felt?

[totetsu]

In a society where democratic tools no longer function effectively—due to capture by concentrated powers—people often feel powerless to address systemic harms. I can understand how the only power an individual can have in that situation is something like murder.. but it’s making many assumptions.. like this person really was working as an individual from moral grounds in the interests of majority of society.. and that we can trust this moral judgement to and individual, as in today it might be an arguably utilitarian good but tomorrow it might be a cultural or religious thing.. will this action really would have any positive affect on healthcare results for many people, or change any behaviors of people in power apart from getting more security guards..

[s1artibartfast]

I think most people are confusing captured democracy for the fact that the actual voting population is split on issues once people step outside their bubble.

[valval]

Democracy in the US works quite well, although it is a shame that your guy lost.

[Dalewyn]

>What I do find disappointing is the lack of concern

This is (was) the CEO of the largest health insurer in the country which has shown a lack of concern for paying out insurance or securing data both private and medical. Their data leak this year is second only to National Public Data's leak (also this year) of practically every single SSN on the planet and arguably worse because their leak also contains medical data.

Murder is never okay, but this guy is also about the most unsympathizable man in the country.

[defen]

> this guy is also about the most unsympathizable man in the country.

There's no way that is true. It's only remotely possibly true if you're only talking about people who at least nominally obey the rules and laws of society. You don't actually think that he was worse than a murderer, or a rapist, or a child abuser, of which we have many, many thousands in this country.

[jjj123]

When deciding who deserves my scorn, I genuinely do put those who are in power and commit atrocities at scale (like healthcare CEOs) above one-off violent criminals.

Even if you’re a few levels removed from the deaths you’ve caused, you still have blood on your hands imo.

[hirvi74]

Who knows too... maybe if we have better access to affordable quality (mental) healthcare, which does not deny millions of claims in any given year, then we might perhaps have less murders, rapist, and abusers running around.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[defen]

Would you rather have had this guy around you / your loved ones, or one of the people in the other groups I named?

[atmavatar]

What precisely is your point?

I'd rather have the Sackler family show up for a dinner than the Manson family, but if we're being honest, the former is responsible for several orders of magnitude more deaths than the latter.

[vundercind]

Wasn’t the topic scorn?

[layoric]

The sheer breadth of misery this person inflicted through his actions is hard to quantify, and trying to say who is worse/better will always be a judgement call. But the broad dislike for this person doesn't come from nowhere..

[adgjlsfhk1]

Our healthcare system literally shaves ~5 years of lifespan off of the country as a whole. Illegal denial of claims by his company almost certainly kill hundreds of thousands a year.

[vouaobrasil]

> You don't actually think that he was worse than a murderer, or a rapist, or a child abuser, of which we have many, many thousands in this country.

I think there is not much point in defining a single metric of "worse" because that is confusing. A rapist is worse if they are following your spouse. This guy is worse if he is about to make a decision that will prevent your loved one from getting medical treatment at the exact time that they need it.

[hirvi74]

Depends how you cut it.

The acts of Murders, rapist, and child abusers are far more heinous than health insurance CEOs. However, I would argue the magnitude of damage is larger from the decisions of health care CEOs.

[justinclift]

> You don't actually think that he was worse than a murderer ...

The difference in opinion might be many people considering the guy himself to be a murderer, and not just of one or two people?

[s1artibartfast]

Like I said, I dont think it is about sympathy, but not wanting to live in a country where people are murdered in the street. That is the part that is disgusting and dangerous.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

> I'm sorry, but where do these writers get off wagging their fingers and tut-tutting people who'd prefer not to spend their neurons on sympathy for someone at the helm of an inhuman system?

And what exactly is your solution?

Healthcare should be a charity from the rich?

It should be nationalized, and somehow magically all the problems go away?

[jjj123]

You’ve got the answer right there. It should be nationalized. And a major reason it will never be nationalized is because of lobbying by health insurance corporations.

[tptacek]

Well that and people finding the idea repellant and voting against it.

[jjj123]

Medicare for all is actually a very popular policy, with majority approval (across people who identify with both parties).

M4A is nationalized health insurance if not quite nationalized healthcare, but the point remains that the only reason we don’t have major steps in this direction is because of people in power who will not let it happen.

[tptacek]

No, it isn't. Like many other things, it's only popular in opinion polling, not at the ballot box.

[jjj123]

Yes. My point is exactly that. People want nationalized healthcare, but once there’s layer upon layer of media propaganda and power plays by the donor class of both parties, the people don’t end up voting for (or don’t have the option to vote for) their own interests.

[vundercind]

Yes, there is a lot of money behind that position.

[tptacek]

Do you have an argument that would be persuasive to someone who doesn't believe the voters in every state where this was proposed were successfully hoodwinked by "money"?

[vundercind]

Hold on, we can come back to this, but: which states have held a vote on nationalizing (state-izing?) healthcare?