[wakawaka28]

>It would be more effective to go out and kill your neighbors who vote differently than you, and reject things like single payer healthcare or reform.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not but I'll argue as if it isn't. First of all, nobody knows if single payer or any reform would lead to anything better. It's a complex issue that boils down to trying to get something for nothing (or at a price lower than the limited supply of healthcare dictates), which leads to enslaving other people to pay for one's own needs. You can do something about corporate corruption such as in the insurance industry. But state corruption is much more insidious. If you feel that strongly about state-sponsored healthcare then there are lots of other countries you can choose to live in that allegedly have the benefits you want, rather than just hating or doing harm to your neighbors. Furthermore, the MAJORITY of people who approve of the current system aren't going to stand by helpless as random wannabe tyrants attack them.

[s1artibartfast]

Not a joke, but a critique of CEO assassination as a tool for reform. My central point is that this is a political and legal dispute. Agreement amongst voters is the bottleneck, not some CEO

[wakawaka28]

I said joking but I meant exaggerating. At least I hope it's hyperbole. Even contemplation of killing your neighbor because they don't support your particular views about the solution to a complex issue is batshit insane.

[s1artibartfast]

And I'm saying it is less insane than shooting CEOs and expecting change.

[wakawaka28]

It's actually more insane, but I guess one could argue either way which action is more likely to result in a change.