[cubefox]

> There's probably something eloquent by Hannah Arendt about how 190,000 Americans killed by health insurance companies

Health insurance companies don't kill people, quite the opposite. If it weren't for health insurance, a lot more people would die. Murdering their CEOs is crazy extremism.

[jodrellblank]

Physicians For A National Health Program put the figure at 200,000 people annually[1]. What's your source for saying the number is zero? When they deny claims, people die. When they override medical doctor recommendations and insist on cheaper treatments, people die. When they tangle up customers with paperwork and bureaucracy, that some people can't access the health insurance they pay for. When they take money out of the system as profit, that money isn't helping the sick. When United Healthcare spends $12M/year on lobbying[1] it isn't doing that to improve patient care.

> Murdering their CEOs is crazy extremism.

When a system doesn't have a pressure release valve, the pressure doesn't go away. When a system blocks or ignores peaceful protest, the pressure doesn't go away. The thread running through my comment is that harming humans is wrong, yes murder is wrong - but sticking a label on it and saying "leftist extremism" and then denying real issues is not helping. The system needs ways to hear people saying "things aren't fine" before those people go crazy extremist, not after.

[1] https://pnhp.org/news/estimated-us-deaths-associated-with-he...

[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summ...

[cubefox]

> Physicians For A National Health Program put the figure at 200,000 people annually[1]. What's your source for saying the number is zero?

I'm not saying the number is zero. I'm saying the number is vastly negative. They are overall saving a lot of people rather than killing them. Health insurance companies are hugely net-positive.

> but sticking a label on it and saying "leftist extremism" and then denying real issues is not helping.

Talking about murdering CEOs is helping far, far less.

Imagine I believe that the Democrats are net-negative. Would this justify people saying that Democrat leaders should be murdered? Or that labelling these justifications of murder as "rightist extremism" is "not helping"?

[jodrellblank]

Compared to no healthcare at all, yes, but similar could be said of Crassus' firefighting service in ancient Rome. He brought his slaves to your burning property and they stood around outside while you negotiated selling your property to Crassus at a bargain price. If you agreed, he ordered his slaves to fight the fire and you got some money. If you didn't, they let it burn and you got nothing. Crassus would be there to buy the ruins for even less if you couldn't afford to rebuild. That's a net positive for Rome compared to no fire service - fires don't spread to other buildings as often, people get something instead of nothing - but it's hardly a ringing endorsement, and it could be better.

Observation 1: you are bothered by the murder of the CEO. You dismiss the business-as-usual harms to hundreds of thousands of poor people. You consider yourself to have a good grasp of what is crazy.

Observation 2: when faced with claims that insurance companies kill people, you turn to dreaming of a world where you can talk of killing Democrat leaders. You still consider yourself to have a good grasp of what is crazy.

Complaints, letters to the editor, letters to congresspersons, achieved nothing; the murder of a CEO has achived nothing; what size event would make you notice?

> "Imagine I believe that the Democrats are net-negative"

Just feels important to say, for the record, that facts don't support that position; the Economic Policy Institute[1], and the Senate Joint Economic Committee[2] found that since 1949 the economy performs better under Democrat administrations than under Republican administrations. Job growth is greater. GDP growth is faster. Unemployment is lower. Small business creation is higher. Manufacturing investment is higher. Stock market returns are higher. Wage growth is faster. Recessions start less often.

> "Would this justify people saying that Democrat leaders should be murdered?"

First problem here is your implication that I would support the Democrats being awful and not be on the side of people objecting [although not calling for murder]. Second is the implication that I would want to silence your free speech instead of, say, supporting your right to say things I disagree with, or sarcastically mocking you. Third (or really, first) problem is that you're replying to claims that insurance company behaviour causes humans to die with "Left bad".

[1] https://www.epi.org/press/new-report-finds-that-the-economy-...

[2] https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/1...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...