One story that we couldn’t keep out of the press and that contributed most to my decision to walk away from my career in 2008 involved Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old leukemia patient in California whose scheduled liver transplant was postponed at the last minute when Cigna told her surgeons it wouldn’t pay. Cigna’s medical director, 2,500 miles away from Ms. Sarkisyan, said she was too sick for the procedure. Her family stirred up so much media attention that Cigna relented, but it was too late. She died a few hours after Cigna’s change of heart.
Ms. Sarkisyan’s death affected me personally and deeply. As a father, I couldn’t imagine the depth of despair her parents were facing. I turned in my notice a few weeks later. I could not in good conscience continue being a spokesman for an industry that was making it increasingly difficult for Americans to get often lifesaving care.
One of my last acts before resigning was helping to plan a meeting for investors and Wall Street financial analysts — similar to the one that UnitedHealthcare canceled after Mr. Thompson’s horrific killing. These annual investor days, like the consumerism idea I helped spread, reveal an uncomfortable truth about our health insurance system: that shareholders, not patient outcomes, tend to drive decisions at for-profit health insurance companies.
Your whole argument that every execs deserve to die got disproved as you can not generalize like everyone as part of this group and your response that this Individuum is like the one to get an exception? How does killing executives change anything? In the current system its a post that needs to be filled and in don’t think its an outrageous statement to say self-justice and murder shouldn’t be used unless they’re last resort and its not like a CEO is the owner of a company that can do whatever they want to steer it. Although they have quite a bit of leeway
all generalizations are false, including this one
it is normal to refine a position over time
technically non-profit organizations have executives too
also hyperbole is a thing that exists - a shortcut to loosely sketch out one’s vibe before getting lost in the nitty gritty details. Because we are mortal and do not have perfect recall or perfect communication. My perception of even the color “red” might differ from yours. At some point we all have to either accept that we’re working with sloppy and imprecise tools and have to improvise with what we have or just not do anything at all.
you COULD chill. that IS an option. just in case nobody ever informed you.
Of course killing CEOs like that evil f*** head are matters of last resort. It’s long past last resort, many people have already died and many more will because of their actions. When is the last resort if not now?
You asked how killing executives changes anything, but we saw effects the day after that evil f*** face died. Another insurance company was trying to do something really s***** and they walked back their policy because of it. So you can pretend that violence doesn’t solve any problem, but only if you, to paraphrase the Onion, ignore all of human history.
I think it’s tragic. I really wish that what happened wasn’t so good for the lulz. I wish people weren’t as evil as that f***** up CEO. But we live in f***** up times.
The corporal structure itself makes people with certain traits and low empathy rise through the ranks. It a systematic issue. I would not call a person that is doing their job outright evil unless their whole own wish is to kill, torture and emotionally destroy others. Violence can lead to change. One murder cannot. Killing all healthcare CEOs will not. You’d need to replace the government. But that would be really violent and probably cause more suffering in the process. In a democracy if you can actually convince the masses you can shape a country. I like the current public debate, just not the way it was sparked.
If your job involves making decisions that are likely to lead to the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of other people, you have the moral obligation to consider what’s right. There’s no chance that people with those jobs haven’t thought about the effects of their actions. They are knowingly and willingly pressing the button that says to kill more people in order to make more money.
We agree it’s their job to do that. The fact that their job itself leads to immoral decisions is one issue, but that doesn’t absolve them of personal responsibility.
Do you honestly think that if all of the large healthcare CEOs were shot tomorrow that the people who replaced them would not think twice about the policies that led to said shootings? Just out of basic self-preservation they would cut back on some of the worst policies. Of course they would try to find other ways to get the same results. They would probably also beef up their own security teams. In other words, it would be a partial temporary solution, which is maybe better than no solution at all, but not as good as universal healthcare.
Hi, I think you underestimate how much extra effort it takes to read your comment with that excessive level of self censorship.
That’s voice to text, I’m really f****** sorry about it. But I didn’t center myself. Google censored me.