Re: [OT] Murder in New York

On 14/12/24 05:30, Paul S Person wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:53:40 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
 

On 12/12/24 08:43, Paul S Person wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer
<mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:56:54 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>

On 12/11/24 00:53, Charles Packer wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 14:12:46 -0800, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>

On 12/10/24 13:04, quadibloc wrote:

A few days ago, I had read in the news that the CEO of a major health
insurer was gunned down. This was shocking; it seemed to mean that no
one was safe from crime.

>
Actually it was a targeted assasination.
The killer had suffered a back injury and ended up
with lots of titanium screws holding his spine together.
>
I do not know exactly the beef he had but the
business of Health Insurance did not help the excutive's case with
Luigi Mangione.

>
The solution which is unlikely to happen with the incoming
admiistration is Basic Assured Income and Universal Healthcare.

>
When that story hit the news I looked forward to the naming of the
suspect. Ah, the allegorical aspects. A very English name murdered by a
very Italian one. Hasn't there been some kind of beef for a while
between the two most ancient institutions of Western civilization?
>
>

Now from what I hear Luigi had a beef because of a
painful pre-existing back condition not because of the old opposition
between Northern and Southern Europe.
>
>

>
At least some journalists have gone down an allegorical path
with this story, using the lives of the protagonists
rather than vicissitudes of health care. From the front page of
the Washington Post: "As Mangione's once-charmed life
seemed to be crumbling, Brian Thompson's fortunes appeared to
be climbing."

>
Unacceptable as it was, at least this appears to be an ordinary crime,
not an ideological one. For now, anyway.

>
To me it looks like the result of policies enforced by CEOs
of Insurance compaies of Denying payment for care, delaying approval
of care, and refusing the care for the particular patient. Just to
increase profit.

 
Exactly. A non-ideological crime based on actual wrongdoing. Not in
any way admirable.
 

Here is a comic illustrating this>
<https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/12/12/2291287/-Cartoon-Tom-the-Dancing-Bug-and-the-Manhunt-for-the-Killer-CEO>

 
My solution is simpler: the person at the top is /always/ responsible
[1]. Unless he was active in supervising the organization and this was
hidden from him.
 
[1] This is a common trope, whether by Pres Truman ("The buck stops
here", pointing to his desk or perhaps the Oval Office) to Star Trek
VI, where Kirk agrees that, as Captain, he is responsible for what
happened. So why does the buck /not/ stop at the top dog in these
cases?

>
Perhaps because one is fiction with a message and the other is reality?