Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the only event since maybe 9/11 that has united the left and right.

Corporate media and right wing grifters are scrambling to shift the narrative and get their audience to feel sorry for this parasite.

Of course. The right wing is entirely funded by corporations who have convinced the average Joe to vote for policies that completely screw him over so the rich can get richer.

They will be desperately scrambling to try to get conservatives to get back on the side of billionaires and again fall for the "they're billionaires because they work hard! It's a Meritocracy!" BS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much Monopoly money was it? Maybe he is trying to send message with that and the UHC was being investigated by the DOJ for antitrust violations for possibly trying to monopolize certain aspects of the healthcare industry.

Or the monopoly money is a total amount someone was asked to pay for healthcare. Perhaps the cost of an MRI screening, etc. It's a message, but it's personal.

It would have been easy to drop a rock in the backpack and chuck it in the nearest pond.

Anonymous wrote:How much Monopoly money was it? Maybe he is trying to send message with that and the UHC was being investigated by the DOJ for antitrust violations for possibly trying to monopolize certain aspects of the healthcare industry.

Anonymous wrote:This is the only event since maybe 9/11 that has united the left and right.

Corporate media and right wing grifters are scrambling to shift the narrative and get their audience to feel sorry for this parasite.

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line, health insurers should not be for-profit. They just shouldn't.
I feel awful that my 401k invests in companies like these.

Anonymous wrote:Did they really find Monopoly money in the backpack!?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a person who is pretty moderate (and not in the insurance business) and I’m absolutely shocked at the response to this murder (while also recognizing that people are right to be fed up with insurance companies.) It’s really disturbing groupthink and I hope no one I know irl says something like the folks on this thread because I will not be able to look at them the same way.

That's probably because you are pretty comfortable and you have hadn't to deal with parents, grandparents, siblings, or your children being denied health care by an accountant.

There are millions of people who have died, suffered, or been destroyed financially so that the CEO of UHC can make his bonus. It's completely reasonable that the entire country - both left and right - is cheering for the shooter. So many families have suffered and died for this guys wealth. And united healthcare was the worst of the worst. That CEO was genuine scum who caused a lot of unnecessary death and suffering - for his money.

Health insurance isn't a toy company. Everyone needs health care to live. And this guy denies life for his profit. It's not at all surprising that people are having some feelings.

You can't have low (or really, not absurdly high) premiums without denying some care.

The point is they would regularly deny care they had promised to provide (and had collected premiums for).

What is deemed "medically necessary and appropriate" is, to some degree, subjective.

Perhaps but the fact that they denied claims at twice the industry rate (and by far at the highest rate of any major insurers) tells its own story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a person who is pretty moderate (and not in the insurance business) and I’m absolutely shocked at the response to this murder (while also recognizing that people are right to be fed up with insurance companies.) It’s really disturbing groupthink and I hope no one I know irl says something like the folks on this thread because I will not be able to look at them the same way.

That's probably because you are pretty comfortable and you have hadn't to deal with parents, grandparents, siblings, or your children being denied health care by an accountant.

There are millions of people who have died, suffered, or been destroyed financially so that the CEO of UHC can make his bonus. It's completely reasonable that the entire country - both left and right - is cheering for the shooter. So many families have suffered and died for this guys wealth. And united healthcare was the worst of the worst. That CEO was genuine scum who caused a lot of unnecessary death and suffering - for his money.

Health insurance isn't a toy company. Everyone needs health care to live. And this guy denies life for his profit. It's not at all surprising that people are having some feelings.

You can't have low (or really, not absurdly high) premiums without denying some care.

The point is they would regularly deny care they had promised to provide (and had collected premiums for).

What is deemed "medically necessary and appropriate" is, to some degree, subjective.

Perhaps but the fact that they denied claims at twice the industry rate (and by far at the highest rate of any major insurers) tells its own story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they really find Monopoly money in the backpack!?

I wondered if the SB appearance was also done as a tease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah people are making this a movie worthy plot scenario. The simplest path is more likely.

We’ve got a young guy with a vendetta.

Most young men don’t have a vandettas against insurance CEOs

Exactly, he was hired. By who and for what motive is the question. Personally, I think the CEO knew too much the Russian cybersecurity incident.

This is my vote too, which I said upthread. Someone in politics posted a book called Autocracy, Inc. which I haven’t read, but the premise is autocracies aren’t necessarily what we think - one evil ruler. It’s rather different groups who are large and sophisticated, who do business with corrupt countries and businesses. Trump is inflaming this. It sounds like big-time players being disgruntled, though it could be the insider trading too.

Wait, you think it's Trump? That's hilarious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah people are making this a movie worthy plot scenario. The simplest path is more likely.

We’ve got a young guy with a vendetta.

Most young men don’t have a vandettas against insurance CEOs

Exactly, he was hired. By who and for what motive is the question. Personally, I think the CEO knew too much the Russian cybersecurity incident.

This is my vote too, which I said upthread. Someone in politics posted a book called Autocracy, Inc. which I haven’t read, but the premise is autocracies aren’t necessarily what we think - one evil ruler. It’s rather different groups who are large and sophisticated, who do business with corrupt countries and businesses. Trump is inflaming this. It sounds like big-time players being disgruntled, though it could be the insider trading too.