• Hadriscus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    153
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Often, the argument against murder as a means of defending oneself against the bourgeois rule is the inability to pinpoint its direct beneficial effects. Well, here they fucking are : murdering fascists is good for your health -in fact, it can save your life !

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Would this mean that even if insurance companies were not corrupt, killing their CEOs would still save lives on net? Exercise for the reader.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    So if you have a brain tumour they won’t pay for it? Forgive my outsider ignorance, but isn’t the entire point of medical insurance to cover situations like that?

    • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, the entire point of health insurance is to create profits.

      That’s why our nation’s health care should be managed by an entity that does not have a profit motive, and the only entity like that is the government, which is why EVERY other country does it that way.

    • Secret Music@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      2 months ago

      Seems to me like the entire point of insurance companies is to collect your money monthly in case some future event happens, then try their hardest to not actually hold up their end of the bargain if you actually need it, then raise the prices afterwards if you do get a successful claim. So you pay for them to act like they’re doing you a huge fkn favour at their personal expense and not like it’s their fkn job that you’ve been giving them money monthly for.

      • That Weird Vegan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        that’s why insurance is a scam. You pay them unfathomable amounts of money for YEARS, then you want to use it, and you have to pay more, only for them to try their fucking hardest to deny you. Usually if they do accept you, it’s already too late and you’re terminal. Insurance is a fucking scam.

        • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 months ago

          All insurance is gambling. They are betting that you’ll pay thousands in home insurance or car insurance, and never make a claim, like most people. It’s a good bet for the insurance companies.

          But Health Insurance is different. Unlike your house burning down or your car getting wrecked, which seldom if ever happens, EVERYBODY gets sick, and eventually dies. It’s ALWAYS a losing bet for the healthcare insurance companies. They have no choice but to rig the game so they can win.

          That’s why we need to forget about Health Care INSURANCE, and think in terms of Health Care MANAGEMENT. That needs to be in the hands of an entity that isn’t motivated by profit, and that’s the government. EVERY other country in the world understands this, but America is a Ferengi nation, and we literally worship profits. And mean LITERALLY - Prosperity Doctrine is the most powerful religious philosophy in America at the moment.

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      You think insurance exists to serve customers? Lmao no, they exist to make their shareholders wealthy beyond imagination.

      • blackris@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Psst … this is just an american thing. In other parts of the world, yes there are insurances that only exist to serve their customers the best way possible.

        • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Because of those pesky commie regulations. In america, its illegal to deprive shareholders of potential profits

    • Anomalocaris@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      if the point of insurance was the public welfare, however, their interest is exclusively about profits.

      they make a lot of money by denying claims and forcing costumers to fight tooth and nail to get the service they pay for.

      they know lots of people will die because of denial of care, and therefore longer need healthcare. it’s so incredibly profitable to be cartoonishly evil.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well yes but actually no. The point of insurance is to pool risk so that catastrophic and unusual events don’t financially destroy people. The point of insurance companies is to make a profit and make the line go up for their shareholders. When those two goals are in conflict, the latter wins.

      Speaking as a US citizen who’s dealt with insurance his whole life, it’s a giant fucking scam. It’s probably the single biggest scam in the world, and I’m honestly not sure if I’d prefer to deal with them or the IRS scammers again. At least I got the IRS scam people to break script and talk to me human to human once.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    They approved a friends expensive drug therapy around that same time. It didn’t save his life but it definitely prolongs and improved it. The thing is these Cluster B nightmares that make statements like that can only see it if its them who needs the saving. Otherwise they are cold blooded death mongers.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    well that’s great for this one person but this is just an anecdote, and not reliable data. we need more data points to create a large enough sample size so we can refer to more reliable statistics. i wonder how we could get that.

    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Trading one horrible motherfucker for even one of his potential victims is absolutely enough for me. I don’t need further statistics.

      Edit: in light of my brain recently being reactivated and understanding what the comment was saying, please disregard my low IQ comment and let the science commence!

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        not hard data but there were definitely news reports of denial rates tanking in the days following the killing.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          There were definitely a couple of opinion articles among fringe news networks, but without evidence it isn’t really news is it?

    • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s just responsible statistical analysis, any good scientist will tell you there should be several tests for a proper experiment.

    • HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      If your default assumption is that this event:

      1. Did not cause an immediate “panic” reduction in insurance denials, even briefly.

      2. Even if it did, that this happening did not save anyone’s life.

      You are just coping because the idea of killing someone ending up saving lives makes you feel icky.

      Even if this is just an anecdote, I find the contrary claim harder to believe.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        My default assumption is that this is a shit argument and the people who push it are dishonest fools. There is no (2). There is no second part to this stance, you haven’t presented any evidence yet and you’re posturing as if it’s 100% true.

      • parody@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        IDK if the people actually denying claims were scared enough to change their behavior, well plausible enough ya

        Wonder if any updated guidance went out to them at any point, written or not

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      User asked for a “single” anecdote, user got a single anecdote. So what’s the problem?

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Even the lowest claim acceptance rates were passing people at 67% according to data. Average was more like 84%. The vast majority of denied claims are never appealed. This post is about a successful appeal, or perhaps even a claim which was never denied at all, by username “24 Hour Luigi Mangione”, and user B asserts that this is proof that Luigi has saved lives answering imaginary hypothetical user A, but in fact it doesn’t prove that even a single person was saved unless it can show more people were approved than otherwise would have been.

        From where I’m sitting it just looks like 2 dudes furiously masturbating each other, AKA circlejerking.

  • Pnut@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    “we need Robin hood”

    “For what?”

    “Financial stuff, you wouldn’t understand but you should buy it”

    Robin Hood shows up.

    “Oh fuck. Do you think he knows we were lying? He wasn’t supposed to actually show up. Do you think he’ll shoot us?”

    “He’s kind of famous for it. Like legendary famous. You probably should have referenced King Midas if you were going to misinterpret a myth”

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    luigi hasn’t been found guilty so anything that refers to a shooting is supposition at best