The cards have a human-shaped shooting target on the back. The platforms did absolutely the right thing here.
* The backs of the Iraqi cards are just a WANTED stamp.
* The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war. The rules are different for civilians.
It's violence either way, you just find it a more acceptable violence.
Probably, but motive matters in “killed” versus “murder”. I’m much more inclined to be mad about profit-driven medical decisions of this nature.
I think this "health care" "murder" thing is just a really bad analogy and people should stop using it.
I have a hard time seeing “we can boost profits by fighting claims until sick people give up” as all that dissimilar.
The NHS admins aren’t getting bonuses for boosting share prices.
Insurers are motivated to eliminate waste, which is absolutely rife in the US health care industry; insurers are getting continually worked over by hospital chains, which take in something like 9 times as much money as insurers and have 3-5x their profit margins.
I don't think the analogy is salvageable. Even if the point I just made wasn't true (it is), you'd have run aground on the distinction between wanting and intending to kill someone and not. But the flaws run much deeper than that. Respectfully, you should stop saying this.
This is Patrick Stewart levels of bald assertion.
Call it “negligent homicide” if you prefer.
It's not homicide at all, and it's deeply irresponsible to suggest otherwise. You should stop.
What's obviously happening here is that the behavior advocated by the person who made these cards, and of many people online reacting to the murder of the UHC executive, is obviously and categorically indefensible, and people are going through contortions trying to avoid a reckoning with that.
My wife worked as a nurse, my Dad’s a doc, and I pay about $50k/year between premiums (which went from $3k to $3.6k this month), copays, and uncovered stuff like compounded meds for the family. I am intimately familiar with the system.
Some of the denials we’ve received have only been survivable via family assistance, both in fighting them and paying when those battles are lost.
But again, the motivations for them differ.
> The distinction between the US and Europe is that we cover and perform more services…
That is hardly the only distinction.
> nobody gets to murder anybody because they disagree with the structure of our system
Sure. For me, it’s a “I don’t condone, but I understand” scenario, coupled with a “some things that are legal shouldn’t be”.
Whole bunch of "captured + executed/died in prison" on that list. The goal wasn't to give them a hug.
> The people on the Iraqi cards are military targets in an ongoing war.
Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?
Just because we sometimes execute criminals doesn't mean there's something wrong with WANTED posters.
> Prime Minister, President, Head of Tribal Affairs, Governor of Basra... would we consider these legitimate military targets if someone hit our equivalents?
If we were at war? Sure. And if we weren't at war, we would be afterward.
Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
Throughout the Iraq and Afghan wars, we deemed combat actions by insurgent groups to be terrorism, even if entirely against military targets.
Hell, the guy who threw his shoe at Bush got three years in jail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_shoe-throwing_i...
> Do you think Putin and Zelensky aren't doing everything they can to blow each other up?
I don't, really. I think Ukraine avoids targeting Putin directly because it'd lead to serious retalliation (doubly so if unsuccessful); I think Putin avoids targeting Zelensky these days as it'd make him a martyr.
You are naive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volo...
Considering how famously paranoid Putin is, I doubt the Ukrainians get much opportunity. There's not a doubt in my mind they would take it if they could. What are the Russians going to do, invade?
The Ukrainians could hit the Kremlin with current drones, having hit targets in Moscow already. That they don’t is a deliberate calculation.
No one wants to discover Putin’s genuine red line on nukes and his own personal safety.
The Ukranians could certainly hit the Kremlin with drones. Unfortunately for them, Putin doesn't live in the Kremlin, and the drones that can reach Moscow are rather small. But I 100% guarantee you that Putin's "red lines" won't matter when he's dead.
> Horsley was named as a co-conspirator in a successful civil suit, Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists,[5] filed by Planned Parenthood over the information compiled by him and "Unwanted Posters" of doctors, which was judged by the court to constitute a threat of violence, even without an explicit call to violence.
> The case was reheard en banc, and the court determined that the files constituted "true threats" that are not constitutionally protected.
These cards are really pushing the boundary of what is legal, and I have no problem with platforms choosing not to do business with him.
You'd better be very sure about that. The Secret Service doesn't find that kind of thing funny.