Anon wrote:

You really need to up your knowledge base on what may constitute terrorism. Read here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
 

Did you read this? You might want to take a pass at the first two sentences:

There is no legal or scientific consensus on the definition of terrorism.[1][2][3] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism, and governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon legally-binding definition.

Anyway, I've already figured it out. The "definition of terrorism" in this case is: a condition of a first-degree murder charge, which they're giving him with the hope he'll plea out to a lesser charge.

Most definitions of terrorism are about the acts and separate the acts from the beliefs. Many people can do the same.

Many people can do the same, but not the people who are running our society. Not our government, and not our media corporations.

They've been telling us for decades that "terrorists hate our way of life" --that terrorism is a belief system. If they want to change that definition now, there's two possibilities-- either they were lying then, or they're lying now.

Let's examine both:

1) If terrorism is acts, not beliefs, then the US military bombing civilians associated with militant groups is the same as militant groups bombing civilians associated with the US military. Obviously, they have been insisting that terrorism is NOT about the acts. Was that a lie?

2) If terrorism has a component of beliefs, then abortion clinic bombers would be considered terrorists. This is true-- the DOJ considers them to be domestic terrorists. This means that someone's beliefs make them a terrorist-- the obvious definition that our culture is saturated with.

Prosecution as an indictment of beliefs is a red herring

It's literally required in order to prosecute the charges in this case. You can't separate the murder being motivated by a belief that the healthcare system is unjust, from the belief that the healthcare industry is unjust. If that's not the motive, then it's not terrorism, and they fail to meet the legal requirements of the first degree charge. If it IS the motive, and it IS terrorism, then--

..millions of Americans consider a terrorist to be a folk hero. <<< My entire point is that it's stupid to introduce this narrative. If terrorism loses all meaning and impact, that cannot possibly help in the fight against terrorism.
 

Last edited by Flint (12/19/2024 2:45 pm)

Okay, I was interested in your thoughts, but thank you for the definition of a word.

I'm curious about how deep the folk hero sentiment is.

All it takes is one jury member for Luigi to walk free.  The evidence seems to be extremely compelling.  But will it be enough?

I thought the Luigi perp walk looked like an orchestrated scene out of a movie, inadvertently making him look outstanding, and then I saw the comparisons all over social media to the similar Superman scene.  oops.

Jury selection will play a huge role in this trial.

Galaxy brain take. It's not having money that makes you a bad person, its spearheading policies in a corporation that intentionally leads to thousands of innocent deaths every year.

Last edited by Flint (12/20/2024 11:06 am)

Flint wrote:

It's not having money that makes you a bad person,

And yet authorities cite from his notebook:

authorities say was in Mangione’s possession “contained several handwritten pages that express hostility toward the health insurance industry and wealthy executives in particular,”

Last edited by tw (12/20/2024 3:11 pm)

glatt wrote:

The one thing I don't get in all this, is that Obamacare is still the law of the land, and one of the requirements is that insurance companies must spend at least 80% of their premium income on medical claims, with the remaining 20% allowed for administrative costs and profit; large group plans must spend at least 85% on medical claims.  Before the pandemic, I would routinely get notifications in my own plan that Cigna had to issue a refund in order to comply with this requirement, and the money was returned to my employer, who applied it to the overall costs of providing insurance to the employee pool.  So I know from personal experience that it is a real rule.

Everyone is saying that UnitedHealth Group is the worst and they routinely denied care, but they absolutely complied with the law.  The penalties would be too great if they didn't. Their loss prevention lawyers would keep them in compliance.   All this CEO was doing was trying to get as close as possible to that 80% threshold instead of being up around 90% or so.

I read something that indicated some health insurance companies have been getting around this number by owning healthcare facilities themselves. At that point, fuzzy bookkeeping means things like building maintenance, hospital executive salaries, etc. get counted as "payments to a medical facility" while not actually paying medical claims.

Anon wrote:

glatt wrote:

…one of the requirements is that insurance companies must spend at least 80% of their premium income on medical claims, with the remaining 20% allowed for administrative costs and profit; …All this CEO was doing was trying to get as close as possible to that 80% threshold instead of being up around 90% or so.

What if 80% of their premium income doesn’t cover all of the medical claims? They have to either increase their premiums or reduce the amount they pay for claims. Increasing premiums may cause them to lose market shares and consequently lose investors. Reducing the amount they pay for claims can be done by reductions across the board resulting in many disgruntled customers or they can cause fewer disgruntled customers by entirely denying selected claims.

I think they were aiming to spend exactly 80% and not one cent more, as 80% was defined as the requirement, only a "beta cuck" would spend 81%.

If the service they're supposed to be providing requires 81% expenditure, too bad for the dumb, dead Americans. Freedom isn't free.. or something.

The problem with running healthcare as a business is that no matter how many layers of regulation you pile on, the industry will find a way to weasel out of it. If Healthcare is treated as a human right, covered by Article I of the Constitution (collecting taxes for the general welfare), then we could define our goal as "providing healthcare" instead of the current "make shareholders of corporations as happy as possible while providing exactly as much healthcare as 80% of premiums can provide"

I'm sure this is a great point.

Your point is addressed to the millions of Americans who celebrate him as a folk hero. I'm not arguing on their behalf, I'm just arguing that they exist.

This is, like John Oliver said, "arguing whether hats exist"

Same mindset applies to a truck driver who intentionally killed 14 people in New Orleans.  He was also driven only by emotions - like any child.  He foolishly killed because his god was so demented as to be incapable of killing non-believers.  So he must do what his god could not?

Also an adult thinking like a child.  Using emotions (in this case his religion) to make decisions.  An adult knows his religion is a relationship only between himself and his god.  It has no relevance to anyone else - if one is thinking as an adult.

He was a child just like rioters in Washington on 6 January.  Who were also so demented (extremist) as to only believe what they were ordered by their religion to believe.  Religion?  What is the difference between the New Orleans truck driver, Washington rioters, and the murderer of a CEO?  They are all adult thinking like children.  Easily manipulated by a bully on a playground.  Cannot think logically for themselves. 
 

People on TikTok have been reporting that they get contacted by the FBI when they talk about the CEO guy.  It's worked.  The internet chatter is way down.  Wet blankets.