[OT] Murder in New York

[quadibloc]

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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.
In Canada, Air Canada decided to ban smoking on its flights. In
response,
several major Canadian cigarette companies decided to stop flying on Air
Canada, giving all their business to its competitors.
Our government's response? Immediately passing legislation to ban
smoking
on all flights of all airline carriers.
So I don't just wish the U.S. government would aggressively force that
company to pay off on all the claims it fraudulently refused to pay.
Instead, I expect more than that: specifically, since when the
government
brought in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which allowed private
health insurers a role, so that they wouldn't go out of business as the
result of it, it certainly wasn't expecting them not to conscientiously
provide the service it was their role to provide...
The fact that _one_ health insurer took measures to avoid paying on
valid
health insurance claims should result in the immediate repeal of the
Affordable Care Act, with its replacement by a single-payer national
health
care system.
That would send a very clear lesson to any other private businesses that
might in future offered the opportunity to offer services to the public
in partnership with the government. No fooling around that would make
the
government look bad will be tolerated for one moment.

John Savard

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by quadibloc
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.


[Snippage]

Post by quadibloc
Instead, I expect more than that: specifically, since when the
government > brought in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which allowed private
health insurers a role, so that they wouldn't go out of business as the
result of it, it certainly wasn't expecting them not to conscientiously
provide the service it was their role to provide...
The fact that _one_ health insurer took measures to avoid paying on
valid
health insurance claims should result in the immediate repeal of the
Affordable Care Act, with its replacement by a single-payer national
health
care system.
That would send a very clear lesson to any other private businesses that
might in future offered the opportunity to offer services to the public
in partnership with the government. No fooling around that would make
the
government look bad will be tolerated for one moment.
John Savard

It may not seem pernitent but at the URL below is an
arguement in favor of AI Art in a long speculative fiction
comic.

What is AI Art

<https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/12/10/2291253/-What-is-AI-Art>

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

bliss

[Charles Packer]

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.
[Snippage]

Post by quadibloc
Instead, I expect more than that: specifically, since when the
government > brought in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which
allowed private health insurers a role, so that they wouldn't go out of
business as the result of it, it certainly wasn't expecting them not to
conscientiously provide the service it was their role to provide...
The fact that _one_ health insurer took measures to avoid paying on
valid health insurance claims should result in the immediate repeal of
the Affordable Care Act, with its replacement by a single-payer
national health care system.
That would send a very clear lesson to any other private businesses
that might in future offered the opportunity to offer services to the
public in partnership with the government. No fooling around that would
make the government look bad will be tolerated for one moment.
John Savard

It may not seem pernitent but at the URL below is an
arguement in favor of AI Art in a long speculative fiction comic.
What is AI Art
<https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/12/10/2291253/-What-is-AI-Art>
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?

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.
[Snippage]

Post by quadibloc
Instead, I expect more than that: specifically, since when the
government > brought in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which
allowed private health insurers a role, so that they wouldn't go out of
business as the result of it, it certainly wasn't expecting them not to
conscientiously provide the service it was their role to provide...
The fact that _one_ health insurer took measures to avoid paying on
valid health insurance claims should result in the immediate repeal of
the Affordable Care Act, with its replacement by a single-payer
national health care system.
That would send a very clear lesson to any other private businesses
that might in future offered the opportunity to offer services to the
public in partnership with the government. No fooling around that would
make the government look bad will be tolerated for one moment.
John Savard

It may not seem pernitent but at the URL below is an
arguement in favor of AI Art in a long speculative fiction comic.
What is AI Art
<https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/12/10/2291253/-What-is-AI-Art>
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.

Like Ghandi I believe that Western Civilization would
be a good idea but I fail to see where it has arrived. The
Germans of WW II were described as barbarians with modern
weapons and so are we in the USA today. What little civilization
we had has been absorbed by profit motives and deliberate
division of the citizens using myth and misinformation.

But that is just my opinion after 87 years of
enjoying the benefits of our high technology. I most
likely would not be alive now if not for medical advance
in the 1930s and 1940s. So here is penicillen(now allegic)
and then a few years later the fission bombs.

bliss
.

[quadibloc]

Post by Bobbie Sellers
Like Ghandi I believe that Western Civilization would
be a good idea but I fail to see where it has arrived.

Not long after Gandhi's quip, though, came the partition of India in
1947.

Say what you will about the industrialized nations of the West, but they
have
outbreaks of what India calls "communal violence" rather less often than
India. And today India is governed by the BJP and its leader Narendra
Modi,
who openly favors Hindu supremacy.

However, since the U.S. has elected Trump, and Canada appears to be on
the
verge of electing Pierre Polievre (who tries to come across as a normal
Conservative politician, but by supporting the "Freedom Convoy" he
revealed
himself to represent the same madness as Trump) perhaps I should not be
quite
so sanguine about the West.

(The Freedom Convoy was a protest that blocked off a significant area of
Ottawa,
interfering with the ability of several businesses to operate, demanding
the
resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which was a protest
against
the basic public health measures Canada took in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.)

Apparently the world is going mad, and will soon fall into a global
tyranny, in
which the world's three nuclear superpowers, Russia, mainland China, and
the
U.S. will all get along just fine, dividing the world between them as
three
like-minded dictatorships. I dread this prospect. Not that I feel it is
certain - but even a detectable probability of such a calamity is
intolerable
to me, so I'm not satisfied with the hope that the entire GOP will stop
short
of supporting Trump when it comes to the point of him leading America
into the
abyss.

John Savard

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by quadibloc

    Like Ghandi I believe that Western Civilization would
be a good idea but I fail to see where it has arrived.

Not long after Gandhi's quip, though, came the partition of India in
1947.
Say what you will about the industrialized nations of the West, but they
have
outbreaks of what India calls "communal violence" rather less often than
India. And today India is governed by the BJP and its leader Narendra
Modi,
who openly favors Hindu supremacy.

We in the USA, have outbreaks of individual violence, attacks on
schools, churches, synagogues and temples.
In 2020 on January 6 we had communal violence.
Before that we had frequent communal violence directed
toward African-Americans and referred to as Lynching The same
sort of violence has been directed against Jewish people,
gay people and their cohorts with state laws suppressing their
rights to exist

Post by quadibloc
However, since the U.S. has elected Trump, and Canada appears to be on
the
verge of electing Pierre Polievre (who tries to come across as a normal
Conservative politician, but by supporting the "Freedom Convoy" he
revealed
himself to represent the same madness as Trump) perhaps I should not be
quite
so sanguine about the West.
(The Freedom Convoy was a protest that blocked off a significant area of
Ottawa,
interfering with the ability of several businesses to operate, demanding
the
resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which was a protest
against
the basic public health measures Canada took in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.)
Apparently the world is going mad, and will soon fall into a global
tyranny, in
which the world's three nuclear superpowers, Russia, mainland China, and
the
U.S. will all get along just fine, dividing the world between them as
three
like-minded dictatorships. I dread this prospect. Not that I feel it is
certain - but even a detectable probability of such a calamity is
intolerable
to me, so I'm not satisfied with the hope that the entire GOP will stop
short
of supporting Trump when it comes to the point of him leading America
into the abyss.
John Savard

First comes the North American Alliance.

bliss

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:03:26 -0800, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc

    Like Ghandi I believe that Western Civilization would
be a good idea but I fail to see where it has arrived.

Not long after Gandhi's quip, though, came the partition of India in
1947.
Say what you will about the industrialized nations of the West, but they
have
outbreaks of what India calls "communal violence" rather less often than
India. And today India is governed by the BJP and its leader Narendra
Modi,
who openly favors Hindu supremacy.

We in the USA, have outbreaks of individual violence, attacks on
schools, churches, synagogues and temples.
In 2020 on January 6 we had communal violence.
Before that we had frequent communal violence directed
toward African-Americans and referred to as Lynching

Don't forget the old-style race riots -- the ones where White rioters
destroyed African-American neighborhoods.

That's why Watts was so shocking -- African-Americans were doing it to
themselves.

[quadibloc]

Post by Bobbie Sellers
In 2020 on January 6 we had communal violence.

No, that's not "communal violence". That term is used in India to refer
to cases when a mob of people of one group massacre people belonging to
another ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Yes, you have had that in the United States. For example, a historic
case in Florida was recently mentioned in the news - the Rosewood
massacre of January 5, 1923.

John Savard

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by quadibloc

    In 2020 on January 6 we had communal violence.

No, that's not "communal violence". That term is used in India to refer
to cases when a mob of people of one group massacre people belonging to
another ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Yes, you have had that in the United States. For example, a historic
case in Florida was recently mentioned in the news - the Rosewood
massacre of January 5, 1923.
John Savard

The destruction of Black Wall Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma.> Tulsa race
massacre

Post by quadibloc
Racially charged mass attack in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA in May-June 1921
The Tulsa race massacre, also known as the Tulsa race riot or the Black Wall Street massacre, was a two-day-long white supremacist terrorist massacre that took place between May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of white residents, some of whom had been appointed as deputies and armed by city government officials, attacked black residents and destroyed homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma

Now that is communal violence as were the Chicago Race Riots

Post by quadibloc
The Chicago Race Riot of 1919 was a violent conflict between white and Black Americans that occurred from July 27 to August 3, 1919, resulting in 38 deaths and significant injuries. It was part of the "Red Summer," a period marked by racial violence across the United States, largely fueled by tensions from the Great Migration and competition for jobs.

That omits the long history of Lynching in the USA.
One crazy old man aka "Emperor Nortor" prevented
the attempt of white San Francisans to terrorize the Chinese
immigrants. you can read more about the situation at:
<https://emperornortontrust.org/blog/2019/1/4/campaign-discovers-newspaper-record-of-emperor-nortons-famous-stand-off-with-an-anti-chinese-crowd>

I know we have had more race riots in Northern Cities.
Black Towns were rased by white haters in various places
in our nation and city government by black people overthrown
by White Men who just hated the idea that black people could
run a city.

bliss who happens to be a white blued blond.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 13:26:17 -0800, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc

    In 2020 on January 6 we had communal violence.

No, that's not "communal violence". That term is used in India to refer
to cases when a mob of people of one group massacre people belonging to
another ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Yes, you have had that in the United States. For example, a historic
case in Florida was recently mentioned in the news - the Rosewood
massacre of January 5, 1923.
John Savard

The destruction of Black Wall Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma.> Tulsa race
massacre

Post by quadibloc
Racially charged mass attack in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA in May-June 1921
The Tulsa race massacre, also known as the Tulsa race riot or the Black Wall Street massacre, was a two-day-long white supremacist terrorist massacre that took place between May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of white residents, some of whom had been appointed as deputies and armed by city government officials, attacked black residents and destroyed homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma

Now that is communal violence as were the Chicago Race Riots

Post by quadibloc
The Chicago Race Riot of 1919 was a violent conflict between white and Black Americans that occurred from July 27 to August 3, 1919, resulting in 38 deaths and significant injuries. It was part of the "Red Summer," a period marked by racial violence across the United States, largely fueled by tensions from the Great Migration and competition for jobs.

That omits the long history of Lynching in the USA.

Because it isn't relevant here. That doesn't make it any less
despicable.

Typically, there was, after all, only /one/ African-American involved.

And didn't take very long either.

Post by Bobbie Sellers
One crazy old man aka "Emperor Nortor" prevented
the attempt of white San Francisans to terrorize the Chinese
<https://emperornortontrust.org/blog/2019/1/4/campaign-discovers-newspaper-record-of-emperor-nortons-famous-stand-off-with-an-anti-chinese-crowd>
I know we have had more race riots in Northern Cities.
Black Towns were rased by white haters in various places
in our nation and city government by black people overthrown
by White Men who just hated the idea that black people could
run a city.
bliss who happens to be a white blued blond.

[D]

Post by quadibloc

Post by Bobbie Sellers
Like Ghandi I believe that Western Civilization would
be a good idea but I fail to see where it has arrived.

Not long after Gandhi's quip, though, came the partition of India in
1947.
Say what you will about the industrialized nations of the West, but they
have
outbreaks of what India calls "communal violence" rather less often than
India. And today India is governed by the BJP and its leader Narendra
Modi,
who openly favors Hindu supremacy.
However, since the U.S. has elected Trump, and Canada appears to be on
the
verge of electing Pierre Polievre (who tries to come across as a normal
Conservative politician, but by supporting the "Freedom Convoy" he
revealed
himself to represent the same madness as Trump) perhaps I should not be
quite
so sanguine about the West.
(The Freedom Convoy was a protest that blocked off a significant area of
Ottawa,
interfering with the ability of several businesses to operate, demanding
the
resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which was a protest
against
the basic public health measures Canada took in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.)
Apparently the world is going mad, and will soon fall into a global
tyranny, in
which the world's three nuclear superpowers, Russia, mainland China, and
the
U.S. will all get along just fine, dividing the world between them as
three
like-minded dictatorships. I dread this prospect. Not that I feel it is
certain - but even a detectable probability of such a calamity is
intolerable
to me, so I'm not satisfied with the hope that the entire GOP will stop
short
of supporting Trump when it comes to the point of him leading America
into the
abyss.
John Savard

I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this group,
and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the end, our
immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just wait and see!
=)

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by D

Post by quadibloc

    Like Ghandi I believe that Western Civilization would
be a good idea but I fail to see where it has arrived.

Not long after Gandhi's quip, though, came the partition of India in
1947.
Say what you will about the industrialized nations of the West, but they
have
outbreaks of what India calls "communal violence" rather less often than
India. And today India is governed by the BJP and its leader Narendra
Modi,
who openly favors Hindu supremacy.
However, since the U.S. has elected Trump, and Canada appears to be on
the
verge of electing Pierre Polievre (who tries to come across as a normal
Conservative politician, but by supporting the "Freedom Convoy" he
revealed
himself to represent the same madness as Trump) perhaps I should not be
quite
so sanguine about the West.
(The Freedom Convoy was a protest that blocked off a significant area of
Ottawa,
interfering with the ability of several businesses to operate, demanding
the
resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which was a protest
against
the basic public health measures Canada took in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.)
Apparently the world is going mad, and will soon fall into a global
tyranny, in
which the world's three nuclear superpowers, Russia, mainland China, and
the
U.S. will all get along just fine, dividing the world between them as
three
like-minded dictatorships. I dread this prospect. Not that I feel it is
certain - but even a detectable probability of such a calamity is
intolerable
to me, so I'm not satisfied with the hope that the entire GOP will stop
short
of supporting Trump when it comes to the point of him leading America
into the
abyss.
John Savard

I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this
group, and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the end,
our immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just wait
and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?

You sound like a cultist.

pt

[D]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by quadibloc

    Like Ghandi I believe that Western Civilization would
be a good idea but I fail to see where it has arrived.

Not long after Gandhi's quip, though, came the partition of India in
1947.
Say what you will about the industrialized nations of the West, but they
have
outbreaks of what India calls "communal violence" rather less often than
India. And today India is governed by the BJP and its leader Narendra
Modi,
who openly favors Hindu supremacy.
However, since the U.S. has elected Trump, and Canada appears to be on
the
verge of electing Pierre Polievre (who tries to come across as a normal
Conservative politician, but by supporting the "Freedom Convoy" he
revealed
himself to represent the same madness as Trump) perhaps I should not be
quite
so sanguine about the West.
(The Freedom Convoy was a protest that blocked off a significant area of
Ottawa,
interfering with the ability of several businesses to operate, demanding
the
resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which was a protest
against
the basic public health measures Canada took in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.)
Apparently the world is going mad, and will soon fall into a global
tyranny, in
which the world's three nuclear superpowers, Russia, mainland China, and
the
U.S. will all get along just fine, dividing the world between them as
three
like-minded dictatorships. I dread this prospect. Not that I feel it is
certain - but even a detectable probability of such a calamity is
intolerable
to me, so I'm not satisfied with the hope that the entire GOP will stop
short
of supporting Trump when it comes to the point of him leading America
into the
abyss.
John Savard

I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden age!
I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this group, and
they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the end, our immortal
leader will make life better for everyone. You just wait and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?

Do you have proof he is not?

Post by Cryptoengineer
You sound like a cultist.

This is not correct.

Post by Cryptoengineer
pt

[Paul S Person]

<snippo>

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer
"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?

Do you have proof he is not?

Not a Leader? All we have to do is look at his first term and that
becomes quite clear. He couldn't lead his way out of wet paper bag
assisted by a squad of Marines.

Not Immortal? If you want to believe he is the embodiment of Satan or
whatever, feel free, but, given his age and likely populartiy as his
Cabinet crashes and burns and his Tariffs boost inflation, it seems
quite possible that he will achieve his dream of being President for
Life -- just as Kennedy and FD Roosevelt were.

[D]

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer
"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?

Do you have proof he is not?

Not a Leader? All we have to do is look at his first term and that
becomes quite clear. He couldn't lead his way out of wet paper bag
assisted by a squad of Marines.

No I said immortal leader. Please do not disconnect the terms. As for
leadership, not only is he king, he has god on his side!

Post by Paul S Person
Not Immortal? If you want to believe he is the embodiment of Satan or
whatever, feel free, but, given his age and likely populartiy as his
Cabinet crashes and burns and his Tariffs boost inflation, it seems
quite possible that he will achieve his dream of being President for
Life -- just as Kennedy and FD Roosevelt were.

Not so. He has god on his side. You will learn to love him in time Paul.
He is your new spiritual father now, and the spiritual father of all
americans. =)

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer
"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?

Do you have proof he is not?

Not a Leader? All we have to do is look at his first term and that
becomes quite clear. He couldn't lead his way out of wet paper bag
assisted by a squad of Marines.

No I said immortal leader. Please do not disconnect the terms. As for
leadership, not only is he king, he has god on his side!

Post by Paul S Person
Not Immortal? If you want to believe he is the embodiment of Satan or
whatever, feel free, but, given his age and likely populartiy as his
Cabinet crashes and burns and his Tariffs boost inflation, it seems
quite possible that he will achieve his dream of being President for
Life -- just as Kennedy and FD Roosevelt were.

Not so. He has god on his side. You will learn to love him in time Paul.
He is your new spiritual father now, and the spiritual father of all
americans. =)

This is Jim Jones level cult behavior.

pt

[D]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>

Post by D

Post by Cryptoengineer
"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?

Do you have proof he is not?

Not a Leader? All we have to do is look at his first term and that
becomes quite clear. He couldn't lead his way out of wet paper bag
assisted by a squad of Marines.

No I said immortal leader. Please do not disconnect the terms. As for
leadership, not only is he king, he has god on his side!

Post by Paul S Person
Not Immortal? If you want to believe he is the embodiment of Satan or
whatever, feel free, but, given his age and likely populartiy as his
Cabinet crashes and burns and his Tariffs boost inflation, it seems
quite possible that he will achieve his dream of being President for
Life -- just as Kennedy and FD Roosevelt were.

Not so. He has god on his side. You will learn to love him in time Paul. He
is your new spiritual father now, and the spiritual father of all
americans. =)

This is Jim Jones level cult behavior.

This is not correct. Look to the results. As a good democratic citizen,
you must accept and obey the will of the people. Trump will heal the
nation.

In all honesty, surely you must feel a little bit of love for our lord?
I'm certain it will grow over time. =)

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
Not so. He has god on his side. You will learn to love him in time Paul.
He is your new spiritual father now, and the spiritual father of all
americans. =)

This is Jim Jones level cult behavior.

While D is clearly trolling here, I have seen Jim Jones level cult
behaviour on the part of a number of Trump followers. I have a neighbor
who claims that we no longer need either the bible nor the constitution
because Trump makes them no longer needed. He has an idea, and it is
an idea that Trump himself may have had earlier in his first term before
he began to understand the job, that somehow Trump will replace all of the
bureaucracy and do all of the work of government himself singlehandedly.

Very strange. I don't get it, and I have lived in plenty of monarchies
and dictatorships.
--scott

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
Not so. He has god on his side. You will learn to love him in time Paul.
He is your new spiritual father now, and the spiritual father of all
americans. =)

This is Jim Jones level cult behavior.

While D is clearly trolling here, I have seen Jim Jones level cult
behaviour on the part of a number of Trump followers. I have a neighbor
who claims that we no longer need either the bible nor the constitution
because Trump makes them no longer needed. He has an idea, and it is
an idea that Trump himself may have had earlier in his first term before
he began to understand the job, that somehow Trump will replace all of the
bureaucracy and do all of the work of government himself singlehandedly.
Very strange. I don't get it, and I have lived in plenty of monarchies
and dictatorships.

I am still waiting for the First Church of Trump to be founded. It is
... inevitable.

[D]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
Not so. He has god on his side. You will learn to love him in time Paul.
He is your new spiritual father now, and the spiritual father of all
americans. =)

This is Jim Jones level cult behavior.

While D is clearly trolling here, I have seen Jim Jones level cult
behaviour on the part of a number of Trump followers. I have a neighbor
who claims that we no longer need either the bible nor the constitution
because Trump makes them no longer needed. He has an idea, and it is
an idea that Trump himself may have had earlier in his first term before
he began to understand the job, that somehow Trump will replace all of the
bureaucracy and do all of the work of government himself singlehandedly.
Very strange. I don't get it, and I have lived in plenty of monarchies
and dictatorships.

I am still waiting for the First Church of Trump to be founded. It is
... inevitable.

No need. America is his church, and americans are his people. =) I'm for
one, am proud to have helped him to victory!

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
Not so. He has god on his side. You will learn to love him in time Paul.
He is your new spiritual father now, and the spiritual father of all
americans. =)

This is Jim Jones level cult behavior.

While D is clearly trolling here, I have seen Jim Jones level cult

I'm not so sure. I think you should read my posts carefully, and surely
you will see the light!

Post by Scott Dorsey
behaviour on the part of a number of Trump followers. I have a neighbor
who claims that we no longer need either the bible nor the constitution
because Trump makes them no longer needed. He has an idea, and it is
an idea that Trump himself may have had earlier in his first term before
he began to understand the job, that somehow Trump will replace all of the
bureaucracy and do all of the work of government himself singlehandedly.
Very strange. I don't get it, and I have lived in plenty of monarchies
and dictatorships.
--scott

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Cryptoengineer
"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

:s/cultist/troll/g

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Cryptoengineer
"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

:s/cultist/troll/g

Wrong again Scott. I have proven scientifically that I am not.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Cryptoengineer
"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

:s/cultist/troll/g

How can you tell if a troll is a cultist? That could be part of the
"fun" of trolldom.

[D]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Cryptoengineer
"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

:s/cultist/troll/g

How can you tell if a troll is a cultist? That could be part of the
"fun" of trolldom.

This is the truth!

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:14:22 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this
group, and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the end,
our immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just wait
and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

Sounds more like sarcasm to me.

[Mad Hamish]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:14:22 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this
group, and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the end,
our immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just wait
and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

Sounds more like sarcasm to me.

The history of his posting suggests it isn't too far from his beliefs

[Titus G]

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:14:22 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this
group, and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the end,
our immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just wait
and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

Sounds more like sarcasm to me.

The history of his posting suggests it isn't too far from his beliefs

Secretly he wishes to be taken to the opera by a homosexual but
suppresses this desire by imitating the self styled proverbial gift to
women, His Orangeness, (with exaggeration).

[D]

Post by Titus G

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:14:22 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this
group, and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the end,
our immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just wait
and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

Sounds more like sarcasm to me.

The history of his posting suggests it isn't too far from his beliefs

Secretly he wishes to be taken to the opera by a homosexual but
suppresses this desire by imitating the self styled proverbial gift to
women, His Orangeness, (with exaggeration).

This is incorrect. Trump will punish you for your sins! Repent while there
is time, or he will come after you in january!

[D]

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:14:22 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this
group, and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the end,
our immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just wait
and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?
You sound like a cultist.

Sounds more like sarcasm to me.

The history of his posting suggests it isn't too far from his beliefs

I suggest collecting more data. Let's observe and maybe things will become
clear!

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this
group, and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the
end, our immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just
wait and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?

Elon Musk builds pretty good robots.
The "Artificial intelligence" is not so good,
but it doesn't have to be.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 22:47:05 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by D
I think Trump is a great leader, and will bring the US to a new golden
age! I know that many tears have been shed by the democrats in this
group, and they do bring me great joy, but you will see that in the
end, our immortal leader will make life better for everyone. You just
wait and see! =)

"Immortal Leader"? where do you learn your factions rhetoric? Pyongyang?

Elon Musk builds pretty good robots.
The "Artificial intelligence" is not so good,
but it doesn't have to be.

Last night, it occurred to me that the /SlaughterHouse Rulez/
alteration might apply.

For those who haven't seen it, a young new student, being quizzed on
House Traditions, translates "Per Caedes Ad Astra" not as "Through
Slaughter to Immortality" but rather as "Through Slaughter to
Immorality". As might be imagined, this because something of a running
joke.

So, if we read "Immortal Leader" as "Immoral Leader", I think we can
agree that D is onto something here. Or would be if D. Trump were a
"leader" (in any sense of the word other than just occupying a
leadership position) which, of course, he is not.

[Paul S Person]

Post by quadibloc

Post by Bobbie Sellers
Like Ghandi I believe that Western Civilization would
be a good idea but I fail to see where it has arrived.

Not long after Gandhi's quip, though, came the partition of India in
1947.
Say what you will about the industrialized nations of the West, but they
have
outbreaks of what India calls "communal violence" rather less often than
India. And today India is governed by the BJP and its leader Narendra
Modi,
who openly favors Hindu supremacy.
However, since the U.S. has elected Trump, and Canada appears to be on
the
verge of electing Pierre Polievre (who tries to come across as a normal
Conservative politician, but by supporting the "Freedom Convoy" he
revealed
himself to represent the same madness as Trump) perhaps I should not be
quite
so sanguine about the West.

Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.

But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

Post by quadibloc
(The Freedom Convoy was a protest that blocked off a significant area of
Ottawa,
interfering with the ability of several businesses to operate, demanding
the
resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, which was a protest
against
the basic public health measures Canada took in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.)
Apparently the world is going mad, and will soon fall into a global
tyranny, in
which the world's three nuclear superpowers, Russia, mainland China, and
the
U.S. will all get along just fine, dividing the world between them as
three
like-minded dictatorships. I dread this prospect. Not that I feel it is
certain - but even a detectable probability of such a calamity is
intolerable
to me, so I'm not satisfied with the hope that the entire GOP will stop
short
of supporting Trump when it comes to the point of him leading America
into the
abyss.

Nice summary of /1984/. I'm sure everyone here had no trouble
recognizing it.

[William Hyde]

t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
often in my time in the US. The first is obscene, but the second is:

"No, fifty two states". We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.

Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.

William Hyde

[Robert Woodward]

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states". We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.

I wonder how you would divide 11 provinces (plus Yukon, Northwest
Territories, and Nunavut) into 52 states. This is, however, a game two
can play (Texas into 5 states, California into 3, Oregon into 2, as well
as Washington and Colorado, split off Michigan's upper peninsula, etc.).

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states". We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because
it would permanently (or at least for a generation) upset the balance
of power between Republicans and Democrats. The Canadian Conservative
party is semi-permanently stuck in the 40-high 40s range in the polls
except for blow-outs like 1993 (which in US terms would be like the
1972 US election where Nixon won 49 states) while most Liberal party
and NDP voters would swing to the Dems.

[William Hyde]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states". We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because

I am smiling.

I begin to see where Terry and D are coming from. Even when a troll is
announced, people are trolled.


William Hyde

[D]

Post by William Hyde

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states". We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because

I am smiling.
I begin to see where Terry and D are coming from. Even when a troll is
announced, people are trolled.

This is the truth! I consider it an artform. The highest art is
metatrolling! You just wait, and I'll amaze you!

Post by William Hyde
William Hyde

[William Hyde]

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states".  We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because

I am smiling.
I begin to see where Terry and D are coming from.  Even when a troll
is announced, people are trolled.

This is the truth! I consider it an artform.

In much the same way that musical farts are an artform.

William Hyde

[D]

Post by William Hyde

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states".  We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because

I am smiling.
I begin to see where Terry and D are coming from.  Even when a troll is
announced, people are trolled.

This is the truth! I consider it an artform.

In much the same way that musical farts are an artform.
William Hyde

Nope! Think performance art... you, and all of our friends here, are my
canvas! ;)

[Titus G]

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states".  We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because

I am smiling.
I begin to see where Terry and D are coming from.  Even when a troll
is announced, people are trolled.

This is the truth! I consider it an artform.

In much the same way that musical farts are an artform.
William Hyde

Nope! Think performance art... you, and all of our friends here, are my
canvas! ;)

Busking in a phonebox?
Rather than a more populated place like the island of Gotland in Sweden
where the world will gather to escape weather changes caused by the sun?

[D]

Post by Titus G

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states".  We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because

I am smiling.
I begin to see where Terry and D are coming from.  Even when a troll
is announced, people are trolled.

This is the truth! I consider it an artform.

In much the same way that musical farts are an artform.
William Hyde

Nope! Think performance art... you, and all of our friends here, are my
canvas! ;)

Busking in a phonebox?
Rather than a more populated place like the island of Gotland in Sweden
where the world will gather to escape weather changes caused by the sun?

That would be a massive audience in a small space. It is, howver, nothing
but horror fantasy that the politicians are using to get you to give up
your freedom and money. But just the fact that we have established a
connection, means that you have started your journey to full recovery!

There is no scientific proof of global warming, once you realize that
fact, you'll start to look through the propaganda pretty quick. =)

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by D
Nope! Think performance art... you, and all of our friends here, are my
canvas! ;)

I think this is sort of deficient as art, because there is nothing that you
can do or say at this point which would exceed the craziness of actual real
life.

I am generally a fan of satire, but we are living in an age when you cannot
tell if something is from the Onion or the New York Times anymore, because
reality has become sufficiently extreme to be difficult to satirize.

It's bad times for political comedians. Bad times.
--scott

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by D
Nope! Think performance art... you, and all of our friends here, are my
canvas! ;)

I think this is sort of deficient as art, because there is nothing that you
can do or say at this point which would exceed the craziness of actual real
life.
I am generally a fan of satire, but we are living in an age when you cannot
tell if something is from the Onion or the New York Times anymore, because
reality has become sufficiently extreme to be difficult to satirize.
It's bad times for political comedians. Bad times.
--scott

Don't be so negative Scott... the beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
But what you say does remind me that I did see and interview of the CEO of
the babylon bee, and he was upset because a pattern has become
established.

They make fun of something with a fake headline, and a year or two down
the line, their headlines turn up in the established press!

You might have a point here!

[Paul S Person]

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states".  We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because

I am smiling.
I begin to see where Terry and D are coming from.  Even when a troll is
announced, people are trolled.

This is the truth! I consider it an artform.

In much the same way that musical farts are an artform.
William Hyde

Nope! Think performance art... you, and all of our friends here, are my
canvas! ;)

You have friends here?

[D]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by D

Post by William Hyde

Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:33:40 -0500, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
t.

Post by Paul S Person
Adding each Province as a State and expanding Canadian political
parties southwards might be helpful. Or not. Not that I would
recommend it.
But making all of Canada a /single/ State is ludicrous.

There are only two responses to this kind of crap, which I heard all too
"No, fifty two states".  We demand control of the senate, even if you
make PR a state.
Then people try to explain to me how ludicrous that would be, and I smile.
William Hyde

Frankly the main reason why this would never happen would be because

I am smiling.
I begin to see where Terry and D are coming from.  Even when a troll is
announced, people are trolled.

This is the truth! I consider it an artform.

In much the same way that musical farts are an artform.
William Hyde

Nope! Think performance art... you, and all of our friends here, are my
canvas! ;)

You have friends here?

Of course! Why wouldn't I? Do you hate me? I respect your dignity as a
human being!

[Charles Packer]

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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."

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.

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>

bliss

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:53:40 -0800, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.

Post by Bobbie Sellers
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?

[Titus G Trump]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:53:40 -0800, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.

Post by Bobbie Sellers
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?

[Paul S Person]

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:53:40 -0800, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.

Post by Bobbie Sellers
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?

Truman isn't fiction.

[William Hyde]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:53:40 -0800, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.

Post by Bobbie Sellers
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?

Truman isn't fiction.

We could start a Harry Truman denialism movement. When FDR died (if
indeed he did!), Eleanor hired an actor to play Truman while she ran the
country until 1952 before ceding power to FDR's illegitimate son.

Easy.

William Hyde

[D]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:53:40 -0800, Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by Bobbie Sellers

Post by quadibloc
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.

Post by Bobbie Sellers
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?

Truman isn't fiction.

We could start a Harry Truman denialism movement. When FDR died (if indeed
he did!), Eleanor hired an actor to play Truman while she ran the country
until 1952 before ceding power to FDR's illegitimate son.
Easy.
William Hyde

Sign me up! See William, now you're talking my language! =D

[quadibloc]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
[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?

Truman isn't fiction.

We could start a Harry Truman denialism movement. When FDR died (if
indeed he did!), Eleanor hired an actor to play Truman while she ran the
country until 1952 before ceding power to FDR's illegitimate son.

The only thing fictional about Harry "S" Truman was his middle initial.

But, on the other hand, the television show Star Trek was fiction, and I
think
that was what was being referred to.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

Post by quadibloc

Post by William Hyde

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
[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?

Truman isn't fiction.

We could start a Harry Truman denialism movement. When FDR died (if
indeed he did!), Eleanor hired an actor to play Truman while she ran the
country until 1952 before ceding power to FDR's illegitimate son.

The only thing fictional about Harry "S" Truman was his middle initial.
But, on the other hand, the television show Star Trek was fiction, and I
think
that was what was being referred to.

Actually, it was /Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country/, a movie.

[William Hyde]

Post by quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
[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?

Truman isn't fiction.

We could start a Harry Truman denialism movement.  When FDR died (if
indeed he did!), Eleanor hired an actor to play Truman while she ran the
country until 1952 before ceding power to FDR's illegitimate son.

The only thing fictional about Harry "S" Truman was his middle initial.

I should have guessed you'd be part of the Trumanite conspiracy.

Just know that we're on to you.

Dewey will be avenged!


William Hyde

[Titus G]

snip

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
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?

Truman isn't fiction.

He certainly accepted responsibility for use of atomic bombing of Japan.
I do not know of his record of other matters. The buck does stop "in
these cases", but nowadays it stops in the top dogs' bank accounts.
Didn't Truman also become somewhat rich as President?

[Paul S Person]

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
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?

Truman isn't fiction.

He certainly accepted responsibility for use of atomic bombing of Japan.
I do not know of his record of other matters. The buck does stop "in
these cases", but nowadays it stops in the top dogs' bank accounts.
Didn't Truman also become somewhat rich as President?

I have no idea.

But, if he did, that means he /wasn't/ rich when he became President.

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Titus G Trump

Post by Paul S Person
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?

Truman isn't fiction.

He certainly accepted responsibility for use of atomic bombing of Japan.
I do not know of his record of other matters. The buck does stop "in
these cases", but nowadays it stops in the top dogs' bank accounts.
Didn't Truman also become somewhat rich as President?

I have no idea.
But, if he did, that means he /wasn't/ rich when he became President.

No he was not rich but he was in politics. He attended some
business school class but did not have a college degree.

Well he had been a haberdashery owner who went
bankrupt in the 1921 recession as I understand it. He got
a good salary while in office and probably wrote or helped
write books afterward. Presidents have pensions so he
was well off.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman>

Post by Paul S Person
In January 1959, Truman calculated his net worth as $1,046,788.86 (equivalent to $10,941,000 in 2023),
including a share in the Los Angeles Rams football team.

Nevertheless, > the Trumans always lived modestly in Independence, and
when Bess

Post by Paul S Person
Truman died in 1982, almost a decade after her husband, the house was
found to be in poor condition due to deferred maintenance.[311]

So like most other holders of the Presidency, Truman was richer
after he served the nation so well.

bliss

[Charles Packer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:58:15 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer

Post by Bobbie Sellers

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.

Yeah, sometimes a crime is just a crime...until a journalist gets hold of
it.

[Paul S Person]

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.

You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.

And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

And Donald Trump is the Poster Child for Rich White Male Special
Treatment by the Judicial System.

[D]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.
And Donald Trump is the Poster Child for Rich White Male Special
Treatment by the Judicial System.

"Orange man bad" syndrome. The US has the worst parts of private health
care coupled with the worst parts of public health care. It is a very good
example of taking the worst parts of both and combining them into an
unholy mix.

[Paul S Person]

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.
And Donald Trump is the Poster Child for Rich White Male Special
Treatment by the Judicial System.

"Orange man bad" syndrome. The US has the worst parts of private health
care coupled with the worst parts of public health care. It is a very good
example of taking the worst parts of both and combining them into an
unholy mix.

I said nothing about "orange man". I just stated the obvious
conclusion of his recent court cases.

I mean, even the Supreme Court went to bat for him.

[D]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.
And Donald Trump is the Poster Child for Rich White Male Special
Treatment by the Judicial System.

"Orange man bad" syndrome. The US has the worst parts of private health
care coupled with the worst parts of public health care. It is a very good
example of taking the worst parts of both and combining them into an
unholy mix.

I said nothing about "orange man". I just stated the obvious
conclusion of his recent court cases.

This is correct. But note that I did not claim you said orange man. I say
that you exhibits symptoms of orange man bad syndrome, or what is also
called Trump derangement syndrome.

[Paul S Person]

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.
And Donald Trump is the Poster Child for Rich White Male Special
Treatment by the Judicial System.

"Orange man bad" syndrome. The US has the worst parts of private health
care coupled with the worst parts of public health care. It is a very good
example of taking the worst parts of both and combining them into an
unholy mix.

I said nothing about "orange man". I just stated the obvious
conclusion of his recent court cases.

This is correct. But note that I did not claim you said orange man. I say
that you exhibits symptoms of orange man bad syndrome, or what is also
called Trump derangement syndrome.

Only by MAGA. Sane persons regard /MAGA/ as suffering from TDS.

[D]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person

Post by D

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.
And Donald Trump is the Poster Child for Rich White Male Special
Treatment by the Judicial System.

"Orange man bad" syndrome. The US has the worst parts of private health
care coupled with the worst parts of public health care. It is a very good
example of taking the worst parts of both and combining them into an
unholy mix.

I said nothing about "orange man". I just stated the obvious
conclusion of his recent court cases.

This is correct. But note that I did not claim you said orange man. I say
that you exhibits symptoms of orange man bad syndrome, or what is also
called Trump derangement syndrome.

Only by MAGA. Sane persons regard /MAGA/ as suffering from TDS.

This is incorrect Paul. I would argue, that I am about 17% more sane than
you!

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.

No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.

Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.

I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

pt

[Bobbie Sellers]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.
pt

It is called Universal Single Payer Health Care and
civilized nations all have it. Here the parties invested
in the current barbaric system have resisted all attempts
to put it in place effectively despite the great results
seen in the Military services. The closest we have gotten
is the ACA, Medicare and Medic-Aide(known in California as
Medi-Cal).

Becasue of the cost of going to local ERs I failed
to do that in a timely fashion when I broke my ankle, hence
I suffer months later after what I thought was a twisted
ankle. Will the broken ankle heal properly? I will address
that matter in the future if it eventuates.

bliss

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.
pt

    It is called Universal Single Payer Health Care and
civilized nations all have it. Here the parties invested
in the current barbaric system have resisted all attempts
to put it in place effectively despite the great results
seen in the Military services. The closest we have gotten
is the ACA, Medicare and Medic-Aide(known in California as
Medi-Cal).
    Becasue of the cost of going to local ERs I failed
to do that in a timely fashion when I broke my ankle, hence
I suffer months later after what I thought was a twisted
ankle. Will the broken ankle heal properly? I will address
that matter in the future if it eventuates.

This is a problem that extends far beyond just healthcare.

pt

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.
pt

    It is called Universal Single Payer Health Care and
civilized nations all have it. Here the parties invested
in the current barbaric system have resisted all attempts
to put it in place effectively despite the great results
seen in the Military services. The closest we have gotten
is the ACA, Medicare and Medic-Aide(known in California as
Medi-Cal).
    Becasue of the cost of going to local ERs I failed
to do that in a timely fashion when I broke my ankle, hence
I suffer months later after what I thought was a twisted
ankle. Will the broken ankle heal properly? I will address
that matter in the future if it eventuates.

This is a problem that extends far beyond just healthcare.

Indeed. And, Boeing and Intel are the poster children.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Cryptoengineer
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

The conservative answer is that competition in the marketplace
prevents this from happening, because in a competitive environment
customers who are poorly served go to a competing company and
this is bad for shareholder return.

This is mostly true, but because it's mostly true, large corporations
will do anything possible to stifle competition. The problem is
that the government in the post-Reagan era tends to let them, and
we have had a number of margers of huge corporations to the point
where many industries are dominated by one large company and
competition has disappeared.

I would say, and more conservative people might disagree, that another
part of the problem is that directors of corporations are very
interested in the immediate and short-term shareholder value with
no interest in the long-term effects of their actions. This is
because their income is often directly tied to short-term shareholder
value and what happens to the stock in ten years means nothing to them
because they won't be around then. This seems to me to be almost
entirely the fault of the corporations themselves which set
remuneration standards that way.
--scott

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Cryptoengineer
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

The conservative answer is that competition in the marketplace
prevents this from happening, because in a competitive environment
customers who are poorly served go to a competing company and
this is bad for shareholder return.
This is mostly true, but because it's mostly true, large corporations
will do anything possible to stifle competition. The problem is
that the government in the post-Reagan era tends to let them, and
we have had a number of margers of huge corporations to the point
where many industries are dominated by one large company and
competition has disappeared.
I would say, and more conservative people might disagree, that another
part of the problem is that directors of corporations are very
interested in the immediate and short-term shareholder value with
no interest in the long-term effects of their actions. This is
because their income is often directly tied to short-term shareholder
value and what happens to the stock in ten years means nothing to them
because they won't be around then. This seems to me to be almost
entirely the fault of the corporations themselves which set
remuneration standards that way.
--scott

Agreed. Competition *should* be the answer. But for most people,
the notion that there's a *choice* in insurers is illusory. Most
people in America are insured through their employers, and those
employers usually offer only a single choice.

The employer's motivation, again, is to Maximize Shareholder
Return on Investment. Thus, it will pick the cheapest plan, not
the best. They employee has no agency in the matter, save to
find a different job.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:22:49 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

The Supreme Court provided a solution when they declared them to be
persons like everybody else.

The solution is simple: when a corporation breaks the law, the
Chairman of the Board, the President (or whatever the title is in a
given case), and the first five levels down from the top of Management
are considered to be legally responsible.

/They/ go to prison. /They/ get executed if appropriate. This should
induce a certain amount of ... prudence ... in people in those
positions. And effective supervision of those below them.

If a more accurate assignment of responsibility can be made, then it
should be. But the top dogs should only be held not responsible if the
actual malefactors /deliberately and knowingly concealed/ what they
were doing.

If you want to tell me this isn't practical, my response it: it should
be /tried/. If nothing else, the Supreme Court should be faced with
either allowing it or reversing their prior decision and making
corporations no longer legal persons.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:22:49 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

The Supreme Court provided a solution when they declared them to be
persons like everybody else.
The solution is simple: when a corporation breaks the law, the
Chairman of the Board, the President (or whatever the title is in a
given case), and the first five levels down from the top of Management
are considered to be legally responsible.
/They/ go to prison. /They/ get executed if appropriate. This should
induce a certain amount of ... prudence ... in people in those
positions. And effective supervision of those below them.
If a more accurate assignment of responsibility can be made, then it
should be. But the top dogs should only be held not responsible if the
actual malefactors /deliberately and knowingly concealed/ what they
were doing.
If you want to tell me this isn't practical, my response it: it should
be /tried/. If nothing else, the Supreme Court should be faced with
either allowing it or reversing their prior decision and making
corporations no longer legal persons.

I'd love to see that, but now that corporations are held to be persons,
they can, through 'campaign contributions' bribe legislators to change
the rules in their favor.

We're seeing this happening right now.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:21:19 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:22:49 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

The Supreme Court provided a solution when they declared them to be
persons like everybody else.
The solution is simple: when a corporation breaks the law, the
Chairman of the Board, the President (or whatever the title is in a
given case), and the first five levels down from the top of Management
are considered to be legally responsible.
/They/ go to prison. /They/ get executed if appropriate. This should
induce a certain amount of ... prudence ... in people in those
positions. And effective supervision of those below them.
If a more accurate assignment of responsibility can be made, then it
should be. But the top dogs should only be held not responsible if the
actual malefactors /deliberately and knowingly concealed/ what they
were doing.
If you want to tell me this isn't practical, my response it: it should
be /tried/. If nothing else, the Supreme Court should be faced with
either allowing it or reversing their prior decision and making
corporations no longer legal persons.

I'd love to see that, but now that corporations are held to be persons,
they can, through 'campaign contributions' bribe legislators to change
the rules in their favor.

Bribing a public official is a crime in most jurisdictions.

But where is the criminal justice system now that we really need it?

Post by Cryptoengineer
We're seeing this happening right now.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:21:19 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:22:49 -0500, Cryptoengineer
=20

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

A few days ago, I had read in the news that the CEO of a major =

health

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

insurer was gunned down. This was shocking; it seemed to mean that =

no

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

one
was safe from crime.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that =

the

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system =

to

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including =

many

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I =

don't

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide =

victim

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer =

doesn't

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. =

That

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of =

prosecuting

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

=20
The Supreme Court provided a solution when they declared them to be
persons like everybody else.
=20
The solution is simple: when a corporation breaks the law, the
Chairman of the Board, the President (or whatever the title is in a
given case), and the first five levels down from the top of Management
are considered to be legally responsible.
=20
/They/ go to prison. /They/ get executed if appropriate. This should
induce a certain amount of ... prudence ... in people in those
positions. And effective supervision of those below them.
=20
If a more accurate assignment of responsibility can be made, then it
should be. But the top dogs should only be held not responsible if the
actual malefactors /deliberately and knowingly concealed/ what they
were doing.
=20
If you want to tell me this isn't practical, my response it: it should
be /tried/. If nothing else, the Supreme Court should be faced with
either allowing it or reversing their prior decision and making
corporations no longer legal persons.

I'd love to see that, but now that corporations are held to be persons,
they can, through 'campaign contributions' bribe legislators to change
the rules in their favor.

Bribing a public official is a crime in most jurisdictions.

You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court recently
ruled that a 'gift' after the fact isn't a bribe.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:21:19 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:22:49 -0500, Cryptoengineer
=20

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

A few days ago, I had read in the news that the CEO of a major =

health

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

insurer was gunned down. This was shocking; it seemed to mean that =

no

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

one
was safe from crime.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that =

the

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system =

to

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including =

many

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I =

don't

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide =

victim

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer =

doesn't

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. =

That

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of =

prosecuting

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

=20
The Supreme Court provided a solution when they declared them to be
persons like everybody else.
=20
The solution is simple: when a corporation breaks the law, the
Chairman of the Board, the President (or whatever the title is in a
given case), and the first five levels down from the top of Management
are considered to be legally responsible.
=20
/They/ go to prison. /They/ get executed if appropriate. This should
induce a certain amount of ... prudence ... in people in those
positions. And effective supervision of those below them.
=20
If a more accurate assignment of responsibility can be made, then it
should be. But the top dogs should only be held not responsible if the
actual malefactors /deliberately and knowingly concealed/ what they
were doing.
=20
If you want to tell me this isn't practical, my response it: it should
be /tried/. If nothing else, the Supreme Court should be faced with
either allowing it or reversing their prior decision and making
corporations no longer legal persons.

I'd love to see that, but now that corporations are held to be persons,
they can, through 'campaign contributions' bribe legislators to change
the rules in their favor.

Bribing a public official is a crime in most jurisdictions.

You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court recently
ruled that a 'gift' after the fact isn't a bribe.

Campaign contributions are not after-the-fact.

And the SC is correct -- it's not a bribe, it's a kickback [1].

That's the problem with some prosecutors -- they pretend the crime is
one thing when it really is another. And then wonder why they fail.

We saw this in Waco, where the Prosecutor saw "a conspicacy to kill
Federal Officers" and the jury saw "self-defence".

And, more locally, where the Prosecutor saw "kidnapping", the jury saw
nothing of the sort, and the /employer/ saw "dereliction of duty" and
fired the State Patrol trooper immediately after the trial. This was,
of course, some time back, where the custom was for the employer to
wait and see what happened at trial before taking any action. The
custom appears to be to fire them at once to get ahead of the curve.

[1] Provided that there was no prior agreement involved, as the
promise of the payment preceding awarding the contract (or whatever)
would make it a bribe. But no mention was made of such an agreement.

[Titus G]

snip

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
Bribing a public official is a crime in most jurisdictions.

You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court recently
ruled that a 'gift' after the fact isn't a bribe.

And the SC is correct -- it's not a bribe, it's a kickback [1].
[1] Provided that there was no prior agreement involved, as the
promise of the payment preceding awarding the contract (or whatever)
would make it a bribe. But no mention was made of such an agreement.

Correction. There was no evidence of prior agreement. Corruption is
legal if there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence of prior
agreement.

( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf )

In summary a bribe is organised and paid prior to some desired behaviour
so the court determined that any post-facto payments are simply
gratuities and therefore not illegal.
A small town mayor, Snyder, asked for $13,000 from a company AFTER it
was awarded a town contract, was convicted but now absolved by the
Supreme Court of which some members have received substantial benefits
from billionaire friends whose interests they protect and assist being
similar to their own.

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
Bribing a public official is a crime in most jurisdictions.

You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court recently
ruled that a 'gift' after the fact isn't a bribe.

And the SC is correct -- it's not a bribe, it's a kickback [1].
[1] Provided that there was no prior agreement involved, as the
promise of the payment preceding awarding the contract (or whatever)
would make it a bribe. But no mention was made of such an agreement.

Correction. There was no evidence of prior agreement. Corruption is
legal if there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence of prior
agreement.
( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf )
In summary a bribe is organised and paid prior to some desired behaviour
so the court determined that any post-facto payments are simply
gratuities and therefore not illegal.
A small town mayor, Snyder, asked for $13,000 from a company AFTER it
was awarded a town contract, was convicted but now absolved by the
Supreme Court of which some members have received substantial benefits
from billionaire friends whose interests they protect and assist being
similar to their own.

NO! The Supreme Court explicitly did NOT say that it was not
illegal. (It did say it was a gratuity.)

There are very extensive laws and regulations about gratuities at local,
state, and federal levels. Perhaps there needs to be more, but that's not
the issue here.

The Supreme Court ruled that this one particular law, which in places
used quite general ambiguous language, applied only to bribery and not
to after-the-fact gratuities. Among other things, they pointed out
that doing otherwise would invalidate pretty much all of those
extensive laws and regulations about gratuities. A fortunate thing
for me, IMO, as I prepare my annual Christmas gift of $20 to my mail
carrier (the maximum allowed by law/regulation). I could be a felon
given a prosecutor so inclined (though the federal law may have had
higher limits.)

Snyder was a very narrow ruling, affecting one federal law, that had no
impact on all of the laws and regulations regarding gratuities. It did
not in any way attempt to say that gratuities were not illegal.

Another liberal conspiracy theory.

Chris

[Paul S Person]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Titus G
snip

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
Bribing a public official is a crime in most jurisdictions.

You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court recently
ruled that a 'gift' after the fact isn't a bribe.

And the SC is correct -- it's not a bribe, it's a kickback [1].
[1] Provided that there was no prior agreement involved, as the
promise of the payment preceding awarding the contract (or whatever)
would make it a bribe. But no mention was made of such an agreement.

Correction. There was no evidence of prior agreement. Corruption is
legal if there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence of prior
agreement.
( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf )
In summary a bribe is organised and paid prior to some desired behaviour
so the court determined that any post-facto payments are simply
gratuities and therefore not illegal.
A small town mayor, Snyder, asked for $13,000 from a company AFTER it
was awarded a town contract, was convicted but now absolved by the
Supreme Court of which some members have received substantial benefits
from billionaire friends whose interests they protect and assist being
similar to their own.

NO! The Supreme Court explicitly did NOT say that it was not
illegal. (It did say it was a gratuity.)
There are very extensive laws and regulations about gratuities at local,
state, and federal levels. Perhaps there needs to be more, but that's not
the issue here.
The Supreme Court ruled that this one particular law, which in places
used quite general ambiguous language, applied only to bribery and not
to after-the-fact gratuities. Among other things, they pointed out
that doing otherwise would invalidate pretty much all of those
extensive laws and regulations about gratuities. A fortunate thing
for me, IMO, as I prepare my annual Christmas gift of $20 to my mail
carrier (the maximum allowed by law/regulation). I could be a felon
given a prosecutor so inclined (though the federal law may have had
higher limits.)
Snyder was a very narrow ruling, affecting one federal law, that had no
impact on all of the laws and regulations regarding gratuities. It did
not in any way attempt to say that gratuities were not illegal.
Another liberal conspiracy theory.

Thanks for confirming that fools involved could have been convicted
had the prosecutor decided actually charge them with the crime
committed. As I noted, this is just another example of prosecutorial
laziness, possibly brought on by going to one of the schools revealed
last year to be hotbeds of support for Hamas.

Assuming one was; perhaps the local limit on "after-the-fact
gratuities" is $13,001 so this is legally OK. I doubt it, but anything
is, I suppose, possibly when discussing weird hypothetical laws.

[Don]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.
You must keep in mind that the USA does not have a "medical system".
It has a Medical Industry composed of various competing business
enterprises.
And the purpose of a business enterprise is to /make money/, not to
/pay claims/.

This 'corporatism' is something I'm less and less in love with every
year.
No matter what their PR may tell you, the fiduciary duty of
the officers in every public corporations is the same: "Maximize
shareholder return on investment". NOT "Serve our customers". If
they fail to do so at every opportunity, they can be sued.
Particularly when their customers are individuals, there is an
enormous disparity in agency and power, and corporations will
use their power to ride roughshod over people, and every year
it looks like they have fewer ethics and less of a conscience.
I'd love to find a solution which rebalanced this.

The Supreme Court provided a solution when they declared them to be
persons like everybody else.
The solution is simple: when a corporation breaks the law, the
Chairman of the Board, the President (or whatever the title is in a
given case), and the first five levels down from the top of Management
are considered to be legally responsible.
/They/ go to prison. /They/ get executed if appropriate. This should
induce a certain amount of ... prudence ... in people in those
positions. And effective supervision of those below them.
If a more accurate assignment of responsibility can be made, then it
should be. But the top dogs should only be held not responsible if the
actual malefactors /deliberately and knowingly concealed/ what they
were doing.
If you want to tell me this isn't practical, my response it: it should
be /tried/. If nothing else, the Supreme Court should be faced with
either allowing it or reversing their prior decision and making
corporations no longer legal persons.

For this particular case, Jury Nullification empowers individuals who
share Mangione's sentiments to retroactively sanction his behaviour.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

[Don]

Don wrote:

<snip>

Post by Don
For this particular case, Jury Nullification empowers individuals who
share Mangione's sentiments to retroactively sanction his behaviour.

Most wanted CEOs playing cards:

<https://www.tiktok.com/@comradeworkwear/video/7448343531980098859>

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by quadibloc
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.
Then I came across the following information on a web site: that the
health care insurer of which he was the CEO had used an AI system to
process claims; this system rejected 90% of all claims, including many
valid ones.
Maybe this site is a leftist one, and this claim is not true, I don't
know for sure. But if it is true, my sympathy for this homicide victim
basically evaporated. After all, if someone's health insurer doesn't
pay out on valid claims... that person might not get health care. That
kills people. But the legal system wasn't in the process of prosecuting
him as aggressively as any other murderer.

I saw the claim; I have no idea how true it is.

It appears to be well founded:

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

pt

[Robert Carnegie]

Snopes doubts the claim about AI in parts.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-healthcare-ai-denied-claims/

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Robert Carnegie
Snopes doubts the claim about AI in parts.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-healthcare-ai-denied-claims/

I don't think AI is necessary.

10 PRINT "ENTER CLAIM:"
20 INPUT A$
30 PRINT "CLAIM DENIED."

This algorithm is neither AI-based nor relies upon machine learning.
--scott

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 22:45:55 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
Snopes doubts the claim about AI in parts.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-healthcare-ai-denied-claims/

It says it is "unproven". That seems reasonable, at this point.

To quote Number 5: "More input!".