1·
1 day agoWell look at it this way, the guy that got shot indirectly killed thousands and made a lot more peoples lives miserable through needless suffering and financial ruin, the guy who shot him killed one, in an attempt to stop the indirect killing. The first reaction of the company the guy that got shot worked for was to allow compensation for medical claims more easily (“rectified” since, but a bunch of people got essential help early in) therefore the shooter saved a lot more people than he killed. So why would anyone not glorify the killing as it was a net win.
The one who shot is still a murderer, yes. I don’t know if it was Mr. Mangione, I have not reviewed the court file and only know what I read in the media, which is a bit hit or miss. I know that the shooter resembled Mr. Mangione and that Mr. Mangione has been arrested, and that police reports some evidence found, that is all.
The act certainly was murder, an intentional premeditated killing. One could argue that it was justified as the actions of the one who was killed led to a lot of death and suffering. While it was not the assigned role of the murderer to execute this person, it can be argued that the ones who’s job it is to protect the public from such as the person who got shot, (notice that I refuse to call him a victim, he was not) remained passive and did not fulfill their task, this includes the justice department, police investigators and policy makers. By all accounts the person who got shot was a leading figure in an organization that extorted money from both the state and the public. In any other country the would be considered a criminal organization and prosecuted as such. It can be argued that the killer, whoever he might be, took it upon himself to take an action necessary to protect society, at the risk of his own life, safety and prosperity, If you look at the arguments that serious gun rights activists have advanced for keeping the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the actions of this killer checks nearly all of the boxes. Since in the US the policy makers and judicial system is openly bought by wealthy large corporations to such a degree that it surprises me they don’t wear the names of their sponsors on their suits, it really surprises me that what happened in this case does not happen constantly all over the place.
Your strawman argument about hotel owners does not really hold water, as we don’t suddenly have a condition that requires us to stay in a luxury hotel, which is not the same for hospitals, medication of other medical care.
I know it’s anecdotal but I have an different points in my life required medical services, if I had not been able to get those services, I would not be alive today. I have never had a desperate life threatening situation that could only be solves by a stay in a very expensive hotel.
However you do have a point. There are murders, like these, that can easily find a moral justification. The problem with this, is indeed where you draw the line. Who is bad enough that we should kill them, and who is not. We could start killing the really bad ones, but where do we draw the line? Who gets a pass?
The person who gets a bunch of people killed for his annual bonus seems easy. However does the drunk driver who endangers a lot of other people on or even beside the road get a pass or a bullet? What about the person who we think corrupts the morals of our children? You can easily end up in a system where anyone can be killed on any grounds real or imagined. It reminds me of the situation in revolutionary China and France, where anyone could get lynched by a mob or convicted by a hasty court for being counterrevolutionary, having sympathies for the old nobles, etc.
What is clear from this case and the reaction of the public is that the way money for healthcare is handled in the US is atrocious. The governments in the US spend more money per citizen than any other nation and the costs for healthcare for the average American are spectacularly higher than in any other nation. The quality of the healthcare provided is not so exceptional that this high cost is warranted, the high cost seems entirely due to the for profit organizations that govern the care and the insurance who priorities their major share holders over the actual service provided.
I don’t think people who work to keep this system around and profit of it need to be shot. They need to be fired, prosecuted and forced to return all the money that they embezzled over the decades. The companies need to be dissolved and their funds used to provide free healthcare for all. The US can not keep supporting this parasitic system.