Tag: luigi-mangione

By on

Matt Margolis, a conservative columnist, was talking about the left wing threats to Donald Trump. Unfortunately, these are real and not particularly helpful. Many people believe that he won the 2024 election when he stood up after the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania.

I am no fan of Trump but I think assassinating him is a bad idea and wrong. First, he is a human being. It is vitally important for us to recognize that unlikeable people will always be a part of our lives. Yes, he is an asshole, but assholes deserve the same rights as we do — even if they are acting pretty dangerously.

This is why we respect the rights of murderers despite their unforgivable behavior. Murderers deserve to be heard. This is particularly important when the sentence is death. So this means I have to accept Donald Trump, as a fellow human being, shouldn’t be killed because some person, acting on his own judgement, decides Trump must die.

Let’s forget the Hitler comparisons too. Trump is disturbing. He has authoritarian instincts and needs to be checked at every possible opportunity but he fails miserably as a Hitler. Comparing Trump to Hitler is unfair to Hitler. Trump doesn’t even come close to Hitler’s evil machinations. Judges are still independent, the press is still free and the Democrats are still vocal, if a little ineffective, in opposition. He also has, after almost universal criticism, backed down on tariffs.

Cutting off the head to end Trumpism is a rather naive and lazy. It allows you to think the problem is handled when it hasn’t been handled at all. Half the country voted for the man. They will all still be alive after Trump’s death. How will they respond to an attack on their man. Something tells me it could bring on more violence. Once there is a body count it is difficult to see how things will end well.

Here is the bottom line for me: You can be both appalled by the attack on Governor Shapiro and be OK with Luigi Mangione killing a CEO at the same time. The same applies for Trump. Once you accept political violence as OK for your side, you also are tacitly approving it for anyone who disagrees with you. You don’t abhor violence, you abhor violence being used against your side. This is why anyone who uses political violence has to be condemned.

Is it a gamble. Yes it is a better bet for me than the alternative.

By on

I recently wrote about the murder of Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare CEO. People who I respect were arguing that the people really don’t have much power over healthcare executives and that, given the political climate, weren’t likely to see any changes. This forced Luigi Mangione into action. His frustration with the system gave him no other choice. I wanted to respond to these arguments but I couldn’t quite get my ideas straight about what I wanted to say. The massacre in New Orleans have clarified things for me.

The killer in New Orleans’s probably felt similar to Luigi Mangione, that nobody was listening to what he had to say and, in order to change that, he took extreme action to bring attention to his cause. Since US government is part of the problem, then all Americans are legitimate targets until the US government changes their policy.

Now I don’t believe that to be true and I am betting the most other Americans agree with me. The problem then becomes why is it all right to kill Thompson and not the party goers on Bourbon Street. It becomes a matter of splitting hairs. Thompson definitely held more power over his company than the average American has over government decisions. A terrorist, however, might argue Americans have the power to vote for their leaders. If they are going to vote for the leaders who oppose their cause, then they deserve to die until Americans change to a more ISIS friendly government.

If frustration with the system is a legitimate reason to massacre people then who is to say your frustration is better than my frustration. It is wrong to stay silent when the people dying are disagreeable people. Disagreeable people deserve due process and fair trials because we, as a people, have to know that we there is justice in the process and we are not just going after people we don’t like. Letting lone assassins make that decision is insanity because you are then are opening up political violence option to everyone, including people you disagree with, and who then will kill people you like.

The election of Trump was an incredibly disappointing result but then there is another election coming and, depending on how things go, the political climate could change. At least, this is the way forward I would like to pursue. Call me bourgeois but I much prefer the chaotic and slow machinery of democratic institutions than political violence. I can’t give up on it just yet. It worries me that so many people seem willing to let murder slide as long as the victim is perceived as a legitimate target because someone might decide that you are a legitimate target. Just ask the families who lost a loved one on Bourbon Street.

By on 2 Comments

I received a bill the other day for $1,400 for a procedure performed on me in February. It was so long ago that I didn’t even remember having a procedure done in February or why. I went through my Insurance submission statements to refresh my memory. I couldn’t find anything that quite matched either the date the provider gave or the price they charged.

So I called United Healthcare’s (UHC) customer service. The agent also was unable to explain what was going on so she put me on hold as she needed to talk to a supervisor. One half hour later, she has an explanation. The provider didn’t submit their bill in a timely manner so UHC declined payment.

This was, in no way, a satisfactory explanation because the company was now billing me instead of the insurance company. She then helpfully suggested calling the provider and asking for them to resubmit. This made no sense to me. First, UHC declined payment because the provider had exceeded their deadline for submissions. Does resubmitting the bill put it through some time machine which then makes the bill be on time? Furthermore, why does the provider now think I am responsible for the bill? I didn’t submit the late bill and I didn’t decline payment of the bill. This, as far as I could see, had nothing to do with me at all. It was between UHC and the company billing them.

The agent was speechless for a few seconds as she didn’t have a canned reply for my question. These questions stunned her into silence. Finally, she managed to repeat her previous statement about asking the provider to resubmit. I explained to her that she could call the provider and tell them to resubmit herself as this had nothing to do with me. She was so silent that I had to interrupt her silence with a question, so if UHC declines payment again then UHC will tell the provider to stop billing me because they screwed up. More silence.

I tried a different approach. “So, I shouldn’t pay this bill because all the provider has to do is resubmit the bill and they will get paid.” More silence. Finally, the poor thing lamely offered that I should call the provider and ask them to resubmit their bill. I asked again, “And then they will get paid, right?” Silence. I asked, “what if UHC denies the payment again and the provider bills me again what should I do.” Again silence.

I asked to speak to a supervisor but before I was disconnected from her I asked her to make a note in my file that I am not paying this bill until I get an explanation. I did this because I rarely, if ever, get connected to a supervisor. I didn’t. Odd that because she had just spoken with one regarding my claim but then I image UHC supervisors are bombarded with agents asking questions. I was forced to leave a message. My experience with leaving a message with my insurance companies or any medical provider regarding a billing question is that I will never receive a call back and I haven’t. It now has been over 48 hours which is the time frame UHC gives for these return calls.

So to sum it up:

1.UHC declined to pay for my procedure because the provider failed to bill them in a timely fashion.

2. Because the provider didn’t get paid in a timely manner, they are now billing me.

3. UHC won’t do anything to help me. They expect me to contact the provider in order to resubmit their claim and won’t guarantee that this resubmission will result in payment.

4. Which is kind of shitty behavior because the provider did supply the service and they do have a contract with UHC. But OK, I get it, there has to be some deadlines for bill submission.

5. It is equally shitty that UHC expects me to do their legwork when I have nothing to do with the problem. They declined payment based upon guidelines that I assume their providers are aware of. It then becomes their responsibility to inform the provider to stop billing me as they didn’t follow UHC requirements for billing.

This took about 45 minutes of my time to have, at the end of this call, absolutely no resolution to my problem. I am certain that I have another long phone call with someone in the future. This is horrible customer service and very suspicious too. Why are they asking the provider to resubmit? If there are rules regarding submission, there are rules. If the provider didn’t follow these rules, then the provider doesn’t receive payment. It sounds like they are trying to get the provider to back down or for me to pay the bill. Does this mean if they get harassed enough by the provider and the customer that they will grudgingly pay.?

What did Luigi Mangione’s put on his bullets: Delay, deny and depose.

By on

I have been trying to write about the murder of Brian Thompson but I am having difficulty finding the right words. A lot of people I know and respect are, at best, indifferent to his murder. I agree with their issues about healthcare in USA and I agree that it is a mess. But this is about cold blooded murder. Just because you have a good motive, doesn’t mean you should do it.

Here are my reasons:

  1. I am against murder. Nobody has the right to take another person’s life no matter the crime.
  2. I am for trial by jury. If somebody is guilty of a crime there needs to be a trial. This didn’t happen. One man took it upon himself to execute another human being based on his opinion and his opinion alone. There was no chance for the CEO executive to make his case.
  3. I am against capital punishment. Even if he was guilty of murder, I don’t believe it is right for anyone to be executed for their crimes even if that crime is murder.

Some of the reasons I hear for the indifference is that it will put Healthcare executives on alert. Change your ways or someone might kill you. This is a horrible state of affairs. How is making someone afraid an argument for anything? It is coercion plain and simple. More importantly, they might just opt for better security over changing their behavior. They after all have billions in the bank.

But, this is the first shot for regular people to take back a system that no longer works for them. Well, maybe but then again maybe not. Trump just won election to the presidency. Something that many on the left couldn’t even image happening, but it did. It is incredibly wishful thinking that people might rally around Luigi Mangione and take to the streets in order to overthrow the healthcare oligarchs. A jury might as easily prefer stringing him up instead of celebrating the killing of a capitalist pig.

Which brings me to January 6. If the people who broke into Congress were wrong, and I think they were wrong, then so is a person who murders a man in the street. Violence against persons, no matter how rotten they are, is intolerable.

But the system is broken and the people have no avenue for justice. Again, isn’t that what the January 6 rioters are saying as well? If the system is so broken that both sides are willing to use violence as a method to gain their point then when does the violence stop. When my side gets its way? And, more importantly, will the other side stop using violence based on this defeat. That doesn’t seem likely, at least not without a lot of bloodshed. I, personally, would like to avoid that.

Thinking that revolution is around the corner is a chimera. Look I prefer a single payer system but, given the American public’s attitude towards capitalism, it seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. This means we settle for the best deal we can get which is far less exciting but more likely to happen. I would like to think we have not given up on compromise just yet and that a deal can be worked out. I certainly don’t want to see bloodshed in the streets of our cities.