The “you’re next” after referencing a high profile murder is what actually did it.
Like, that’s a credible threat. 15 years is fucking insane, and context is going to matter a lot. Did she just get denied cancer treatment for her 2 year old? Or told it’s not insurance’s fault doctors won’t prescribe opioids? Or any of a million things in between.
That’s why we have trials, to find out all that stuff. And if it’s a jury trial I feel juries would be sympathetic.
The 100k is the real bullshit, but not owning guns doesn’t mean much. It’s insanely easy to buy a gun without a background check thru private seller loopholes.
But our bond system is insane, because the it causes judges to inflate the amount 10x. If you can afford to put it up, you get it all back later. A bondsman you pay 10%, they put up 90%, and they get the whole 100% back. Your 10% is their profit. If a bondsman thinks that’s a good risk, why does the court consistently over estimate the risk?
Work any phone helpdesk job and you will be threatened six ways to Sunday by people who are upset over the most minor things.
Yes this incident came after very prominent consequences for an insurer in the US, but I would be hard pressed to believe that someone who works for a company that denies people lifesaving healthcare hasn’t heard worse.
Did anyone really think she was coming after them after that? No. She got heated on the phone and said something she shouldn’t have.
It’s not nothing. What she did was wrong, and it’s reasonable for it to be a crime. We don’t want to always have to investigate or deal with constant threats. However, she was neither credible nor specific, which are two major criteria. (Keep that in mind when you’re posting here, by the way.) She committed a crime, but not one that should be very serious.
You’re factoring in what you already know about this woman and letting that influence if it was credible.
The people she was on the phone likely know nothing about her besides what was discussed on the call and the threat. That should be reported, and should be investigated.
The bigger issue about framing is the media running headlines that it was just the “deny, defend, despise” that resulted in charges.
A cynic would say that was by order of the owners hoping to discourage a movement, even tho any idiot could have told them it would have the opposite and inflame people.
Which it obviously has.
I like to think at some point people realized this would backfire, and just held their tongue. But I’m an optimist when I can be.
The people she was on the phone likely know nothing about her besides what was discussed on the call and the threat.
Likewise, she knew nothing about them. A threat against some random customer service agent in a company so huge you have no idea even what country the call center is in is categorically not credible!
That should be reported, and should be investigated.
Yes. Certainly.
But the bigger issue is that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. It’s going to cost some resources from law enforcement, and that needs to be punished because we don’t want people like this regularly draining our tax dollars. But any punishment more than probation and/or community service is obscene.
They’ve framed her as a terrorist, and she’s clearly not.
Thanks for the insight on the typical terms of bonds. Good info.
So eyes peeled on this one too I guess. They are making an example of her, I mean the judge plainly said so. We can’t let them get away with these excessive charges.
I didn’t kill anyone and I never will. But I will be damned if I let this moment fade into the next news cycle.
As a society, we are having the conversation about for-profit healthcare NOW!
Yep, which is opening them up to civil suits, but is an open secret about our justice system.
As a society, we are having the conversation about for-profit healthcare NOW!
Think of it like the fediverse. Last year a big event made a lot of us ditch reddit, but some had already been here, and for the majority it wasn’t enough for them to change behavior.
I don’t think Luigi is the big event that causes permanent change, there’s been a lot. People who have been pushing for healthcare reform for 20 years isn’t rare, some for decades longer.
The first presidential candidate who had universal healthcare as a part of the party platform was Teddy Roosevelt in 1920…
It’s a century long fight against the healthcare industry, and it’s not going to be as easy as what just happened to change shit as long as all of our options in general elections have already been bought off.
We reference dogs who catch a car everytime Republicans win majorities and the presidency, but on 1/7/2020 Joe Biden didn’t leap into action, he “looked into” things for so long we lost the House and had an excuse not to do anything. “Winning” by electing a moderate only depresses turnout in midterms and the next presidential cycle.
We have to grow up and admit that or absolutely nothing will really change. The first step is understanding the root cause or we’ll never stop fighting symptoms.
What are you talking about? You just sort of wandered off in the middle there. If I sus your point, we just have to accept it? Or that it will be a gradual erosion?
You can sit there and be all wise. I’m going to keep shitting on insurance executives and encouraging others to do the same.
I’m going to keep shitting on insurance executives and encouraging others to do the same.
No one’s saying you shouldn’t.
I’m just saying we also need to shit on the investors.
And the politicians from both parties they bought to prevent us from fixing anything.
We won’t win this thru the courts, they said with the money.
We won’t win this with politicians who took the money either, we can only win if we first win in the Dem primary. Lose there and we’ll keep losing.
I want to actually fix the problem, and am talking about how
You want to fix a symptom, and it’s a major symptom, but we’ll be fighting the problem at the same time so why not fix the problem so fixing this (and other) symptoms is easy?
You can sit there and be all wise
In general you do t insult people because you don’t understand, but I provided clarification anyways because this is important. Others won’t.
The “you’re next” after referencing a high profile murder is what actually did it.
Like, that’s a credible threat. 15 years is fucking insane, and context is going to matter a lot. Did she just get denied cancer treatment for her 2 year old? Or told it’s not insurance’s fault doctors won’t prescribe opioids? Or any of a million things in between.
That’s why we have trials, to find out all that stuff. And if it’s a jury trial I feel juries would be sympathetic.
The 100k is the real bullshit, but not owning guns doesn’t mean much. It’s insanely easy to buy a gun without a background check thru private seller loopholes.
But our bond system is insane, because the it causes judges to inflate the amount 10x. If you can afford to put it up, you get it all back later. A bondsman you pay 10%, they put up 90%, and they get the whole 100% back. Your 10% is their profit. If a bondsman thinks that’s a good risk, why does the court consistently over estimate the risk?
Work any phone helpdesk job and you will be threatened six ways to Sunday by people who are upset over the most minor things.
Yes this incident came after very prominent consequences for an insurer in the US, but I would be hard pressed to believe that someone who works for a company that denies people lifesaving healthcare hasn’t heard worse.
I did for a couple years, we’d have reported this too.
Anyone would…
“The car on the other side of the zipper merge is going now. You’re next.”
It doesn’t mean I intend to do anything, I’m just observing society.
Bonds only exist so poor people are punished more than rich people.
able to be believed; convincing
Did anyone really think she was coming after them after that? No. She got heated on the phone and said something she shouldn’t have.
It’s not nothing. What she did was wrong, and it’s reasonable for it to be a crime. We don’t want to always have to investigate or deal with constant threats. However, she was neither credible nor specific, which are two major criteria. (Keep that in mind when you’re posting here, by the way.) She committed a crime, but not one that should be very serious.
The way they’ve framed her is obscene.
No. It was not a threat. It was not wrong. It was not a crime.
You’re factoring in what you already know about this woman and letting that influence if it was credible.
The people she was on the phone likely know nothing about her besides what was discussed on the call and the threat. That should be reported, and should be investigated.
The bigger issue about framing is the media running headlines that it was just the “deny, defend, despise” that resulted in charges.
A cynic would say that was by order of the owners hoping to discourage a movement, even tho any idiot could have told them it would have the opposite and inflame people.
Which it obviously has.
I like to think at some point people realized this would backfire, and just held their tongue. But I’m an optimist when I can be.
Likewise, she knew nothing about them. A threat against some random customer service agent in a company so huge you have no idea even what country the call center is in is categorically not credible!
Yes. Certainly.
But the bigger issue is that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. It’s going to cost some resources from law enforcement, and that needs to be punished because we don’t want people like this regularly draining our tax dollars. But any punishment more than probation and/or community service is obscene.
They’ve framed her as a terrorist, and she’s clearly not.
Yes, that’s why the rest of my comment was essentially what you wrote, just more in depth…
Thanks for the insight on the typical terms of bonds. Good info.
So eyes peeled on this one too I guess. They are making an example of her, I mean the judge plainly said so. We can’t let them get away with these excessive charges.
I didn’t kill anyone and I never will. But I will be damned if I let this moment fade into the next news cycle.
As a society, we are having the conversation about for-profit healthcare NOW!
Yep, which is opening them up to civil suits, but is an open secret about our justice system.
Think of it like the fediverse. Last year a big event made a lot of us ditch reddit, but some had already been here, and for the majority it wasn’t enough for them to change behavior.
I don’t think Luigi is the big event that causes permanent change, there’s been a lot. People who have been pushing for healthcare reform for 20 years isn’t rare, some for decades longer.
The first presidential candidate who had universal healthcare as a part of the party platform was Teddy Roosevelt in 1920…
It’s a century long fight against the healthcare industry, and it’s not going to be as easy as what just happened to change shit as long as all of our options in general elections have already been bought off.
We reference dogs who catch a car everytime Republicans win majorities and the presidency, but on 1/7/2020 Joe Biden didn’t leap into action, he “looked into” things for so long we lost the House and had an excuse not to do anything. “Winning” by electing a moderate only depresses turnout in midterms and the next presidential cycle.
We have to grow up and admit that or absolutely nothing will really change. The first step is understanding the root cause or we’ll never stop fighting symptoms.
What are you talking about? You just sort of wandered off in the middle there. If I sus your point, we just have to accept it? Or that it will be a gradual erosion?
You can sit there and be all wise. I’m going to keep shitting on insurance executives and encouraging others to do the same.
Nope, it’s that Joe Biden wouldn’t fix it, and neither would Kamala, hell, the biggest recipient of UHC donations was Kamala
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/unitedhealth-group/summary?id=D000000348
No one’s saying you shouldn’t.
I’m just saying we also need to shit on the investors.
And the politicians from both parties they bought to prevent us from fixing anything.
We won’t win this thru the courts, they said with the money.
We won’t win this with politicians who took the money either, we can only win if we first win in the Dem primary. Lose there and we’ll keep losing.
I want to actually fix the problem, and am talking about how
You want to fix a symptom, and it’s a major symptom, but we’ll be fighting the problem at the same time so why not fix the problem so fixing this (and other) symptoms is easy?
In general you do t insult people because you don’t understand, but I provided clarification anyways because this is important. Others won’t.