timestatic

I think the end is where some people are moving but I think its a bit too pessimistic. While kids are becoming more tech illiterate there is always gonna be a certain amount of people that know a bit more than the masses and they are not gonna let themselves be pushed around.

B... But I thought 2025 would be the year of the Linux desktop!

It should probably need to be a public grassroots movement. The public would need to be so outraged about the lack of change that democratically elected officials couldn't ignore the needs of the public if they want to be taken seriously. Public strikes and protests can work. The media and public need to keep speaking out about this issue. Citizens movements and effective messaging is possible, even if you don't have the corporate world to back you. And honestly most rich people that are not directly involved in healthcare shouldn't really care. Like whats the benefit for you as someone wealthy to stop public healthcare if you yourself are not invested? You will still be able to purchase additional insurance if public insurance would ever become reality. You would still be able to pay for special treatments. I don't see them fighting against this like slave-owners fighting against the abolishment of slavery.

What I didn't know... Is public healthcare actually made illegal by the supreme court? I'm not too deep into US law and such as I don't personally live there. What are your thoughts?

Its not like they're hoarding it on their bank account. And ones the stocks of my company fall my 100 mio might not be worth anything or like just a part of it. And still... who would buy the company thats over these assets, and how should the company increase productivity which is in public interest if it does not have a stable ownership situation and it keeps changing due to the cap.

Just because a company is valued like 3 trillion like nvidia you couldn't just cash out just like that. Money doesn't just spawn and the productivity doesn't just go up. I don't necessarily want an infinitely sized company but if a company value keeps rising it indicates rising productivity and success which is good for society. A company doesn't need to make profit to be valued at a certain mark.

I switched to a different launcher a while ago. The one I use is Kvaesitso. It also has a widget integration and relies more on search although I can still pin Apps I want. I believe most alternate Launchers have their own Widget integration in a way so I'd recommend you try that

I think Germany already has quite a good social-safety net. I just also think that if you work hard the taxes shouldn't be unbearably high and that a business friendly culture and good economy allows for a better social-safety net long term than if you cripple your own economy with too much regulation and taxes.

I said I'm socially progressive which is why I think its important to have a social-safety net where everyone has a decent standard of living and can recover to employment. I think when it comes to regulation we need to focus more on using economic mechanisms to steer companies the right way than just forbid or invent a new bureaucratic point. In international comparison the income tax is really high which mainly harm people from the middle class and a bit from the upper class although they can afford proper consultation and minimize taxes. Thats why I think instead of raising taxes international loopholes should be closed, there needs to be a harder stance on tax evasion and financial crimes.

I read up on some cases calculated by the IFO, Handelsblatt and from the "Sachverständigenrat für Wirtschaft und Transferleistungen" respectively. In there I found scenarios in which you could go from earning 2500€ to 4500€ before taxes and in the end end up with like 400€ more which I personally think is unacceptable. Social benefits should not be discouraging work in such a way. Those aspects personally place me in the party Volt which I also like for their european stance

The man isn't the only one in the company and the system responsible. He steers the company at large, yes but every hand involved, be it the government, president, ceo to individual worker denying claims is technically at fault. I do not think we should celebrate murder. I do not celebrate Brian Thomson, neither do I celebrate Luigi Magione. I hope he gets his fair sentence.

The corporal structure itself makes people with certain traits and low empathy rise through the ranks. It a systematic issue. I would not call a person that is doing their job outright evil unless their whole own wish is to kill, torture and emotionally destroy others. Violence can lead to change. One murder cannot. Killing all healthcare CEOs will not. You'd need to replace the government. But that would be really violent and probably cause more suffering in the process. In a democracy if you can actually convince the masses you can shape a country. I like the current public debate, just not the way it was sparked.

Seems like the comment writes itself

Rule utilitarianism states that “an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good”. Murder as a general is right. The reason is that this murder is just a short-term thing that doesn’t undo all the deaths that have happened. The general abidance to rule of law without self-justice is worth way more than any single person dying in nearly all cases.

In the categorical imperativ Kant argues that you should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” If it became a universal law that you could kill anyone you deemed evil this would end in a worse result for everybody. Thus it cannot be wanted.

The family and friends around him mourn and the new CEO seems like he is not about to roll over and accept every health insurance claim. The death is dividing citizens which believe he is a hero while others believe he is a murderer. The responsibility off of all those unneeded deaths are claimed by not only the CEO but also by legislators who didn’t account for universal healthcare. It is on the sitting government and parties for not supporting change. It is on the employer partly for not buying a higher premium package that includes more things or choosing a different company with a smaller denial rate. It is on the individual employee inside UH denying claims. It is on upper management like Brian Thompson and the people around him who are at fault for making this worse. And then there’s the stakeholders that don’t press on more ethical practices. Then its also on Americans voting against parties that wish to change the healthcare system in a beneficial way for everybody.

As the head of a company Brian Thompson also had the responsibility to steer it in an ethical way which it seems he did not do. His death has sparked public debate which is a good thing. This does not necessarily mean choosing a murder was the right way of doing things that optimizes utility for everybody.

I believe this is just not true. The US is one country. First-Past-The-Post system sucks but systematic change can happen. Its just... you guys elected Trump. I do not think the majority of Americans wants change bad enough. There is also no defeating the system through these actions. It would take a whole as insurrection, not one murder and I doubt anything good would come of it for the average American.

Im European so I really sympathize with the struggle for a decent healthcare system for you guys. I just don't think this is the right way.