Maybe it says a lot about me and my own personal ethics, and possibly not in a good way, but I see no moral difference between an insurance company using bureaucracy to intentionally withhold payment for treatment when they know that the most probable and foreseeable result of their refusal is that the patient dies and “being gunned down on the street”.
To me, both are murder. But only one of them rises to the level of “serial killer” and, surprise, it’s not the one the media wants us mad about.
I personally find the corporate murder to be the more egregious of the two because of the rationale that supports it. The arguments against both are virtually the same a la "murder is bad", but the arguments supporting each are vastly different. Corporate murder is "we caused incredible pain, suffering, and death in pursuit of profits" while the argument for the shooter appears to be some version of "I killed in protest of corporate killing". They're not equivalent.
345
u/OdinsGhost Dec 09 '24
Maybe it says a lot about me and my own personal ethics, and possibly not in a good way, but I see no moral difference between an insurance company using bureaucracy to intentionally withhold payment for treatment when they know that the most probable and foreseeable result of their refusal is that the patient dies and “being gunned down on the street”.
To me, both are murder. But only one of them rises to the level of “serial killer” and, surprise, it’s not the one the media wants us mad about.