Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged
Donations to Luigi Mangione’s legal defense fund have picked up after a news report that they had slowed down.
You're viewing a single thread.
I know it’s exited the news cycle, but I still remember this was a big thing for the left and right to both agree on supporting. I’d very much like to prompt Trump for his opinion on the man to force him to take a side.
Best to not remind Trump that Luigi exsist. Don't need him falling out a window with the cameras off and the guards napping.
Haha you think trump is deciding anything still. Didn't you see how they had to walk back his Israel comment?
prompt Trump for his opinion on
the mananything to force him to take a side.
That's how you get banned from the press pool.
Actually, a pretty substantial minority of people think what Luigi did was right.
Are you a cop or just a bootlicker?
I bet more cops and bootlickers agree with you than not. My stance doesn't promote any authority at all, it's as simple as "pointless murder is wrong, doesn't help us".
EDIT: BTW that user is a fucking Tankie so it's extra ironic.
Luigi’s assassination absolutely had a point, and had immediate results in BCBS rescinding/delaying their plan to cut anesthesia allowance for people during surgery. Luigi directly saved thousands of people from unnecessary suffering with just one targeted attack. Imagine what a more widespread action could accomplish.
I’m betting you’re a cop. You’ve got the same blind loyalty to the law, paired with a lack of moral compass.
BCBS announced those changed before the assassination, they also stopped suing over medical debts the year prior, got any others?
Also, even if Luigi did somehow change that and not the countless other people including the governor going after them in court and on social media for the year prior, it would have saved people from potential debt, not death and not certain debt.
That’s a lie. I cannot find a single source predating the attack.
I made a couple edits trying to find a better source, sorry for the wait.
Try again.
Ah wait hang on wrong link, 1 moment
Theres like a million articles talking about this story after UHC happened so it's taking a minute
It was published Dec 4th talking about "last thursday" which would be Nov 28th!
Ah but the article was updated on the 6th...
You know what, I might have been misinformed about this, it's possible that the changes took place on Dec 5th, all the paperwork being written up, board meetings held, and filed less than 24 hours after the assassination, although I still doubt Luigi had as much to do with it as the Governor saying “Outrageous. I’m going to make sure New Yorkers are protected" just before that. And also those bad policy changes were announced in late 2023 or January 2024 but also never implemented due to criticism they received then as well.
BCBS’s own website dates that statement release as December 5th. So yeah, you’re making it up.
It goes through rounds of lawyers and actuaries long before an insurer changes coverage policies. It's absolute fantasy to think they threw this change together practically overnight.
I remember reading that it was coming before Luigi, but like the person you're replying to, I can't find it after the enshitification of web sesrching. It's buried behind a billion articles about Luigi.
There were complaints about it before, sure. Absolutely nothing from BCBS backing down before.
You’re dismissing it, despite all evidence to the contrary, because it doesn’t conform with your worldview. Maybe you’re not in a position of accusing anyone else of believing a fantasy version of events.
Is murder always wrong?
Like the trolley problem. How is indifference to other preventable deaths any better than killing one dude.
I mean, definitionally yes murder is always wrong. Killing isn't always wrong, but murder is when killing is unjustified so yeah, it's always wrong.
Maybe in law speak, but murder and kill are synonymous.
They are very similar, yes, but synonyms will often have subtly different definitions and connotations that mean you can't just replace one with the other wherever you want. Frankly, the difference between murder and killing is something I learned in high school English so I understand that the difference might have been off your radar before now, but this is the way the words are used most frequently, they're different words for a reason. Murder implies a moral or legal judgement on the action of killing, and killing is just dispassionately describing that something has died as a result of some other action. We all learn something new every day, it's OK not to know something.
Thanks.
I do like to learn new things, particularly when it comes to the English language. Although I am English I kinda suck at it and was always better at Math.
Luigi's Trolly Problem:
2 separate tracks
Track 1 has Brian Thompson, pulling the lever kills him but he is immediately replaced by another guy
Track 2 has some unknown number of people who will die regardless of any action you take
Yes, one Luigi will not solve the problem. Once you get past 4 or 5, you’ll find less people willing to take on the risk of the job. You get to a dozen, and you’ll be shocked just how much progress we get.
If nobody does the job then nobody gets health insurance and everything is out of pocket for everyone, you realize? Even worse now that the USA Federal Government is freezing funds for Medicaid.
You’re forgetting the rest of the developed world has a different system. I wonder what that system looks like.
I’m British and never had to worry about healthcare because although we are USA Lite, we are not that bad.
Murdering any number of random people does NOT create a system like the rest of the developed world has. That is not how THEY got theirs to begin with.
If I murder all Americans and took over the country I could do what I want, so there is absolutely a number of people you could kill to achieve it.
Many countries in fact had to kill a bunch of monarchists to get where they are today
The end result is not that no one wants to be a CEO of a health insurance company, the end result is that health insurance CEO's run their companies in a way that doesn't increase the likelihood that some vigilante Luigi's them. Either that or they switch to a company model that doesn't need CEO's, so there's no one person to target as responsible. There's a market niche that needs to be filled no matter how many CEO's die. Obviously this isn't the most desirable end state (public health care anyone?) but I think that's where this system finds its balance rather than health insurance just going away.
That's a nice theory but it relies on there only being a very small number of people who would abuse a gap in regulations to enrich themselves. I think the vast majority would take advantage of that sort of flaw if put in a position to do so.
Instead, why don't you just organize the health insurance coop now instead of waiting for random murders to start happening?
The theory does not actually have anything to do with how many people are willing to abuse a gap in regulations for personal gain, it's analyzing the dynamic between people who would abuse the system for personal gain, and that abuse causing a situation where people will enact vigilante justice against the first group. So people who are self interested will be less likely to abuse the system in ways that mark them as a target. All it requires is that the vigilantism is common and a known factor to the people abusing the system, so that the ways they choose to abuse the system are less obvious. Of course it could go any number of ways based on other factors, I'm just commenting on the dynamics of the interaction here.
I agree that cops have no place here. If They wanna lick boots and circlejerk eachother about how just their unjust system is they can go to reddit or Twitter.
Pretty off topic
That was not the sentiment I saw when it happened.
I saw incredibly low turnout for people against the action taken but I saw people on the left and right agreeing and with glee. Like everywhere.
Here is an Emerson Poll that found TOTAL 17% of people agree the killing was justified, and the highest demographic was young people with 41% (still not a majority). https://www.axios.com/2024/12/17/united-healthcare-ceo-killing-poll
The poll was about a week after the killing.
Another small poll of college students found this:
according to a poll conducted by College Pulse and shared with Newsweek—32 percent of survey participants said he should be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole; 14 percent chose life imprisonment without the chance of parole; 26 percent preferred a fixed-term prison sentence; and 2 percent believed he should get the death penalty. The remaining respondents chose "other" or "no opinion."
Hmm that's interesting. My impression was that approval was much higher, anecdotal of course tho and not really representative.
Never heard of Emerson but I would be asking who paid for that poll? Did they have a vested interest in playing down support? Has the poll been manipulated to get the best charts etc.
PragerU puts out lots of polls, but it doesn’t mean they’re valid.
Emerson College was established in Boston, Massachussets in 1880
Their "About Us"
The Polling Center is a non-partisan organization dedicated to accurately reflecting populations through public opinion research. Established 25 years ago as a classroom exercise, in 2012 Emerson College Polling was transformed into an innovative, nationally-ranked polling center. Emerson College Polling conducts research on civic behavior, polling methodology, public health, and public policy.
Emerson College Polling (ECP) is a Charter Member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Transparency Initiative. AAPOR is the leading professional organization of public opinion and survey research professionals in the United States, with members from academia, media, government, the nonprofit sector, and private industry. ECP publishes not only its full topline results, but also its full crosstabs for each survey, aiming to ensure that data is easily accessible and available to researchers.
They also have a MBFC rating of least biased LINK HERE
They haven't failed a fact check in 5 years, have very low traffic/popularity, and in the past rarely reported on politics.
Thanks for this. Very usual to know. Appreciate you linking sources too.
