AOC Explains How Americans View Denied Insurance Claims 'As an Act of Violence'

[HereForTheParty]

Link to tweet

[FBaggins]

1. So the murder was really self defense?

Not buying it

[H2O Man]

2. Silly.

That isn't what she said. Not even close.

[NutmegYankee]

4. Self defense has to be immediate.

You can't get punched one day and choose to defend yourself a month later. But that is not what she was saying. She is pointing out why people have reacted as they have over the killing. A business can say "it's not personal, it's just business" all they like - people perceive it as a personal attack on them. People feel that they have been wronged by this system, and they are now taking joy in letting that system know that.

[ThePartyThatListens]

8. You're purposely twisting and lying about her comments

I'm not buying your schtick

[FBaggins]

11. Not at all

She obviously felt the need to immunize her comments from that assumption.

[Quiet Em]

14. What do you mean?

I think you might be reading something in it that isn't there.

[FBaggins]

32. "This is not to say that an act of violence is justified, but..."

Obviously she's worried that whatever follows "but" could be interpreted as a justification for the violence had she not said it.

"This is not to say that the victim is to blame, but... wearing clothes like that out at night in that neighborhood is interpreted by some as 'wanting it'"

[Quiet Em]

37. Did you even listen to every word she said?

Because she clearly said we need to take a step back from this event (the murder), and that people who are confused, appalled, or shocked by the reaction to it, need to understand that people interpret and feel and experience denied claims as an act of violence against them.

And she is right. Too many people are not seeing the murder and the reaction and emotional responses about health care coverage as two separate things that can and should be discussed as two separate things.

[FBaggins]

39. I saw no need to

I saw both poor healthcare management and assassination referred to in identical language (apparently both are “acts of violence”) and didn’t need to get much further.

Perhaps like Warren she will realize the error and modify her language.

[Quiet Em]

42. Her language was not the problem

Your interpretation of it was. Are you going to tie everyone who is speaking out about the damage or harm done to them by the insurance agency as to being ok with the murder? The murder was a direct cause of the conversation that followed. That does not mean people are ok with the murder. Far from it.

[FBaggins]

45. "The murder was a direct cause of the conversation that followed."

No… it wasn’t.

I don’t need to validate a murderer’s motivations… let alone implicitly validate the next one.

Nor do I need to object to teenage women breaking up with bad boyfriends because some of them go crazy and shoot up a school.

Democrats should have no trouble advocating for changes to the healthcare system without trying to sell that maybe fewer people will feel the need to shoot someone if we do.

[Quiet Em]

46. AOC and most people are not validating Mangione's motives.

But Brian Thompson's murder created a conversation about health care coverage because he was a healthcare CEO. Mangione may have a small fringe fan club but most people aren't in it. You need to separate the two.

[Susan Calvin]

52. Well, I think making a medical decision, or rather a financial decision,

That you not only know will harm somebody but that you know you are denying something they are actually entitled to, hoping they will die or give up, is an act of violence.

[lildDemz]

57. Assuming intentions

and motivations doesn't help your argument.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

20. She's trying to explain how it got to this point and that we shouldn't be shocked.

She went out of her way to say the opposite of what you are having her say just to avoid confusion. Stop bashing her.

[Quiet Em]

10. No. She's saying the murder brought about a discussion

from many people who have been harmed by the industry. And people need to understand that people are hurting.

[ShazzieB]

16. Please stop.

It's been a week since this shooting - a whole week - and people are STILL complaining about others not reacting to this the way they think we "should"? REALLY?

Give it a rest already.

[Autumn]

29. Not buying what you're selling because she said nothing of the sort.

[Emile]

30. Which side are you on?

[Hellbound Hellhound]

33. Answer is obvious: Not the Democratic side. n/t

[PennRalphie]

58. What is the Democratic side?

Maybe VP Harris brought this up in her many rally appearances? The media wouldn’t cover it if she did. Health care has been a huge issue in this country for my entire adult life. Sometimes an event like this will bring an issue to the forefront, but it only matters if politicians do something about it. Talking about it goes so far. You know the incoming administration will do nothing UNLESS there’s legislation put forth now.

Is this important enough for Democrats in DC to cancel their holiday recess? Somehow I doubt it. We have some strong leaders in DC. Tell them to do something.

Giving speeches that can even be remotely suggesting to condone a murder isn’t accomplishing anything. I know AOC didn’t directly condone the murder, but who’s backing and agreeing with her? Where are the Dem leaders?

[FBaggins]

38. The anti-murder side

I had no idea there were so many that thought the line was so blurry

[Susan Calvin]

53. Well, if what some health insurance companies have been documented as doing

, and I'm going to stop calling them healthcare companies because they are not, is not murder, it's at least manslaughter.

[Quiet Em]

43. a quick google search showed me that misinterpreting AOC is a hot topic in the right wing sphere.

[Bluetus]

41. Which murder are you referring to?

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2024, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

The murder of the CEO or the murders carried out by the company through the denial of treatment, therapy, and medicine?

NOBODY is justifying the cold-blooded shooting of anybody. But we are demanding that while Mangione is prosecuted, there must also be accountability for the deaths caused by this CEO and his company.

And let's understand this isn't the end of it. Quite the opposite. Perhaps people would feel differently if UHC had a panel of medical experts, a "death panel" as Sarah Palin would say, making these life-and-death decisions to withhold care and treatment. Perhaps.

But that is not what is happening. These denial-of-care decisions are made by low-level clerks with no medical expertise. And it gets worse. The company is moving to use AI to make these life-ending decisions entirely by program. In other words, this is even worse than the "death panels" that Palin imagined.

I know many people are baffled about the unexpected reaction to the shooting of the CEO. Dems need to understand that Americans are fed up with these huge corporations and the entitled executives that are profiting off the misery of others. There is very much an "Eat the rich" atmosphere developing, and Dems would be wise to get out in front of that parade. While nobody is condoning simply gunning down these assholes in cold blood, we should be demanding accountability for their actions. When corporations take actions that kill people, or brainwash people with disinformation to elect more corporate enablers, their officers should be held CRIMINALLY responsible with harsh prison terms. And when they rip off consumers, they should be taxed out of existence. We should be the party of "Eat the Rich". There is a huge hunger for such a populist movement.

[Cirsium]

44. They are not connected

The expressions of public outrage were triggered by the murder. Otherwise, there is no connection such as the one you are trying to make.

No one is trying to sell the idea that the murder was self-defense. You must know that.

I agree with this:

In my 35 years as a filmmaker, have I said or done anything that has implied I condone murder? As a teenager during the Vietnam War, I was required to register for the draft at the local draft board. There was a box on the form asking me if I had a problem with killing Vietnamese people. Actually, it just asked me to check the box if I was going to file for Conscientious Objector status — meaning, if given the opportunity, would I swear that I would never kill a Vietnamese person. I checked the box. Throughout my adult life, I have repeatedly stated that I’m a pacifist. In fact, I have never struck another human in my life. Not even on the playground. I was taller and bigger than the other boys so they mostly left me alone. Usually I was the one who would try to stop the bullies from picking on the smaller kids. When they’d start swinging at me, I would wrap my arms around them, pinning their arms to their sides in my “human straitjacket” and not letting them go until they stopped.

Here’s a sad statistic for you: In the United States, we have a whopping 1.4 million people employed with the job of DENYING HEALTH CARE, vs only 1 million doctors in the entire country! That’s all you need to know about America. We pay more people to deny care than to give it. 1 million doctors to give care, 1.4 million brutes in cubicles doing their best to stop doctors from giving that care. If the purpose of “health care” is to keep people alive, then what is the purpose of DENYING PEOPLE HEALTH CARE? Other than to kill them? I definitely condemn that kind of murder. And in fact, I already did. In 2007, I made a film – SICKO – about America’s bloodthirsty, profit-driven and murderous health insurance system. It was nominated for an Oscar. It’s the second-largest grossing film of my career (after Fahrenheit 9/11). And over the past 15 years, millions upon millions of people have watched it including, apparently, Luigi Mangione.

After the killing of the CEO of United HealthCare, the largest of these billion dollar insurance companies, there was an immediate OUTPOURING of anger toward the health insurance industry. Some people have stepped forward to condemn this anger. I am not one of them.

https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/a-manifesto-against-for-profit-health

[azureblue]

55. your reading comprehension skills

need a lot of work. Or less spin..

[ForgedCrank]

3. She was

ok up until the "denied claims are an act of violence" part. People who interpret it this way are just plain wrong.
It is possible to despise the insurance company behaviors and actions at the same time as condemning violent and murderous responses to it. These are two separate issues that should never be bridged. We need this to be fixed, but murder and violence is not a method to achieve it. There are two evil people involved in this incident, and they are evil for completely different reasons.
We solve this by putting the murderer in prison for the rest of his life and denouncing his action. Then, we work out legislation to fix the other problem like respectable and civilized people. The two things should never intersect.

[Think. Again.]

5. I disagree...

Knowingly causing physical harm to another, as the insurance companies do, is indeed an act of violence.

[soldierant]

13. You are misquoting her.

She did not say a denied claim is an act of violence, but that people experience it as an act of violence. And that is undeniable.

[ShazzieB]

22. This is exactly correct!

She was talking about how it FEELS to be denied needed care for yourself or a loved one. And she was right. I'm lucky enough that I've never been denied care that I or someone I love literally needed to stay alive (so far 🤞 ) but like most Americans, I know what it is to live under the fear of that happening.

I've also seen people I care about have to forego treatment they needed due to having an employer that did not offer medical insurance to its employees. NO ONE should have to live with any of these kinds of things in the richest freaking country on earth! And yet so many American just accept this bs as a matter of course, because they've been brainwashed to believe that the U.S . health care system is better than what other countries have. What a freaking JOKE!

Personally, I hold these companies responsible for the fact that we STILL don't have the kind of universal health care that most other "industrialized" countries have, because I know that they constantly funnel large amounts of money to legislators to insure that there won't be enough votes to pass any such program. I'm also pretty sure they're helping fund the efforts to get rid of the ACA. Those companies suck for all those reasons, and because of that, I'm very sympathetic to those who have reacted to this shooting in ways that some judge to be "inappropriate."

And speaking of the word "judge," I can't believe I'm still seeing so many judgmental posts about this. There are so many people here who just can't resist getting in a little dig every time there's a thread related to this, and I don't understand why people can't just agree to disagree and move the fuck ON.

***Edited to add obligatory disclaimer: No, the awful thjngs Insurance companies do don't excuse murder; killing people is wrong; I am not celebrating this man's death, etc., etc.***

[Voltaire2]

47. Well I'll say it: denying treatment to people with health problems is an act of violence.

[soldierant]

61. I'm inclined

to agree. But that's a different debate.

[Horse with no Name]

18. So you tell me (true story)

How a patient that has a terminal diagnosis like a GBM that is causing brain swelling which is causing falls and has made a person wheelchair dependant, is offered a procedure that every other insurer covers—UHC denies it as experimental.
This is a procedure that would give the patient 6-8 more months of quality time.
Tell me that UHC betting on the patient dying before they could work through appeals isn’t an act of violence?

[BannonsLiver]

6. She's becoming one of my favorites.

[Arazi]

34. Has always been one of my favorites

[orangecrush]

7. K&R

[patphil]

9. It's emotional/psychological violence.

Not all violence is physical. That said, I certainly don't condone the murder of the CEO.
But, rejection of a claim leaves deep, lasting scars that affect both the patient, family, and relatives. It often means there will be no treatment because the money isn't there.
Death or a shortened, pain filled life often results.

We need to go to universal health care.

[dalton99a]

12. +1

[calimary]

19. HELL Yeah!

[Farmer-Rick]

27. It is well known

That you can have emotional abuse without ever being physical. That is what the health insurance corporations are doing. Emotionally abusing their customers who are sick and dying.

Would it be acceptable if, as an adult, an abused child shot and killed the parent who emotionally abused them as a child? Some jurries would be lenient on the murderer because of those extenuating circumstances. But many a jury has put a beaten and bloodied spouse in jail for murder for killing her abuser.

It's not a clear cut issue.

Sick and dying people who cannot get healthcare because of their insurance companies can bring suit against them. But legal action has become so cumbersome, expensive and excessively lengthy that the victims frequently die or go broke before they are able to go to court.

Our medical system is totally broken and now the abused are lashing out in violent ways.

[Voltaire2]

48. rejection of claims is real bad framing, it is frequently denial of treatment.

It's not just 'now UHC won't pay my medical bills', it is also 'I cannot get authorization from UHC for the health care I need'. Unless you can pay the cost out of pocket you are being denied treatment, and that can kill you. It is an act of violence.

[GB_RN]

54. That It Does.

My family can speak from personal experience. As a nurse, I can tell you what it’s like from my side to see it happen with my patients. Insurers like UHC, who make a habit of denying claims (around 33%), are fucking vile.

I hate insurance companies almost as much as I hate their political stooges, the Greed Over People party.

[patphil]

59. There are places on the internet that sell "GOP - Greed Over People" bumper stickers.

I have one on my car.

[GB_RN]

60. Thanks For That

It was an expression I came up with myself, years back. Glad to know great minds think like me!😁

[Ford_Prefect]

15. Eating the rich may be the only working alternative left for some of us.

With ins. payments and care denials
at an all time high it may be the simple economics of "What else can we afford?" Especially if you consider that we have paid for the meal in advance and at quite a premium price.

[questionseverything]

21. Secrets in the sauce!

[Voltaire2]

65. can I just compost them? I'm vegan. nt.

[ReRe]

17. K&R

I like this discussion as it lays bare one's soul. Thanks for posting AOC's remarks, HereForTheParty.

[Skittles]

24. so if repukes use the same logic when shooting abortion doctors

is that OK?

[ShazzieB]

26. The word that came to mind when I read this post was "disingenuous."

It's disingenuous as well as insulting to those of us who are not super broken up about this shooting (deliberately so on both counts, imo). As such, I see no necessity to refute it.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

28. Be in mind, UHC employees have been threatened with firing if they don't toe the party line. n/t

[Voltaire2]

49. well that there is the poster child for false equivalence. nt.

[Skittles]

50. why?

if repukes think abortion is murder, then target the abortion doctor -

HOW is that different from what this latest psycho killer did???

[azureblue]

56. or their warped logic

of celebrating Lyle Rittenhouse.
Note that some people are saying it is perfectly fine to kill people by edict ,like Trump's murder of over a half million Americans, or an insurance company killing people by denying coverage. But not by a gun, especially if you can be called a democrat. Kyle is OK, though..

[Skittles]

63. who thinks it is fine to kill people by denying coverage

besides the insurance companies? I don't think that is a popular opinion anywhere

repukes did give Trump a pass on his disastrous response to covid, that is true

[Hellbound Hellhound]

25. " I deny you the privilege to live, but I'll take your money" is no better than shooting someone in the back.

In fact, it's worse, as they take your money while the alternative is solely ending a life.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Well the way this works is as follows

If you’re going to attack AOC for saying this you’re ultimately going to find yourself explaining why private health insurance companies aren’t as bad as murderers. If you’re in the business of winning votes this is really not a great place to be.

Democrats need to start making life easier for themselves. Attack big fat unpopular targets and do so unconditionally and without mercy. Maybe then people can figure out what we stand for, which was apparently a major issue in the election we just lost to Donald Fucking Trump.

[malaise]

36. Playing goody two shoes sure isn't working

That is all

[malaise]

35. THIS

Rec

[Celerity]

40. AOC rocks.

[Martin68]

51. It is indeed often a life-threatening act of violence, when it isn't a sentence to a life of pain and misery.

[LeftInTX]

62. It's not violence as much as greed.

It's a feeling of "not being heard" and being seen as only a number and made to think that your health is only $$$$$ in someone's pocket.

Now Bollywood knows how to portray greed as violent. But it's usually a violent slumlord who runs a brothel. He counts his money as he forces tenants to whore themselves and then takes the money. If they don't hand it over, he throws them in the streets. Of course the landlord is a criminal himself, always involved in local politics and taking kickbacks from everyone. The movies create dread just watching them. Sometimes a woman is the villain. Former prostitute turned madam, turned landlord, turned politician.
Maybe Dickens also portrayed this.

[liberalla]

64. This woman has a BIG future! I hope I live a long time and am able to watch and support her,

and see what she achieves.