Yes, I realize that this post is less about the trolley problem and its moral dilemma than an allusion to the corresponding meme. And I certainly understand the intended message.

Nevertheless, I think the post is a good example of how the whole discussion about the healthcare industry in the US is currently being conducted: I don’t think it should be about whether vigilante justice is justified in the case of CEOs acting inhumanely. In my opinion, the discussion should rather be about why the healthcare system in the USA is so inhumane and profit-oriented in the first place and not only allows this behavior, but is specifically designed for just that. The question should be how this has come about and how a better (and more efficient) system can be established.

As long as this is not the case, the debate revolves exclusively around the idea that individuals and their greed were responsible for abuses. But this is a systemic problem where there will always be another unscrupulous person to take over as CEO.

Therefore, I think, nothing can change as long as the focus is on individuals and not on the goals and/or the failures of the healthcare system. In other words, as long as US citizens and especially politicians agree that the healthcare system is a business like any other, even vigilante justice directed at individuals will not change anything. Sure, that may help to draw attention to the actual problem. But this problem can only be resolved if the discussion is not about symptoms, but about their causes, namely the healthcare system itself. Or even similarly designed systems for that matter.

Since a healthcare system does not have to be designed in such a way that people inevitably fall by the wayside, this depiction of the trolley problem seems to me to be a pretty US-American thing.

I see it like this: the guy on the lever is also the CEO of a health insurance company and chooses the option of eliminating a competitor, accepting that his even more profit-optimized approach will lead to even more helpless people dying, which would not have been necessary if he had left everything as it was and not eliminated the competitor. The US thing about this is that there is no third option in the first place, where nobody dies because of the healthcare system. This very basic fact is not noticed, addressed or even criticized by anyone. Instead, even those who will die unnecessarily agree with the guy in charge in his decision to sacrifice them on the altar of higher profits because a hated person will die with them - they even agree with his statement that it would be for the greater good, instead of asking why it is even necessary for them to be tied to the tracks and run over.

This seems odd to me, but is probably only logical if you’re used to seeing the healthcare system as a business like any other. I don’t really get it tho.

I guess if we had a sun god instead of Christianity, climate change wouldn’t be a thing.

Any girl who would touch him we would think could lick the arse of a diseased hangman.

Catullus (~84BC - ~54BC) The Carmina of Gaius Valerius Catullus. Leonard C. Smithers. London. Smithers. 1894.

It ain’t easy being grumpy

German guy here: What’s with the cult of personality around exceedingly unattractive and politically unappealing people? I’m asking for my grandfather.

Yes, unfortunately the UK has always been much more US-oriented than the rest of Europe, especially when it comes to neoliberal sham rationalization measures like this. I assume that the UK’s exit from the EU has reinforced this tendency once again.

What I mean is that I am not aware of any other country that privatizes state sovereign rights in the way that the US does: If someone is sentenced to prison for any crime, it is a punishment that the state determines and thus usually carries out. In the US, however, it is possible for a private company to enforce the sentence “on behalf of the state”. This is a very US-American procedure which, as far as I know, is not implemented in this way anywhere else. I may be wrong, but where I come from, Europe, this is unthinkable because private companies are not allowed to take on government tasks as important as these - at least not to this extent. Another example is the privatization of the military, as Blackwater, now Academi, and others have been doing for decades in the US (recently also Musk with Starlink). In Europe, this is also a matter for the state and the state alone. Even in Russia under Putin’s regime, private armies are officially illegal, although of course they still exist (not officially tho).

Cool. Still, don’t get caught three times smoking weed in a state where it’s illegal. Otherwise: enjoy the weekend and smoke up.

Don’t ask me since I’m from Europe. But even I know that this candidate could not possibly have been Trump.

I assume you mean the problem of going to prison for a little weed, right? Or are private prisons illegal in 24 states? That would be news to me.

I don’t think anything will change about people being sent to prison for trivialities as long as there are private prisons. Because if you organize this matter according to capitalist logic, the illusion arises that people in prison would not cause costs in the public budget, but just profits for private companies - just like in a hotel where the beds have to be occupied as best as possible. In my opinion, this fundamentally contradicts the purpose of prisons. It is not about generating profits, but about ensuring the functionality of society - in the worst case by locking people up because they are a danger to society. In a capitalist logic, you lock them up for trivialities because that generates profits. That should never be the case. There are purely economic arguments against this approach, namely that the labor of those imprisoned unnecessarily is lost and at the same time costs are incurred for all citizens as a result of this imprisonment. For this reason alone, private prisons are absurd. They are also morally wrong because they create monetary incentives where there should be none.

Completely understandable. From my point of view, I can’t understand how there can be such a thing as private prisons at all. It’s a terrible approach, no matter where in the world. I haven’t looked into it much, but as far as I know, the US is the only country that organizes state sovereignty according to capitalist logic(at least in some states). In my opinion, that is absurd.

Yes, I’m aware of that. What’s your point?

I’m pretty sure you’re absolutely right. I just can’t say much about all this myself because I’m from Europe. Things are very different here: private prisons are unimaginable for very obvious reasons. Doesn’t mean that we don’t have similar problems (people trying to get rich on this) with public prisons, but at least all this is treated less as a business in Europe, which of course it should never be for very obvious reasons.

That’s true, but unfortunately it won’t be solved, at least not in the US. Simply because private prisons are such a profitable business there.

It’s probably just a simple HTML tel link that is supposed to open a phone app so that you don’t need to dial. But macOS and iOS opens these links with FaceTime if that is configured as your standard “phone” app. So it’s not the website that opens an app with camera permission, it’s the OS.

This can be quite annoying for web developers because HTML alone cannot prevent FaceTime from being opened instead of a normal phone app, as the OS dictates what happens when a tel link is clicked. This can easily give the impression that the camera is being accessed illegitimately, even if this is not actually intended. That’s probably the case here. I can’t imagine anyone expecting their customers to book a table in a restaurant via video call - that would be stupid on many levels.

I’m always impressed by how little understanding businesses have for basic online stuff, even when it’s very important to their business.

Life as a shorty shouldn’t be so rough.

Probably not too many, but she seems to have landed a good job with this degree regardless.