I think we have all heard the old story: A man asks a woman if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. Of course, she says yes. He then offers her two dollars and she gets mad, saying, ‘What do you think I am?’ He answers, ‘We know what you are. We are just haggling over the price.’

I think most people would agree that killing Hitler (or anybody else who has killed millions of people) would be justified. And, conversely, most of us would agree that killing someone who has done no harm to anybody is utterly unacceptable (though I can think of some police officers who would disagree).

So we know what sort of people we are, we’re just haggling over the price. How many people does one have to kill in order to justify killing someone? Was Brian Thompson responsible for enough deaths to justify his killing?

My answer is, of course, “no”. But for two reasons. First is that I decry any sort of violence and killing. I am vegan, so I am opposed to harm to any animal, not just humans. (People love to ask vegans silly hypotheticals, if you are tempted, go read some Gary Francione instead)

Secondly is the same reason I oppose the death penalty: Assuming they are guilty of the crime (which is sometimes not the case in this country) it is the easy way out for them, they will suffer for a few moments and then they are free of any consequence for what they did. But the victims and those they knew will continue to suffer for years. So I want the perpetrator to actually pay a penalty comensurate with the crime, to have to live in a tiny concrete room for the rest of their days, constantly reminded of what they have done.

Brian Thompson should not be dead. He should be in jail and stripped of his assets. Let him experience the medical bankruptly he inflicted. Let him put up a GoFundMe for his medical expenses. Maybe he should be forced to spend all his days on the phone with health insurance companies appealing claims denials. That would be a suitable community service for him.

However, thinking about all these denied insurance claims brings me back to the debate about Obamacare. I was particulary amused by the “death panel” myth. Amused? Yes, because we already have death panels! They are called health insurance companies. Their claims denials, for some, lead to death.

Assuming such decisions have to be made, I would prefer it to be made by a government agency. At least we have a nominal amount of control and accountability with such an agency via the ballot box and such. A private health insurance company has no accountability and no appeals; its sole purpose is to maximize profits, which logically, inevitably, leads to claims denials. The more the better.

I guess we can bring the claims denials back to that old joke (especially since I am not really qualified to discuss the nuance of this topic). Is 48.3 million denials (that’s 17%) too many? Is one? We’re just haggling over the price.

I would suggest reading Cory Doctorow’s post Predicting the Present. He is a much better writer.