Image: uncredited
"If I were in the employ of one of the organs of state security, what would I regard as the salient features of the case? And where would I seek more control than I already have? ABC News summarizes The Adjuster’s stay in Manhattan. I have underlined the relevant topics:
The gunman used a fake ID and paid cash during the 10 days he was in the city, NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny told reporters Friday. He also kept his face covered except while checking in at a hostel. He was captured on some of the thousands of surveillance cameras blanketing Manhattan, allowing police to build a timeline of his movements.Now I’ll present aggregations of these three topics — Cash, Masking, Fake IDs — showing that the discourse is already primed to regard them as problems to be solved, if future copy cat Adjusters are to be avoided.
***
[ed. I'd also add 3-D printed guns to the mix. I've learned a new term today: jury nullification.]
(From the comments): How are they ever going to get a jury through voix dire?
Question to potential juror – Have you, your family or friends ever had any issues with a medical claim from an insurance company? That would eliminate the entire country.
***
Healy: Mangione keeps getting called a “folk hero” — I understand it, but assassinations perpetuate a culture of violence and fear. Why are so many people still talking about this shooting as if it’s justifiable, which “folk hero” seems to imply? (...)Tufekci: Dealing with health insurance companies when you are vulnerable — facing illness, pain and loss — and knowing that such a company is profiting off you is a visceral, enraging experience. Some people want to be rescued, even by an outlaw. A recent Senate report says UnitedHealthcare more than doubled the rate of denials for post-acute care for the elderly as it pressured the company’s human reviewers to strictly hew to the algorithmic recommendation system that it had introduced. The sense that a cold, calculating, profit-making automaton can come at a person when they feel the most fragile, and without accountability and recourse, is the type of environment that can find people cheering on vigilantes.
Goldberg: Whenever I’ve had a health scare, or am waiting for the results of routine tests like mammograms, I tend to be as panicked about all the potential paperwork as about, you know, dying. And the thing is, these companies are purely extractive. Relative to a single-payer system, they create no value whatsoever. (...)
McMillan Cottom: I thought about how we have an economy with perverse incentives and impact. If billionaires and C.E.O.s want to enjoy the spoils of power, visibility and access in our celebrity culture, they have to understand that they are in essence a public entity — a stand-in for industry but also for politics. I make this point because the moralizing about the public response to the killing conflates a personal dimension of this story — a murder and the fallout for the victim’s family — with the public dimension, about industries that affect and control our lives, our futures, our pain. A family lost their kin and a community lost a member. That is a personal tragedy. At the same time, a public actor was presumably targeted because he had a tremendous amount of power over people’s well-being. The system has to make a profit and, in doing so, the system victimizes a lot of people.
Tufekci: I think we should also look at the stories we tell ourselves about how to solve systemic problems. In Hollywood, it’s the lone-wolf vigilante or rogue C.I.A. agent who breaks the rules, takes revenge and makes things better. People are naturally drawn to a character they can cheer for, rather than analyses of power and policy and prolonged slogs to change how the system works. People with wealth can hire people to do that work for them and use their money to change the system to their advantage, over time, while the public is left with some popcorn and the chance to cheer for the movie vigilante. (...)
McMillan Cottom: It goes much deeper. You call it populist rage, Patrick. I’m not against that description. But it doesn’t quite capture that the other side stokes that rage. The reaction is a defense of one public who is at odds with the interests of another public. Markets create moral economies. Whether you call it crony capitalism or just an unfair economy, the market sets the rules for which lives matter. We have set up a system of interlocking ninth circles of hell for all of our basic needs. Housing is a noose of landlord interests, developer exploitation and rising costs. Transportation is a Gordian knot of failing infrastructure and limited vision that traps us in neighborhoods and lifestyles that make us sicker and meaner. Our moral economy is trash.
Healy: And how does the health care industry fit in here, Tressie?
McMillan Cottom: Nowhere is the perverse nature of our moral economy more evident than health care. It is not just expensive. It is often tied to jobs people either cannot get or cannot afford to leave if they want to be able to see a doctor. Health care is one of the biggest reasons that Americans file for bankruptcy. The incentives are to put profit over people. We know this and yet we also gaslight millions of Americans. We tell them that the system is fair and meritocratic, that their quality of life is not deteriorating and, if it is, then they did not work hard enough. Scam culture makes everyone a mark. The moral economy of a scam culture says that everyone deserves to be a mark. That is dehumanizing.
[ed. See also: The obsession with the 'hot assassin' reveals a disturbing truth about celebrity culture (Guardian).]
