>A single murderer rarely triggers societal change.
I was gonna bring up Franz but you said "rarely" not "never".
I think people are wising up to the fact that at scale modern forms of insurance, all forms not just health, is not a real product that delivers value to both parties, it's a contrived way to use government force to lighten everyone's pockets to the benefit of a few while paying out only as needed to justify the pretext and the only thing it really shares with it's free-ish market equivalents from 50+yr ago is the name. So there will probably be more murders before things change.
You can call things inevitable and on some level they likely are but +/-5yr makes a huge difference in the exact turns of events and the form that history takes because at the very least it determines who the parties involved are and/or affects the circumstances they are balancing. Do we still get Hitler if WW1 starts later or goes slightly differently? You don't get the modern world without Hitler.
Us typing this here and now with the world as it is is necessarily predicated on a ton of things who's details came down in large part to chance. And it goes back way, way, way further than that.
As someone with a little experience with the 'advertiser side' of Google, they also push junk to their paying clients, using every opportunity to sell terrible, worthless placements to advertisers. Which is to say that the problem is not that 'searchers' are the product, the problem is that Google is not focused on creating value for its counter-parties.
I agree that Google is benefiting from being the dominant player in a two-sided marketplace (which makes it harder to compete), but we can always choose not to use it, both as advertisers and as searchers. Google’s exploitation of its counter-parties has definitely caused me to use alternatives more and more often.
Google is my third choice for searches. I try Ecosia first, but their indexing is garbage so I typically then go to Brave. If Brave doesn’t have it then I submit to the evil overlords at Google. Thankfully Brave indexing is pretty good so it‘s had a measurable impact on the amount of search I actually put through Google.
I hate to be that guy but is it Google's responsibility to police legally operating insurance companies? It's not their problem that USA has a trash insurance market and a backwards healthcare system.
Legally? No. However, due to their alteration of search results anything that becomes the top is effectively an endorsement regardless of whether it was chosen by the black box or their employees. They already remove legally operating websites they disagree with. Since they’re selective editors with multiple lost antitrust suits, the only thing we as consumers can do is criticize. Especially as most of these companies top the charts due to SEO spam and not genuine traffic.
PSA for folks in Northern California:
The Sutter Health Network / Palo Alto Medical Foundation routinely get caught committing widespread insurance fraud.
They also offer products that seem to be junk insurance to me, but I’m not a lawyer.
Here are three examples of their alleged widespread insurance fraud:
https://allaboutlawyer.com/claim-your-sutter-health-settleme...
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/sutter-health-accused...
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/government-intervene...
Some of those suites involve other big providers, like KP. Not sure if any of the healthcare providers around here are reputable at this point.
Just use Kaiser if you’re down bad. It’s cheaper than the absolute cheapest scam insurances and will get you a decent level of care.
Kaiser (Nor Cal), has been amazing. I highly recommend them. I hear lots of complaints from friends who have other providers, but Kaiser "just works".
We've been through cancer and diabetes (so far).
You actually get great level of care they suck at advertising though and most people think they are bottom tier when they are not
So Luigi Mangione had no effect, or it's too early to tell?
He never had any chance of having any effect, except maybe for an increased bodyguard budget. A single murderer rarely triggers societal change.
>A single murderer rarely triggers societal change.
I was gonna bring up Franz but you said "rarely" not "never".
I think people are wising up to the fact that at scale modern forms of insurance, all forms not just health, is not a real product that delivers value to both parties, it's a contrived way to use government force to lighten everyone's pockets to the benefit of a few while paying out only as needed to justify the pretext and the only thing it really shares with it's free-ish market equivalents from 50+yr ago is the name. So there will probably be more murders before things change.
Great powers were already on the brink by the time the archduke thing happened. It would have been some other trigger.
If Franz isn't good enough do Caesar.
You can call things inevitable and on some level they likely are but +/-5yr makes a huge difference in the exact turns of events and the form that history takes because at the very least it determines who the parties involved are and/or affects the circumstances they are balancing. Do we still get Hitler if WW1 starts later or goes slightly differently? You don't get the modern world without Hitler.
Us typing this here and now with the world as it is is necessarily predicated on a ton of things who's details came down in large part to chance. And it goes back way, way, way further than that.
If Ted K. had no effect what hope did Mangione have?
Well, the woman Ted threw into Poucha Pond didn’t have any ties to health care.
This Pluralistic post seems very rant-y, but it links to a Bloomberg piece that seems like a better source for backing up the claim: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-obamacare-open-enrol...
As someone with a little experience with the 'advertiser side' of Google, they also push junk to their paying clients, using every opportunity to sell terrible, worthless placements to advertisers. Which is to say that the problem is not that 'searchers' are the product, the problem is that Google is not focused on creating value for its counter-parties.
It's incredible hard to build a ad business around fairness. In 99% of all cases it's going to be a highest bidder thing.
Why should it? If you aren’t satisfied you can take your business elsewhere… wait never mind, there is no alternative.
I agree that Google is benefiting from being the dominant player in a two-sided marketplace (which makes it harder to compete), but we can always choose not to use it, both as advertisers and as searchers. Google’s exploitation of its counter-parties has definitely caused me to use alternatives more and more often.
Google is my third choice for searches. I try Ecosia first, but their indexing is garbage so I typically then go to Brave. If Brave doesn’t have it then I submit to the evil overlords at Google. Thankfully Brave indexing is pretty good so it‘s had a measurable impact on the amount of search I actually put through Google.
I use DDG on the consumer side but you, I and most people on HN are outliers, the other 90% don’t care enough to use something else yet.
To be fair, it's all "junk insurance"
I hate to be that guy but is it Google's responsibility to police legally operating insurance companies? It's not their problem that USA has a trash insurance market and a backwards healthcare system.
I believe traditional publishers had pretty specific liability for the stuff they carry. There's no magic exclusion for ads that I know of.
Legally? No. However, due to their alteration of search results anything that becomes the top is effectively an endorsement regardless of whether it was chosen by the black box or their employees. They already remove legally operating websites they disagree with. Since they’re selective editors with multiple lost antitrust suits, the only thing we as consumers can do is criticize. Especially as most of these companies top the charts due to SEO spam and not genuine traffic.