Transcript
Isaac Saul (0:00)
Every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was simple. Glasses are too expensive. So they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate, and they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you.
John Law (0:30)
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.
Isaac Saul (0:49)
Gifting is hard, but here's a hint. Give the gift of connection from US Cellular.
Will Kabak (0:54)
Not sure what that means.
Ari Weitzman (0:55)
Well, here's a slightly more specific hint.
Will Kabak (0:57)
You can choose four free phones and.
Ari Weitzman (1:00)
Get four lines for $90 a month from US Cellular. Your family wants new phones, so how do we know? They told us. Yeah, the good news is that compared.
Will Kabak (1:08)
To wrapping presents, you're great at getting hints.
Isaac Saul (1:10)
So take the hint and get them four free phones and four lines for $90 a month.
Ari Weitzman (1:16)
US Cellular built for us.
Isaac Saul (1:25)
From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
Ari Weitzman (1:39)
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. This is Will Kabak, I'm one of Tangle's editors, and in today's episode we are going to be sharing reader feedback and criticisms to our coverage of the shooting death of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. This was a piece that we published on Monday and throughout the week we have been hearing from readers in our inbox on our social media channels about what we wrote. Some criticism, some compliments, but a huge range of response from people who are in the healthcare industry, from people who have been impacted by it. And when we get this kind of response, we like to sometimes dedicate an entire edition to that feedback. So we'll share some replies to the common emails that we got, but we'll also just let a few of them stand on their own so you can get some different perspectives. Excited to share this one with you all. Let's jump in a quick note. When I read our responses to the feedback that we received, I'll be reading it in Isaac's voice. There's a trope in the media that you should never look at the comments. And I get why this sentiment exists. Comment sections are generally a bitter place where people fight with each other and offer biting criticisms that they really only would from behind a screen. For whatever reason, I've always found that people replying to our emails do so in a much more measured, thoughtful way than they do in the comment section. My personal hypothesis is that when there isn't a public audience, people don't feel the need to perform for likes and replies, but that doesn't mean the comments aren't worth reading. I think the comment section is a valuable way for me to take the temperature of my audience and engage with them. So sometimes you might see me responding to Tangle readers in the comment sections of articles or on social media. Still, I have to be honest, it's not my favorite thing to do. Last week, I was shocked by some of the responses to an Instagram post summarizing my take on the murder of Brian Thompson, the United Healthcare CEO. Many people totally misconstrued my argument, attacking straw man arguments I wasn't making. Others made vast, sweeping assumptions about my views on war, policing, race and civil rights because I had an opinion about a story mostly confined to healthcare and vigilante justice. I tried to engage some of those comments, but I didn't get very far. Instead of hearing my rebuttals, people accused me of being defensive or out of touch. After talking to my wife about the difficulty of interacting with people on social media, I had an idea that I thought was the embodiment of the Tangle spirit. I was going to offer several of my critics in the comments section who I thought were being particularly harsh to come on the Tangle podcast and talk out our disagreements. My suspicion was that if I could get them to talk to me in a different medium, we could have more productive conversations. But none took my offer. There were some glimmers of hope, though. One thing I noticed was that people who left nasty or demeaning comments about my writing immediately changed their tone when I showed up and replied. Mostly, they'd go from angry and accusatory to thoughtful, critical, and respectful. I think this reflects the reality that a lot of people say things on social media that they wouldn't say in person or if they knew the subject of their comment was actually reading it, which I often am. For me, it was another reminder to keep openly addressing people's comments, even, and perhaps especially when they don't agree with mine. So I addressed some of the general feedback we got in Tuesday's newsletter this week and you can go and read that on our website or go back to the episode on Tuesday if you missed it. But there was a lot more that I wanted to get to. Also, as those of you who have been around for a while know, I love elevating readers, criticisms and feedback. I do not assume I am right about everything, nor do I think my opinion is the best, smartest, most accurate or most valuable. We have close to 300,000 people on our mailing list. Our podcast does half a million downloads a month, and a lot of our listeners and readers are very smart, thoughtful, and have various expertises. So today I'm going to share comments from those readers who were critical of my take on the shooting to best ensure that Tangle subscribers can get a wide range of perspectives on the issue. I've let many of these criticisms stand on their own without my responses, so you can take them or leave them as you like. However, there was a few that I couldn't help but respond to. One reader wrote in and said, I've enjoyed the pragmatism generally found in your content since a friend hooked me in a few weeks ago. As of today, though, I'm out Isaac's gross defense of the status quo seems to show a substantial misunderstanding of the entire problem. Isaac writes, improving our healthcare system and our society more broadly is not going to start by shooting corporate leaders in the back. It's going to take fastidious work from consumer advocates, legislators and corporations. It'll require grassroots movements and political pressure. It will happen slowly, deliberately, with a checkered history of wins and losses. That is always how this goes, and anyone trying to convince you otherwise is selling snake oil. The reader writes, improving our healthcare system isn't happening in terms of benefits provided or costs incurred. Putting your faith in the idea that corporations would even pay lip service to the idea of fastidious work against their own fiduciary goals would suggest you don't understand their role in the mess we have allowed ourselves to end up in. Your take seems to echo the long held trope about one death being a tragedy and one million a statistic. There is no political pressure coming for the free market healthcare status quo. Legislators who attempt to hold them accountable or reduce dependence on a broken system are branded socialists or communists and their positions treated as noise. Meaning your appeal for people to focus on slow, incremental improvement suggests you're entirely comfortable with propping up the status quo as an industry siphons money upwards and ensures the bodies flowing into the the burgeoning funeral industry will remain a constant all while our first world counterparts enjoy longer lives obtained with lower personal expense to maintain their lives. Your content has some value with your curated media takes, but I think you're out of touch with the needs and frustration of the people. In response to this comment, Isaac writes, First of all, I'll offer my standard response to people who approach their dialogue this way. Deciding to cancel your subscription because you encountered an argument you didn't like means you are pretty much missing the entire point of this newsletter and this community. If you're seeking a safe space where you will always read arguments from me or the commentators we feature that fit your worldview, then yes, Tangle is not the place for you. But we are a big tent news organization built for people who are interested in being challenged, exploring arguments out of their comfort zone and learning no, not everyone agrees with me on this issue, but my view on this issue is held by millions of other Americans, so it's odd to me that you are so blithely intolerant of it. Second, to respond to your actual argument, which I would have gladly done if you simply wrote in with your criticism too, it wasn't so long ago that people in our country who had preexisting conditions or were barely above the poverty level couldn't get insurance. That major hurdle was overcome by fastidious work from consumer advocates, legislatures, and grassroots political movements and pressure. It didn't happen fast, but it happened. That's my point. Changing this system in a meaningful and permanent way is not going to come about through murdering people in cold blood. If you can't see that, I really don't know what to tell you. Even if I accepted that violence is necessary to affect change, I haven't heard many clear answers about what this change would look like. Instead, I've heard a lot of arguments that boil down to the shooting was effective because it got people talking and put a spotlight on this issue. I hear this refrain a lot from activists who put a lot of stock in raising awareness with little thought to what they would do once their issue gains attention. Personally, I think it's far more likely that further violence against health insurance executives would just result in those executives going out in public less often and having their information scrubbed from the Internet, which is already happening. Less plausible to me is that these companies would be scared into making significant changes in short orders. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but if there are truly changes as a result of this, I think there'll be more PR band aids than true reforms. Third, I'LL add that some things about the system have been getting better. More people are being insured today than ever before. The Affordable Care act is steadily growing in popularity. 71% of adults consider the quality of the healthcare they receive to be excellent or good, and 65% say the same about their insurance coverage. Older Americans who often need health care the most tend to be the most satisfied. President Biden made major moves in office negotiating lower prices for drugs, something Trump might and should build on. Just recently, Senators Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, two of the most opposed people you'll find on Capitol Hill, co sponsored a bill to require pharmacy benefit managers and insurers to divest from pharmacies they own. Despite the infuriating and broken elements of the system that I personally have experienced, it is always changing in ways big and small. Meanwhile, we have some of the best doctors and facilities in the world. Perhaps more to the point, you seem to believe healthcare insurance companies are the main villain in this plot. I think there's a very good argument that they play a minor role in why things are actually so broken. Finally, I'll just say that I resent the accusation that I am out of touch simply because I don't believe murdering healthcare CEOs is going to get us what we want. The proverbial we being any Americans who want better, more affordable, more accessible care. Indeed, I suspect this will be an albatross around the neck of activists doing the real work to make change who will now be labeled and lumped in as extremist radicals because of people like this shooter. As I wrote in my piece, I've had numerous healthcare problems of my own that I've had to address in this broken system. My mom is a three time breast cancer survivor. My father received Social Security and government provided health insurance. Numerous friends, family members and people I care for are fighting to survive in the system as it exists now, some with debilitating disabilities or diseases. You seem to think we need a revolution, while I think there are more pragmatic ways to accomplish a more affordable and accessible healthcare system. We can disagree about that without you pretending I lack the empathy or experience to care about my loved ones and my fellow Americans. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break.