NYC Murder of CEO and More
Sponsor of The Paul Truesdell Podcast:
Truesdell Wealth, Inc.
Upcoming Casual Breakfast Conversations
Online & On-Demand Video
One Day Only – 9 am to 9 pm
https://paultruesdell.com/events2
Video Preview - The Truesdell Military Procurement Portfolio
In-Person / Wednesday, December 11h
The Truesdell Military Procurement Portfolio, When Indexes Stink
Stone Creek Golf Club - The Grille
Reservations are available by calling 352-612-1000 or the CONTACT FORM
( https://truesdellwealth.com/contact )
Eirinn Abu and Tunnel to Towers Foundation Concert Fri, Feb 28, 2025 @ 7:00PM Circle Square Cultural Center, 8395 SW 80th Street, Ocala Florida - Join Eirinn Abu and two of his Miami Sound Machine band members for a wonderful concert in support of the Tunnel to Towers Foundation. The event theme is a night of music and movies.
https://eirinnabu.com/event/5760795/695871447/eirinn-abu-and-tunnel-to-towers-foundation-concert
Corporate Sponsors: Truesdell Wealth, Truesdell Consulting, and Truesdell Insurance.
https://truesdell.net/
Paul Grant Truesdell, J.D., AIF, CLU, ChFC, RFC
Founder & CEO of The Truesdell Companies
The Truesdell Professional Building
200 NW 52nd Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34482
352-612-1000 - Local
212-433-2525 - New York
Truesdell Consulting, Inc.
Truesdell Insurance, Inc.
Truesdell Wealth, Inc.
Due to our extensive holdings and that of our clients, you should assume that we have a position in all companies discussed and that a conflict of interest exists. The information presented is provided for informational purposes only.
Rough Transcript
The recent tragic event involving the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has sparked an intense and emotionally charged debate, particularly on social media. What strikes me is the profound lack of empathy displayed by many who willingly express their frustrations about healthcare without considering the devastating loss suffered by the family of the deceased. It’s a sobering reminder of how polarizing and impersonal public discourse has become, even in the face of tragedy.
From a broader perspective, I believe this moment has the potential to be a watershed event—one that could set the stage for significant policy discussions. Politicians, particularly those seeking to overhaul the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as ObamaCare), may find an opening to capitalize on the growing dissatisfaction with the healthcare system. A Gallup survey revealed that only 44% of Americans rate U.S. healthcare as good or excellent, a steep decline from 62% when ObamaCare was enacted. The frustrations aren’t just with insurers but with a system that has left too many feeling underserved and overburdened.
The current system, with its labyrinth of regulations, mandates, and high deductibles, often leaves individuals paying more for less. Many exchange plans exclude a significant percentage of local physicians, and Medicaid recipients struggle to find doctors willing to accept the program’s low reimbursement rates. These systemic flaws, compounded by rising costs and declining access, fuel public outrage. However, this outrage is being misdirected at insurers, rather than at the structural shortcomings of the law itself.
On my podcast, I aim to delve into this issue, not just from a political standpoint but from an investment and economic perspective. The healthcare industry is a major economic driver, and shifts in policy could have significant implications for investors and businesses alike. While political changes are often unpredictable, the financial ramifications are always worth forecasting.
Unfortunately, platforms like social media frequently restrict discussions that challenge prevailing narratives, making it difficult to promote in-depth conversations like this one. That’s where I need your help. If you find these insights valuable, share them. Spread the word so we can foster a more thoughtful dialogue on healthcare and its far-reaching implications.
This moment is not just about healthcare; it’s about how we, as a society, respond to systemic failures and whether we seize the opportunity to advocate for meaningful change. Let’s reflect on these issues, recognizing the human and economic stakes at hand.
The stark contrast in reactions to the loss of human life versus that of animals reveals a troubling inconsistency in our societal values. While animal rights activists often express profound outrage and sometimes even resort to extreme actions over the mistreatment of animals, their conspicuous silence on broader philosophical issues involving human life is telling. It’s perplexing—and frankly, more than a tad hypocritical—that for some, the loss of a dog is deemed unacceptable, yet the tragic loss of human life garners far less urgency or empathy.
This double standard reflects a broader cultural disconnect. For decades, a certain narrative has been advanced, often prioritizing causes that resonate emotionally while neglecting deeper, more universal concerns. The average American, however, is beginning to see through this façade. People are waking up to the inconsistencies and selective outrage that have dominated public discourse for too long. The “hogwash” being sold to the public no longer holds the same sway.
This issue isn’t just about priorities; it’s a lens through which to explore larger societal values and moral frameworks. The imbalance raises critical questions about what we truly value as a society and why. These are questions worthy of serious academic and philosophical discussion. The topic demands thoughtful exploration by those equipped to unpack its complexities, not just in terms of animal rights or human ethics but as a broader reflection of societal priorities and hypocrisies.
As we engage in this dialogue, it’s crucial to approach it with intellectual honesty and a willingness to challenge entrenched assumptions. For now, this remains an immensely interesting and complex topic—one I believe deserves far more attention than it has received in public or academic forums.
We recently attempted to promote some of our videos on YouTube using Google Ads, only to find them declined for being "political." The reasoning? If you so much as mention words like "Trump," "Republican," or "Democrat," your content is flagged, effectively silencing your voice. It’s a frustrating experience and a stark reminder of the uneven playing field smaller creators face when trying to participate in meaningful discourse online.
This issue goes beyond mere advertising restrictions—it’s a symptom of a much larger problem. Tech giants like Google wield immense control over what content gets seen, promoted, or suppressed. If you’re a small business or independent creator, the barriers are steep. Yet, if you’re a major corporation with influence, it’s often just a matter of making the right phone call to get what you want. The discrepancy is glaring and deeply unfair.
This level of control raises serious concerns about free speech and market fairness. When a single company can dominate both the platform and the advertising mechanisms for much of the internet, it’s worth asking whether antitrust laws should come into play. Breaking up monopolistic entities like Google could level the playing field, allowing smaller voices to compete and thrive without being buried by algorithmic biases or vague content policies.
What’s especially troubling is the chilling effect this has on public discourse. Platforms that were once heralded as democratizing forces now seem to actively stifle diverse viewpoints, particularly when those viewpoints challenge the status quo. This isn’t just about politics—it’s about fairness and access. Everyone, regardless of their political affiliation or message, should have the opportunity to engage with an audience without being arbitrarily silenced.
For those of us trying to share ideas and foster discussion, these barriers are deeply discouraging. Yet, they also highlight the importance of advocating for change. Whether through updated regulations, antitrust enforcement, or the creation of alternative platforms, it’s time to ensure that all voices—big and small—are given a fair chance to be heard. This issue deserves serious attention, as it affects not just creators and small businesses but the integrity of our public discourse as a whole.
What frustrates me the most about companies like Google, Facebook, and other social media giants is their claim that they’re restricting campaigning or political speech to maintain neutrality or avoid controversy. The truth is, everything in life is political—whether you like it or not. From religion to relationships, from buying groceries to choosing healthcare plans, every decision we make is influenced by politics in some way. It always has been, and it always will be.
The idea that these platforms can separate “political” content from everything else is absurd. Politics isn’t confined to campaign ads or debates; it’s woven into the very fabric of our society. When you talk about the cost of living, healthcare access, education, or even the environment, you’re engaging in political discourse. These platforms deciding what qualifies as “political” and what doesn’t is not only arbitrary but also deeply disturbing.
What’s even more troubling is the power they wield to shut down certain voices while amplifying others. They hide behind algorithms and vague content policies, claiming to promote fairness, yet the rules are anything but fair. For smaller creators or businesses trying to make a name for themselves, the barriers are almost insurmountable. Meanwhile, large corporations or well-connected entities can navigate these platforms with ease, getting their content through without issue. It’s a double standard that stifles competition and silences diverse perspectives.
This isn’t just about one political party or ideology. The suppression of speech, no matter who it targets, undermines the principles of free expression and open dialogue. Social media was once seen as a tool to democratize communication—a way for anyone with an internet connection to share their ideas. Now, it feels more like a gatekeeper, selectively deciding who gets to speak and who doesn’t.
Sure, these companies are private entities, and they have the right to set their own rules. But when they become the primary platforms for public discourse, their actions have far-reaching implications. They influence what we see, what we hear, and, ultimately, what we believe.
It’s frustrating and disturbing, but maybe this is just the reality we live in. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push back. Whether through alternative platforms, regulatory changes, or even a cultural shift in how we communicate, it’s clear something needs to change.
Truesdell Wealth, Inc.
Upcoming Casual Breakfast Conversations
Online & On-Demand Video
One Day Only – 9 am to 9 pm
https://paultruesdell.com/events2
Video Preview - The Truesdell Military Procurement Portfolio
In-Person / Wednesday, December 11h
The Truesdell Military Procurement Portfolio, When Indexes Stink
Stone Creek Golf Club - The Grille
Reservations are available by calling 352-612-1000 or the CONTACT FORM
( https://truesdellwealth.com/contact )
Eirinn Abu and Tunnel to Towers Foundation Concert Fri, Feb 28, 2025 @ 7:00PM Circle Square Cultural Center, 8395 SW 80th Street, Ocala Florida - Join Eirinn Abu and two of his Miami Sound Machine band members for a wonderful concert in support of the Tunnel to Towers Foundation. The event theme is a night of music and movies.
https://eirinnabu.com/event/5760795/695871447/eirinn-abu-and-tunnel-to-towers-foundation-concert
Corporate Sponsors: Truesdell Wealth, Truesdell Consulting, and Truesdell Insurance.
https://truesdell.net/
Paul Grant Truesdell, J.D., AIF, CLU, ChFC, RFC
Founder & CEO of The Truesdell Companies
The Truesdell Professional Building
200 NW 52nd Avenue
Ocala, Florida 34482
352-612-1000 - Local
212-433-2525 - New York
Truesdell Consulting, Inc.
Truesdell Insurance, Inc.
Truesdell Wealth, Inc.
Due to our extensive holdings and that of our clients, you should assume that we have a position in all companies discussed and that a conflict of interest exists. The information presented is provided for informational purposes only.
Rough Transcript
The recent tragic event involving the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has sparked an intense and emotionally charged debate, particularly on social media. What strikes me is the profound lack of empathy displayed by many who willingly express their frustrations about healthcare without considering the devastating loss suffered by the family of the deceased. It’s a sobering reminder of how polarizing and impersonal public discourse has become, even in the face of tragedy.
From a broader perspective, I believe this moment has the potential to be a watershed event—one that could set the stage for significant policy discussions. Politicians, particularly those seeking to overhaul the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as ObamaCare), may find an opening to capitalize on the growing dissatisfaction with the healthcare system. A Gallup survey revealed that only 44% of Americans rate U.S. healthcare as good or excellent, a steep decline from 62% when ObamaCare was enacted. The frustrations aren’t just with insurers but with a system that has left too many feeling underserved and overburdened.
The current system, with its labyrinth of regulations, mandates, and high deductibles, often leaves individuals paying more for less. Many exchange plans exclude a significant percentage of local physicians, and Medicaid recipients struggle to find doctors willing to accept the program’s low reimbursement rates. These systemic flaws, compounded by rising costs and declining access, fuel public outrage. However, this outrage is being misdirected at insurers, rather than at the structural shortcomings of the law itself.
On my podcast, I aim to delve into this issue, not just from a political standpoint but from an investment and economic perspective. The healthcare industry is a major economic driver, and shifts in policy could have significant implications for investors and businesses alike. While political changes are often unpredictable, the financial ramifications are always worth forecasting.
Unfortunately, platforms like social media frequently restrict discussions that challenge prevailing narratives, making it difficult to promote in-depth conversations like this one. That’s where I need your help. If you find these insights valuable, share them. Spread the word so we can foster a more thoughtful dialogue on healthcare and its far-reaching implications.
This moment is not just about healthcare; it’s about how we, as a society, respond to systemic failures and whether we seize the opportunity to advocate for meaningful change. Let’s reflect on these issues, recognizing the human and economic stakes at hand.
The stark contrast in reactions to the loss of human life versus that of animals reveals a troubling inconsistency in our societal values. While animal rights activists often express profound outrage and sometimes even resort to extreme actions over the mistreatment of animals, their conspicuous silence on broader philosophical issues involving human life is telling. It’s perplexing—and frankly, more than a tad hypocritical—that for some, the loss of a dog is deemed unacceptable, yet the tragic loss of human life garners far less urgency or empathy.
This double standard reflects a broader cultural disconnect. For decades, a certain narrative has been advanced, often prioritizing causes that resonate emotionally while neglecting deeper, more universal concerns. The average American, however, is beginning to see through this façade. People are waking up to the inconsistencies and selective outrage that have dominated public discourse for too long. The “hogwash” being sold to the public no longer holds the same sway.
This issue isn’t just about priorities; it’s a lens through which to explore larger societal values and moral frameworks. The imbalance raises critical questions about what we truly value as a society and why. These are questions worthy of serious academic and philosophical discussion. The topic demands thoughtful exploration by those equipped to unpack its complexities, not just in terms of animal rights or human ethics but as a broader reflection of societal priorities and hypocrisies.
As we engage in this dialogue, it’s crucial to approach it with intellectual honesty and a willingness to challenge entrenched assumptions. For now, this remains an immensely interesting and complex topic—one I believe deserves far more attention than it has received in public or academic forums.
We recently attempted to promote some of our videos on YouTube using Google Ads, only to find them declined for being "political." The reasoning? If you so much as mention words like "Trump," "Republican," or "Democrat," your content is flagged, effectively silencing your voice. It’s a frustrating experience and a stark reminder of the uneven playing field smaller creators face when trying to participate in meaningful discourse online.
This issue goes beyond mere advertising restrictions—it’s a symptom of a much larger problem. Tech giants like Google wield immense control over what content gets seen, promoted, or suppressed. If you’re a small business or independent creator, the barriers are steep. Yet, if you’re a major corporation with influence, it’s often just a matter of making the right phone call to get what you want. The discrepancy is glaring and deeply unfair.
This level of control raises serious concerns about free speech and market fairness. When a single company can dominate both the platform and the advertising mechanisms for much of the internet, it’s worth asking whether antitrust laws should come into play. Breaking up monopolistic entities like Google could level the playing field, allowing smaller voices to compete and thrive without being buried by algorithmic biases or vague content policies.
What’s especially troubling is the chilling effect this has on public discourse. Platforms that were once heralded as democratizing forces now seem to actively stifle diverse viewpoints, particularly when those viewpoints challenge the status quo. This isn’t just about politics—it’s about fairness and access. Everyone, regardless of their political affiliation or message, should have the opportunity to engage with an audience without being arbitrarily silenced.
For those of us trying to share ideas and foster discussion, these barriers are deeply discouraging. Yet, they also highlight the importance of advocating for change. Whether through updated regulations, antitrust enforcement, or the creation of alternative platforms, it’s time to ensure that all voices—big and small—are given a fair chance to be heard. This issue deserves serious attention, as it affects not just creators and small businesses but the integrity of our public discourse as a whole.
What frustrates me the most about companies like Google, Facebook, and other social media giants is their claim that they’re restricting campaigning or political speech to maintain neutrality or avoid controversy. The truth is, everything in life is political—whether you like it or not. From religion to relationships, from buying groceries to choosing healthcare plans, every decision we make is influenced by politics in some way. It always has been, and it always will be.
The idea that these platforms can separate “political” content from everything else is absurd. Politics isn’t confined to campaign ads or debates; it’s woven into the very fabric of our society. When you talk about the cost of living, healthcare access, education, or even the environment, you’re engaging in political discourse. These platforms deciding what qualifies as “political” and what doesn’t is not only arbitrary but also deeply disturbing.
What’s even more troubling is the power they wield to shut down certain voices while amplifying others. They hide behind algorithms and vague content policies, claiming to promote fairness, yet the rules are anything but fair. For smaller creators or businesses trying to make a name for themselves, the barriers are almost insurmountable. Meanwhile, large corporations or well-connected entities can navigate these platforms with ease, getting their content through without issue. It’s a double standard that stifles competition and silences diverse perspectives.
This isn’t just about one political party or ideology. The suppression of speech, no matter who it targets, undermines the principles of free expression and open dialogue. Social media was once seen as a tool to democratize communication—a way for anyone with an internet connection to share their ideas. Now, it feels more like a gatekeeper, selectively deciding who gets to speak and who doesn’t.
Sure, these companies are private entities, and they have the right to set their own rules. But when they become the primary platforms for public discourse, their actions have far-reaching implications. They influence what we see, what we hear, and, ultimately, what we believe.
It’s frustrating and disturbing, but maybe this is just the reality we live in. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push back. Whether through alternative platforms, regulatory changes, or even a cultural shift in how we communicate, it’s clear something needs to change.