UnitedHealth CEO Assassinated
The murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO is a strange story. On the one hand, the killer obviously was taking steps to avoid getting caught. He was wearing a hoodie. He used a silencer. He clearly had an escape plan.
On the other hand, he was wearing a distinctive backpack. He may have left a food wrapper and a water bottle at the scene. And there was writing on each of the three shell casings (the words "deny," "defend," and "depose").
that gun is probably the quietest option around and while it was in manhattan, it was also early in the morning
if he used a louder gun, his escape would have been a lot more difficult because there surely would be a much larger radius of witnesses who hear the shots and call it in
Something louder would have also been picked up by those things that triangulate gunshots.
Does a silencer semi-mute the sound of a gunshot or does it fully mute it like in the movies where it makes that little fthew fthew sound?
all the reasons people are giving why it's not a professional or hired hit are also plausible red herrings designed to make it not look like such. can't be deduced with available info
one thing i know for sure is the assassin's jacket is available on macys.com. was available for $60 with promo code FRIEND but they've since jacked it to $110 due to demand
Does a silencer semi-mute the sound of a gunshot or does it fully mute it like in the movies where it makes that little fthew fthew sound?
Semi overall. Kinda depends on the gun/cal. pistol or rifle and type of silencer etc. Some combos can be very quiet but you still always hear something. The background noise of the general environment like say in the city can help obscure it too--out in the dead quiet woods you can get it down to ~pellet gun levels basically so mix in some city noise and it may be basically unheard.
We used to shoot my .22 off the back deck of my parents house in semi suburban St Louis county as long as someone was like mowing a lawn in the neighborhood or something ..it basically sounds like a bb gun. My brother has it now and we went shooting a couple weeks ago and he has a bunch of different guns but the .22 just feels like a toy. It's still fun though.
Does a silencer semi-mute the sound of a gunshot or does it fully mute it like in the movies where it makes that little fthew fthew sound?
there's youtube videos of people shooting that model gun
it's basically silent and the tiny inaudible noise it makes doesn't really sound like you'd think it was a gun if blended in the standard pitter patter of city noises
the gun is a unique design specialized in making shots as silent as possible - that wasn't a silencer on the end, it was the natural barrel of the gun, that's why it is bolt action despite being a pistol
that's also why he fired sub-sonic ammo as well to be extra quiet
I mean if the prevailing criticism is ‘how do you laugh at the murder of a husband and a FATHER my response is ‘pretty ****ing easily in this case’
My wife has a condition that requires surgery every few years that she (now we) have to fight tooth and nail for months to get a bill in excess of 100k expunged. Each time it’s a struggle and each time it gets harder to the point where now we have to lawyer up just to be safe. Her mom has been ****ed over by UHC for reasons that border on the implausi
I feel sorry for his kid. That's it. You can't choose your parents.
The CEO only moral responsibility while doing his job is toward stockholders. Any legal action he partakes in that maximize stockholder value is not only moral, but an utmost moral imperative.
Btw every single individual worldwide who owns SP500 index funds or proxies thereof profited by those CEO actions. IF it is true that he had some people die to save money, legally, that's something millions of other people profited from. That's how "public companies" work.
You can either put your eskimo and
no that's his legal responsibility which has nothing to do with morals. and he took the job knowing he'd be causing pain death and suffering while maximizing profits.
It's gotta be awkward when your dad is murdered and basically the whole country is cheering.
I have a friend whose dad was in Congress, and when he was about 8 he saw an attack ad on TV basically saying his Dad was an evil, terrible person. That's not nearly as bad as this situation, but he said it definitely freaked him out.
Life starting to feel like a TV show, and they've decided to bring a Marvel Punisher tie-in to the end of season 2024
Will this change anything? Probably not, the rich want to bleed everyone dry and don't care what misery they inflict, and will just increase their personal security.
But if it is a sea change, we'll soon find out whether The Hamptons are defensible or not.
no that's his legal responsibility which has nothing to do with morals. and he took the job knowing he'd be causing pain death and suffering while maximizing profits.
As is usually the case, it's actually more complicated than either of your positions. United Healthcare has its own policies, acts as a TPA for self funded plans, Erisa and non Erisa and does plenty of Medicare/Medicaid A, B, etc plans. The CEO has to honor contractual obligations, answer to the Board and operate with the laws and regulations of the States. It's not as if every claim denied directly benefits the shareholders.
Life starting to feel like a TV show, and they've decided to bring a Marvel Punisher tie-in to the end of season 2024
Will this change anything? Probably not, the rich want to bleed everyone dry and don't care what misery they inflict, and will just increase their personal security.
But if it is a sea change, we'll soon find out whether The Hamptons are defensible or not.
Back in 2000, Garth Ennis started his work on The Punisher with Welcome Back Frank. There was a vigilante character called Mr. Payback that was inspired by the Punisher, who would kill corrupt executives and bankers. Of course, when he (and the other weirdo vigilante copycats) asked Frank Castle to lead them, Frank gunned them all down immediately. Even a psychopath like The Punisher recognized that gunning down corporate executives, because of the supposed harm they cause the world, is a ridiculous and indefensible idea.
I think you and I have completely different ideas about what a modern day class war would look like.
Sounds like it's a great morale booster for doctors.
As is usually the case, it's actually more complicated than either of your positions. United Healthcare has its own policies, acts as a TPA for self funded plans, Erisa and non Erisa and does plenty of Medicare/Medicaid A, B, etc plans. The CEO has to honor contractual obligations, answer to the Board and operate with the laws and regulations of the States. It's not as if every claim denied directly benefits the shareholders.
It's even more complicated than you are suggesting imo. When people talk colloquially about denial of claims, they are describing a variety of distinct scenarios, including (but not limited to) the following:
For example:
1) Person seeks coverage for fertility treatment, gender affirming care, treatment that will extend life for only a brief period, etc. Health care plan specifically does not cover the treatment. Insurer refuses to pay.
2) Doctor believes that a procedure/treatment is medically necessary. Insurer believes in good faith that it is not (maybe the doctor's opinion is very much a minority opinion). Insurer refuses to pay.
3) Person submits a claim. Insurance company acts in bad faith and refuses to pay (or delays paying) a claim that seems be covered under the terms of the plan.
Of these three scenarios, 3 is definitely the most reprehensible, especially if it is done as a matter of policy to keep down costs. 2 seems endemic to health care policy, regardless of whether a private insurer or the government is the payor. In other words, in 2, the insurer could be wrong, and the doctor could be right. But both are acting in good faith. You could solve that problem by having a rule or regulation that says, in effect, the doctor is always correct, but that solution doesn't seem particularly plausible to me. 1 is somewhere in between. You might wish that your health care plan covered those treatments. You might believe it is a moral imperative for such treatments to be covered. But you don't have any reason to believe that the treatments are in fact covered under your plan.
A family member had a claim denied because when she went into labor she didn’t call the insurer to let them know she was going to the hospital. It’s in the fine print that she was supposed to. So they denied her claim for the entire birth and everything included in that.
A family member had a claim denied because when she went into labor she didn’t call the insurer to let them know she was going to the hospital. It’s in the fine print that she was supposed to. So they denied her claim for the entire birth and everything included in that.
If a provision is intended to be a trap for the unwary, that's obviously a huge problem as well. I don't remember calling the insurer when my wife went into labor (and I can't imagine that it would have occurred to me), but obviously not all plans are the same.
There is this idea that doctors are infallible. That if they say something is the case, that it 100% is and there is no point in questioning that position. People that actually believe that are lucky enough to either not have had a real health issue where they have had to deal with multiple doctors, or have the luxury of a job where they don't have to deal with physicians' opinions.
I read medical reports every single day where physicians make absolutely absurd claims regarding their medical opinions. I'm talking about things that have either been definitively contradicted by current medical literature or at times just simply making things up. I've seen doctors recommend invasive procedures when MRIs and CT scans show absolutely nothing wrong. Don't think that doctors are above running up unnecessary bills, just because they had a few extra years of college, because it happens ALL THE TIME.
The thought that denying some claims makes insurance "evil" is ridiculous. If 100% of claims were approved, then 100% of fraudulent claims would also be approved. Fraudulent claims already happen constantly every single day; it is hard to imagine what happens when the floodgates open and they all have to be approved.
I know you keyboard vigilantes would love to see us have a world with no insurance. It would be interesting to see how quickly everything would fall apart if that happened.
Back in 2000, Garth Ennis started his work on The Punisher with Welcome Back Frank. There was a vigilante character called Mr. Payback that was inspired by the Punisher, who would kill corrupt executives and bankers. Of course, when he (and the other weirdo vigilante copycats) asked Frank Castle to lead them, Frank gunned them all down immediately. Even a psychopath like The Punisher recognized that gunning down corporate executives, because of the supposed harm they cause the world, is a rid
I mean, the whole notion of comic book superheroes are fundamentally silly, fascist, and indefensible. They're not supposed to be a place for adults to draw moral lessons from.
I know you keyboard vigilantes would love to see us have a world with no insurance. It would be interesting to see how quickly everything would fall apart if that happened.
Literally every other developed nation has rejected the American healthcare system.
donk, i am willing to hazard a guess you are an insurance exec?
I'm not an insurance exec. I'm a trial attorney, so somewhere on the list of people that you guys would be happy about if I were murdered.
