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").
It might be helpful for me to just lead you down the philosophical path we’re currently on so you don’t get upset or waylaid.
CEOs of insurance companies require millions of dollars in personal security each year. Why?
Because a lot of people wish them harm. Why?
And after you answer those first two then you can get to the why might certain people not grieve this particular death.
CEOs of insurance companies require millions of dollars in personal security each year. Why?
Is there any evidence that health care companies spend more on executive security than comparable non-health care companies?
Also, the idea that corporate executives routinely are followed around by armed security when they leave the office is false.
I'm not defending the U.S. healthcare system. I've said before that if we had started down the path of socialized medicine, the country might well be in a better place than we are today with our weird public/private hybrid.
I am confused, however, by people who think that you you can get whatever sort of healthcare you want, regardless of cost or perceived efficacy, if you live in a country with socialized medicine. That isn't my understanding of how it works in other countries.
To take an
Yeah, that is an extreme example. They wouldn't operate on my 98yo grandmother for a variety of reasons such as she may not survive surgery and there was no guarantee her quality of life would be improved or necessarily lengthened. There was no outrage from the family or grandma. Well grandma a little because she's looking down the barrel of death. I guess the difference in this case is this message was coming from the doctor. From my quoted example, seems like people get frustrated when it's the insurance companies denying the doctor's opinion and part of the process is having the doctor take the time to write their reason and explanation down as part of the appeal process for their patient to get their recommended care. You pay your premiums, you get prescribed treatment from your doctor but then have to fight to get your care, all the while most likely being either sick or in pain at the time.
And after you answer those first two then you can get to the why might certain people not grieve this particular death.
CN,
It's one thing to be highly critical of the U.S. healthcare system generally or a specific insurance company. It's quite another thing to imply that a person who you know nothing about (other than the fact that he was an executive at UHC) deserved to be gunned down in the street.
I honestly think that you (and several other people in this thread) are way out of line here.
Yeah, that is an extreme example. They wouldn't operate on my 98yo grandmother for a variety of reasons such as she may not survive surgery and there was no guarantee her quality of life would be improved or necessarily lengthened. There was no outrage from the family or grandma. Well grandma a little because she's looking down the barrel of death. I guess the difference in this case is this message was coming from the doctor. From my quoted example, seems like people get frustrated when it's th
Again, I am not caping for U.S. health insurers. The bureaucracy and runaround you are describing justifiably infuriates people.
Yeah, that is an extreme example. They wouldn't operate on my 98yo grandmother for a variety of reasons such as she may not survive surgery and there was no guarantee her quality of life would be improved or necessarily lengthened. There was no outrage from the family or grandma. Well grandma a little because she's looking down the barrel of death. I guess the difference in this case is this message was coming from the doctor. From my quoted example, seems like people get frustrated when it's th
ok but the same happens when you have a private doctor telling you X in Italy, and the public has to pay for X.
it's not about insurance companies being private or making money. it's about an expensive, scarce resource being rationed by the people paying for it, there is no system to avoid that.
It might be helpful for me to just lead you down the philosophical path we’re currently on so you don’t get upset or waylaid.
CEOs of insurance companies require millions of dollars in personal security each year. Why?
Because a lot of people wish them harm. Why?
And after you answer those first two then you can get to the why might certain people not grieve this particular death.
I greatly disliked Brian, and while it may feel good for some to see him killed, it doesnt really improve anything. Gun ownwrship will go up, security, school ahootings as well as all murders and yes even healthcare costs from here.
No it's not, and you're making things up again. When I worked in the automobile industry profit margins were way lower. Marketing companies operate on a much slimmer profit margin too.
When there are 300M people who will need medical treatment at some point 6% is huge.
UnitedHealth Group is one of the largest corporations in the country, with a market capitalization of more than $560bn. Its size puts it on par with major US financial institutions and tech companies, rather than just its peers in t
sp500 average profit margin was 21% in 2023, 25% in 2024.
CN,
It's one thing to be highly critical of the U.S. healthcare system generally or a specific insurance company. It's quite another thing to imply that a person who you know nothing about (other than the fact that he was an executive at UHC) deserved to be gunned down in the street.
I honestly think that you (and several other people in this thread) are way out of line here.
I have never said he deserved it or advocated for murder as a way to fix the issue.
There is a difference between celebrating and not grieving. I am not grieving.
I have said I think he was a bad person and a criminal who did terrible things. That doesn’t mean I think he deserved to be shot in the back. But I’m not surprised either.
I will similarly not be surprised when the shooter is caught and the backstory revealed for what we all suspect it is.
I have never said he deserved it or advocated for murder as a way to fix the issue.
There is a difference between celebrating and not grieving. I am not grieving.
I have been banned by you in the recent past for having explicitly said I didn't grieve the deaths of specific people (not celebrating them).
I have been banned by you in the recent past for having explicitly said I didn't grieve the deaths of specific people (not celebrating them).
For being stupid, not for being evil. There’s a difference imo.
Either way, we will pull it back since I trust Rococo’s perspective. I’ll be more careful with what my words may imply.
CN,
It's one thing to be highly critical of the U.S. healthcare system generally or a specific insurance company. It's quite another thing to imply that a person who you know nothing about (other than the fact that he was an executive at UHC) deserved to be gunned down in the street.
I honestly think that you (and several other people in this thread) are way out of line here.
She's still not really doing what she's accused of doing. Flirting with it sure but the part you quoted seems fine. Lots of people grieve for and only so many griefs to go around.
For being stupid, not for being evil. There’s a difference imo.
Either way, we will pull it back since I trust Rococo’s perspective. I’ll be more careful with what my words may imply.
ok so disregarding loss of human life is a bannable offense, but only if you disagree with the reasons other people have to disregard some specific loss of life, otherwise it's allowed?
The difference is those people were just apparently dumb but not evil.
*What CN said...
I get that difference, I don't get why the motive of an action makes it a bannable offense or not.
that's usually not how moderation rules work in general, either saying x is allowed or it isn't.
The idea that the same identical thing (saying " I am not sad person X died ") can be allowed if the mod agrees with the reasons and not allowed if the mod disagrees is strange tbh.
Again, I am not caping for U.S. health insurers. The bureaucracy and runaround you are describing justifiably infuriates people.
Right but your original statement was that you were surprised about the general hate people have for the insurance companies. Was just giving a common reason I had seen.
ok but the same happens when you have a private doctor telling you X in Italy, and the public has to pay for X.
it's not about insurance companies being private or making money. it's about an expensive, scarce resource being rationed by the people paying for it, there is no system to avoid that.
When the dr says you need X to treat you, you expect to receive X from the system you are paying into. Isn't that how it should work in general?
I greatly disliked Brian, and while it may feel good for some to see him killed, it doesnt really improve anything. Gun ownwrship will go up, security, school ahootings as well as all murders and yes even healthcare costs from here.
If politicians, CEO's and board members were shot at the same rate as school children do you think there would be a bigger push from the top to change gun laws or things would just stay the same with increased protection for those that can afford it?
If killing obviously evil people clearly saves innocent lives (because it stops them or deters others from doing the same bad stuff) then it is not immoral to kill them (if it doesn't figure to result in even greater downsides.) But only if there aren't other less lethal alternatives that also saves those lives (such as beating them up.)
It IS immoral to kill evil people just for revenge if it doesn't do any future good. Thus, it was ridiculous to hope Kissinger died painfully at age 100.
The best solution if it could be pulled off, would be to FAKE the murder or torture of these evil people and not worry at all about revenge. In this CEOs case, kidnap him, put him and his family in a luxury hotel in Panama for the rest of his life and show fake photos of how his toes were cut off one by one without anesthesia before his body was dumped into a river. That would work with Anthem executives just as well.
Years ago a woman over my way endured years of physical abuse from her husband. One day she waited until he fell asleep and stabbed the pos to death. Technically she killed someone in a premeditated manner. Jury however acquitted her of murder and found that due to the years of abuse she acted in self defence.
So short answer no it's not always wrong.
Otoh in this specific instance it's vigilantism not self defence. You open that door and to quote Dirty Harry, next thing you're executing your
A different jury might have reached a different verdict, not that our legal system is without its merits. I'm not familiar with the case, but arguing that because a jury decided to acquit someone that the action is then morally justified, is low standard to set. Juries aren't infallible, and if there are such things as right and wrong, they aren't the ultimate authority, just referees.
When the dr says you need X to treat you, you expect to receive X from the system you are paying into. Isn't that how it should work in general?
hm no? that's how you get insane cost bloating, and btw it's impossible to give "the best care" to everyone.
Impossible in terms of real resources.
So somewhere in the process rationing will emerge in some form necessarily.
I mean right now in the USA just *dialysis* is 1% of the federal budget.
Not of public healthcare expenses, of the whole budget.
and that's with rates that are already a lot lower than what insurance companies pay (medicare pays a lot lower)
Anyway if you want a system where doctors can spend other people money with no limit whatsoever you need to be willing to spend a far larger sum nationwide, because it's automatic that total expenses would grow a lot
Is there any evidence that health care companies spend more on executive security than comparable non-health care companies?
[strike]Yes, with a few exceptions like Meta (protecting Mark is expensive!) and a few others with similar public profiles. Google also and Musk.[/strike]
Edit- correction to above, it’s only of those who report it, so all stats are now useless, sorry 👍
If politicians, CEO's and board members were shot at the same rate as school children do you think there would be a bigger push from the top to change gun laws or things would just stay the same with increased protection for those that can afford it?
I think your first part is a complete pipe dream and ceos and politicians getting shot at the current rate of school children would just cause school ahootings to increase further - like it has in the past. Youre not going to have one with out the other. Thats not how human behavior works.
