UnitedHealthcare CEO Assassinated In NYC

[Free]

 

[Free]

Cause none of us have shot a CEO

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

That's all very well, but what do you think this assassination will achieve in the long run? It puts United Healthcare to the inconvenience of having to find a new CEO, but they will doubtless achieve that without too much difficulty and then carry on maximising their profits as they were doing before Mr Thompson's death.

I don't want violence to be the answer, but it might have achieved something...

I detest direct violence, but this is drawing attention to how hated insurance companies are. It could inspire more populist resistance to what they are doing to us. Insurance company executives are scared and this might make them think lobbying for more positive regulation will help calm the public.

Now, an important fact to know about insurance is that you really can't be the one responsible company in the market. If you cover a service and your competitors don't, it forces you to be the more expensive plan, which can kill your business. This is why the industry actually kind of likes it when government regulation forces more services to be covered by not just you but all your competitors.

That said, I do worry the Trump admin will be hostile to more regulation, as I said above.

That's a question that only the shooter can answer, right? Cause none of us have shot a CEO, so we obviously already believe that it isn't that effective a deterrent for insurance abuses.

I'm pacifistic to the point where I'd be hesitant to use violence even when it is maybe going to be effective. However, I frankly think Trump proved that sometimes doing the right thing is NOT the most effective thing. Before the Trump cult I took it for granted that taking the high road was always the most effective means in the long run.

We'll have to wait and see if any actually positive developments come out of this beyond some reactionary policy changes.

 

[Noodles]

Maybe it was AI.

Its been a while since I read it, but there was a scene in the book Daemon where a bunch of people, unknowingly individually, each smuggled parts to a gun past security, at the order of AI, and then one character assembled them into a gun and shot some big wig.

Maybe its like that. The AI is taking out big wigs in order to exert control over things.

 

[Beebo Brink]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I posted somewhere else but it's probably more relevant here:

Katie Mack (@astrokatie.com)

After I moved to Canada a couple of years ago I realized that I was no longer constantly running a massive stress routine in the background of my mind worrying about health care and guns. It was weirdly noticeable only when it stopped.

bsky.app

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I don't want violence to be the answer, but it might have achieved something...

I detest direct violence, but this is drawing attention to how hated insurance companies are. It could inspire more populist resistance to what they are doing to us. Insurance company executives are scared and this might make them think lobbying for more positive regulation will help calm the public.

Now, an important fact to know about insurance is that you really can't be the one responsible company in the market. If you cover a service and your competitors don't, it forces you to be the more expensive plan, which can kill your business. This is why the industry actually kind of likes it when government regulation forces more services to be covered by not just you but all your competitors.

That said, I do worry the Trump admin will be hostile to more regulation, as I said above.



I'm pacifistic to the point where I'd be hesitant to use violence even when it is maybe going to be effective. However, I frankly think Trump proved that sometimes doing the right thing is NOT the most effective thing. Before the Trump cult I took it for granted that taking the high road was always the most effective means in the long run.

We'll have to wait and see if any actually positive developments come out of this beyond some reactionary policy changes.

It's unknowable, I guess, what Anthem's decision would have been in an alternate timeline in which the assassination didn't take place. Perhaps the event gave the story about Anthem's decision more traction, with led more politicians to condemn it, or perhaps political leaders in the affected states had already discussed the matter after receiving the news last month and already agreed to issue coordinated protests this week anyway. I don't imagine they would have remained silent on the matter had it not been for the shooting.

 

[Ellie]

Cause none of us have shot a CEO

That you know of

 

[Beebo Brink]

That you know of

Even if I knew, I wouldn't tell.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Even if I knew, I wouldn't tell.

 

[Isabeau]

I'm fine with violence.

It‘s better to play by the rules, it’s good for society in general to follow the law, but if the rules and/or laws start to only benefit those with power and money, the alternative is to either submit or fight. Or just do nothing, I guess.

Of course, try and bring attention to the injustice in others ways first, but along with respecting others and the law, you also have to respect yourself.

On a smaller scale, if your neighbour kept punching you in the face every time he saw you, and the police felt bad but said you were on your own - that their hands were tied cause he’s the judge’s son or something, when and how exactly would you start to defend yourself? What about if it was your elderly parent? Would you just say, sorry, I just don’t condone violence?

I think it takes a lot of courage. Especially when you are NOT a psychopath or a generally violent person and like to follow the rules.

I don’t think that vigilantism is how most situations should be dealt with, of course, but I do wonder how much injustice one must suffer before being “allowed” to strike back.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

I would honestly be surprised if the gunman was expected to change anything. I suspect there is a personal tragedy behind this which may or may not have been caused by denied coverage, but was almost certainly made worse. The message at the scene on the bullet casings does point to UHC's abominable denial rates. But there is no longer message or explicit warning that a terrorist would have wanted to publicize. I think this was a person in pain. Of course when you look at UHC there are a great many tragedies.

One of the best comments that I have seen was that when you have lived a life so that there are literally millions of suspects, then getting shot in the street should be listed as death by natural causes.

"Deny is a bad word now, instead we are, 'suggesting alternative care' instead of denying."

-- Insurers probably

What if you kill 147 people due to food poisoning at a professional business event ? What does that make you?

 

[Khamon]

I don't imagine they would have remained silent on the matter had it not been for the shooting.

I can easily imagine that they would have remained silent. Their statement is "There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy. As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change,” the company said in a statement to The Hill." No admission, no remorse, no apology for endangering the lives and savings of their cattle. They are cancelling one of a thousand unethical profit maximizing implementations because it became a public forum. Next month will bring a new wave of thievery.

It has to be difficult to live in a country that provides universal health care and imagine the vast corruption of doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals consistently charging outrageous pricing to get as much as possible from insurance companies who are, likewise, raising rates, and covering less, in order to pay higher profits to their stockholders. Our government representatives allow this because the industry will have them killed when they don't. There is, ultimately, only one way to fight organized crime.

 

[Essence Lumin]

That's a question that only the shooter can answer, right? Cause none of us have shot a CEO, so we obviously already believe that it isn't that effective a deterrent for insurance abuses

Mr House in Fallout New Vegas doesn't count?

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I think it takes a lot of courage. Especially when you are NOT a psychopath or a generally violent person and like to follow the rules.

I don’t think that vigilantism is how most situations should be dealt with, of course, but I do wonder how much injustice one must suffer before being “allowed” to strike back.

I remember reading some article by someone talking about Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. The Birmingham Jail letter was mentioned, about the White Moderate desiring an injust tranquility ahead of justice.

This other author's conclusion, I don't remember word for word, was about how much it will take before a white guy hoists the Jolly Roger.

We may now know the answer.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I can easily imagine that they would have remained silent. Their statement is "There has been significant widespread misinformation about an update to our anesthesia policy. As a result, we have decided to not proceed with this policy change,” the company said in a statement to The Hill." No admission, no remorse, no apology for endangering the lives and savings of their cattle. They are cancelling one of a thousand unethical profit maximizing implementations because it became a public forum. Next month will bring a new wave of thievery.

It has to be difficult to live in a country that provides universal health care and imagine the vast corruption of doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals consistently charging outrageous pricing to get as much as possible from insurance companies who are, likewise, raising rates, and covering less, in order to pay higher profits to their stockholders. Our government representatives allow this because the industry will have them killed when they don't. There is, ultimately, only one way to fight organized crime.

By "they" I meant the political leaders in the affected states, not the insurance company. It seems to me far more likely that the various governors, members of congress, and so on, from the affected states had previously discussed the proposed changes and had already decided to issue coordinated statements this week than that, on learning of the shooting, they independently decided to respond to the shooting by issuing statements condemning the changes.

Doubtless the assassination resulted in more media coverage for these announcements criticising the changes than would otherwise have been the case, and perhaps this was an element in the insurance company's change of mind. But I think it would be unwise to jump to the conclusion that the shooting necessarily caused, either directly or indirectly, the insurers' decision to reverse a clearly outrageous decision. It might have done, but there's no way of knowing.

 

[WeFlossDaily]

Somebody shot the CEO of a large company because they were angry about the large companies bad business practices.
Meh.
Too be honest, the murder sounds like it would be too expensive to investigate.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

.... the White Moderate desiring an injust tranquility ahead of justice.

I agree with this sentiment strongly. It also is relevant to a lot of bad and lazy authority figures, including sim and forum moderators; who seem to think "conflict resolution" just means getting people to shut up and stop fighting without any regard for who is right.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I agree with this sentiment strongly. It also is relevant to a lot of bad and lazy authority figures, including sim and forum moderators; who seem to think "conflict resolution" just means getting people to shut up and stop fighting without any regard for who is right.

I believe this ties into the cultural norm of punishing the bully's victim equally or more than the bully. A generational trauma handed down until how many million Americans consider this normal and proper conduct and vote proudly for:

Spoiler: fuck this guy, you know who

 

[Beebo Brink]

It seems to me far more likely that the various governors, members of congress, and so on, from the affected states had previously discussed the proposed changes and had already decided to issue coordinated statements this week than that, on learning of the shooting, they independently decided to respond to the shooting by issuing statements condemning the changes.

This may be likely in your eyes, but it sounds like speculation either way. Do we have any supporting evidence of prior political concern?