Thinking on the blog's comment that the CEO was a bad target as it's actuaries that set premiums and expected payouts, and they have a narrow profit margin

That's a pretty shallow analysis

1. The CEO sets what the business's targets are, obviously United was targeting low premiums which implies low payouts which implies many incorrect rejections and/or nasty exceptions in their policies
2. This is in the environment where many health fund customers have their health fund chosen by their employer (who will choose the cheapest most of the time) or who due to their economic circumstances must choose the cheapest

So people are forced* into this bad fund so violence against the CEO should get United and other low cost, low payout funds to reposition themselves toward the more expensive, more generous end of the market

The downside is that it should make health insurance more expensive, but that'll only happen if United changes their premium/payout model to more generous

Other ways health funds can reduce premiums include trading reduced premiums for healthy activities

*I'm not in that system so don't know the details, are employees forced to take the fund their employer packages into their contract?