Yub yub.
I don't think people are celebrating because of who he was, but because of what he represents to them.
A user in another post wrote that denials went from single digits to 20% when he became CEO.
If that's true, then people are celebrating both for who he was AND what he represents.
That is indeed the case, though there's more to those numbers. Thos are numbers for prior authorization denials, but they're also from a report focused on Medicare Advantage plans for elderly and disabled folks (you know, the people who would be most fucked over by denials). Pulled from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Thompson_(businessman)
The investigation revealed that in 2019, UHC's prior authorization denial rate was 8.7%. Thompson became CEO in 2021, and by 2022 the rate of denial had increased to 22.7%.
As an added bonus, there's also this insanity that he tried to push through:
In 2021, Thompson was criticized in an open letter from the American Hospital Association regarding a plan from UnitedHealthcare to start denying payment for what it deemed non-critical visits to hospital emergency rooms. UnitedHealthcare responded by delaying rollout of the change.
I wonder if UHC has ever denied coverage to victims of gunshot wounds?
His murder was clearly a message to Healthcare CEOs intended to scare them.
That makes it terrorism, and life insurance policies usually have an exception for death in a terrorist attack.
Question from a non-American, can you choose your Health insurer, or is it decided by your employer?
If you can freely choose, it would be great to have these denial/delay rates published, so people could vote with their feet to the company with the lowest denial rates and thus apply pressure to companies like this.
Simplistic view, I know. Things are much different here thank goodness.
No.... also for who he was. As the CEO of that company, he is directly responsible for the deaths and financial hardships of many who depended on and paid his company to provide protection and relief from those things. And he did that not just through ineptitude or negligence but through willful action that prioritized his bottom line over human life. Fuck him.
The thing is though, he is merely a symptom of a sociopathic society, economic, and political system. UH under his leadership may be the most egregious example in US healthcare, but the fact remains that the current system rewards psychopathy and narcissism with wealth and power. There is an endless supply of criminally corrupt scabs just like him that will step up to take his place for a chance at being the slave master.
Greed, exploitation, extortion, fraud, theft, corruption, murder, terrorism, authoritarianism, ecocide, genocide; all of these are rewarded or condoned on some level by our "democracies" as long as you do it behind the shield of an LLC, in the name of profit.
We are on a rock floating in the middle of nowhere, that took billions of years to materialize a biosphere out of nothing, in a cold and desolate universe, and the system we have chosen is aggressively annihilating it all in the blink of an eye. We are a cancer that is killing our host.
THE WORLD HUMANITY HAS BUILT — THE REALITY WE ACCEPT — IS PSYCHOTIC!
Sure. He had agency though. As did his killer.
I mean part of it is he is the ceo. Its like if anyone is responsible for the bullshit companies do its the ceo and board of directors. I think a lot of folks would like them to fear for their lives is their corps are fucking folks over. Maybe they might decide limiting anesthias medicine in surgeries is not such a hot idea or such.
Ee chee wa maa!
HEY MA! That alien is back again!
It's got some freaky lookin' eyes. STOP LOOKING AT ME
Fun fact, Ewok language is in a variety of languages, I know there's some Tagalog, and I think there's some Japanese as well. I feel like they just sampled lines from a bunch of people on the team or something.
Not saying it's ever good to assassinate anyone, buuut, considering what it takes to aquire large sums of bloody money like that, maybe with some of them a little oopsie can be overlooked . . .
Most people agree Hitler should have been assassinated. If you do you are already onboard with assassinations, we are just arguing where you draw the line.
If you are okay with killing a soldier fighting for a leader due to the leader's actions or morals but not the leader because that would be an "assassination" you have essentially fallen for ruling class propaganda anyway.
What if I'm not okay with either?
I completely disagree with the death penalty and instead want to put these losers in jail. If that's not an option, sure, use the least amount of force possible to solve the problem and prevent further violence, but extrajudicial killings should never be your first option.
It’s fine to not support any death - ever. Don’t sweat that.
There’s a skit on a Fugees album where it essentially says: “Let a MF kick you one time then he’ll kick you one time. Let a MF kick you two times then he gonna kick you two times… but if you rip off his MFing legs then there ain’t gonna be no more kicking.”
I think some very tired people have got to the leg removing stage.
It's one thing to say it casually from your chair, it's another entirely to actually see it through. Add to that the statistics for innocent people who were executed and I just cannot understand how anyone could actually be in favor of capital punishment.
If you want to punish someone, death is often a kindness to someone facing the consequences of their actions. If you want justice, killing someone isn't going to undo any of the harm that person did, so it's better to give them the chance to make some form of restitution.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
When you say "least amount of force", what do you mean?
Intimidation? Lobotomies? Brainwashing?
At what point does keeping someone alive but "neutralized" become inhumane?
Least amount of force is ideally jail. No funky science experiments, just keep them in a secure facility.
inhumane
It's only inhumane if they're no longer a danger to society.
Justice should never be about punishment, but preventing further harm and making as much restitution as possible.
I skipped incarceration because you'd already expressed it as preferable to capital punishment.
It's only inhumane if they're no longer a danger to society.
I cannot agree there. Unless you're arguing that "everything is legitimate" in the case of dangerous individuals, I imagine you don't really believe that either.
Rehabilitation is always the goal, but in instances where it is unachievable and the perpetrator is reasonably expected to remain unrepentant, is keeping them alive and imprisoned for life at the expense of law-abiding citizens the way forward? Would they not grow resentful of having to support those who do not follow the social contract?
is keeping them alive and imprisoned for life at the expense of law-abiding citizens the way forward?
Yes, for two reasons:
Even if the second were not the case, I would still say yes due to the first.
I think the goals should be essentially this:
I'm against 2 & 4 until we have certain checks in place to prevent abuse, and 3 would absolutely need to be opt-in by the prisoner.
Would they not grow resentful of having to support those who do not follow the social contract?
As long as murder is unacceptable in society, it's the price you pay for the privilege of stripping someone else's rights from them.
IMO, the only valid use of lethal force is if there's no valid alternative option to protect innocent lives. I would kill if it directly spared innocent lives, but not if there's any possibility of protecting innocent lives another way.
- return to society with the harm being neutralized - any alterations must 100% be the choice of the individual (e.g. a serial rapist could elect to be castrated, a kleptomaniac or stalker could elect for permanent tracking via microchip, etc)
We kinda do this already with ankle monitors, not that I think subdermal tracking would be any less fallible.
As long as murder is unacceptable in society, it's the price you pay for the privilege of stripping someone else's rights from them.
Therein's the rub, see. That's the price to be paid for one person. If the murder of one enriches the many, maybe it was worth it. And since not everyone values lives equally, not everyone can have a unanimous take.
IMO, the only valid use of lethal force is if there's no valid alternative option to protect innocent lives. I would kill if it directly spared innocent lives, but not if there's any possibility of protecting innocent lives another way.
I laud you for having and knowing your heirarchy of values, I am still (and quite possibly forever will be) determining my own red lines.
Yeah, it's an interesting thought process to go through.
I really like how Penn Jillette puts it:
Penn: Absolutely. I believe there are legitimate purposes of the government like defense, courts and police. I don’t think you can privatize police, jails or courts. That’s where legitimate force comes in. My question is: What would I personally use a gun to accomplish? I would use a gun to stop a rape. I would use a gun to stop a terrorist attack. I would not use a gun to build a library. My morality is such that if I’m not willing to use violence myself, I’d never use violence because I’m a coward, but theoretically if I’m not willing to use violence myself then I can’t condone the government using violence.
What are you willing to use a gun for? And I don't mean theoretically, I mean if the gun was literally in your hand and pulling the trigger would have the desired effect, what would you actually be willing to use a gun for? And what if the desired effect isn't guaranteed, how much assurance would you need, or how much collateral damage is acceptable?
Everyone has their own threshold, and this threshold surely changes as we have our own experiences in life. My threshold is really high, and I would probably only use violence to protect my family and close friends.
What if I’m not okay with either?
Then my statement starting with "If you are okay with killing ..." obviously doesn't apply to you.
Not really arguing anything, just hinting that we have a bunch of problematic rich people and maybe we need to start 'accidentally' having a few less of them
Classic trolley problem.
I have no issue with asmashasinations. If it's us or them, I choose us.
I made a large collection of screenshots from Facebook of people who had their claims denied by United Healthcare today if you want to really see violence.
That's incredibly awful. Insurance companies really are death panels.
When it comes to death penalty I am with Gandalf.
However, if you're a cog in the machine that's crushing human lives and dreams to dust, you can't be mad when some of them clap back. That's just fair.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
