5 ms·

Top internet sleuths say they won't help find the UnitedHealthcare CEO killer

47 points by pseudolus 2y ago

pipes 2y ago
That is a really depressing read. A person shot and killed in cold blood, and these online heros pretty much condone it. This will be awful for his family.
- peepeepoopoo93 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - phinnaeus 2y ago
    There will just be a new CEO who will continue those same practices. How can this possibly be misconstrued as something impactful upon the broken system
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      This killing can signify that people are starting to be more willing to change the system through tactical violence. And: (a) If more CEOs are targeted, it will modify their behaviour, and make them more likely to tone down their ruthlessness. (b) There is already a lot of news coverage and attention on the horrific nature of U.S. healthcare. If some policies change more rapidly, then I think some might consider this killing an effective action in saving hundreds of lives.
      - oulipo 2y ago
        Yes, and a few days after the assassination, another competing healthcare company dropped a controversial rule they were going to enforce So it kind of worked
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        It absolutely worked.
        vouaobrasil 2y ago
        Which company? Do you have a source?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - oulipo 2y ago
      Well at some point if all the CEOs get killed they won't find a new one to take the lead...
    - pixxel 2y ago
      At least they’ll think twice about walking the streets. They can hide in their castles.
  - xienze 2y ago
    I’ve got news for you, even in countries with socialized healthcare, not all treatments are automatically approved or approved in a timely manner. There’s ALWAYS a cost-to-benefit ratio that is considered, and it doesn’t always work out in the patient’s favor. I suppose we’d cheer the murder of say the UK’s equivalent of this CEO as well?
    - salawat 2y ago
      Does the UK's guy implement policies like mandatory first pass denial to encourage attrition, or try employing blackbox AI models to the task of denying care, and attempting to mathwash? I've worked in the space. Most people don't care about denials that are reasonable. I.e. escalation through "lets try these first drugs" when there isn't an established history of use. Ruling out less expensive problems before approving the most expensive operation. Thise aren't generally issues. It's capricious denials happening over and over and over again, despite well established case history. Denials that clearly don't make sense. Prior Auths being used as financial "nudges". That type of thing can screw right off. It's why I left the space after it proved absolutely impossible to get through to people that these measures were costing the lives of our customers. I bloody tried; and in the end, left for the sake of keeping what was left of my soul intact. As far as I'm concerned the industry has made their bed. They can now sleep in it.
    - op00to 2y ago
      > not all treatments are automatically approved It's not simply approval or denial. In the US, you can still get health care for conditions the insurance company decides to deny payment for after the fact. The "insured" is then financially ruined. This is so exceedingly common in the US. It's far, far, far, far, far, far, far less likely to be financially destroyed by a health issue in the UK or any other industrialized nation.
    - onli 2y ago
      That's not correct. In countries with real health care, all treatments that are listed for an illness are always approved. There just is no denial process that could block e.g. a cancer treatment. A doctor diagnoses it and decided the treatment, the insurance pays and has no say in the matter.
- vintagedave 2y ago
  Quite the opposite. They’re explicitly not condoning: > Another popular TikTok sleuth, thatdaneshguy [said] that he wouldn’t try to identify the killer. “I don’t have to encourage violence. I don’t have to condone violence by any means. But I also don’t have to help,” he said. Inaction can be condoning in some cases. If there is an element of duty it certainly is. But if volunteers choose not to volunteer in a specific situation that’s their right.
  - pipes 2y ago
    Pretty much weasel words way of saying they aren't helping because they agree with the killing.
    - vintagedave 2y ago
      Maybe (and I think you're likely right, or at least, that they don't think it was an evil done in the world) - but if they do, they're not saying so and not condoning it. It can be hard to ascribe values when someone abstains.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  Live a thug, die a thug. He made his money killing and maiming people. Why would people mourn his death? — why would people be motivated to find his killer? Criminals kill each other every day.
- hcta 2y ago
  They have each made the individual choice not to invest more effort in solving the case, the same as you have probably done.
- rafterydj 2y ago
  Question: is it depressing, or is it a wake up call for just how much the average American hates health insurance executives? There seem to be a few people online who mirror your sentiments about being shocked, what defenders of the crime would call pearl clutching. I'm fascinated. From my perspective, the idea of a vigilante being so burned by health insurance companies he tracks down and kills the CEO is not a shocking premise _at all_. Yet some (particularly health insurance industry workers / professionals on LinkedIn) are so shocked by this that it makes me wonder if there's an insulated echo chamber effect going on here.
  - Muromec 2y ago
    It's a classic Robin Hood kind of hero, an established trope that everyone likes. I don't get how anybody can be surprised by this happening in a country which is obsessed with comic books and made hero movies it's main cultural export.
    - krapp 2y ago
      And guns. I mean - this is the country that literally has a whole Amendment in their Constitution dedicated to the right of the people to shoot other people, and which defines that capacity for popular violence as a necessity for a free state. The archetype of the hero patriot "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" goes all the way back to the guy who made that quote. And I would bet money (if I had it) that a significant number of people expressing outrage over this were defending Kyle Rittenhouse and that guy who shot climate protestors in Panama, or making excuses for the killings of Jordan Neely and George Floyd, or gleefully hoping Trump would send troops in to shoot BLM protestors in the streets. Because the "problem" here isn't the normalization of gun violence or the lionization of such violence as heroism - that's been normal for centuries, it's an intentional design feature of the American system. The "problem" here is that gun violence was being used on the wrong kind of people, and creating the wrong kind of hero.
      - pixxel 2y ago
        [flagged]
- Muromec 2y ago
  Welcome to Kali Yuga. World wars, dictatorships, plagues and political repressions and assassinations are fashionable again. Looking back at this time we will just say "yeah, these were the different times" and shrug.
- chris_wot 2y ago
  Seems like nobody condoned it, but nobody was interested in helping either. Not helping is not condoning. Are you helping sleuth for his killer?
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  It sounds depressing if you take it as just a murder. But it is much more than that: it is one possible step in violent protest against the corporate control and subjugation of thousands of human lives through their medical care. Undeniably, corporations have emerged as the dominant threat to communities and people by becoming experts and exploitation due to their power and assymetry of information.
  - pipes 2y ago
    What kind of society would we create if legitimise murder of citizens because another citizen disagrees with them? We invented rule of law and the ballot box to protect ourselves from each other. Yes it may be inefficient and may produce results we don't like, but once it becomes ok to murder people you disagree with, that legitimises killing anyone.
    - pixxel 2y ago
      > disagree This word is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. A parasite was terminated.
    - vouaobrasil 2y ago
      There are always exceptions. This is an extreme case.
    - acdha 2y ago
      I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t be condoning murder but consider that the rule of law and ballot box are not effectively preventing healthcare costs from being a leading cause of bankruptcy, drug addiction / homelessness (read through the fentanyl stories and note how many started with a car crash or workplace injury with medication and physical therapy cut off before the patient was fully recovered), and people dying or having life-altering conditions because they couldn’t get the care they needed earlier. We can’t just say murder is wrong while refusing to do anything about a system which reliably produces large numbers of deaths annually because the alternative would be lower profits. Put another way, how many Americans have cheered seeing Batman tackle an industrialist who killed a fraction of the number of Americans who die because they can’t get adequate healthcare? I strongly agree that gunning people down for perceived injustice isn’t anywhere we want to be but that means we have to actually fix the problems. Here’s a survey which found 34M Americans know someone who died because they couldn’t get healthcare, and 58M couldn’t get medication they needed – those numbers are very high if you want a peaceful society: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-couldn-afford-treatment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tjpnz 2y ago
  What about the many thousands of families who have been forced into bankruptcy or have had loved ones die due to actions he's ultimately responsible for? I don't think there's anything wrong in having zero sympathy. It strikes me as a very human reaction.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > This will be awful for his family. I think we will find that first it was awful for the killer’s family.
- capitantrueno 2y ago
  Yeah sure, please post this another 386 times for all the other times non-millionaires died in NYC in 2023. Also for when they killed Bin Laden and Hussein. https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/ https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/
- giardini 2y ago
  The real questions are: - Did Starbucks bill Thompson for his drink before the shooting? - If so, did they refund any charge (since he presumably did not pick up the drink)? - Can Starbucks legally refund money to a credit card account knowing the account owner is deceased?
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Such a fascinating case. No one is morally required to help find a murderer, it’s a question of virtue. It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.
- datadeft 2y ago
  > if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up. It is much better if the gen pop is the sacrificial lamb.
- pseudolus 2y ago
  In this particular instance I think it's less a question of virtue and more the issue of internet sleuths having an intimate understanding of the power of the internet and fearing the backlash that will be visited upon them if they participate in finding the murderer. It's a form of self-censorship.
- morkalork 2y ago
  Why exactly is the current system set up the way it is by politicians? I can think of at least one former politician who now sits on the board of a healthcare provider, it's a little dirty. Corporations lobby politicians all the time, maybe they should lobby for more regulation and consumer protection. You might say it's in everyone's best interest.
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    Politicians could copy paste the eu regulatory/payment system or make it illegal for employers to provide healthcare. There are a couple of pivot points that could fix things now that we have the data.
- piva00 2y ago
  > It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up. Are you implying the CEO is a victim of the system? If so he decided to further victimise dozens of thousands further, just like a murderer-robber is also a victim of the system, nonetheless their lack of morality made them perpetuate the system's violence.
serial_dev 2y ago
Am I the only one who thinks he wasn’t killed by a resistance hero? Wasn’t he supposed to testify the next day? All this “deny defend depose” thing is a distraction, so that the masses cheer, all the while the man was probably killed right before the only time he would have actually crossed his overlords.
- vintagedave 2y ago
  This is fascinating info I hadn’t read before. What was he going to testify?
  - fidotron 2y ago
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/unitedhealthcare-brian-thompson-insider-trading-lawsuit_n_6751a2abe4b01129dffa8789 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/unitedhealthcare-brian-thomps... Not sure about testify, but there is a probe and he is not the only implicated exec.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- OkayBuddy44 2y ago
  [dead]
- SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
  The guy had a silencer, is that a normal thing for a regular guy in New York to have? That and how it was carried out does make me think that it could be someone who is already out of the law.
  - spacecadet 2y ago
    Looked like a custom weapon to me, which would be a smart move to avoid being traced, also explains the jamming. Custom silencers can cause a semi-auto to jam if the tolerances are crap, but a completely custom, say 3D printed gun, might jam from any number of issues...
uhtred 2y ago
Tiktok is where people say whatever gets the most views. Its for narcissists. There are old school web sleuthing forums filled with people taking this case seriously.
- Spoiled_toast 2y ago
  You are viewing democracy in action. The silent majority took a vote.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    TikTok has their own understanding of democracy, defending certain ideas (e.g. Russia in Romania), but at the same time, Twitter also has a certain view (like Donald Trump).
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - polotics 2y ago
        Hello pessimizer! Please get yourself a few romanian tik-tok accounts, browse as a young man, and you will see what relentless propaganda has been produced. I am sorry this information, ie. the videos, are not widely available on the internet. (like most of the good useful information, if I may add)
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        The idea that votes have to be ignored in Romania because Russia is a unique understanding of democracy. And it's uniquely yours, because no one (even in Romania) is saying "votes have to be ignored because Russia".
    - Spoiled_toast 2y ago
      My apologies for the lack of understanding. I am completely ignorant of everything TikTok. Personally, I am already easily distracted/side tracked and I don’t need another thing to keep me on my phone. My comment was made on the side of the public majority, be it meat space or the ether, holding little regard for a man who’s responsible for policies that have denied care that they payed for. Believe it or not, actions have consequences. As to comment on “TikTok sleuths”: I would doubt their prowess and abilities to maintain any level of professionalism. They are on a website that is targeting your short term attention span. Long, drawn out, in depth analysis and (what is it) 1 minute max length videos don’t seem a positive mix. Just as I am now, I would assume they are merely speculating. This just seems like another “we did it Reddit!”.
tekla 2y ago
Disgusting. Everyone has the freedom to say what they think. Justifying extra-judicial murder because of policy difference shows that you have no principles, and only go along with what will keep you popular with your tribe. Everyone celebrates "justice" against the "bad guys" via vigilante violence until they are next against the wall.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  If you ever happen to talk to normal people you realize people already feel very much "against the wall" when it comes to healthcare. People die everyday because their claims are denied. I am curious what you think the more rational way to be is in this world. The play of life and death is already our theater, but we are just supposed to take it I guess, never give it out.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    > I am curious what you think the more rational way to be is in this world. I think there's a general sense among the owning class (who largely inherited their ownership from their daddies) that the only rational and moral response for somebody who can't pay their societal rent is apoptosis.
  - op00to 2y ago
    Worse than people dying, even more common a single health event can literally bankrupt a family. This happens every day, all day. 41% of Americans have some sort of health care debt. Over 3 million Americans owe more than $10,000 in medical debt. The average American can’t swing an unexpected $2000 expense, imagine how destructive this is, and what is it for? Record profits for insurance companies?
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  The guy probably knew he was a pencil pushing mass murderer of sorts; doesn't mean he should be shot by vigilantes, but in modern society it seems you get away with this (boeing ceo, this guy etc) if you trust on the system as 'he is just maximizing profits, great US company, we are the greatest country because of people like this blah blah' (until it's your mother or sister or whatever ofcourse). You don't have to justify anything by not wanting to help catching the killer though; it's their choice. I have never been in this situation (not allowed here), but as I said before, I find the restraint amazing; if a family member would have paid for 30 years in some insurance and then gets denied because some AI said no, I find it hard to imagine this type of vigilante stuff is so rare. And the ceo really knows this is happening so he should go to jail, at least. Not just a slap on the wrist.
Neywiny 2y ago
Starting with I don't condone violence. But it is kinda pathetic that police forces, especially the NYPD which has billions of dollars in budget and countless years of experience, need to reach out to tiktokers who do this as a hobby for help training.
paxys 2y ago
The same "internet sleuths" who have had a 0% success rate in this kind of thing? He is probably more likely to get caught now that they're not involved and adding confusion by accusing innocent people.
- rvnx 2y ago
  It does work sometimes: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/he-will-not-divide-us https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/he-will-not-divide-us
mrintegrity 2y ago
This reminds me of Ken McElroy [1], murdered in broad daylight with ~40 people present yet no witnesses. Did this CEO deserve to be shot in the back? No, and vigilantism shouldn't be celebrated. Instead we should invest time in understanding why our laws and society structure allows (even promotes) the kind of corporate exploitation of the public that is enough to drive someone to murder. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy
- okasaki 2y ago
  I don't really agree. It's fine to celebrate it and to think that he deserved it.
- underseacables 2y ago
  Good example, I was struggling to come up with other public indifference to killings. Maybe some mobsters? What makes the UH CEO so different is that he was, presumably, innocent. A bad person for humanity and the public, Absolutely, but legally innocent.
  - op00to 2y ago
    King George III was "legally innocent".
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  What if our system is so corrupt that legal investigation and lobbying becomes restricted to a domain in which it can no longer benefit the people? We have hundreds of analyses already and millions of hours poured into understanding this situation -- the corporate power structure and the unrestricted capitalistic growth of technology. Should people analyze until they are blue in the face? At some point in many societies, a point of revolution happens because there is no other reliable option, and when such a thing happens, it overrides the morals of the majority simply because those morals only exist to keep a society functioning. But what to do when it no longer can function? The American goverment frequently decides who lives and who dies and who to kill at war. When that sort of violence flows downwards to those who threaten the existing power structure, it is called policy. When the people take arms against corruption, it is called immoral violence and you bought right into it.
planet36 2y ago
A $10,000 reward is too small. Especially if it depends on a conviction.
underseacables 2y ago
Has there ever been another case like this? I remember some acts in the past where someone was murdered and the general public consensus (even juries) were like yeah, we'll allow it.
silexia 2y ago
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UNH/financials/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UNH/financials/ Total revenue (all money brought in) – $389b All money paid out in claims – $303b Money left over for running the business $85b Cost of running the business – $69b Profit – $14b So it basically appears that for every $1 us customers pay to United Healthcare, $0.75 goes to medical providers, $.21 to running the business, and $.04 to profit. Those numbers don’t seem like gouging to me, what do you think?
- polotics 2y ago
  Your math forgets vertical integration. If you're being price-gouged by a provider you own, who profits?
  - silexia 2y ago
    The real enemy here is the regulatory capture of the health industry preventing competition. $3,000 a night for a hospital bed, $350,000 a year on average for a doctor, and double profits being made by pharma and medical devices companies. Abolish the patent system, allow unlimited new doctors to train instead of a specific number of annual seats, and reduce the regulations on building and operating hospitals and prices will fall. Currently we give 27% of US GDP to doctors and hospitals.
    - dqv 2y ago
      > The real enemy here is the regulatory capture of the health industry preventing competition. Yeah, the enemy is the industry players, who we are talking about. The industry players are the ones who institute the regulations that have captured the industry, and they don't cease to exist after deregulation. Unless your deregulation proposal also includes regulation of their ability to expand, you're just giving them more power to do regulatory capture. They get even richer by creating new hospitals that now cost less to build and hiring physicians (and PAs, NPs, RNs, and so on) whom they can now pay at lower rates. And then, because they have been lobbying this whole time (unless deregulation means regulating lobbying?) they have just done reg 2.0... regulatory capture but it uses AJAX

47 points by pseudolus 2y ago

That is a really depressing read. A person shot and killed in cold blood, and these online heros pretty much condone it. This will be awful for his family.

peepeepoopoo93 2y ago
[flagged]
- phinnaeus 2y ago
  There will just be a new CEO who will continue those same practices. How can this possibly be misconstrued as something impactful upon the broken system
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    This killing can signify that people are starting to be more willing to change the system through tactical violence. And: (a) If more CEOs are targeted, it will modify their behaviour, and make them more likely to tone down their ruthlessness. (b) There is already a lot of news coverage and attention on the horrific nature of U.S. healthcare. If some policies change more rapidly, then I think some might consider this killing an effective action in saving hundreds of lives.
    - oulipo 2y ago
      Yes, and a few days after the assassination, another competing healthcare company dropped a controversial rule they were going to enforce So it kind of worked
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        It absolutely worked.
      - vouaobrasil 2y ago
        Which company? Do you have a source?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - oulipo 2y ago
    Well at some point if all the CEOs get killed they won't find a new one to take the lead...
  - pixxel 2y ago
    At least they’ll think twice about walking the streets. They can hide in their castles.
- xienze 2y ago
  I’ve got news for you, even in countries with socialized healthcare, not all treatments are automatically approved or approved in a timely manner. There’s ALWAYS a cost-to-benefit ratio that is considered, and it doesn’t always work out in the patient’s favor. I suppose we’d cheer the murder of say the UK’s equivalent of this CEO as well?
  - salawat 2y ago
    Does the UK's guy implement policies like mandatory first pass denial to encourage attrition, or try employing blackbox AI models to the task of denying care, and attempting to mathwash? I've worked in the space. Most people don't care about denials that are reasonable. I.e. escalation through "lets try these first drugs" when there isn't an established history of use. Ruling out less expensive problems before approving the most expensive operation. Thise aren't generally issues. It's capricious denials happening over and over and over again, despite well established case history. Denials that clearly don't make sense. Prior Auths being used as financial "nudges". That type of thing can screw right off. It's why I left the space after it proved absolutely impossible to get through to people that these measures were costing the lives of our customers. I bloody tried; and in the end, left for the sake of keeping what was left of my soul intact. As far as I'm concerned the industry has made their bed. They can now sleep in it.
  - op00to 2y ago
    > not all treatments are automatically approved It's not simply approval or denial. In the US, you can still get health care for conditions the insurance company decides to deny payment for after the fact. The "insured" is then financially ruined. This is so exceedingly common in the US. It's far, far, far, far, far, far, far less likely to be financially destroyed by a health issue in the UK or any other industrialized nation.
  - onli 2y ago
    That's not correct. In countries with real health care, all treatments that are listed for an illness are always approved. There just is no denial process that could block e.g. a cancer treatment. A doctor diagnoses it and decided the treatment, the insurance pays and has no say in the matter.
vintagedave 2y ago
Quite the opposite. They’re explicitly not condoning: > Another popular TikTok sleuth, thatdaneshguy [said] that he wouldn’t try to identify the killer. “I don’t have to encourage violence. I don’t have to condone violence by any means. But I also don’t have to help,” he said. Inaction can be condoning in some cases. If there is an element of duty it certainly is. But if volunteers choose not to volunteer in a specific situation that’s their right.
- pipes 2y ago
  Pretty much weasel words way of saying they aren't helping because they agree with the killing.
  - vintagedave 2y ago
    Maybe (and I think you're likely right, or at least, that they don't think it was an evil done in the world) - but if they do, they're not saying so and not condoning it. It can be hard to ascribe values when someone abstains.
zmgsabst 2y ago
Live a thug, die a thug. He made his money killing and maiming people. Why would people mourn his death? — why would people be motivated to find his killer? Criminals kill each other every day.
hcta 2y ago
They have each made the individual choice not to invest more effort in solving the case, the same as you have probably done.
rafterydj 2y ago
Question: is it depressing, or is it a wake up call for just how much the average American hates health insurance executives? There seem to be a few people online who mirror your sentiments about being shocked, what defenders of the crime would call pearl clutching. I'm fascinated. From my perspective, the idea of a vigilante being so burned by health insurance companies he tracks down and kills the CEO is not a shocking premise _at all_. Yet some (particularly health insurance industry workers / professionals on LinkedIn) are so shocked by this that it makes me wonder if there's an insulated echo chamber effect going on here.
- Muromec 2y ago
  It's a classic Robin Hood kind of hero, an established trope that everyone likes. I don't get how anybody can be surprised by this happening in a country which is obsessed with comic books and made hero movies it's main cultural export.
  - krapp 2y ago
    And guns. I mean - this is the country that literally has a whole Amendment in their Constitution dedicated to the right of the people to shoot other people, and which defines that capacity for popular violence as a necessity for a free state. The archetype of the hero patriot "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" goes all the way back to the guy who made that quote. And I would bet money (if I had it) that a significant number of people expressing outrage over this were defending Kyle Rittenhouse and that guy who shot climate protestors in Panama, or making excuses for the killings of Jordan Neely and George Floyd, or gleefully hoping Trump would send troops in to shoot BLM protestors in the streets. Because the "problem" here isn't the normalization of gun violence or the lionization of such violence as heroism - that's been normal for centuries, it's an intentional design feature of the American system. The "problem" here is that gun violence was being used on the wrong kind of people, and creating the wrong kind of hero.
    - pixxel 2y ago
      [flagged]
Muromec 2y ago
Welcome to Kali Yuga. World wars, dictatorships, plagues and political repressions and assassinations are fashionable again. Looking back at this time we will just say "yeah, these were the different times" and shrug.
chris_wot 2y ago
Seems like nobody condoned it, but nobody was interested in helping either. Not helping is not condoning. Are you helping sleuth for his killer?
vouaobrasil 2y ago
It sounds depressing if you take it as just a murder. But it is much more than that: it is one possible step in violent protest against the corporate control and subjugation of thousands of human lives through their medical care. Undeniably, corporations have emerged as the dominant threat to communities and people by becoming experts and exploitation due to their power and assymetry of information.
- pipes 2y ago
  What kind of society would we create if legitimise murder of citizens because another citizen disagrees with them? We invented rule of law and the ballot box to protect ourselves from each other. Yes it may be inefficient and may produce results we don't like, but once it becomes ok to murder people you disagree with, that legitimises killing anyone.
  - pixxel 2y ago
    > disagree This word is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. A parasite was terminated.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    There are always exceptions. This is an extreme case.
  - acdha 2y ago
    I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t be condoning murder but consider that the rule of law and ballot box are not effectively preventing healthcare costs from being a leading cause of bankruptcy, drug addiction / homelessness (read through the fentanyl stories and note how many started with a car crash or workplace injury with medication and physical therapy cut off before the patient was fully recovered), and people dying or having life-altering conditions because they couldn’t get the care they needed earlier. We can’t just say murder is wrong while refusing to do anything about a system which reliably produces large numbers of deaths annually because the alternative would be lower profits. Put another way, how many Americans have cheered seeing Batman tackle an industrialist who killed a fraction of the number of Americans who die because they can’t get adequate healthcare? I strongly agree that gunning people down for perceived injustice isn’t anywhere we want to be but that means we have to actually fix the problems. Here’s a survey which found 34M Americans know someone who died because they couldn’t get healthcare, and 58M couldn’t get medication they needed – those numbers are very high if you want a peaceful society: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-couldn-afford-treatment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tjpnz 2y ago
What about the many thousands of families who have been forced into bankruptcy or have had loved ones die due to actions he's ultimately responsible for? I don't think there's anything wrong in having zero sympathy. It strikes me as a very human reaction.
mcphage 2y ago
> This will be awful for his family. I think we will find that first it was awful for the killer’s family.
capitantrueno 2y ago
Yeah sure, please post this another 386 times for all the other times non-millionaires died in NYC in 2023. Also for when they killed Bin Laden and Hussein. https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/ https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/
giardini 2y ago
The real questions are: - Did Starbucks bill Thompson for his drink before the shooting? - If so, did they refund any charge (since he presumably did not pick up the drink)? - Can Starbucks legally refund money to a credit card account knowing the account owner is deceased?

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Such a fascinating case. No one is morally required to help find a murderer, it’s a question of virtue. It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.

datadeft 2y ago
> if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up. It is much better if the gen pop is the sacrificial lamb.
pseudolus 2y ago
In this particular instance I think it's less a question of virtue and more the issue of internet sleuths having an intimate understanding of the power of the internet and fearing the backlash that will be visited upon them if they participate in finding the murderer. It's a form of self-censorship.
morkalork 2y ago
Why exactly is the current system set up the way it is by politicians? I can think of at least one former politician who now sits on the board of a healthcare provider, it's a little dirty. Corporations lobby politicians all the time, maybe they should lobby for more regulation and consumer protection. You might say it's in everyone's best interest.
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  Politicians could copy paste the eu regulatory/payment system or make it illegal for employers to provide healthcare. There are a couple of pivot points that could fix things now that we have the data.
piva00 2y ago
> It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up. Are you implying the CEO is a victim of the system? If so he decided to further victimise dozens of thousands further, just like a murderer-robber is also a victim of the system, nonetheless their lack of morality made them perpetuate the system's violence.

serial_dev 2y ago

Am I the only one who thinks he wasn’t killed by a resistance hero? Wasn’t he supposed to testify the next day? All this “deny defend depose” thing is a distraction, so that the masses cheer, all the while the man was probably killed right before the only time he would have actually crossed his overlords.

vintagedave 2y ago
This is fascinating info I hadn’t read before. What was he going to testify?
- fidotron 2y ago
  https://www.huffpost.com/entry/unitedhealthcare-brian-thompson-insider-trading-lawsuit_n_6751a2abe4b01129dffa8789 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/unitedhealthcare-brian-thomps... Not sure about testify, but there is a probe and he is not the only implicated exec.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
OkayBuddy44 2y ago
[dead]
SlightlyLeftPad 2y ago
The guy had a silencer, is that a normal thing for a regular guy in New York to have? That and how it was carried out does make me think that it could be someone who is already out of the law.
- spacecadet 2y ago
  Looked like a custom weapon to me, which would be a smart move to avoid being traced, also explains the jamming. Custom silencers can cause a semi-auto to jam if the tolerances are crap, but a completely custom, say 3D printed gun, might jam from any number of issues...

uhtred 2y ago

Tiktok is where people say whatever gets the most views. Its for narcissists. There are old school web sleuthing forums filled with people taking this case seriously.

Spoiled_toast 2y ago
You are viewing democracy in action. The silent majority took a vote.
- rvnx 2y ago
  TikTok has their own understanding of democracy, defending certain ideas (e.g. Russia in Romania), but at the same time, Twitter also has a certain view (like Donald Trump).
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - polotics 2y ago
      Hello pessimizer! Please get yourself a few romanian tik-tok accounts, browse as a young man, and you will see what relentless propaganda has been produced. I am sorry this information, ie. the videos, are not widely available on the internet. (like most of the good useful information, if I may add)
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The idea that votes have to be ignored in Romania because Russia is a unique understanding of democracy. And it's uniquely yours, because no one (even in Romania) is saying "votes have to be ignored because Russia".
  - Spoiled_toast 2y ago
    My apologies for the lack of understanding. I am completely ignorant of everything TikTok. Personally, I am already easily distracted/side tracked and I don’t need another thing to keep me on my phone. My comment was made on the side of the public majority, be it meat space or the ether, holding little regard for a man who’s responsible for policies that have denied care that they payed for. Believe it or not, actions have consequences. As to comment on “TikTok sleuths”: I would doubt their prowess and abilities to maintain any level of professionalism. They are on a website that is targeting your short term attention span. Long, drawn out, in depth analysis and (what is it) 1 minute max length videos don’t seem a positive mix. Just as I am now, I would assume they are merely speculating. This just seems like another “we did it Reddit!”.

tekla 2y ago

Disgusting. Everyone has the freedom to say what they think. Justifying extra-judicial murder because of policy difference shows that you have no principles, and only go along with what will keep you popular with your tribe. Everyone celebrates "justice" against the "bad guys" via vigilante violence until they are next against the wall.

beepbooptheory 2y ago
If you ever happen to talk to normal people you realize people already feel very much "against the wall" when it comes to healthcare. People die everyday because their claims are denied. I am curious what you think the more rational way to be is in this world. The play of life and death is already our theater, but we are just supposed to take it I guess, never give it out.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > I am curious what you think the more rational way to be is in this world. I think there's a general sense among the owning class (who largely inherited their ownership from their daddies) that the only rational and moral response for somebody who can't pay their societal rent is apoptosis.
- op00to 2y ago
  Worse than people dying, even more common a single health event can literally bankrupt a family. This happens every day, all day. 41% of Americans have some sort of health care debt. Over 3 million Americans owe more than $10,000 in medical debt. The average American can’t swing an unexpected $2000 expense, imagine how destructive this is, and what is it for? Record profits for insurance companies?
anonzzzies 2y ago
The guy probably knew he was a pencil pushing mass murderer of sorts; doesn't mean he should be shot by vigilantes, but in modern society it seems you get away with this (boeing ceo, this guy etc) if you trust on the system as 'he is just maximizing profits, great US company, we are the greatest country because of people like this blah blah' (until it's your mother or sister or whatever ofcourse). You don't have to justify anything by not wanting to help catching the killer though; it's their choice. I have never been in this situation (not allowed here), but as I said before, I find the restraint amazing; if a family member would have paid for 30 years in some insurance and then gets denied because some AI said no, I find it hard to imagine this type of vigilante stuff is so rare. And the ceo really knows this is happening so he should go to jail, at least. Not just a slap on the wrist.

Neywiny 2y ago

Starting with I don't condone violence. But it is kinda pathetic that police forces, especially the NYPD which has billions of dollars in budget and countless years of experience, need to reach out to tiktokers who do this as a hobby for help training.

paxys 2y ago

The same "internet sleuths" who have had a 0% success rate in this kind of thing? He is probably more likely to get caught now that they're not involved and adding confusion by accusing innocent people.

rvnx 2y ago
It does work sometimes: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/he-will-not-divide-us https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/he-will-not-divide-us

mrintegrity 2y ago

This reminds me of Ken McElroy [1], murdered in broad daylight with ~40 people present yet no witnesses. Did this CEO deserve to be shot in the back? No, and vigilantism shouldn't be celebrated. Instead we should invest time in understanding why our laws and society structure allows (even promotes) the kind of corporate exploitation of the public that is enough to drive someone to murder. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

okasaki 2y ago
I don't really agree. It's fine to celebrate it and to think that he deserved it.
underseacables 2y ago
Good example, I was struggling to come up with other public indifference to killings. Maybe some mobsters? What makes the UH CEO so different is that he was, presumably, innocent. A bad person for humanity and the public, Absolutely, but legally innocent.
- op00to 2y ago
  King George III was "legally innocent".
vouaobrasil 2y ago
What if our system is so corrupt that legal investigation and lobbying becomes restricted to a domain in which it can no longer benefit the people? We have hundreds of analyses already and millions of hours poured into understanding this situation -- the corporate power structure and the unrestricted capitalistic growth of technology. Should people analyze until they are blue in the face? At some point in many societies, a point of revolution happens because there is no other reliable option, and when such a thing happens, it overrides the morals of the majority simply because those morals only exist to keep a society functioning. But what to do when it no longer can function? The American goverment frequently decides who lives and who dies and who to kill at war. When that sort of violence flows downwards to those who threaten the existing power structure, it is called policy. When the people take arms against corruption, it is called immoral violence and you bought right into it.

planet36 2y ago

A $10,000 reward is too small. Especially if it depends on a conviction.

underseacables 2y ago

Has there ever been another case like this? I remember some acts in the past where someone was murdered and the general public consensus (even juries) were like yeah, we'll allow it.

silexia 2y ago

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UNH/financials/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UNH/financials/ Total revenue (all money brought in) – $389b All money paid out in claims – $303b Money left over for running the business $85b Cost of running the business – $69b Profit – $14b So it basically appears that for every $1 us customers pay to United Healthcare, $0.75 goes to medical providers, $.21 to running the business, and $.04 to profit. Those numbers don’t seem like gouging to me, what do you think?

polotics 2y ago
Your math forgets vertical integration. If you're being price-gouged by a provider you own, who profits?
- silexia 2y ago
  The real enemy here is the regulatory capture of the health industry preventing competition. $3,000 a night for a hospital bed, $350,000 a year on average for a doctor, and double profits being made by pharma and medical devices companies. Abolish the patent system, allow unlimited new doctors to train instead of a specific number of annual seats, and reduce the regulations on building and operating hospitals and prices will fall. Currently we give 27% of US GDP to doctors and hospitals.
  - dqv 2y ago
    > The real enemy here is the regulatory capture of the health industry preventing competition. Yeah, the enemy is the industry players, who we are talking about. The industry players are the ones who institute the regulations that have captured the industry, and they don't cease to exist after deregulation. Unless your deregulation proposal also includes regulation of their ability to expand, you're just giving them more power to do regulatory capture. They get even richer by creating new hospitals that now cost less to build and hiring physicians (and PAs, NPs, RNs, and so on) whom they can now pay at lower rates. And then, because they have been lobbying this whole time (unless deregulation means regulating lobbying?) they have just done reg 2.0... regulatory capture but it uses AJAX