Shootings

[Blackhawk]

At least the death toll was pointed in the right direction this time.

[Kraken]

But there is no way I can get on board with shooting a civilian in the back on a city street to resolve a financial matter or business grievance. Absolutely not the way to do things.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't financial or business, but a loved one who died after being denied treatment.

That's my assumption.

[Holman]

Today I'm noticing how many online ads I'm seeing are for either health insurance companies or specialty drugs purchased through health insurance.

Maybe they'll all become more equitable. Maybe.

[Max Peck]

But there is no way I can get on board with shooting a civilian in the back on a city street to resolve a financial matter or business grievance. Absolutely not the way to do things.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't financial or business, but a loved one who died after being denied treatment.

That's my assumption.

That, or an anarchist (or some other flavour of political radical) who decided to go old school.

[GreenGoo]

That, or an anarchist (or some other flavour of political radical) who decided to go old school.

You broke the one rule.

[Max Peck]

Huh? I said nothing about Fight Club! Wait... no... dammit...

[Daehawk]

And I just switched from Humana to United Healthcare.

[Kraken]

We had that insurance briefly. When Wife went for an appointment and gave the office her insurance info, the girl behind the counter winced and said "Well, it's better than nothing."

This perspective in the Atlantic further piqued my interest.

The killer, who shot Thompson in the back, may welcome that glorifying narrative. Indeed, despite his efforts to avoid being identified, he seems to have wanted to put on a show. A bullet shell and an ejected live round found at the scene reportedly had words such as depose and delay written on them—apparent references to strategies that health insurers use in denying coverage.

This suggests an obvious motive—perhaps too obvious. The killer is a master of the modern surveillance environment; he understands the camera. No one should be surprised if he is just pointing the lens to where he wants us to look.

[YellowKing]

Cigna says "Hold my beer." I had far less problems with UHC than I have had with Cigna.

[gbasden]

But there is no way I can get on board with shooting a civilian in the back on a city street to resolve a financial matter or business grievance. Absolutely not the way to do things.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't financial or business, but a loved one who died after being denied treatment.

Yeah. That's certainly what it looks like. And having been on the periphery of a fight to get insurance to actually cover a life threatening illness, and watching the person die in part due to the insurance company weaseling out of paying for treatment, I have very little sympathy for Mr. Thompson.

[GreenGoo]

Only vaguely related, my wife was rear ended in our new car, and our insurance company still hasn't gotten back to us. It's been 3-4 weeks. We've called and emailed multiple times, including getting our insurance broker involved. The person who hit us is insured by the same company.

We haven't had a claim in 20 years (not all with this company). We might not make a claim here. We just want to know options.

Obviously I'm not equating health insurance and car insurance. Only that delay seems to be step 1 for both.

[Max Peck]

It's probably true for any kind of insurance. The longer they can hold on to your money, the more profit they can make from it.

[Isgrimnur]

The backpack recovered by the NYPD that allegedly belonged to the suspect wanted in the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, only had two items inside: a Tommy Hilfiger jacket and Monopoly money

[Smoove_B]

Between the message on the shell casings and that backpack, it's almost like he knew he was going to escape without any problems.

[Blackhawk]

It's the difference between planning a crime and acting on impulse or emotion. Thank god most criminals are morons - if they were all smart, we'd be in trouble.

[LordMortis]

Only vaguely related, my wife was rear ended in our new car, and our insurance company still hasn't gotten back to us. It's been 3-4 weeks. We've called and emailed multiple times, including getting our insurance broker involved. The person who hit us is insured by the same company.

We haven't had a claim in 20 years (not all with this company). We might not make a claim here. We just want to know options.

Obviously I'm not equating health insurance and car insurance. Only that delay seems to be step 1 for both.

21 months after the fact, my auto still isn't paying all claims nor even responding to many requests from medical billing partners. There are now lawyers involved for the medical, as the insurer just stopped acknowledging anyone, meaning they also won't talk to me (and they ignored me before the lawyers took over anyway). I'm still with them, but when this all finally resolves, I'll be looking for another company, and won't be looking at the company of the person who hit me either. It's pretty clear they will do everything in their power to never pay anyone, ever, and would spend $50,000 on 3rd party lawyers when they are clearly in the wrong as a show of policy, knowing full well they were going to have to pay the full amount of their under insured drivers policy anyway. (That it's legal to under insure in state is still baffling to me. That I have to sue my own auto insurance company because I got it by a car and the driver is legally allowed not have enough insurance to cover even a small portion the damage they do is mind blowing)

[Kraken]

FWIW Geico paid two claims in three years for me, in full and without hassles. Both of them were non-moving incidents. Our rate went up when we replaced the Honda with the much more expensive Hyundai, but then fell when we moved to Pittsfield. I'm sure there are people with counterexamples but GEICO has been flawless for me. Please don't shoot their CEO.

[Exodor]

Only vaguely related, my wife was rear ended in our new car, and our insurance company still hasn't gotten back to us. It's been 3-4 weeks. We've called and emailed multiple times, including getting our insurance broker involved. The person who hit us is insured by the same company.

I'm so sorry.

We had State Farm and got rear-ended by another State Farm policy holder. Their desire to minimize their payout vastly outweighs their desire to make you whole. We would have been much better off getting hit by someone with insurance from another provider.

We no longer use State Farm.

[Smoove_B]

It's the difference between planning a crime and acting on impulse or emotion. Thank god most criminals are morons - if they were all smart, we'd be in trouble.

Also true. Won't surprise me if he actually planted that backpack ahead of time and it's not really the same one he wore during the crime. If the police had descended on the park quickly after the shooting and found it faster, they might have refocused their attention to try and locate/trap him inside the park area, but his advanced planning had him long gone.

[Max Peck]

It seems totally normal and not at all a ruse for The Man to say they've identified the CEO Avenger but that they won't reveal his name because dramatic reasons.

Suspect identified in UnitedHealth executive's murder, New York Post reports

Authorities have identified the man suspected of killing UnitedHealth <UNH.N> executive Brian Thompson and are closing in on him, New York City Mayor Eric Adams was quoted as saying on Saturday by the New York Post.

"The net is tightening," Adams told reporters at a Police Athletic League holiday party in Harlem, according to the Post. He declined to name the suspect.

Adams was quoted by the Post as saying the police were withholding the suspect's name for now to deny him any advantage.

“We don’t want to release that now,” the mayor said. “If you do, you are basically giving a tip to the person we are seeking and we do not want to give him an upper hand at all. Let him continue to believe he can hide behind the mask."

"We revealed his face," he continued, referring to security camera photos and video released after the murder. "We’re going to reveal who he is and we’re going to bring him to justice.”

And why is Adams even giving statements about the case? Has he forgotten that he's a corrupt mayor and not a corrupt cop nowadays?

It was at a party, so maybe he was just drunk...

[hepcat]

But there is no way I can get on board with shooting a civilian in the back on a city street to resolve a financial matter or business grievance. Absolutely not the way to do things.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't financial or business, but a loved one who died after being denied treatment.

That's my assumption.

I was reading an article last night about the number of people online who are celebrating the shooter for killing a health insurance leader. It’s disgusting. You can believe it’s a broken system and still recognize that there are a lot of innocent people involved in broken systems in this country. That doesn’t make them evil and thus fit for execution.

[Victoria Raverna]

To reveal his name = give him an upper hand.

But

Telling the public that they identified the man != give him an upper hand.

[Victoria Raverna]

But there is no way I can get on board with shooting a civilian in the back on a city street to resolve a financial matter or business grievance. Absolutely not the way to do things.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't financial or business, but a loved one who died after being denied treatment.

That's my assumption.

I was reading an article last night about the number of people online who are celebrating the shooter for killing a health insurance leader. It’s disgusting. You can believe it’s a broken system and still recognize that there are a lot of innocent people involved in broken systems in this country. That doesn’t make them evil and thus fit for execution.

Except this victim was totally responsible for how the insurance company behaved after he became the CEO. Killing the CEO is bad, but the CEO's decision to let people die to increase profit was worse.

[hepcat]

Except this victim was totally responsible for how the insurance company behaved after he became the CEO. Killing the CEO is bad, but the CEO's decision to let people die to increase profit was worse.

Fix the system, don't murder the people who work within it. I don't like Trumpers and I feel like they're dangerous. Should I go outside right now and just start murdering everyone in a MAGA hat for putting the orange doofus in power?

If you're flippant, or someone who just wants an excuse to murder people, the answer will be yes. For stable humans, it's no.

He worked within a shitty system that seeks to increase profits for shareholders. Should we now sanction THEIR deaths? Hell, my 401k portfolio may even contain some of their stock.

Fix the system...unless your goal is to establish a society in which everyone can be a lethal batman and dispense justice as they see fit. In which case, we're all screwed as I doubt we've all lived lived like saints.

[Victoria Raverna]

You still think you can fix the system without something like this? Maybe if enough CEOs and other bad people like him are killed then you can fix the system.

It was also not just the system, this insurance company's denial rate is twice the industry average. Increased a lot after this victim became the CEO. Compare to average health insurance company, this one is not normal.

[LordMortis]

Fix the system...unless you're goal is to establish a society in which everyone can be a lethal batman and dispense justice as they see fit. In which case, we're all screwed as I doubt we've all lived lived like saints.

This is precisely why I shut down conversation with them. The disregard for civics and civil society is the very definition of condoning lawlessness. I can't deal with even passive support for that any more. There may not be anything I can do to change minds and little I can do to effect change any more but one thing I can do is no longer have to listen to the tripe. And I actually feel a lot better for it. I lament the us that is moving toward the condoning lawlessness and likely will find myself shutting that down listening to that as well in an attempt to keep my sanity. I am legit surprised at the "eat the rich" I've seen. Again, I seem to underestimate where my fellow Americans are at.

[hepcat]

You still think you can fix the system without something like this?

So what you're saying here is essentially Israel had no choice after October 6th and that they're on the right path?

[Victoria Raverna]

Fix the system...unless you're goal is to establish a society in which everyone can be a lethal batman and dispense justice as they see fit. In which case, we're all screwed as I doubt we've all lived lived like saints.

This is precisely why I shut down conversation with them. The disregard for civics and civil society is the very definition of condoning lawlessness. I can't deal with even passive support for that any more. There may not be anything I can do to change minds and little I can do to effect change any more but one thing I can do is no longer have to listen to the tripe. And I actually feel a lot better for it. I lament the us that is moving toward the condoning lawlessness and likely will find myself shutting that down listening to that as well in an attempt to keep my sanity. I am legit surprised at the "eat the rich" I've seen. Again, I seem to underestimate where my fellow Americans are at.

You can't change things when the law is on the side of the rich and powerful. They own your government.

Killing a lot of people by using AI that wrongly reject claims is lawful. Killing a single CEO is lawless.

[Victoria Raverna]

You still think you can fix the system without something like this?

So what you're saying here is essentially Israel had no choice after October 6th and that they're on the right path?

Well, they got what they wanted, right? At least in short term?

But for Israel, it is more of the other side. The Palestinians can't get their freedom by following the law.

[hepcat]

Using your logic, Israel couldn't keep Hamas from terrorist activity, so the best solution for them is to murder enough Palestinians that they stop? And since Palestinians can't get what THEY want, the best solution for them is to continue to kill Israeli citizens in terrorist attacks?

You're part of the problem, not part of the solution, my friend.

[Max Peck]

[hepcat]

Capitalism, socialism, fascism...all the -isms kill people daily in the pursuit of their stated goals...often indirectly. But only a few of them allow the majority to speak up and (even if you think otherwise) effect change. Just because it doesn't happen overnight doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. We've got a long history in the U.S. of such changes. And we've got even more that will hopefully come in our future.

If the solution is always to just kill people to get the ball rolling, then your solution has started off on the wrong foot.

[Victoria Raverna]

Capitalism, socialism, fascism...all the -isms kill people daily in the pursuit of their stated goals...often indirectly. But only a few of them allow the majority to speak up and (even if you think otherwise) effect change. Just because it doesn't happen overnight doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. We've got a long history in the U.S. of such changes. And we've got even more that will hopefully come in our future.

If the solution is always to just kill people to get the ball rolling, then your solution has started off on the wrong foot.

But a lot of changes were resulted from something like that, right?

US gained independence with violence including killing people. End of slavery was also involved some violence.

[hepcat]

Capitalism, socialism, fascism...all the -isms kill people daily in the pursuit of their stated goals...often indirectly. But only a few of them allow the majority to speak up and (even if you think otherwise) effect change. Just because it doesn't happen overnight doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. We've got a long history in the U.S. of such changes. And we've got even more that will hopefully come in our future.

If the solution is always to just kill people to get the ball rolling, then your solution has started off on the wrong foot.

But a lot of changes were resulted from something like that, right?

Nope. The overwhelming majority of them resulted from people raising their voices, not someone murdering someone. If there was a death (or deaths) involved, it was usually a tragedy that spurred on the changes by creating an outcry. Not an assassination.

Also, let's stress this: while Thompson worked for an awful company that operated (legally) within an awful system in our country, he wasn't getting up every morning and thinking gleefully about the numerous people he could kill. He wasn't analogous to an overseer in a concentration camp in WW2. He was management in a company that used our shitty health care system to make profits for their shareholders. He may have been guilty of greed, but he sure as hell wasn't guilty of murder.

You want a perfect society, great. So do we all. But we ain't gonna get there by murdering everyone we feel has wronged us.

[Max Peck]

"I was just doing my job" said no Nazi ever.

Godwin wins again.

[hepcat]

"Everyone who is a greedy businessman in a capitalist country is a Nazi!" said every 2nd year college kid ever.

Godwin keeps on winning.

[Max Peck]

The beautiful thing about Godwin's Law is that it's never wrong. If nobody has mentioned Nazis yet, you just need to wait a little longer.

That thread is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons eventually Nazi references will happen. -- Abdul Alhazred, as related by L. P. Lovelace.

[Blackhawk]

Thompson wasn't an 'innocent' who was oblivious to the people his company let die under his watch. He willingly went along with letting other human beings die because it enriched him, personally. And it wasn't out of some duty to the shareholders - it was because he knew that enriching the shareholders was the thing that benefited himself the most.

There is no redeeming quality there.

That said, we're not a society that solves those kinds of problems with murder. If we were, we'd be an open warzone.

At the end of the day, a person did a terrible thing to a terrible person. Both were wrong. One's (apparent) motivation was far more understandable, but both were in the wrong

And at the same time, as I stated earlier, there is a limit as to how far massive multi-billion dollar corporations can abuse people, treat them like resources to be discarded, and not expect them to strike back. The corporate philosophy in which the value of any particular human is limited to how much they can be exploited has been growing lately, and it's gone from a subtle behind-the-scenes element to "what are you going to do about it?" This was 100% inevitable, as are similar future murder attempts, and equally inevitable domestic terror attacks.

It's not 'right', but the corporations have been acting like the schoolyard bully and have been rubbing peoples' noses in the fact, while the teachers stand by and cheer them on. Sooner or later, someone's absolutely going to swing back.

[Holman]

Killing CEOs isn't a solution.

But the response to the killing of one CEO has thrown open a window onto the massive frustration that nearly everyone feels about the cost of healthcare in the world's richest country.

People are realizing that they are united in that frustration, and a sense of unity is the engine for political change. This is why waves of demonstrations have any effect at all: they indicate the direction of popular will.

Of course the system will do everything it can to distract from this, and we'll mostly fall for it.

[Pyperkub]

Except this victim was totally responsible for how the insurance company behaved after he became the CEO. Killing the CEO is bad, but the CEO's decision to let people die to increase profit was worse.

Fix the system, don't murder the people who work within it. I don't like Trumpers and I feel like they're dangerous. Should I go outside right now and just start murdering everyone in a MAGA hat for putting the orange doofus in power?

If you're flippant, or someone who just wants an excuse to murder people, the answer will be yes. For stable humans, it's no.

He worked within a shitty system that seeks to increase profits for shareholders. Should we now sanction THEIR deaths? Hell, my 401k portfolio may even contain some of their stock.

Fix the system...unless your goal is to establish a society in which everyone can be a lethal batman and dispense justice as they see fit. In which case, we're all screwed as I doubt we've all lived lived like saints.

The right made superstars out of Zimmerman and Rittenhouse for murdering people.

If it's done against nobodies, it's apparently OK.

But if it's the power structure oligarchs?