Yes, it’s been pretty damn funny watching his audience turn on him over this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/s/JWjhndgQdP
High-profile killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran discuss a horrific month of December and a depressing FOUR defeats in a row - the latest coming against Wolves and Newcastle.
They discuss how much blame is on Ruben Amorim and rank our squad against other Premier League teams.
Do we have any chance of avoiding defeat at Anfield?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/s/JWjhndgQdP
Bollocks, you will never look at cardboard boxes in the same way.
Honestly, that might be the saddest thing I've ever read on this site.
Eric Adams has said they are close to catching him which gives me impression the police have no idea.
Thanks for posting that, restored my faith in people a little that even his audience can see a problem here that transcends the left/right dichotomy
It's like they're trying to draw him out of hiding by putting a new villain out there.
It's always the bald English villains stereotype
From the deaths caused by denied claims to unnecessary suffering to the harm of medical bankruptcies to all the indirect problems from the health insurance mafia monopolizing local health care which causes a host of issues from the big to the small, I think I think the bad/suffering/evil caused by the CEO of United's actions far outweighs the ill caused by his killing. Of course this won't solve the systemic issues alone but the schadenfreude from the CEO's death is perfectly understandable.
I'm not sure what your point is with all this sarcasm and outrage that people aren't showing enough sympathy for your taste for this horrible human being. Seems like a strange hill to want to stake your flag in the ground and fight over.
And @AfonsoAlves if you want to play the "only a symptom" card, then as others mentioned, you can't then condemn the shooter either, since that person is also just a symptom of the system.
Who has condemned the shooter here? Everyone empathizes with them.
I mean, after literally every shooting there's mass debate about gun control. We all recognise that gun control is the problem. Yes, the individual is usually fecked up, disturbed etc, but everyone agrees the solution is to reform gun access, not to try and hunt down/isolate anyone who might be a potential mass shooter.
Yes, everyone except for roughly half of Americans.
If you're using the "only a symptom of capitalism" to excuse the CEO of UH, and that's what your posts sound like, then the shooter is also "only a symptom of capitalism".
Health insurances and their CEOs aren't symptoms of the system. They are engineers and benefactors of the system, they lobby and bribe to maintain/improve the system with the only goal to make more money.
It's absolutely asinine to suggest that they are "only a symptom".
It's absolutely asinine to suggest that they are "only a symptom".
Last edited:
That I absolutely agree with. They are real life villains.
However, what I think the actual point of contention has been, whether people murdering them on the street is to be considered a meaningful advancement of society worthy of endorsement or even imitation, instead of being, what I am afraid it really is, a depressing fecking mess.
It shouldn't be imitated because it will lead to chaos. But I understand why an individual would do it, it's wrong but understandable. There are crimes like that, the perpetrator should be punished but his actions can also be justified, they are not acceptable but they are justifiable.
The guards at Aushwitz also "guarded against unnecessary care", as Satan might put it.
I for one don't advocate for the murder of anyone. However, when it happens there are some people I care far less about them not being in the world. Trump would be the prime example. I wouldn't have either celebrated or shed a tear if he had been offed. Still doesn't mean I want him murdered. Seems fairly obvious that this is most people's reaction.
And you must know that an admin worker and the CEO are hugely different cases. The CEO is making an active and personal choice that kills and causes huge suffering to people. In any insurance business some people will be refused fairly but if you look at the huge number of denied claims by this company compared to the other major players it is obvious that they deliberately cause death and misery for corporate profits. So you can surely see why people aren't that upset?
What an awful take.
Sounds good to me
Well, at least his company won't have to protect him from unnecessary care. That's the positive aspect of being assassinated.
Talk about going out with a bang.
It's OK to read certain obituaries without regret that they are no longer with us. It's not clear to me that he made the world a better place. Instant karma indeed.
It's OK to read certain obituaries without regret that they are no longer with us. It's not clear to me that he made the world a better place. Instant karma indeed.
Last edited:
Who knew vigilantism against the immoral ultra rich would bridge the political divide in the US. Eat the rich, heal division.
Bearing in mind my extremely tedious devil’s advocate argumentative streak I feel like I should go in to bat for this CEO guy but I just can’t he arsed. I’m tired, Robbie.
I fully trust the NYPD's information and all of these photos being of the same person. It only took them three days to find a bag that the shooter purposefully left for them, after all.
I think it's a little more nuanced - he was asked whether they had the suspect's name and he said they didn't want to release that info (whether they had the name or not).
I’m not sure it’s a causative relationship like you suggest it is. As in, his employment choice does not directly cause that. To be clear I do not absolve him of blame, but that may be an important point to make.
Look, maybe I’ve expressed myself poorly. Maybe it wasn’t clear I was speaking somewhat tongue in cheek. I’m not mourning this death. The system is broken and IF good can come from his killing, then it will be a net positive for the world.
The problem is that I don’t actually think any good will come of it. We’ll talk about it for a while then we’ll all move on. If there was a clear through line between the almost sacrificial slaying of an immoral, evil CEO, and social reformation, I’d welcome the discussion. But I don’t think there is.
So through that lens, we kinda just have a CEO that was ostensibly murdered because of where he worked. There are heaps of pricks in the world that deserve it just as much, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to gun them all down.
So yeah, I don’t love the idea of vigilantism in this context but hey, I’m not French. Perhaps I’m too compliant.
Last edited:
I have provided more context above
If your company chooses to reject so many claims in comparison to other companies (who are no doubt not saints either) then you are deliberately killing people for money. No amount of mental gymnastics can get a CEO around that.
Neither do I but I'm also not going to really care that much if it does happen or not at all if someone like Trump is killed.
Health insurance has always been a grey area for me. Could have they saved lives? absolutely. Could have they abandoned lives that could have been saved? yes. By the end of the day, it all comes down into money. It's numbers game for them, they want to make money first and foremost.
One of my relatives work as a HR head, he's responsible to pick health insurance for employees. And he's had so many insurance companies asking to stop the partnership long before the contract ends because it's not profitable for them. Which was their own mistakes to begin with (wrong analysis). They'd rather not have a client if that means they'd be losing money.
One of my relatives work as a HR head, he's responsible to pick health insurance for employees. And he's had so many insurance companies asking to stop the partnership long before the contract ends because it's not profitable for them. Which was their own mistakes to begin with (wrong analysis). They'd rather not have a client if that means they'd be losing money.
And this is the crux of it - healthcare is an industry that seeks profit, like all others. The fact that the companies come up with mission statements like, for example, "to protect and accompany americans throughout their lives, ensuring they have access to the best care possible" is merely window dressing covering up the ultimate goal which is none other than to reward shareholders and top level executives, handsomely.
Last edited:
Or
The guy was planning on killing someone in a busy city, full of CCTV, and was smart enough to realise that wearing the same jacket and backpack throughout his journey to and from the crime scene would make him easier to track.
But your other two scenarios are much more likely, right?
Exactly this.
How often do people say that “the rich get away with it” or “CEOs should be behind bars”, when they get slap on the wrist fines? The lack of justice is also part of the system - developed through intense lobbying that ultimately ensures higher profits with fewer consequences.
Well, their shit system means someone at some point is going to go vigilante. And now it’s happened.
Zero remorse for this pricks death. Hope the shooter gets away with it and acts like a bogey man for all other CEOs of cnut businesses.
Exactly - and the profit margin goes up for every claim denied, every treatment rejected. And if you've become very rich by working as a CEO for a health insurance company you've done so by finding ways to minimise the number of claims approved, by maximising profit for shareholders at the expense of the disabled, sick and dying. There's a reason that the US spends far more per capita on healthcare than any comparable nation while having a life expectancy that is lower than every comparable nation - because that money goes into health insurance which produces profit for shareholders instead of increased life expectancy. As of 2023 China spends less than $1000 per capita on healthcare, and has a life expectancy of a little under 78. The US spends over $10k per capita and has a life expectancy of 79.
Gonna have to be a bit pedantic here. Those health insurance companies aren’t the reason for the high costs. The opposite, if anything. The more expensive the cost of healthcare, the lower their profit, because it’s their job to pay the bills. Hence all these grim stories of yer man’s company refusing to cover the cost of treatment for various sick and dying people.
Do tell, why is their healthcare so expensive then?
Because it’s fully privatised, lightly regulated system. Every single provider is trying to extract as much money as possible out of the system, with minimal government intervention to force them to keep costs down. Insurance companies aren’t providers though. They’re payers. Providers profit by keeping cost high, payers profit by forcing costs down. Unfortunately they can also profit by diverting those costs onto patients, hence the horror stories you read about from customers of the dead CEO’s company.
Last edited:
I think you may be on to a winner here.
Second Amendment is partly to secure the right to resist oppression.
Corporatism has usurped the state and essentially been waging a war on the lower classes for decades
Vigilantism directed at the actual oppressors rather than the state usurped by them and protecting their rights to continue their war on the lower classes seems like an appropriate response to the late stage capitalism unfolding in the US.
If costs are higher then every claim denied gives you more profit. It's clear that they benefit directly from high healthcare costs (particularly when they act immorally), and they also probably benefit indirectly too through e.g. referral fees kicked back from providers, investments in related healthcare firms. My wife has a $1800 bill that her US health insurance still refuse to pay over 6 months later because they spelt her name wrong when they processed the insurance documents and it didn't match up to the name on the healthcare provider's form. They are not honest actors in any of this, no matter what the theory might imply about them bringing healthcare costs down. Fact is the costs are astronomical and they are in on it.
It's the same shit car insurance companies in the UK have been pulling for years but writ large. Every year it seems to me the insurance firms claim to make very little profit or even a loss, and yet they're all still in business 20 years later. If you look at their parent companies in Ireland or the Bahamas though...the garage referral fees and stuff seem to collect offshore somehow and somewhere along the way somebody is miraculously making lots of money.