UHC CEO Gunned Down in Midtown Manhattan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

So do a CT scan, and then a MRI? You sound like a brain doctor.

Do you understand that CT scans are *far* cheaper than MRIs?

So do unnecessary tests?

I think we all need to ignore this apologist, idiot troll now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

Doctors are often the ones doing things to pad their reimbursements. Until they're salaried, many will have a strong incentive to do unnecessary tests and procedures.

Um…most doctors are hospital employed and salaried. The days of self employed doctors are largely over

No, not the specialists that do the procedures. Heck, often the intensivists and ED physicians are outsourced.

Yes, most specialists, surgical and otherwise, are hospital employed and salaried. Even the “outsourced” ED physicians (or other) are sent by a locum agency that finds them and the hospital pays them hourly.

You must have very limited experience with community hospitals. Heck, many of the smaller systems don't even work that way.

I have a lot of experience with many hospitals and I promise you majority of their physicians are hospital employed. Now, every few years salaries and contacts are renegotiated and salary is configured according to their previous years productivity per RVU, but intimately, it is the hospital that decides what to pay the physicians. Very few are independent

They're not independent, but outside of the major medical centers, the specialists are not employed by the hospital. They either work for groups that contract with the hospital, or they have to accept unassigned call at the hospital in order to maintain privileges there.

Some, but not most. Of those “some there needs to be many, for instance a large anesthesia group or GI group. But most specialists aren’t part of large groups; most others are employed by the hospital, especially the highly specialized

You're clearly imagining large hospitals. Even a system like Adventist or Holy Cross isn't big enough to put "highly specialized" doctors on salary. Not even their radiologists are salaried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The WP editorial board (who was told? Or wouldn’t? endorse a presidential candidate) wrote a whole column on why the response is uncalled for and that health insurances are a complex matter. Last I read, the comment section was tearing their arguments to pieces and saying they missed the point. I agree that his murder was wrong, plain and simple. But it’s interesting to compare the media vs the internet’s response. One is beholden to the rich.

Murdering proles en masse by denying health insurance claims, feeding them pain killers, and via drone strikes and carpet bombing are CLASSY and ACCEPTABLE. Pulling a pistol and doing it face to face is not.

Regards,
The Bezos Post & every corporate media outlet

You know who gave them painkillers? The doctors. The doctors who either took the word of a hot girl/guy from with a BA in bio from the pharma companies and/or didn’t do their homework and/or the doctors who saw a chance to make bank by just giving them out to everyone. So funny how the doctors always seem to get off scott free.

Yeah, pay no mind to the billionaire Sackler family clan at the top. Who remain filthy rich and didn’t spend a minute in jail for a mass slaughter.

Who said pay no mind to the Sacklers? The fact is that the Sacklers wouldn’t have been so successful if not for the laziness and complicity of the medical profession. Are drug dealers excused because it’s really about the cartel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot please people. Medicine and hospitals have moved toward “customer care” instead of doing what the patient actually needs. While I’m sure lots of people are getting things denied they need, there are many many many people getting $$$$ care, tests, procedures they DONT need. They pressure doctors, demand things, are insistent and keep making appts- so rather than a doctor risk getting a “bad review” it’s just easier to write an order for what they want to shut them up and make them happy. And this is ultimately what the hospital CEOs want doctors to do. And this extends to TONS of waste money spent on futile tests and procedures on the elderly and those in nursing homes that can’t even consent. We need to reduce the cost of healthcare, but that involves telling people no to things. Doctors need to be given back that power and we need to take the customer service element out of medicine. This why when a doctor says yes something is needed- it will actually be covered

Doctors are often the ones doing things to pad their reimbursements. Until they're salaried, many will have a strong incentive to do unnecessary tests and procedures.

Um…most doctors are hospital employed and salaried. The days of self employed doctors are largely over

No, not the specialists that do the procedures. Heck, often the intensivists and ED physicians are outsourced.

Yes, most specialists, surgical and otherwise, are hospital employed and salaried. Even the “outsourced” ED physicians (or other) are sent by a locum agency that finds them and the hospital pays them hourly.

You must have very limited experience with community hospitals. Heck, many of the smaller systems don't even work that way.

I have a lot of experience with many hospitals and I promise you majority of their physicians are hospital employed. Now, every few years salaries and contacts are renegotiated and salary is configured according to their previous years productivity per RVU, but intimately, it is the hospital that decides what to pay the physicians. Very few are independent

They're not independent, but outside of the major medical centers, the specialists are not employed by the hospital. They either work for groups that contract with the hospital, or they have to accept unassigned call at the hospital in order to maintain privileges there.

And even when doctors are affiliated with the hospital system, their compensation is often driven by the procedures they do.

Yup, see the Pro Publica article. That doctors brought millions to the hospital and they looked away. Note - the doctors still had his license after willfully torturing a man for 11 years, treating him for a cancer he didn’t have and then killed him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t recall NYPD or the news outlets mentioning whether this guy spoke with an accent. Seems like that could be useful info? We know he spoke with the hostel clerk, hostel roommates, Starbucks clerk, and taxi drivers at a minimum.

They're keeping back some information of course. Hostel roommates said he didn't speak

Why hold that info back when they’ve released the photos and video?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

Seriously, PP? The mother is telling you her child had a brain tumor, and you're arguing as to whether an MRI was justified? Something is very wrong with you if you want to argue this point.

Mothers aren't usually the most objective source for cost-effective and appropriate medical treatment.

Oh look a troll trying to triggers mothers by saying they’re emotional and not qualified to say something is wrong with their child.

Yawn. Did mommy finish making your cinnamon rolls yet? Time to go upstairs and eat!

Probably a doctor. Mary Clare Haver and other menopause doctors talk about how they were taught in college that women are crazy when describing symptoms that don’t make sense and/or are persistent. I can’t remember the term. There’s a lot of disdain for women in medicine. Just look at the recent-ish study showing that women survive surgery at a higher rate if the surgeon is a woman.

She said doctors called them “WW” which meant “whiny woman”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

So do a CT scan, and then a MRI? You sound like a brain doctor.

Do you understand that CT scans are *far* cheaper than MRIs?

So do unnecessary tests?

I think we all need to ignore this apologist, idiot troll now.

Health care costs are going to continue to go through the roof with that attitude. How much are you willing to pay each year for health care?

My FEHB family plan is already $30k/year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they find the guy it is going to be hard to find 12 people who are going to unanimously find him guilty.

I imagine one person goes with jury nullification and votes not guilty.

Don't be ridiculous.

Don't be so naive. Look at postings all over the internet and try to find ones that are sympathetic to the CEO. While most people (hopefully) don't agree in killing, the vast majority of people are not sad at all. The sentiment is so strong it is going to be hard to find an impartial jury. Are they going to exclude everyone who has ever had an issue with health insurance or knows someone who has had an issue? Not many around.

I’d be impartial. The law is you can’t kill people and not that it’s okay to kill evil people.

The ceo was a bad person engaging in insider trading and also was killed. This does not make the killing right.

We have courts to serve justice, which is not supposed to be served through gun shots.

It’s concerning people can’t hold opposing and complicated ideas in their heads.

Agree with this but the problem is that CEOs are rarely held accountable for their actions. Why aren’t members of the Sackler family in prison?

+1. When you cut off access to justice through legal means, vigilantism or at least celebration of the deaths of the people you know will never be held accountable is the inevitable result. Those are actually opposing ideas as well; I'm capable of believing both that murder is wrong and that in this case the murder was a rudimentary kind of justice for a man who was never going to face justice for the people he killed. That doesn't make it "right," but of the however many people were murdered that day, it's closer to the right end of the spectrum than most of the others.

+1. Why are the only remedies in this situations civil (ie: money the corporation pays) and not criminal (ie: time in jail for the wrong doer?) These companies legally indemnify their top execs for civil issues and it takes away their moral compass, if they had one to begin with.

Because the CEO didnt give someone cancer, etc. These are things that people used to otherwise die from and fairly quickly. That isn’t someone else’s fault. Now we expect the best care for everything, and quickly. We are over tested and over treated and it is expensive. Socialized medicine has its benefits, but that remains mainly in preventative care. If you have an aggressive cancer, need a transplant, have a rare disease, you are much better off in the US system- flaws and all. And if you are over 75, you will not receive aggressive means to prolong your life.

No, the problem lies not in the fact that people get cancer, but rather that when people get cancer, UHC refuses to honor their contract.

- parent of a kid who had a tumor in her skull for which UHC denied an MRI

Did you have a contract that said UHC would pay for an MRI anytime a doctor ordered one?

They were absolutely in the wrong denying that claim, if that’s what you’re asking.

Maybe, but sometimes they expect providers to do cheaper things first before ordering an MRI.

To find a brain tumor?

Yes, like a CT scan.

So do a CT scan, and then a MRI? You sound like a brain doctor.

Do you understand that CT scans are *far* cheaper than MRIs?

So do unnecessary tests?

I think we all need to ignore this apologist, idiot troll now.

Health care costs are going to continue to go through the roof with that attitude. How much are you willing to pay each year for health care?

My FEHB family plan is already $30k/year.

So let’s take insurance companies’ billions of dollars in profits and reinvest them in the provision of care to bring costs down for your family and others.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all of these posts. But my suspicion is that this killing was conducted by the ALPHAV ransomware gang. They received the first $22M but we were denied the next ransom. It's all about the money and an individual is not going to level of planning but Black Cat from Russia would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting watching the media on this…the Atlantic’s first article was titled something like “Fury at the Healthcare System is justified (murder is not). Then it was changed to “the coursening of American Society”, then pulled from the front page altogether. I believe you can still google search it but very interesting it’s no longer front and center. I agree that corporations are putting their thumb on the scale of the media narrative.

The WP editorial board (who was told? Or wouldn’t? endorse a presidential candidate) wrote a whole column on why the response is uncalled for and that health insurances are a complex matter. Last I read, the comment section was tearing their arguments to pieces and saying they missed the point. I agree that his murder was wrong, plain and simple. But it’s interesting to compare the media vs the internet’s response. One is beholden to the rich.

Guess it’s not time for me to re-up WaPo rn.

So you really want to live with third world conditions where vengeance is extracted on the streets?

I’d like a billionaire to stop spoon feeding me news, especially as we have elected a felon who has an unprecedented 11 billionaires in his cabinet. Okay?

Tons of “news” on social media from know-nothings and influencers and even celebs! No need for experts or think tanks. Bloggers are the best!

And yes we should demand the cia, fbi, and NYPd tell us what is going on every second! We are entitled to that, that’s our right. Screw national security, tell the plebes everywhere, everything!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t recall NYPD or the news outlets mentioning whether this guy spoke with an accent. Seems like that could be useful info? We know he spoke with the hostel clerk, hostel roommates, Starbucks clerk, and taxi drivers at a minimum.

I know!
Tell the world everything dammit! That’s what all the other countries do, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting watching the media on this…the Atlantic’s first article was titled something like “Fury at the Healthcare System is justified (murder is not). Then it was changed to “the coursening of American Society”, then pulled from the front page altogether. I believe you can still google search it but very interesting it’s no longer front and center. I agree that corporations are putting their thumb on the scale of the media narrative.

The WP editorial board (who was told? Or wouldn’t? endorse a presidential candidate) wrote a whole column on why the response is uncalled for and that health insurances are a complex matter. Last I read, the comment section was tearing their arguments to pieces and saying they missed the point. I agree that his murder was wrong, plain and simple. But it’s interesting to compare the media vs the internet’s response. One is beholden to the rich.

Guess it’s not time for me to re-up WaPo rn.

So you really want to live with third world conditions where vengeance is extracted on the streets?

I’d like a billionaire to stop spoon feeding me news, especially as we have elected a felon who has an unprecedented 11 billionaires in his cabinet. Okay?

Tons of “news” on social media from know-nothings and influencers and even celebs! No need for experts or think tanks. Bloggers are the best!

And yes we should demand the cia, fbi, and NYPd tell us what is going on every second! We are entitled to that, that’s our right. Screw national security, tell the plebes everywhere, everything!

relax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly I'm still happy the gun man has not been found. Hopefully he never is.

Same. We’ve already seen net positive benefits at other ins co.s from this event.

If I knew who this guy was, I wouldn’t say squat. If he needed a ride someplace or some cash, I’d give it to him. This guy wouldn’t be a danger to me or my family. He’s not a threat to us. Maybe to some of you, tho. But you probably deserve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The WP editorial board (who was told? Or wouldn’t? endorse a presidential candidate) wrote a whole column on why the response is uncalled for and that health insurances are a complex matter. Last I read, the comment section was tearing their arguments to pieces and saying they missed the point. I agree that his murder was wrong, plain and simple. But it’s interesting to compare the media vs the internet’s response. One is beholden to the rich.

Murdering proles en masse by denying health insurance claims, feeding them pain killers, and via drone strikes and carpet bombing are CLASSY and ACCEPTABLE. Pulling a pistol and doing it face to face is not.

Regards,
The Bezos Post & every corporate media outlet

Corporate media outlets have CEO’s too.

[Anonymous]

At first I thought this guy must be acting on his own, especially given that he left his phone and cup. But now I think he's an assassin. Everything he left, he left on purpose. He looked directly at the camera in the cab on purpose. The only mistake he made was to flirt with that woman at the hostel. And he is clearly much smarter than the cops.