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:

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.

United Health made $23B in profit in 2023. That's a lot, although it's less impressive when you consider their costs were $348B.

More significantly, that's much less than the *growth* of costs from 2022 to 2023.

That is, you could get rid of profits in the health insurance industry and your premiums wouldn't go down. They'd just go up less the next year-- a one time effect that wouldn't be repeated in subsequent years. In subsequent years the premiums might go up even faster.

Just think how many people could have avoided medical bankruptcy (most who file have insurance) or could have had treatments denied for $23 billion. Criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are making crazy profits. How about just a reasonable profit?

is that how America works though? in any sector or industry?
if so, please name which one.

Also please define a reasonable profit? How much money should one be able to make? I’m
Guessing there are people in this country who think you are grossly overpaid for whatever you do OP. I’m sure you have much more than any one person truly “needs”. It’s easy to say “a billion is too much” but very hard to say what the lower limit should be.

I think after salaries and overhead are paid, there should be no profit in healthcare.

so all healthcare is non-profit? assume this applies to doc and hospital systems?

In my Utopia, yes. Everyone is paid a very healthy salary commiserate with their training and experience. Money is set aside for research, and maintenance on buildings and equipment, etc. But any money leftover is not used to pad corporate pockets. Any monies left beyond that mean that premiums were too high and should be lowered accordingly.

You realize insurance company profits are a tiny fraction of health care costs, right?

So what are the major costs? Why do other countries spend less on healthcare but have better outcomes?

That's a complicated issue. What's not complicated is it isn't the profit margin of insurance companies.

Unsurprisingly, the major costs of health care are the costs of providing health care. There's no single thing. Salaries, facilities, and other operating costs are all more. Drugs cost more. And utilization of health care is higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bill Barr is right on this: These are suit wearing gangsters. Parasites who make far more money and are responsible for more deaths than all the famous mob bosses combined.

Is that the metric we should should use for "legal" assassinations?

The CEOs of RJ Reynolds, Coors, Ford, and GM had better go into hiding.

Those companies do not affect lives like healthcare. Healthcare is deeply personal, unlike cars, cigarettes, or beer. Those CEOs are fine. CEO who profit off withholding coverage for treatment are broken people. I couldn’t do it. How anyone employed by a health insurance company can sleep at night or aren’t completely filled with self-hatred for what they do are completely dead inside.

Cigarettes are known to be moderately healthful, amiright?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised no one thinks there’s a connection between the Monopoly money and the DOJ antitrust investigation. Too on the nose?

I brought it up about 8 pages back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised no one thinks there’s a connection between the Monopoly money and the DOJ antitrust investigation. Too on the nose?

I brought it up about 8 pages back.

Connection how?

[Anonymous]

This is causing progressive politicians to expose themselves as puppets for corporations, Wall Street, and the defense industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bill Barr is right on this: These are suit wearing gangsters. Parasites who make far more money and are responsible for more deaths than all the famous mob bosses combined.

bill barr anf bill burr are not the same person ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ben Shapiro trying and failing to put a lid on this resentment.

Ben Shapiro and his toadies at Daily Wire mocked and celebrated Israel blowing up pagers thus murdering untold innocent victims.

“Glassing” Palestinians is good, but class warfare is bad. I want my audience on distracted with trans women playing volleyball, not focused on Wall Street pigs and war hawk neocons!

- Daily Wire

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s annoying when a terrible person like Nina Turner is occasionally correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are making crazy profits. How about just a reasonable profit?

is that how America works though? in any sector or industry?
if so, please name which one.

Also please define a reasonable profit? How much money should one be able to make? I’m
Guessing there are people in this country who think you are grossly overpaid for whatever you do OP. I’m sure you have much more than any one person truly “needs”. It’s easy to say “a billion is too much” but very hard to say what the lower limit should be.

I think after salaries and overhead are paid, there should be no profit in healthcare.

so all healthcare is non-profit? assume this applies to doc and hospital systems?

In my Utopia, yes. Everyone is paid a very healthy salary commiserate with their training and experience. Money is set aside for research, and maintenance on buildings and equipment, etc. But any money leftover is not used to pad corporate pockets. Any monies left beyond that mean that premiums were too high and should be lowered accordingly.

I think we roughly had that twenty years ago and for some reason that model was not sustainable. I need some healthcare economist to explain to me what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bill Barr is right on this: These are suit wearing gangsters. Parasites who make far more money and are responsible for more deaths than all the famous mob bosses combined.

bill barr anf bill burr are not the same person ...

There are TWO people named Bill? That's crazy!

[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:

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.

United Health made $23B in profit in 2023. That's a lot, although it's less impressive when you consider their costs were $348B.

More significantly, that's much less than the *growth* of costs from 2022 to 2023.

That is, you could get rid of profits in the health insurance industry and your premiums wouldn't go down. They'd just go up less the next year-- a one time effect that wouldn't be repeated in subsequent years. In subsequent years the premiums might go up even faster.

Just think how many people could have avoided medical bankruptcy (most who file have insurance) or could have had treatments denied for $23 billion. Criminal.

+1

40% of bankruptcies are due to medical debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are making crazy profits. How about just a reasonable profit?

is that how America works though? in any sector or industry?
if so, please name which one.

Also please define a reasonable profit? How much money should one be able to make? I’m
Guessing there are people in this country who think you are grossly overpaid for whatever you do OP. I’m sure you have much more than any one person truly “needs”. It’s easy to say “a billion is too much” but very hard to say what the lower limit should be.

I think after salaries and overhead are paid, there should be no profit in healthcare.

so all healthcare is non-profit? assume this applies to doc and hospital systems?

In my Utopia, yes. Everyone is paid a very healthy salary commiserate with their training and experience. Money is set aside for research, and maintenance on buildings and equipment, etc. But any money leftover is not used to pad corporate pockets. Any monies left beyond that mean that premiums were too high and should be lowered accordingly.

You realize insurance company profits are a tiny fraction of health care costs, right?

So what are the major costs? Why do other countries spend less on healthcare but have better outcomes?

That's a complicated issue. What's not complicated is it isn't the profit margin of insurance companies.

Unsurprisingly, the major costs of health care are the costs of providing health care. There's no single thing. Salaries, facilities, and other operating costs are all more. Drugs cost more. And utilization of health care is higher.

Insurance companies are a big part of it, but because other things are a part of it we should just carry on as we are? Here’s another example of United’s fu%&ery that I’ve recently experienced. Last Spring I was in an accident. I have to get my MRIs “per part” and each part must be on a different day. Knees, hips, lower cervical, upper cervical, shoulder. I also can’t see the spine doc on the same day I see the knee specialist. All United policies. That’s a burden for everyone but it’s great for United, because they’ve created a barrier to care that is insurmountable for a lot of people. They can’t miss that much work, get to the appointments, etc. These companies are indefensible. And who makes decisions and runs companies? People. People like Brian Thompson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His picture has been widely shown. Surely someone recognized him and has connected with the police?

Why surely? If I knew him, I wouldn’t say a damn thing. Why should I? What’s to gain? Some chickensh!t reward for being a snitch? F’ that. This guy is no threat to me. He killed a scumbag, not some innocent person or kid. I wouldn’t call the cops even if he was living next door to me.