UHC CEO Gunned Down in Midtown Manhattan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most criminals are not a threat to you yet we have laws against injuring and killing people. You have absolutely no idea why this man killed him.

[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.

No money set aside for research?

Research money is fine. That's an expense. Do you understand the definition of profit?

Lol

It’s pretty damn easy to run a Zero Profit bloated budget. Ask anyone in Ckub Fed what they out in for every year and “why.” So wasteful.

Much more difficult to make an actual profit and dividend it out or save as cash balance.

Too many idiots want the cash and debt.

[Anonymous]

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?

No, they still dont understand industry margins or scale. That’s why they have a blogger gig.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only person who thinks the ex-wife set this up and the rest of the story is smoke and mirrors? They’ve been separated since 2018, maybe her financial situation was getting ready to change. I find it suspect that she is aware of him receiving threats as she purports. I don’t know of any couple who has been separated for six years who are aware of the day to day of their former spouse. Just a thought.

I mean they have kids together and he may think she needs to be aware of threats in case she noticed anything odd. Or maybe someone told her after the fact there had been threats and she was just repeating that. It may not have been first hand knowledge.

I don’t buy it’s the wife because if she was still married to him then his money was still also half hers.

I don’t think it’s the wife. They’ve been apart a long time. What would her motivation be to do it now in this moment? The kids are in high school, and he probably was a hands off dad due to his work. So, she probably got to do what she wanted.

They're fighting over money and he is dragging out the divorce.

Waiting for the kids to get through HS, then claim no need for alimony?

You can still get alimony after.

[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?

Lol.

Nil R&D, PAs and midwives and nurses do everything, long waits, death panels, no end of life care.

[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.

That figure is tiny given the size and scope of the national business. It’s prob not even a fraction of monthly working capital or receivables. It’d be irresponsible to spend it down last minute just because.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

[Anonymous]

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

New Yorker put that garbage up?

Wonder what their dior, Gucci and yves sponsors think….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the Monopoly money mean?

It’s a term used when somebody has so much money that it’s meaningless at some point.

I’ll say something like oh so Joe bought his seventh house and third yachthe’s just playing with Monopoly money at this point.

Or could be a reference to the DOJ antitrust investigation - as someone else brought up. Antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.

[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: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.

That’s the delay element. Once the “cheap” tests are done, they deny the MRI again.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don’t know if the CEO is a bad person or not. What’s concerning to me is that people seem to think that he is a bad person just because he runs a health insurance company.

I just don’t understand what people think the alternatives are. Should we have a system where every claim is approved, and people get whatever care they want? That would be great but you could expect much much higher premiums. I also like the idea of non-profit healthcare much better than for-profit healthcare — but that’s essentially what we used to have and most of those non-profit healthcare systems have gone out of business. UPMC is nominally non-profit but operates basically like a for-profit business in all respects.

I just truly do not understand what people want. This country has pretty definitely rejected a socialized medicine model. And everyone was so upset when premiums went up after the ACA put breaks on insurance company denials for preexisting conditions and lifetime limits.

Is UHC demonstrably worse than the other healthcare options out there? Or is the hate just for the system generally? My parents have UHC Medicare Advantage, as do a bunch of other retirees I know, and they’ve never had trouble with claim denial despite have pretty complicated medical needs.

Typical straw man. We’ll see more of this from payors and their lobbyists.

[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: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.

We also need to have a conversation about why MRIs are so much more expensive in the US vs the rest of the civilized world.

Probably because health insurance carriers refuse to pay even after the MRI is approved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

New Yorker put that garbage up?

Wonder what their dior, Gucci and yves sponsors think….

FYI, New York Magazine is not the same thing as the New Yorker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That could be plausible, except for the problems with the gun. Because he was clearly expecting the gun to function again after firing the first shot. Except it didn’t. He tried to fire, realized it hadn’t cycled the action, and then had to cycle it manually to get it to fire again. Then he had to repeat that process several more times. That means he hasn’t previously tested this gun and suppressor combination before. That’s something that a professional would never do - go into a job with untested gear.


Other than that, your theory is plausible.

maybe or he saw it coming.

Looks like a polymer 80 Glock 19 frame with a homemade suppressor that lacked a neilsen device or a lightweight guide rod spring causing the gun to short stroke. That would explain the slide popping out live rounds.

100% agree. Homemade ‘can with no booster. Amateur.

I know nothing about firearms, but a friend said it’s possible he used subsonic bullets to be quieter, which would mean he would have to cycle it manually.

I have several suppressors designed to function on various semiauto pistols (they all have pistons/recoil boosters) and they will all fire subsonic ammo without any problems at all. The most common pistol I shoot suppressed is a Glock 17 with 147 grain subsonic ammo, and the heavier than normal bullet (most 9mm is 115-124 grain) actually increases recoil slightly because it’s a larger mass being moved compared to the lighter supersonic bullets the pistol normally fires without a suppressor on it.

How did you end up with this level of depth and proficiency with firearms?

I first learned to shoot when I was maybe 6 or 7, courtesy of my grandfather, and then later in the Boy Scouts I began shooting small bore rifles competitively and teaching other Scouts how to earn their Marksmanship Merit Badge. I went on to shooting combat/defensive pistol matches on a team during high school, college and shortly after, until work life became more all-consuming. The team I was part of at one point was in the top ten such teams in the country. We were frequently booked as consultants/trainers for local police specialty teams (like SWAT/ERT).

I haven’t shot competitively or instructed since probably 2000. But I still try to shoot at least every week or two, at home on a backyard range. I use the suppressors most of the time so I’m not annoying my neighbors. You’re allowed to shoot on your own property here, but using a silencer is still good manners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yea the guy appears to be a trained assassin. Even if he shot an innocent person, nobody is risking getting involved in that.