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: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.

Lol.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

--someone whose elderly parents have been receiving superb, state-of-the-art care at very low cost abroad for complex medical needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He is definitely NOT a “trained assassin”. He’s a guy who shot someone from behind at fairly close range, then walked away. Let’s not get all silly about this, ok? This ain’t John Wick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New photos of shooter in taxi.

https://nypost.com/2024/12/07/us-news/united-healthcare-ceo-brian-thompsons-alleged-assassin-seen-in-new-photos-nypd/

Looks like that chamalet kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lol.

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

Lol.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

--someone whose elderly parents have been receiving superb, state-of-the-art care at very low cost abroad for complex medical needs.

What country?

[Anonymous]

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.

This is a horrific conclusion, which unfortunately, I believe may be true.

Jeff rightly blogged about how shocked he was at the number of DCUMAD posters who celebrated this cold-blooded murder, and some even encouraged more ruthless murders of CEOs who are simply doing their job.

Some of you are demonstrating true mental illness (dangerous, murderous), mental illness in this regard.

To those people: I pray you get the professional help you clearly need and turn away from supporting murder. Seriously.

Sorry, your claim has been denied. You are out of network.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, fine. But it’s not my job to enforce laws, or even help law enforcement enforce laws. I pay taxes. That’s all the contribution I need to make.

And the guy this dude chose to kill? I’m not really upset about his choice of target. He didn’t kill some innocent victim, and that is a big distinction for me. Sure, I have no idea why he killed him, but I have my theories, and I’m ok with what he did. Not saying I would do it too - just saying that I would happily keep my mouth shut if I knew him.

[Anonymous]

He looks like Borat.

[Anonymous]

He will get chicks for days. And they will not turn him in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you from Michigan

[Anonymous]

I hope all you murder fans have checked your mutual funds to make sure you’re not profiting from an industry you find so abhorrent as to justify murder.

[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.

Duh. We are intelligent people who understand contract law and who can read medical reports and who understand ICD-10 and CPT codes and who did all the things, and I’m telling you: what happened was that UHC denied claims for which they were responsible at the exact moment our family needed care, which was the precise reason we had the policy in the first place.

But look at you, out here defending UHC, a billion dollar corporation, despite the mountain of evidence — reporting, statistics, and an outpouring of stories just like ours — that they consistently, deliberately, and as a matter of policy wrongly denied care to members who had dutifully honored their part of the bargain, often without a single human ever reviewing the file. Thank god you’re out here, looking out for the real heroes. Bless.

Again, many insurance companies require prior authorization before MRIs because they expect cheaper diagnostic tests to be performed first. In the case of a suspected brain tumor, they might expect a CT scan to be done first. In other body parts, they like expect an ultrasound.

DP. You’re an arsehole, through and through. BTW, I have Aetna, and prior authorization was not required when my doctor prescribed it. But even if they did, ask yourself?, why are you defending UHC for denying the MRI that the child’s doctor felt was necessary for her treatment. I wonder if you’ve ever been truly sick or dealt with a loved one who has been through the medical grind. Live long enough and your time will come. Wonder if you will still have all these whataboutism for the insurance companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New photos of shooter in taxi.

https://nypost.com/2024/12/07/us-news/united-healthcare-ceo-brian-thompsons-alleged-assassin-seen-in-new-photos-nypd/

Looks like that chamalet kid.

Looks like he could be wearing fake eyebrows. Also eye shadow and lined eyes? Disguise?

[Anonymous]

I just don't think anyone is going to turn this guy in.

[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: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.

Duh. We are intelligent people who understand contract law and who can read medical reports and who understand ICD-10 and CPT codes and who did all the things, and I’m telling you: what happened was that UHC denied claims for which they were responsible at the exact moment our family needed care, which was the precise reason we had the policy in the first place.

But look at you, out here defending UHC, a billion dollar corporation, despite the mountain of evidence — reporting, statistics, and an outpouring of stories just like ours — that they consistently, deliberately, and as a matter of policy wrongly denied care to members who had dutifully honored their part of the bargain, often without a single human ever reviewing the file. Thank god you’re out here, looking out for the real heroes. Bless.

Again, many insurance companies require prior authorization before MRIs because they expect cheaper diagnostic tests to be performed first. In the case of a suspected brain tumor, they might expect a CT scan to be done first. In other body parts, they like expect an ultrasound.

DP. You’re an arsehole, through and through. BTW, I have Aetna, and prior authorization was not required when my doctor prescribed it. But even if they did, ask yourself?, why are you defending UHC for denying the MRI that the child’s doctor felt was necessary for her treatment. I wonder if you’ve ever been truly sick or dealt with a loved one who has been through the medical grind. Live long enough and your time will come. Wonder if you will still have all these whataboutism for the insurance companies.

lol. You have no idea what my family has been through.

But I've seen both sides. Doctors will (and do) abuse the system without something to keep them in check. People don't know what is and isn't appropriate, nor are they even footing much of the financial cost, so they certainly can't do it. With private doctors and health care systems, we need insurance companies to be putting some cost controls on doctors.

We'd be better off socializing the whole industry, although this thread makes me worried that it wouldn't be politically viable for the government to keep health care spending in check, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't think anyone is going to turn this guy in.

They need to up the reward to 1 million.