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.

Healthcare CEO’s are responsible for denying claim and killing people. It is manslaughter.

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

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 don’t think she is. I’m sure she is already set for life financially, as are their kids. Seems like they weren’t in a bitter custody battle or anything so I just don’t see a strong motive that would push her to risk her own livelihood by hiring a hit on him

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.

Anonymous wrote:I mean if you think the CEO had it coming then you have to think that all the people who work at UHC should be killed also. They all have a part in it. They all made the choice to work there.

Buck stops at the top. That’s why they’re paid obscene comp, right?

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.

I have a friend suing a practitioner that is not medical, but in alternative health and requires licensing. She was injured and has $$$$ to burn, so instead of suing for a settlement, she’s spent $$ trying to get the board to censure this person and make it public, so they don’t hurt other people. It’s been 2 years, and $$ and even the judge asked her why she didn’t settle for $$, and she said she wasn’t the veil of secrecy to drop. She had an informant on the board who just got fired.

Like the story of the Crohns guy who sued, it takes people with lots of time and money to burn. She’s spent $100k suing the state board of health and trying to expose them. Shes now working with a professor who researches medical board coverup. She’s bad @ss.

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.

You are definitely not the only person, because a bunch of people in this thread have said the same thing. But I don't think this would be a brazen hit in the middle of Manhattan if that were the case. It would be poisoning or something like that.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m amazed at the number of people who think health insurance is the main problem, as if the hospitals just honest businessmen submitting bills for their services and the docs as well. The whole system is a sh&t show. Cardiologist in the US make like a half a million, in the Uk it’s like £150K.

People should be mad at their legislators for allowing it to get this way. This is not to say that insurers don’t have their problems but they are but one cog in the wheel of grift and dysfunction.

Cardiologists actually provide an extremely valuable service. Insurance companies suck money out of the system. Do you really not see the difference?

In many cases they keep the system from ripping people off and in many cases make sure that people don’t get the wrong med or unnecessary procedures. I know you think your doctor is the bees knees and would never do anything unethical or wrong but you would be wrong. Consider the fact that so many physician groups have sold out to PE who are managing care by the way in which they manage the practice. The docs didn’t sell because they are concerned about the good of the patients - they wanted a paycheck. There are no innocents in this game.

Yep. Private equity is all over specialized surgical and medical groups …. these doctors are money machines. Cha Ching! $$ Smart doctors know how to game the system. Spend 15 minutes with a patient, quick exam, order scans. Done. Next!

Even large hospital groups order needless scans, ultrasounds, blood work, procedures, unnecessary surgeries…it’s insane.

Yes—I’m generally pro doctor but anyone who thinks that doctors don’t need checks on spending is naive. The nursing homes are notorious for ordering useless tests and therapies to pad their profits. And lots of doctors will just write whatever test or script their patient wants because it’s easier than arguing or because they are making a profit (remember the opioid epidemic?). Everyone would like to have great doctors who only prescribe medically necessary stuff and only do so in their best interest, and have affordable health care that covers all medically necessary treatments, even if those treatments cost millions of dollars a year for a single condition. But it’s not reality. Yes, let’s crack down on the bad actors, but this generalized hate for health insurance providers is just so naive and dangerous. Does anyone remember the world before health insurance? Working class people just died if they got anything that needed more than a doctors visit. Pooling of risk is a good thing—that’s what insurance is. But insurance companies have to follow their written policies.

There are monsters at every level of the system. This hospital allowed this doctor to misdiagnose and kill patients because he made money for them.

The opioid epidemic is due in part to physicians being courted by pharma sales people and the fact that no one was watching what was going on so the pill mills were allowed to dispense like crazy and Medicaid just paid. I’m not saying health insurance companies are angels by any means but there are plenty of bad actors out there.


https://www.propublica.org/article/thomas-weiner-montana-st-peters-hospital-oncology

Also look at the stories about patients being kept in psych wards so that the monstrous doctors could keep billing insurance. It's sickening. The whole system from insurance to hospital to medical staff, is corrupt.

And Americans need to stop thinking this country has the most envied medical system in the world, because anyone who has actually traveled and needed medical care in other countries, knows it's BS. I have friends currently traveling to a couple of other countries for advanced medical treatments that the US doesn't offer.

You are delusional. I am a doctor we are being forced by insurance companies to release patients before they are ready and /or before we think they are stabilized enough to stay out of the hospital. Sure- there may be some exceptions, but trust me, docs get no pay outs from this. Our reimbursements and pay are declining, but we keep working. We see NPs and PAs constantly ordering unnecessary tests and prescribing controlled stimulants because that’s what patients want and they don’t have the background and education to know better , and we’re constantly having to fix it. You all know nothing about health care and it’s so evident. These for profit entities are killing us and you. And you just take it and try to lay blame on the very people (and the only people) working to keep you alive.

DP. Not a doctor but you are absolutely right, doc and I'm sorry you have to deal with people like the PP. Are there bad doctors out there? Sure--once in a blue moon. If memory serves, Atul Gawande wrote a long story about one a couple of decades ago in the New Yorker. Do doctors make mistakes or are they sometimes not up to date on the latest science? Sure--they're human, like everyone else.

But we are all victims of this dollar-thirsty for-profit system where publicly listed healthcare companies chase shareholder returns, and whose flaws are now exacerbated by the private equity takeover of hospitals and private practices.

+100

The reality is that providing medical care that is best for a patient and increasing shareholder value are 2 completely opposing goals. Not like just sort of in conflict. But absolutely in opposition to one another (aside from maybe covering routine checkups or birth control, which can prevent larger expenses down the line).

Obviously this is true for other insurance like car and home insurance. But the costs to fix a house or dry out a wet basement are a little more straight forward, so there’s less wiggle room to argue something doesn’t need to be fixed. I’ve only needed to file 1 auto and 1 homeowner’s claim and both times I was surprised by how smooth it went (shout out to State Farm).

But health insurance has all sorts of confusing billing codes, financial people deciding what medications to cover, etc. And medicine can be so specific to an individual (e.g. not all meds work for the same person, some people have underlying conditions that affect XYZ, people have varying comorbid conditions that could affect recommend treatment, sometimes medicines are used off label, etc.) It’s not like fixing a fender bender.

Also there is a whole system out there of attorneys who will sue and help you get full coverage out of a car accident. But not really a good system for getting the health coverage you need (not to mention patients often don’t have the luxury of time).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Their chance to get him was in the first couple of hours after the murder. He’s long gone. And the NYPD looks completely incompetent. They haven’t even figured out this guy’s name and they have a pretty clear picture and DNA.

They may know his name but are not showing their hand yet. I’m not sure they have his DNA. Maybe he planted the water bottle on purpose. Even if they have DNA, it’s irrelevant unless he’s in a database somewhere. If he is a foreigner, he wouldn’t be. Even as an American, if he has no prior criminal record, why would his DNA be in any system?

They don't know his name. Eric Adams is saying "we know his name but aren't telling it becuase we don't want to give him an advantage." That's ridiculous -- you just wouldn't say anytning if you didn't want to give him an advantage. They don't know it.

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.

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.

We’re also seeing regular people drowning out the bots on sm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I cannot understand why if he goes to all the trouble to wear a mask and hoodie why he didn’t also wear sunglasses?!

He’s looking at the camera. Seems intentional to me.

Agreed

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I cannot understand why if he goes to all the trouble to wear a mask and hoodie why he didn’t also wear sunglasses?!

He’s looking at the camera. Seems intentional to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Holy cow, he is gorgeous.

Seriously. If he gets caught, my prediction is:

1. People donate millions to pay his legal fees
2. He’s convicted but judges sentences him to something like 1 day.
3. Once he’s free, he starts an OF. He’ll be the highest earning person on OF within 24 hours.

Which means they aren’t bringing him alive and giving him a platform.

This.

They can’t let this get out of control. They will take drastic measures.