Thoughts on the Assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

I haven't been watching much news since the election, but this assassination attempt on the CEO of United Healthcare caught my attention. What are you thoughts on it?

This was clearly a targeted murder. The murderer even wrote messages on the bullet casings. The difference in responses to this between the media/political class and the general public commenting on the story is night and day. There is almost no sympathy or shock from the general public responding to this story, more of a "not surprised, what do you expect" response. There seems to be more sympathy or justification for the murderer and the situation people assume he's in because of his actions. My own initial reaction was also along the lines of not being surprised. Just take a second to read through comments on any youtube or news story about this. I honestly can't remember such a strident reaction from the general public to a story about an assassination of somebody that wasn't a well known antagonist (i.e. like Donald Trump, another billionaire) in recent memory.

Clearly not everybody is blaming minorities and illegal immigrants for their problems. Do you think we will be seeing more of this type of violence against the elite CEO and billionaire class going forward? Should they take this as a warning?

I see this as a bad omen for our society, but as I already said, not a surprising one. United Healthcare has the highest rejection rate for insurance claims among all insurers and a lot of the policies that this guy implemented are the reason why. People are raging at the imbalance in our society and tried of being squeezed at every corner and they have easy access to weapons. Given that Republicans will do nothing to address these inequities, I only see the violence escalating from here.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm getting eve of the French Revolution vibes. It's not great.

 

[MT15]

I'm getting eve of the French Revolution vibes. It's not great.

Agreed. When corporations directly contribute to people dying with zero accountability this is what happens. I had an employee a few years back whose husband had cancer. They tried traditional treatments and it didn’t help. Doctors got genetic testing of the tumor and identified a new drug that they thought would help. It cost $80k. Insurance said nope. Just nope. He was 48. He died a few months later and his family has to wonder if he could have been saved for $80k.

This guy probably spends $80k without much thought….

Because drug companies gouge patients and because insurance companies deny life-saving treatments, people are dying. The bureaucrats signed this man’s death warrant on the orders of people like this guy.

It’s hard to feel anything like I should for him. Which, as you said, is not a good thing.

 

[MT15]

I think tech billionaires seem to be aware of the general feeling of the public about them.

Jathan Sadowski (@jathansadowski.com)

Sure some might say that tech elite are a cartoonishly evil group of cynical paranoiacs who are totally disconnected from a shared reality with everybody else. But on the other hand, let me introduce you to the latest startup in the Peter Thiel family: SAURON...

bsky.app

 

[coldseat]

Damn, that was quick. Looks like the BCBS CEO doesn't want to be next. I have BCBS and hadn't even heard about this. It wouldn't have affected me since I live in Texas and this was affecting policies in Connecticut, New York and Missouri, but I'm glad they're running scared now. Curious to see what shoe drops next.

Hopefully this fear will spread to other CEO's and other industries and they will start to consider the public interest, if only for their own safety. But I have a feeling it's going to take more violence. The plebs have tried the political process and it has consistently disappointed. No they're turning to violence and they have easy access to guns.

=================

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield calls off surgery anesthesia cap​

A major health insurance company is backing off of a controversial plan to limit coverage of anesthesia, according to public officials.
Why it matters: Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield recently decided to "no longer pay for anesthesia care if the surgery or procedure goes beyond an arbitrary time limit, regardless of how long the surgical procedure takes," according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists, which opposed the decision.

• The decision covered plans in Connecticut, New York and Missouri.
• The insurer had based the move on surgery time metrics from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, NPR reported.

Friction point: The decision was controversial at the time — but outrage erupted this week after the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City cast a spotlight on divisive insurance decisions.

The latest: "After hearing from people across the state about this concerning policy, my office reached out to Anthem, and I'm pleased to share this policy will no longer be going into effect here in Connecticut," Connecticut Comptroller Sean Scanlon said Thursday on X.

• "We pushed Anthem to reverse course and today they will be announcing a full reversal of this misguided policy," New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Thursday in a statement. "Don't mess with the health and well-being of New Yorkers — not on my watch."
• Anthem representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The initial coverage decision was very unusual for a major health insurer, said Marianne Udow-Phillips, who teaches insurance classes at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and formerly made coverage decisions at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

• "When patients become financially responsible because a health plan cuts how much they pay providers, that's what breeds all this anger," Udow-Phillips tells Axios.
• "This is a colorful and terrible example of administrative excess in the insurance industry, but boy, I tell you, it's just the tip of the iceberg," Gordon Morewood, an anesthesiologist and vice chair of ASA's Committee on Economics, tells Axios' Maya Goldm

==================

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/05/blue-cross-blue-shield-anesthesia-anthem-connecticut-new-york

 

[MT15]

So they’re backing off from exactly 3 states? How do they justify going ahead for the rest of us? Big deal.

When I had surgery a few years back, for a disc problem, they scheduled the surgery for 2 hours. When they got in there the condition was much worse than they thought and 2 discs were involved. The time was roughly doubled. How can an insurance company decide how long a surgery “should” take? They can’t. They’re being greedy with people’s lives.

 

[MT15]

Put this here because of the reference to the French Revolution.

 

[coldseat]

So they’re backing off from exactly 3 states? How do they justify going ahead for the rest of us? Big deal.

When I had surgery a few years back, for a disc problem, they scheduled the surgery for 2 hours. When they got in there the condition was much worse than they thought and 2 discs were involved. The time was roughly doubled. How can an insurance company decide how long a surgery “should” take? They can’t. They’re being greedy with people’s lives.

I believe that this was a new policy they were starting for only those 3 states. Maybe as a test run to then spread to other states, I'm not sure. But now they're walking it back.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I believe that this was a new policy they were starting for only those 3 states. Maybe as a test run to then spread to other states, I'm not sure. But now they're walking it back.

Correct, it was only ever proposed for those 3 states. So as of now, it won't be implemented anywhere.

 

[MT15]

Correct, it was only ever proposed for those 3 states. So as of now, it won't be implemented anywhere.

Okay, I didn’t catch that. That’s good.

 

[MT15]

Hard to imagine a more out-of-touch statement than this:

Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein.bsky.social)

United CEO Andrew Witty gave an address to the company today (leaked to me), telling employees "we guard against...unnecessary care" and that "There are very few people in the history of the U. S. healthcare industry who had a bigger positive effect on American healthcare than Brian [Thompson]."

bsky.app

 

[faceman]

This subject is also being discussed on the EE board. The prevailing thought is what Chris Rock said about O.J. I don't
condone it, but I understand.

I also sense 1789 France. CEO's of health insurance companies making medical decisions for profit is one thing Republicans and Democrats agree on. It's not right.

 

[Eeyore]

We should be consistent with how we handle public shootings.

 

[bird]

Correct, it was only ever proposed for those 3 states. So as of now, it won't be implemented anywhere.

Since I am paranoid, I am willing to bet that sometime down the road that program will be rolled out very quietly. It might be a couple of years from now but it will happen during the chaos of Trump 2.0.

 

[Scoutster]

Sad situation, he didn’t deserve it. I wish the best to his family in this difficult time. Hopefully they catch the worthless individual and rots in prison or better yet is put down.

 

[bird]

Sad situation, he didn’t deserve it. I wish the best to his family in this difficult time. Hopefully they catch the worthless individual and rots in prison or better yet is put down.

I hope the insurance company is given the corporate death penalty.

 

[faceman]

Sad situation, he didn’t deserve it. I wish the best to his family in this difficult time. Hopefully they catch the worthless individual and rots in prison or better yet is put down.

His family benefited from his immorality. I wanted to send sympathy,but i had a pre existing condition

 

[Neworleansfan]

single payer healthcare? I am willing to pay more taxes for it but it will never happen in this country because then corporations will lose a method they can use to control their employees.