OT: United Healthcare CEO Killed
- Thread starter horshack.sixpack
- Start date
I understand why someone might feel angry enough to take extreme action if they felt that their loved one died despite “doing the right thing” and carrying health insurance, yet being denied coverage anyway. I don’t agree with the extrajudicial killing in principle. But if my child was seriously ill, and my insurer, that I had been paying for years, denied coverage, and my child died…
Well, I probably wouldn’t do anything this extreme. But who knows?
Looks like the whole plan worked to a T. False flag motive is being eaten up by the public.
Some things that are certain, in my opinion:
1) He didn’t act alone. They still don’t know where he got the e-Bike, and he didn’t bring it with him to the crime scene, and he didn’t arrive to NYC with it on the bus. It didn’t just spawn up in an off camera location like its a video game. And those things are valuable. It wouldn’t have been left unattended for any period of time and left to chance that it wouldn’t be there. Also, its known that he shared the hostel room with at least 2 other people. Nobody knows who they were, where they are, or anything about them, either.
2) Every last detail was planned to about the greatest extent that it could have been.
3) Everything that was done in the immediate lead-up to the shooting was intended by the shooter to be seen and analyzed (the Starbucks appearance and the water bottle / fingerprint, the inscriptions on shell casings, everything).
The whole country (and perhaps law enforcement) arguing and being strongly opinionated about the motive is exactly what the perpetrator(s) wanted to happen. The lack of sympathy for the victim and general zero 17’s given and eagerness to help the investigation by the general public is definitely what they wanted to happen. By the time they all realize it’s been an elaborate ruse, he’s sitting on a beach in the Mediterranean somewhere.
What false flag is being posited? I've only kept a cursory eye on the news cycle looking for a "caught" headline.
It is very conceivable that someone has 17ed goat in the @s$ so I can't argue with your logic.
Last edited:
Our healthcare system is broken for a large portion of our society. Until we truly care for each other it will never be fixed.
If we could insure everyone for less than it cost you now, you would still be against it and why? Other countries are doing it and have proved over and over again it’s a better system. People get better care, live longer making more productive workers and don’t go broke if they get sick and lose their job.
48 cent number was something I read awhile back, I forget where. Read the last part where I said we need good information and a bipartisan approach to fixing our system. Is that number correct? Its a helluva lot closer than 8%. That is the profit after paying all the overhead.
We pay more per person than anyone. That is not up for discussion and we die much younger due to poor healthcare.
Almost everyone else has ditched health insurance for a reason, they waste money.
back to murder… sounds pro hit to me and not some disgruntled customer or vigilante. The spent cartridges with messages on them may be a smoke screen.
That he was a disgruntled, angry, emotionally unstable pissed off guy about coverage denial, etc….and that’s the only motive.
This is far too calculated for it to be that simple. It’s been over 2 days, and they still don’t even have a name. For an execution in Manhattan in broad daylight.
Ah. It will for sure be interesting to see where it ends up. I suspect the police are running down every possible motive path available.
Yeah. I have seen where the company confirmed that a number of high-ranking execs had been receiving death threats. Imagine the stress of being a C-level exec in that company rn. My only strong statement is that I stand by the OP "crazy story" is coming.
I do not believe the "insurance coverage denial" story either. I was just marveling at so many people actually thinking that's enough motive to have a guy killed over.
I would hope you wouldn't. But if there are a lot of people out there who do think like this -- that it's okay to kill the head of an organization who is by his policies indirectly responsible for my family member's death -- I sure hope Tony Fauci has his head on a swivel.
Some men can only be pushed so far.
Got some good advice when I was an impetuous 20-year-old:
Don't mess with a mans:
Money
Wife
Kids
I'm not advocating violence, but if you as a health insurance company reject legitimate claims on loopholes and technicalities, you may be doing all these at once. That's an extremely dangerous thing to do.
Hey look, look, healthcare system based on greed, no issues at all! FAFO.
It all amounts to the same thing too. Why are all our tax laws massive giant reads?
Our politicians have the power to change all of this and don’t. I’m not the least bit shocked at the people atta’ boying the killer.
It all amounts to the same thing too. Why are all our tax laws massive giant reads?
Our politicians have the power to change all of this and don’t. I’m not the least bit shocked at the people atta’ boying the killer.
I get what you're saying, but there are different levels to it. If it was some guy stealing your money, r*ping your wife, and hurting your kids, I'd volunteer to help you go after him.
That's not exactly the same as some guy from Minnesota being the head of a corporation whose policy decisions are based on the mean of the US population and not your personal situation.
Making decisions based on your personal situation is kinda insurance companies thing
So the CEO should be killed based on one family's personal situation?
United Healthcare insures roughly 50M people, for reference.
I think you should go back through my comments if you're killing time this afternoon. My main point was/is that it's ridiculous and immoral for an entire set of people to be celebrating the assassination of a CEO over (what they believe to be) personal insurance coverage-related matters.
I don't see that as being an outlandish position. But then again, I voted for a convicted racist nazi xenophobic misogynist criminal, so what do I know.
You arent advocating violence, you are simply justifying it.
- Anyways, health insurance is a business. Businesses exist to make money, especially publicly traded ones.
- Anyone that dislikes their healthcare coverage is free to buy insurance from a difference provider. Its a free market, after all.
^
Those two bulleted comments are both true and pretty unreasonable/absurd. Yet they are what I have heard from the right for years with regard to topics like regulating industries and healthcare coverage as a societal issue.
To change things in your post that you view as bad would mean supporting REGULATION of an industry through government, and untie healthcare coverage from employment.
All I hear about from the right over the last X number of years is that government regulations make healthcare coverage worse, so that leaves us with nothing changing.
naw, you good. you would think that someone with hundreds of thousands of followers and many of them people you have heard of might be truthful. i just got on X a few months ago so i was looking for conservatives on there and started following him and some others and after like 2 days it's like "this guy is full of shi". 2 others not to waste your time on is Benny Johnson and Laura Loomer. keep trolling glfr.
It's not a matter of caring, it's a matter of not status quo bias. People say they would like a better system, but if they are presented with any tradeoffs, enough people prefer the status quo with all its many problems than make changes that could be net positive but include some very identifiable tradeoffs. This isn't entirely crazy. Most of the time what is presented in policy debates is rosy projections and the results include all of the known downside, some unkown downsides, and only a portion of the promised improvementse.
They really haven't. There are some parts that are better and some that are not. I think a lot of the ways that our system is better is wasteful in the grand scheme of things, but also no individual wants to turn down the parts of our system that is better when it comes to them or their family. And even when it's not their family, they generally get livid if anybody suggests that there is a number too high to spend on an individual patient.
People going broke when they get sick and lose their job isn't really a health system issue. It's a personal savings/safety net issue.
We don't die younger due to poor healthcare. We die younger primarily because we get lifestyle diseases at a higher rate than other populations and we have more deaths of violence, more traffic fatalities, and in some cases, higher suicide rates.
Even then, when you break the US life expectancies down by demographics, the US generally looks pretty good. This is somewhat dated info, so it may have changed in the past decade, but Asian Americans used to live longer than the Japanese on average. That is particularly impressive because Asian American obviously includes much more than just people of Japanese descent,, and includes people from countries that don't appear to have the same genetic benefits with respect to longevity.
Most countries have not ditched insurance. Even in countries where you do have government operated/provided healthcare like the UK, you still have private health insurance carried by people that want to ensure timely access to service and/or that want insurance for things that the government will not pay for. And other countries like Switzerland have I believe 100% private insurance.
I think you've hit on why it's so unlikely. Cuomo mandated nursing homes take sick covid residents back in because they were costing hospitals money. The Rachel Levine guy didn't mandate nursing homes to take sick patients, but he also didn't really publicize the risk there while taking his mother out. There was the dude in New York that essentially bragged about going to gay sex parties while shutting down people's businesses for covid and while people's parents and grandparents were having to die alone in hospitals because of "covid" restrictions. Gavin Newsome costing people their entire life's work before heading out to enjoy a $400 a head dinner at French Laundry. If those people aren't getting shot by their victims, it would be really, really ****** luck for a random health insurance executive to get shot.
It is not true at all that we have a free market in health insurance or healthcare. Pretty much every industry has some regulation, but most industries generally are free enough to allow a price mechanism to work. I guess the exceptions are healthcare/insurance/education/utilities and I'm sure a few others. But even in education there is some price info from private schools. And utlities have competition from industries moving and there is a pricing mechanism in the wholesale market and sometimes the retail market.
Interesting fallout: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...S&cvid=91445dacd8254a8ba87b106eaa41ddd2&ei=37
All jokes asides it's really 17'd up to see so many people on here celebrating murder. No one here is the judge of who deserves to live or die. That's the job of the AI algorithm the insurance company designed to maximize profits on your health and no one else.
Yes I am aware health insurance and healthcare arent truly free markets and they are regulated. My point is that common complaints from the right that are about healthcare and business in general are...
- costs are too high due to too much regulation(therefore less regulation is better).
- healthcare and coverage isnt a right(therefore get different care or coverage if you want it).
- businesses should be allowed to price and how they want because to do otherwise is socialism. Or to do otherwise suppresses innovation.(therefore less regulation is better and get difference care or coverage if you dislike what you have).
- healthcare and coverage should be allowed to cover what it wants to cover and for the price it wants because the government doesnt know better and also because this isnt socialist Europe.
^ That isnt some misrepresentation of commonly held and spouted views about healthcare, health coverage, or general business practices. Those have absolutely been claimed countless times thru the years on here, on social media, in interviews, and elsewhere.
To be consistent, no conservative should ever complain about the cost of any products or services due to the provider having high profits, but also complain that liberals want to regulate profits.
And to be consistent, no conservative should ever complain that a healthcare insurer wont cover a procedure or medication, but also complain that liberals want to force insurers to charge consumers less for medications and procedures.
Its just funny when I see conservatives complain about businesses putting profits ahead of service when it impacts them. The disconnect is real.
I missed some posts along the way. If people are truly celebrating, I don't want to go find them.
I guess I should have clarified that people on the right generally don’t see healthcare or health insurance as a free market and I haven’t heard anyone on the right make a claim that it’s free for a long while. I’m sure it’s happened but I can’t remember it going back for more than a decade. Did conservatives claim we have a free market when debating Obamacare? Or did they claim the solution was more competition and consumer choice, not continuing to increase government control and 3rd party payment? I don’t remember a lot of people claiming we had free markets, just that moving further away from competition was going to make it worse. But maybe I just don’t remember.
i do agree 100%. i had also read yesterday that the guy had only been CEO for 3 years so im pretty sure the job and rules he stepped into had been enacted years before he even began to think of being top dog. it's not like he took the top spot 3 years ago and just flipped everything around himself.
Well if not, then what the 17 is he making $10 million a year for? If he can’t singlehandedly shape policy and direction for the organization from Day 1, he’s not worth any of that money. We wouldn’t say of Jeff Lebby in 2027, “well, the fact that we’ve straight up sucked for 4 years is due to decisions made and personnel brought in before he was hired.”
Unless of course…..you’re telling me that most all these megacorp upper level execs / CEO’s just get to where they are from being the most loyal subscribers to the corporate groupthink and simply are just the best at office politics and connections….and in fact are just empty suits that don’t add ANYTHING of value other than just being the next in line to tote the same rehashed and rebranded nonsense as the previous empty suit. But surely you couldn’t be saying that….
It was a normal semi auto pistol with a suppressor that had been set up poorly. It was not a veterinarian gun
Actually I’m pretty sure insurance companies have policies and for the most part they follow those policies/guidelines. Yes there probably are exceptions.
Love when yall resort to memes when you can’t make a logical argument.
Nah how about we deregulate and let insurance companies compete across state lines and eliminate barriers to entry.
Fine me an insurance company that puts more 7.5% to the bottom line CONSISTENTLY.
Even 10% isn’t really a lot when you consider one bad year could be devastating.
Here’s a thought. Get government out of insurance. Everything they touch is inefficient.
Actually it’s a lot more dependent on an individual taking care of themselves and planning for the future health wise and financially.
Get unlimited access today.