The editors of the Washington Post lament the social media reactions to the murder of the CEO of United Healthcare last week:
The motivation for the brazen and seemingly premeditated assassination of a health insurance executive in midtown Manhattan remains under investigation. The likeliest theory is that a hooded gunman, armed with a pistol and apparent silencer, killed 50-year-old Brian Thompson because he was chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, which provides health insurance coverage to more than 50 million Americans. Shell casings found at the scene — upon which the words “delay” and “deny” had been scrawled — imply that this killing stemmed from a grievance related to coverage decisions by Mr. Thompson’s company or others like it.
As most Americans quickly recognized, there is no justification for taking a life in this manner — yet on social media, expressions of not just understanding but support for the crime also gained traction in the aftermath of Mr. Thompson’s death. Many people made crude and depraved jokes, such as “my condolences are out-of-network.” Others said flatly that the insurance executive deserved what happened to him, comparing the victim to a serial killer.
Even academics and journalists chimed in. CBS’s morning show aired a segment on Friday on the “deep frustration with the health insurance industry” that highlighted several angry TikTok videos. “I’m having a hard time being empathetic,” a woman says in one of them. Céline Gounder, a CBS News medical contributor, said vigilante justice is never warranted but added: “We’ve gotten to a point where health care is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations.”
If you are not familiar with the title of this post, it is Latin, attributed to the orator Cicero, and is translated as “alas, the times; alas the customs”. Rejoicing at a murder is a sign of our debased times. There is no justification either for the murder or for rejoicing in it.
Does anyone seriously believe that anything good will come from heinous acts of murder or the equally heinous defense of them? The likelihood is that their consequences will be more expensive health care.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal, remarking on the murder, declaim:
The unidentified shooter’s motive still isn’t known, but he may have dropped a hint with the words “deny, defend, depose” on his bullet casings. This mantra was popularized by trial lawyers suing private insurers for denying claims more than a decade ago. Social media mobs are exploiting the tragedy and proclaiming that Thompson had it coming.
“And people wonder why we want these executives dead,” former Washington Post columnist Taylor Lorenz wrote on Bluesky, a leftwing social-media site. “People have very justified hatred toward insurance company CEOs because these executives are responsible for an unfathomable amount of death and suffering,” she added. “As someone against death and suffering, I think it’s good to call out this broken system and the ppl in power who enable it.” Ms. Lorenz is far from alone as an apologist for targeting CEOs.
We realize that facts and reason don’t matter when a political culture descends into “Lord of the Flies.” But if fixing the system is really the goal, how about looking to Washington? Private health insurance in America is far from perfect. But the insurance problems sparking an outcry owe mainly to government policies that distort markets and force rationed care.
Today on the “talking heads” programs I’m seeing a re-emergence of claims that healthcare is a human right and demands for “Medicare for all”. I would love to see how they reconcile those beliefs with conflicting ideas like a right to property, against involuntary servitude, our de facto open border, and physician autonomy. Even the most progressive states in Union have rejected the notion of healthcare as a fundamental right.
By memory, United Healthcare has one of the highest denial of claims rate. On appeal, they agree to pay the large majority. They have really cultivated the impression that they are arbitrarily denying payment in the hope that some people wont appeal. It adds significant costs to everyone else in the system while increasing their profits. Then add in that the guy was making $10 million a year, at least some of that due to their denial process and not because they made it easier for people to get care or make things cheaper.
So to be clear, none of that justifies murder. That was 100% wrong, however, the WSJ wants to ignore why people are mad at people like that guy. So I dont like our neighbor with the noisy dogs that bark all night, but I am not going to kill him or advocate anyone else does. I am not going to bother reading Lorenz but I would be willing to make a large bet that she didnt advocate that someone target and kill Anderson. In the WSJ world the only reason to ever criticize a CEO is a failure to bring in profits, how they do it doesnt matter.
Steve
Or even ponder the idea that trade offs are needed,should tax dollars flow to health care or a nationwide net of charging stations or munitions to Ukraine or fill in the blank. However, talking about healthcare does keep their funders happy, and keeps the free lunches coming.
Also agree that singing about the wicked witch is wrong yet, I sang a verse when a cannibal killer for here died.
I, and likely you are covered by Medicare plus a supplemental.
For younger people today insurance premiums are over $1,000/ month with an $8,000 annual deductible.
Steve is right.
They deny, but if you can afford an attorney, they will pay.
Smart business model, legal, but now not without risk.
If you’ve never had to deal with an insurance adjuster’s false denial, then you just can’t understand.
I doubt that this is new, and I think Obamacare forcing people to pay premiums for fictitious coverage has ramifications.