Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 523 posts

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#311

Post by Arainach »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #165
criddell wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509164679/from-the-start-obam...

> Sarah Palin coined the phrase "death panel" in a widely shared Facebook post. Does not support the claim > we let insurance companies label government triage as "death panels"

Insurance companies funded the vast majority of advertising using that term to attack the ACA, and their lobbyists meet with politicians often enough that it's entirely plausible they coined the initial term as well (though harder to prove)

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#312

Post by lawlessone »

D-Coder wrote: post #295
josefritzishere wrote: post #278

It's unclear for the moment if this is an angry customer or jilted lover type of killer. Is it personal or is it professional? But as the insurance company with the highest claim rejection rate, they are quite literally killing their customers, manufacturing their own long list of aggrieved suspects.

Well, it was someone with a gun, a mask, AND a bicycle. That must cut the list of suspects down quite a bit...

A citibike no less

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#313

Post by shadowgovt »

potato3732842 wrote: post #286
marky1991 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by this comment? Could you make your points explicit?

He means that if the state, courts and other systems don't get people justice or something you can squint at and call justice when they are wronged some fraction of those wronged will go outside the systems and seek to get even instead. The (rare, perhaps crazy) people who shoot CEOs or armor bulldozers are what check the power of the state to ignore this part of its job.

An interesting individual I know is fond of reminding people that the Magna Carta has been a useful document for over 800 years, but the actual enforcement of the Magna Carta is that every time a monarch started acting like they were above it, a critical mass of people with the power of violence showed up to remind him that he was, in fact, just as mortal as everyone else.

The law is written on paper but fueled by blood.

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#314

Post by shadowgovt »

marky1991 wrote: post #112
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not this commenter, but how I've often heard it expressed was we created the justice system as a better, more civilized alternative to putting people in holes just outside of town. At such a time the justice system stops working, as it increasingly seems to have RE: the rich, then we resume holes.

This entire line of thinking just seems to be essentially advocacy for a return to that exact system. "Do what we want or we'll go back to random murder". I wonder if the original commenter would have put the same comment if the article were "man shoots his wife and her lover on discovery of adultery"

Yes, that's the essence of social contract theory. Which, it should be noted, is a historical falsehood, in that we're pretty sure no ancient tribe ever really started with people sitting down and saying "It is mutually beneficial if we curb our violent inclinations for the safety and security of blah blah blah"... but is a useful shorthand for the observed notion "A government lasts only as long as it provides a better alternative to picking up a 2x4 and settling your own scores for most people who support it."

"You rule because they believe," in essence.

(This is why, historically, you'll often see societies keep their pattern of government until, say, famine comes along. Because if you're going to starve to death, the likely outcome calculus on picking up a 2x4 starts to change drastically and quickly).

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#315

Post by jerlam »

jeffbee wrote: post #42

Always seemed pretty strange to me that you can build and oversee an organization widely perceived (whether fairly or not) as evil, host what those evil-perceivers will view as Bad Rich Guy Conference in public, in a country where anyone can get as many guns as they want, and there isn't more violence like this. Seems like an unstable operating point for a society.

I don't think most Americans perceive health insurance organizations as evil, nor do they condense the fault to a specific person (like the CEO). Maybe the entire system is at fault, but individual greed isn't a major failing, it's virtually expected.

On the internet, all conversations about health care will garner comments mocking the US system, but as a resident it's not like we have a lot of choices.

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#316

Post by selimthegrim »

Clubber wrote: post #267
s1artibartfast wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>You keep saying killed, but there is a difference between letting people die and killing them. Using dubious legalese to deny a life saving claim that happens to cost say $200,000 that you took premiums for is pretty close. If you pay out of pocket, it might save your life, but you're bankrupt, your children get no inheritance, and you probably lose your house. That's a pretty insidious act for profit IMO. >Voters a…

You can save your house in a medical bankruptcy.

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#317

Post by water-data-dude »

prettyStandard wrote: post #7

Just going to go out on a ledge here and guess that a loved one of the shooter died because of some insurance denial.

I’ll just go ahead and drop this link about UnitedHealth’s use of deeply flawed models to deny coverage:

https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/11/ai-with-90-error-rate...

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#318

Post by selimthegrim »

shadowgovt wrote: post #313
potato3732842 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He means that if the state, courts and other systems don't get people justice or something you can squint at and call justice when they are wronged some fraction of those wronged will go outside the systems and seek to get even instead. The (rare, perhaps crazy) people who shoot CEOs or armor bulldozers are what check the power of the state to ignore this part of its job.

An interesting individual I know is fond of reminding people that the Magna Carta has been a useful document for over 800 years, but the actual enforcement of the Magna Carta is that every time a monarch started acting like they were above it, a critical mass of people with the power of violence showed up to remind him that he was, in fact, just as mortal as everyone else. The law is written on paper but fueled by bl…

Someone ought to remind Howard Lutnick of that. Again.

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#319

Post by selimthegrim »

TwoNineA wrote: post #174
funfunfunfun wrote: post #113

[flagged]

"I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." - a wise man

“I’m not glad he’s dead but I’m glad he’s gone.” - Harold Washington

Re: UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot in Manhattan

#320

Post by howard941 »

selimthegrim wrote: post #316
Clubber wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You keep saying killed, but there is a difference between letting people die and killing them. Using dubious legalese to deny a life saving claim that happens to cost say $200,000 that you took premiums for is pretty close. If you pay out of pocket, it might save your life, but you're bankrupt, your children get no inheritance, and you probably lose your house. That's a pretty insidious act for profit IMO. >Voters a…

You can save your house in a medical bankruptcy.

There's nothing in the Bankruptcy Code that treats medical debt differently from other unsecured debt.

EDIT: I should clarify that it is nuanced. Medical debt is unlikely to draw unwanted scrutiny from the US Trustee/BR Administrator and of course it doesn't leave the debtor with any assets arising from the debt. Regarding house loss that is far more dependent upon the state you're in than the debt you have. For ex., homestead exemptions will protect the home from most unsecured debt. Further nuance is beyond HN's scope.

Post reply on HN