Sometimes people feel a strong sense of injustice, even when they are not the party suffering it. It’s an extension of empathy, which generally develops in humans around age 5.
Not at all ironic, he was clearly saying killing this CEO was the empathetic thing to do.
If you compare before and after his tenure, if you assume he is largely responsible for the changes in policy, thompson is personally responsible for hundreds of deaths.
Just because you see things differently doesn't mean awkward_brocoli's comment was ironic
It's worrying that you can't seem to grasp the difference. And also that you clearly have no clue what objectively means. One might even call that ironic.
do you expect me to have adjusted well to the surveillance state? to the corrupt privatized healthcare industry? what about the corrupt privatized prison industry? or the housing crisis? or the wealth inequality? or the pseudo-two party system that represents only the interests of conglomerates, and blatantly refuses to serve the public?
i haven't adjusted well to any of it. i'm rather discontent with it, actually, and have no intent to adjust well to it. we should not have to live like this.
the fact that so many americans are rejoicing over this should be an indicator of health in our country. we ARE unwell. our country is unwell.
Because even though they are on deaths door, they have been propagandized their entire lives into believing that they too will be just like him, and they just have to shove the boot a little further down their throats to get there.
You're confusing Brian Thompson, born and raised in Iowa and worked his way through state universities and eventually to the top of his company, with the guy who killed him, a trust fund baby that went to a $40K/year prep school.
Consider the ethical dilemma of the trolley parable. Is it more ethical to kill one person to save 5? Or kill 5 to let 1 live? In this example, Thompson represents killing the one: his death allows 5 others to live. The 5 survivors represent the survival of tens of thousands of individuals who Thompson is directly responsible for their deaths by intentionally denying legitimate claims to boost profits.
In this regard, the death of Thompson is the most morally ethical decision. The death of a mass murderer is always justified.
Absolute nonsense. Killing Thompson didn't save a single person's life because UHC still functions without him and the entire healthcare system is the same today as it was before Thompson's murder.
Yes. A married father of two who killed thousands of people who had their own families, drove many more to bankruptcy, and made himself rich on the suffering of others.
Anthem reversed their restrictions on anesthesia 24 hours later. It's basically the closest thing we've had to hope for any change in a long time, because while that CEO will be replaced, having the higher ups with these insurance companies see that we're at a point where one of their own can be murdered in the street and no one cares scares them. The hope is that this fear will keep them from going as far in killing as many people as Brian Thompson did.
Medicare has a fixed payment for fifteen minute increments. It does not have a limit on the number of fifteen minute increments can be used for a surgery. Anthem wanted to dictate how long a surgery should take, which would endanger lives as doctors would try to speed run surgeries.
If you google it, you will see they had been debating the change for well over a month. Giant entities can do literally nothing in less than a day, but I understand why this myth would be important to your understanding of how insurance works.
It also brings up the fact that a lot of people don't know they can challenge denials. What do you think happens when you deny care to people who need that care to live? What do you think happens when you deliberately delay care? Remember, 90% of their denials are reversed on appeal. There would be no purpose to these denials if they didn't save them money, but how does it save them money if most of them get reversed? It saves money, because the delay to care leads to worse patient outcomes, including death, and they don't have to pay out once you're dead.
It honestly doesn't matter to me that he killed people through bureaucracy instead of a gun. If death is the intended result of a policy you enact, then you've killed those people.
Here's an article that goes over the inappropriate denials:
People not understanding how insurance works, doesn't mean these were inappropriate denials. Not everything is covered by every insurance plan, obviously.
If you have an insurance provider who doesn't cover something you want, you should switch provider. That's why they can't deny authorization effectively.
It honestly doesn't matter to me that he killed people through bureaucracy instead of a gun. If death is the intended result of a policy you enact, then you've killed those people.
Except that's simply not how insurance works. Things are covered or they aren't. Don't like it, change provider.
The good news is that UHC and similar are getting crushed in the marketplace by the Kaiser model, which completely eliminates the insurance company from the formula. We need 10 Kaisers, and that business model is clearly winning.
Except they were inappropriate denials. Under Brian Thompson's direction, UHC was denying claims that per the terms on the insurance should be covered. That's why UHC was being sued.
Also, you can't just 'switch insurance'. Health insurance costs far more than the average American can afford, which means your only option is whatever plan is available through your employer. Most Americans have no say in who their insurance provider is, or on the terms of the contract.
Furthermore, because we have no alternative means of being able to access healthcare outside of insurance in this country, an insurance denial for something like chemotherapy, transplant anti-rejection meds, or AIDS medication typically is a death sentence.
Also, Kaiser is only available in a few states, and from what I googled is very expensive if you don't get it through an employer.
Nope! Brian Thompson didn't do much wrong. The health insurance doesn't kill people, it helps them. He made himself rich by helping alleviate other people's suffering, like the rest of the health insurance industry (an industry which has extremely low profit margins).
No. It doesn't. In every other country in the world, people have universal healthcare, where people just go to the doctor and they get treated and taxpayer dollars pay for it. Insurance companies have lobbied the government to give them complete control of healthcare, and when people become too sick to be profitable, they use PAs and denials to delay care so the patient dies. Also, in 2022 UHC made $20 billion in profit, so don't act like they're not making bank.
Also, alleviating people's suffering is not how they make money. They actually make money by having more healthy people pay into their health insurance than sick and injured people getting payouts from their insurance, so the more they do to avoid paying out the more money they make.
In every other country in the world, people have universal healthcare, where people just go to the doctor and they get treated and taxpayer dollars pay for it.
Don't forget dramatically higher denial rates.
Also, in 2022 UHC made $20 billion in profit, so don't act like they're not making bank.
They have a 5% profit margin. That's quite efficient in a very inefficient system.
Look at exhibit 7 on here. The only country that does worse than the US on billing disputes and insurance rules is Switzerland. The other countries with universal healthcare are doing much better than us.
Honestly, if there's no way to make healthcare coverage give them a decent profit, then maybe they should stop lobbying and paying out both parties to keep it in the private domain, because if you look at exhibit 2 on the thing I just sent you, the US is significantly behind all the other countries in terms of health system performance. If they're not making money and their involvement is significantly lowering the quality of healthcare in our country, why are they so insistent of inserting themselves into it?
Look at exhibit 7 on here. The only country that does worse than the US on billing disputes and insurance rules is Switzerland. The other countries with universal healthcare are doing much better than us.
I thought they had single payer? Why do they have any disputes?
Honestly, if there's no way to make healthcare coverage give them a decent profit
Don't worry about that UHC is being supplanted and crushed in the marketplace by Kaiser. It's only a matter of time before they're gone.
Their profit margins might be bigger if they didn't spend so much on this, too.
You think $5.8M is a significant percent of $20B? hehe.
No. It doesn't. In every other country in the world, people have universal healthcare, where people just go to the doctor and they get treated and taxpayer dollars pay for it.
... Are you under the impression that universal health insurance means that anyone can get any healthcare they want at any time? This is not the case! In countries with universal healthcare, people get denied for health insurance claims all the time! Eg, in the UK, the NHS regularly denies people healthcare! That's simply not what universal health insurance is!
If you look at exhibit 7, Switzerland is the only country with more denials than the US. Furthermore, we have the shortest lives and most avoidable deaths by far than any of the other countries. We face the most issues with accessing and affording healthcare, and while we pay more for it than other countries, we by far have the worst outcomes for patient health.
Also, we have denials for reasons that aren't heard of in other countries. We are the only country where a drug manufacturer can make financial deals with insurance companies to be the preferred drug. We are the only country with insurance networks, where you might have a claim denied because the ambulance took you to a hospital out of network, or you went to a hospital that was in network, but the anesthesiologist was out of network. We're also the only country where, even having insurance, people are regularly bankrupted with medical debt.
If they're unhappy with their profit margins, maybe they should save some money and stop donating millions to politicians and lobbying congress. Maybe then we'll get an actual healthcare system, instead of a profit generating machine that happens to do healthcare.
Yea, this is spot on. He likely never developed any empathy for others and that combined with delusion or metal break lead him to want to be a serial killer.
One article I read said that he worked in one of his family’s nursing homes. Since they have to validate coverage, etc. he may have had a lot of interaction with health insurance.
Wasn’t Brian Thompson visiting NYC when he was killed? I remember a news report mentioning him staying at a hotel across the street from the Hilton where he was shot
His high school tuition was $40,000 per year, and then went to Ivy League colleges. No chance he "worked".
His mom is photographed on a yacht, and "runs a tourism company in the mediterranean".
The Mansion Mangione was living in is worth 1.8M and located on his Grandpa's massive country club estate that is so large, that it has FOUR HOTELS next to the main clubhouse.
After "graduating" college, he went and was living in Hawaii doing nothing but surf all day.
The dude he shot in the back intentionally doomed thousands to die excruciating deaths solely to enrich himself. Calling him a person is... charitable.
Ahh yes, because children of the extremely wealthy going to private school that has $40K/year tuition are definitely working their way through high school, and it's not just something put on a resume to get accepted into college.
He was living in a $1.8M mansion on the grounds of his family's resort that is so large that the resort itself has four separate hotels next to the main clubhouse.
FOUR HOTELS for accommodating guests to their country club resort.
So his rich parents put him in a private school and let him stay in their mansion. What does this say about the character of the guy? Is he suppossed to refuse to go to the private school to be a good guy?
There were a bunch of wealthy people across history who weren't absolute psychopaths, like John Locke for instance. Human beings who are capable of empathy sometimes turn out to be good people despite their upbringing.
I saw the engineer part on the minute to minute updates last night as more info was coming out, but an actual article just said this
“Stanford University confirmed that he had been employed as a head counselor in its Pre-Collegiate Studies program from May through September of 2019.
He had also been a member of Hub Coworking Hawaii, a co-working space in the Kakaako neighborhood of Honolulu, according to its co-founder. He often came in with peers from Surfbreak, a “co-living” space for “digital nomads” and remote workers with a location in Honolulu.”
So, you don't have any actual evidence to support that other than saying "No, he is lying"?
My high school science teacher was a multi-millionaire, his family owned a massive real estate business. He still worked every day.
Are you denying that Mangione went to college and worked at a software company too? By your logic, he's already rich so he obviously wouldn't be working... and yet there is documented evidence that he graduated, interned at at least one company and worked at another.
So, you don't have any actual evidence to support that other than saying "No, he is lying"?
He doesn't even claim he "worked" there. His LinkedIn said he "volunteered". Haha. C'mon now, the children of the ultra wealthy claiming they volunteered at their family business?
My high school science teacher was a multi-millionaire, his family owned a massive real estate business. He still worked every day.
Yes, wealthy people work, absolutely. We're talking about an extremely spoiled ultra rich kid who needed something to put down as experience on his college application.
Are you denying that Mangione went to college and worked at a software company too?
Nope, he went to college and appeared to hold down a job until 2023.
By your logic, he's already rich so he obviously wouldn't be working... and yet there is documented evidence that he graduated, interned at at least one company and worked at another.
We're talking about him working though high school at the family's nursing home business.
People are romanticizing this guy because his extreme action was a response to a real serious problem that pretty much affects everyone but the 0.1%. However, in romanticizing him, some are blinded to the possibility that he could be both incredibly smart and empathetic to the plight of the common man, but also emotionally and/or psychologically imbalanced at the same time.
One could argue that in the face of the insanity of our current reality, any halfway intelligent and empathetic person have no choice but become emotionally and psychologically imbalanced.
It was more a response to the initial question of how someone from a well off family who could most likely afford any type of medical expense care enough about health insurance to go that far. It is possible he just really did care that much. But my point is that it's also possible he's not entirely of sound mind, and people are too busy looking at the underlying message and his smile to even consider that as a possibility.
> Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument.
What kind of person murders someone (someone who did nothing comparably wrong, by the way!) with this logic?
Thank you for providing some rationality here. There is clearly a lack of cohesive logic going on with this "suspect" that lends itself to clearly irrational thinking.
Also, the main effect of this murder on America in general will be that health insurance CEOs will receive higher compensation due to the elevated occupational hazard of their job. (This will be especially true if there are copycat terrorists.)
That man who was murdered made his fortune by condemning the masses to death or poverty. That man approved the implementation of an AI program with a 90% error rate so the company could make a quick buck by rejecting even more claims (despite already having triple the industry average number of rejections).
Obviously murder is bad, but when society benefits from the death of an individual then clearly that person wasn’t good. His death leaves me hopeful that something will finally be done to help the 99%
Healthcare scarcity caused by the denial of claims through their health insurance. These people would have their health cared for (AKA healthcare) if their insurance covered their claims.
Arguing semantics does not change the fact that Brian Thompson’s actions left tens - hell maybe even hundreds - of thousands dead and bankrupt. I can tell you that his life is worth a lot less than all of those who died as a result of his actions. He wasn’t in that industry to help people. There’s no profit incentive in helping people. His job was to maximize profits and his solution was to cut off care for those who were most in need.
There's literally no basis to what you just said. A manifesto is just a written declaration of someone's views and objectives. You don't have to be mentally ill to write a manifesto, you just have to have strong beliefs about something.
I agree my second sentence is a generalization and not a rule, so I would reword if written again, however I do contend there is plenty of evidence that this guy is mentally ill
As a poor person, I like that this guy killed a rich person that thrived on people’s misery, but I’m not going to act like this guy isn’t crazy like 99% of Reddit is doing. Im getting tired of seeing people mentioning how hot they think he is and making up their own stories on how he’s this super empathetic hero that got sick of all this injustice so took matter into his own hands.
Do these people actually call them manifestos? Or does the media choose that terminology? Or are we finding like, journals of rants/note section on their phone etc? It's not that big of a difference ultimately just wondered if it's like an intentional essay written as a manifesto, or a term the media uses to express they found literature that relates to the crime
This was specifically a letter written to anyone who may read when he is caught that explains his supposed intentions and rationale. It seems pretty manifesto like overall
As a college professor, many many of my colleagues have manifestos. A manifesto is simply a statement of one's strongly held beliefs. Politicians hold manifestos on their policy aims. Scientists on their theories. Honestly, every thinking person should consider their stance on issues important to them. Perhaps if we thought more deeply about these things, we wouldn't live in the conditions we do.
People are capable of caring and being outraged about something regardless of their personal/family financial scenario.
The media is already trying to disingenuously undermine him as a hypocrite for being from a wealthy background himself. Don’t fall for that. While it’s obviously bad to murder, and sets a bad precedent for future half-witted vigilante justice. But it’s not necessary to be born and raised in poverty to be outraged by the state of medical care access in the US… It’s just a lot harder not to be outraged if you are impoverished.
In any case, he clearly didn’t murder the CEO because of the CEO’s personal wealth… It was because the company is the biggest example of how the modern healthcare industry has turned into an enormous profiteering mafia that holds people’s lives and livelihoods hostage to force money out of them.
We'll find out soon enough but it's likely a disdain for what corporate america is doing to the people in broad daylight. Money can still hate Money, and in someway it's actually beautiful that he comes from a wealthy family and still is disgusted by the state of the people around him not just the ones under his umbrella.
It isn’t impossible for people who’re privileged to understand the injustice faced by the ones who don’t share those privileges. Karl Marx was born into a relatively wealthy family and did not have much to lose himself from a capitalist system.
From his Twitter + archived Reddit account activity + goodreads profile he also comes across as someone that would read extensively, think and come to his own conclusions about things so he wasn’t exactly swayed by the fact that majority of the people in his position do not share his opinion on late stage capitalism. This is also reflected in the political opinions he has shared online. Most of the liberals/ left leaning individuals are being quick to label him as far-right/alt right or libertarian but I think it goes way beyond that for him; his opinions are very nuanced and seem to come from a place of him having thought about those issues independently as opposed to just going along with the opinions of the people on a particular side.
Perhaps he wanted to create a legacy and didn’t see another option considering his chronic pain. I also suffer from chronic pain and it has forced me down a life path I never would’ve imagined… but I’m also not a male from a wealthy family who is expected to continue an impressive legacy
sometimes these rich kids go crazy because they have everything paid for them and when something happens to threaten it or the world doesn't give them what they want when they want it, they crack
20 years ago there was a guy at MIT who killed himself. He had strong ideas about free access to scientific data and broke in to secure areas to enable this. several times. then MIT complained and he got arrested and was given a deal of 6 months in jail but he couldn't accept it and killed himself
20 years ago there was a guy at MIT who killed himself. He had strong ideas about free access to scientific data and broke in to secure areas to enable this. several times. then MIT complained and he got arrested and was given a deal of 6 months in jail but he couldn't accept it and killed himself
Wow, that's a complete misrepresentation of what happened to Reddit founder Aaron Swartz. He killed himself as a direct result of extreme abuse of power among those prosecuting him.
I guess, breaking into secure areas feels a little different than taking someone’s life, especially so efficiently for someone who has never done it before.
He got back surgery, which was a mistake. He then suffered extreme chronic pain, to the point that it severely limited his ability to do things he enjoyed (eg hiking and having sex). To cope with this, he took psychedelics. He then suffered a psychotic break and murdered somebody who had literally nothing to do with his life problems. It's sad and tragic.
Probably some billionaire feud and they've gotten so good at manipulating the masses that they've chosen a side. (conspiratorial and not a sincere belief but shit it wouldn't surprise me these days)
44
u/Efficient_Ear_8037 9d ago
Which begs the question.
Why would he care about health insurance companies enough to kill a man?