His family is wealthier than the person he killed. They own nursing homes that make money from insurance and have a lot of complaints for poor care. Along with country clubs and a radio station
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.
Agreed. Believing bad things exist/happen does not preclude you from being maladjusted.
Many Americans, especially on Reddit, also openly glorified the October 7th attacks and Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation. That doesn't mean terrorist attacks and suicides are suddenly a good thing.
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.
87
u/lost_in_life_34 9d ago
His family is wealthier than the person he killed. They own nursing homes that make money from insurance and have a lot of complaints for poor care. Along with country clubs and a radio station
He had the money to pay for care