Top internet sleuths say they won't help find the UnitedHealthcare CEO killer

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/internet-sleuths-say-wont-help-find-unitedhealthcare-ceo-suspect-rcna183228

by pseudolus • 2 years ago

47 123 2 years ago

pipes3• 2 years ago

That is a really depressing read. A person shot and killed in cold blood, and these online heros pretty much condone it. This will be awful for his family.

peepeepoopoo93• 2 years ago

[flagged]

phinnaeus• 2 years ago

There will just be a new CEO who will continue those same practices. How can this possibly be misconstrued as something impactful upon the broken system

xienze• 2 years ago

I’ve got news for you, even in countries with socialized healthcare, not all treatments are automatically approved or approved in a timely manner. There’s ALWAYS a cost-to-benefit ratio that is considered, and it doesn’t always work out in the patient’s favor. I suppose we’d cheer the murder of say the UK’s equivalent of this CEO as well?

vintagedave3• 2 years ago

Quite the opposite. They’re explicitly not condoning:

Another popular TikTok sleuth, thatdaneshguy [said] that he wouldn’t try to identify the killer. “I don’t have to encourage violence. I don’t have to condone violence by any means. But I also don’t have to help,” he said.

Inaction can be condoning in some cases. If there is an element of duty it certainly is. But if volunteers choose not to volunteer in a specific situation that’s their right.

pipes3• 2 years ago

Pretty much weasel words way of saying they aren't helping because they agree with the killing.

zmgsabst• 2 years ago

Live a thug, die a thug.

He made his money killing and maiming people. Why would people mourn his death? — why would people be motivated to find his killer?

Criminals kill each other every day.

hcta• 2 years ago

They have each made the individual choice not to invest more effort in solving the case, the same as you have probably done.

rafterydj2• 2 years ago

Question: is it depressing, or is it a wake up call for just how much the average American hates health insurance executives?

There seem to be a few people online who mirror your sentiments about being shocked, what defenders of the crime would call pearl clutching. I'm fascinated.

From my perspective, the idea of a vigilante being so burned by health insurance companies he tracks down and kills the CEO is not a shocking premise _at all_. Yet some (particularly health insurance industry workers / professionals on LinkedIn) are so shocked by this that it makes me wonder if there's an insulated echo chamber effect going on here.

Muromec6• 2 years ago

It's a classic Robin Hood kind of hero, an established trope that everyone likes. I don't get how anybody can be surprised by this happening in a country which is obsessed with comic books and made hero movies it's main cultural export.

rvnx5• 2 years ago

(not American here, but curious about the situation because healthcare is broken in so many countries).

Money is a weapon of vote too, if you don't subscribe to UnitedHealthcare, in the long run the corporate should eventually disappear as a whole no ?

If you dislike Uber, then don't buy Uber.

In Switzerland they have such capitalistic system where you can pick your private insurance provider. So the most expensive / worse ones, gets less revenue.

In France, they have a socialo-communist monopoly, no choice, only one choice, and you have to be happy with it, no matter what.

I guess that's the main promise of capitalism; voting with your money (money that is supposed to come proportional to your efforts, though it is warped by crime, cryptos, inheritance, etc).

For example, if you stop buying meat, and convince others to stop buying meat, then there will less people investing into meat.

EDIT: Users explained (thanks!) that it was not really a free choice.

tzs• 2 years ago

Question: is it depressing, or is it a wake up call for just how much the average American hates health insurance executives?

Americans dislike the American health care system as a whole, but actually tend to like their particular insurance company and doctors.

I checked United on the ACA marketplace in my state and United is rated 4 out of 5 stars, which is the same as pretty much every other offering except Kaiser (5 out of 5) and new plans that have not yet gotten ratings.

This is not actually surprising because most people only actually use their insurance for routine things like physicals, vaccinations, lab tests, common illnesses like flu, physical injuries like sprains and broken bones and household cuts and burns, and fairly common prescription drugs.

Even the most extreme cost cutting insurance company is usually going to pay for those without question.

salawat3• 2 years ago

I can give you an ex-insiders perspective. There tends to be a bit of a divide in the people who drift into staffing these companies. Most are highly intelligent, and at least have an appreciation for the logistics behind the business process. There's going to be a functional piece somewhere sitting in the midst of the datasets, and making the best decisions possible. The dividing line I personally witnessed though was the finance first vs. patient outcome first people. The patient outcome first people tend to congregate in areas like CS, clinical, QA, compliance, etc... They realize it's a complex space, a lot of data to sift through and learn from, but are constantly working to make sure people ultimately get what they need.

The finance first group are sort of the opposite. They're doing everything they can to target Fraud/Waste/Abuse, not necessarily to the exclusion of patient outcome, but the priorities are 100% different. The problem is the output of their analysis tends to turn into inputs for the Prior Auth, formulary management, and claim denial logic, which, lets call that what it is: population scale social engineering to the end of nudging people to save money for the company.

The "surprised pikachus" are probably the finance first/raw number crunchers who have never had a number bite back in their life. The people who are actually concerned with patient outcome already know exactly what's going on, and are completely unsurprised.

It's really Upton Sinclair's wisdom at work: It is hard to get a man to understand that which his salary depends on him not understanding.

Muromec6• 2 years ago

Welcome to Kali Yuga. World wars, dictatorships, plagues and political repressions and assassinations are fashionable again.

Looking back at this time we will just say "yeah, these were the different times" and shrug.

chris_wot2• 2 years ago

Seems like nobody condoned it, but nobody was interested in helping either. Not helping is not condoning.

Are you helping sleuth for his killer?

vouaobrasil7• 2 years ago

It sounds depressing if you take it as just a murder. But it is much more than that: it is one possible step in violent protest against the corporate control and subjugation of thousands of human lives through their medical care. Undeniably, corporations have emerged as the dominant threat to communities and people by becoming experts and exploitation due to their power and assymetry of information.

pipes3• 2 years ago

What kind of society would we create if legitimise murder of citizens because another citizen disagrees with them?

We invented rule of law and the ballot box to protect ourselves from each other. Yes it may be inefficient and may produce results we don't like, but once it becomes ok to murder people you disagree with, that legitimises killing anyone.

tjpnz• 2 years ago

What about the many thousands of families who have been forced into bankruptcy or have had loved ones die due to actions he's ultimately responsible for? I don't think there's anything wrong in having zero sympathy. It strikes me as a very human reaction.

mcphage• 2 years ago

This will be awful for his family.

I think we will find that first it was awful for the killer’s family.

capitantrueno• 2 years ago

Yeah sure, please post this another 386 times for all the other times non-millionaires died in NYC in 2023. Also for when they killed Bin Laden and Hussein.

https://abc7ny.com/nypd-crime-shootings-murders/14259597/

giardini• 2 years ago

The real questions are:

- Did Starbucks bill Thompson for his drink before the shooting?

- If so, did they refund any charge (since he presumably did not pick up the drink)?

- Can Starbucks legally refund money to a credit card account knowing the account owner is deceased?

mensetmanusman3• 2 years ago

Such a fascinating case. No one is morally required to help find a murderer, it’s a question of virtue.

It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.

datadeft• 2 years ago

if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.

It is much better if the gen pop is the sacrificial lamb.

pseudolus• 2 years ago

In this particular instance I think it's less a question of virtue and more the issue of internet sleuths having an intimate understanding of the power of the internet and fearing the backlash that will be visited upon them if they participate in finding the murderer. It's a form of self-censorship.

morkalork2• 2 years ago

Why exactly is the current system set up the way it is by politicians? I can think of at least one former politician who now sits on the board of a healthcare provider, it's a little dirty. Corporations lobby politicians all the time, maybe they should lobby for more regulation and consumer protection. You might say it's in everyone's best interest.

mensetmanusman3• 2 years ago

Politicians could copy paste the eu regulatory/payment system or make it illegal for employers to provide healthcare.

There are a couple of pivot points that could fix things now that we have the data.

piva003• 2 years ago

It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.

Are you implying the CEO is a victim of the system? If so he decided to further victimise dozens of thousands further, just like a murderer-robber is also a victim of the system, nonetheless their lack of morality made them perpetuate the system's violence.

Muromec6• 2 years ago

He is just another drone responding to the market signals and the incentives are structured in a way to select for this kind of behavior. Yes, he can very well be morally corrupt, but it's not the point.

mensetmanusman3• 2 years ago

I think someone murdered by an assassin is tautologically a victim.

vouaobrasil7• 2 years ago

It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.

Now that's a strawman. No one believes the CEO should be a sacrificial lamb. But I think many do believe that his killing is justice and may even effect some change due to an intense investigation into American health care.

acdha2• 2 years ago

It’s a religious drive if you believe that a CEO should be the sacrificial lamb for the systems politicians have set up.

The system wasn’t set up by accident but at the specific behest of the affected companies. When the prospect of Medicare for all was being discussed a decade and a half ago, look at where all of the money decrying it as socialism came from, and who was funding the politicians talking about things like “death panels”. That proposal was estimated to cut U.S. healthcare costs almost in half, which sounds great as a consumer but represents hundreds of billions annually which is not generating profits for the insurance industry and large providers.

The exact same story played out in 1993 when President Clinton tried to pass healthcare reform, down to the year-long advertising campaign featuring actors pretending to be normal people concerned about bureaucracy which only made sense in a parallel universe where people weren’t having even worse experiences with private bureaucrats every day.

serial_dev• 2 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks he wasn’t killed by a resistance hero? Wasn’t he supposed to testify the next day? All this “deny defend depose” thing is a distraction, so that the masses cheer, all the while the man was probably killed right before the only time he would have actually crossed his overlords.

vintagedave3• 2 years ago

This is fascinating info I hadn’t read before. What was he going to testify?

fidotron• 2 years ago

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/unitedhealthcare-brian-thomps...

Not sure about testify, but there is a probe and he is not the only implicated exec.

SlightlyLeftPad3• 2 years ago

The guy had a silencer, is that a normal thing for a regular guy in New York to have? That and how it was carried out does make me think that it could be someone who is already out of the law.

spacecadet4• 2 years ago

Looked like a custom weapon to me, which would be a smart move to avoid being traced, also explains the jamming. Custom silencers can cause a semi-auto to jam if the tolerances are crap, but a completely custom, say 3D printed gun, might jam from any number of issues...

paxys3• 2 years ago

He isn't from New York.

api• 2 years ago

My immediate thought was of oligarchs falling out windows in Russia but something more mundane like him being a risk to a criminal outfit is more likely.

Making it look like a populist vigilante to the point of staging a performative message would be a good way to confuse and throw the investigation.

We’ll see if they find the guy.

uhtred2• 2 years ago

Testify the next day on what? Can you provide more info please?

paxys3• 2 years ago

There's no more info because it is made up.

master_crab• 2 years ago

I’d rather take the Occam’s razor approach here instead of the conspiracy theorist one.

Health care execs are always under litigation. They are the named officers of their corporate units and therefore the legal representatives of their entities.

Private health care aggrieves hundreds to thousands of people a day. It’s rather someone who lost a loved one or who is in financial distress due to decisions made by this corporation than some deep dark conspiracy.

manjana• 2 years ago

One thing that doesn't factor into this argument is the professional nature of the hit — how he managed the gun, the silencer, the messages on the bullets, the getaway, and the precise reconnaissance that allowed him to know exactly where his target would be at that exact moment.

That doesn't align with the characteristics of a typical personal vendetta.

big-green-man• 2 years ago

The batting average betting against conspiracy theories lately is not very good.

thousands of people a day

and this virtually never happens. Sure, on one side, it's bound to happen eventually, but from the other, "aggrieved loved one" is in good cover if you need that guy dead.

K0balt• 2 years ago

The simple explanation, and one that encapsulates the entirety of the necessary elements, is that someone’s significant other died, and that someone believes that if she had been allowed for some treatment, the outcome would have been different.

This is a story that , justly or not, unfolds hundreds if not thousands of times a day.

It’s not the first time, and won’t be the last, that the affected person has the right combination of dark triad traits and appropriate experiences to make personal vengeance a viable response.

As someone who recently lost their spouse of 16 years to cancer, I can say that in the right circumstances this might be an understandable, if not justifiable, response to that kind of stress.

uhtred2• 2 years ago

Tiktok is where people say whatever gets the most views. Its for narcissists.

There are old school web sleuthing forums filled with people taking this case seriously.

Spoiled_toast4• 2 years ago

You are viewing democracy in action. The silent majority took a vote.

rvnx5• 2 years ago

TikTok has their own understanding of democracy, defending certain ideas (e.g. Russia in Romania), but at the same time, Twitter also has a certain view (like Donald Trump).

tekla• 2 years ago

Disgusting. Everyone has the freedom to say what they think. Justifying extra-judicial murder because of policy difference shows that you have no principles, and only go along with what will keep you popular with your tribe.

Everyone celebrates "justice" against the "bad guys" via vigilante violence until they are next against the wall.

beepbooptheory• 2 years ago

If you ever happen to talk to normal people you realize people already feel very much "against the wall" when it comes to healthcare. People die everyday because their claims are denied. I am curious what you think the more rational way to be is in this world. The play of life and death is already our theater, but we are just supposed to take it I guess, never give it out.

pessimizer• 2 years ago

I am curious what you think the more rational way to be is in this world.

I think there's a general sense among the owning class (who largely inherited their ownership from their daddies) that the only rational and moral response for somebody who can't pay their societal rent is apoptosis.

op00to3• 2 years ago

Worse than people dying, even more common a single health event can literally bankrupt a family. This happens every day, all day. 41% of Americans have some sort of health care debt. Over 3 million Americans owe more than $10,000 in medical debt. The average American can’t swing an unexpected $2000 expense, imagine how destructive this is, and what is it for? Record profits for insurance companies?

anonzzzies• 2 years ago

The guy probably knew he was a pencil pushing mass murderer of sorts; doesn't mean he should be shot by vigilantes, but in modern society it seems you get away with this (boeing ceo, this guy etc) if you trust on the system as 'he is just maximizing profits, great US company, we are the greatest country because of people like this blah blah' (until it's your mother or sister or whatever ofcourse).

You don't have to justify anything by not wanting to help catching the killer though; it's their choice.

I have never been in this situation (not allowed here), but as I said before, I find the restraint amazing; if a family member would have paid for 30 years in some insurance and then gets denied because some AI said no, I find it hard to imagine this type of vigilante stuff is so rare. And the ceo really knows this is happening so he should go to jail, at least. Not just a slap on the wrist.

chris_wot2• 2 years ago

Nobody is justifying the killing. They just don’t care to help find the killer.

oulipo3• 2 years ago

Nobody "justifies" it. But it would be nice that you would be just as shocked by the practices of the US healthcare industry

paxys3• 2 years ago

The same "internet sleuths" who have had a 0% success rate in this kind of thing? He is probably more likely to get caught now that they're not involved and adding confusion by accusing innocent people.

rvnx5• 2 years ago

It does work sometimes: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/he-will-not-divide-us

Neywiny• 2 years ago

Starting with I don't condone violence. But it is kinda pathetic that police forces, especially the NYPD which has billions of dollars in budget and countless years of experience, need to reach out to tiktokers who do this as a hobby for help training.

mrintegrity• 2 years ago

This reminds me of Ken McElroy [1], murdered in broad daylight with ~40 people present yet no witnesses.

Did this CEO deserve to be shot in the back? No, and vigilantism shouldn't be celebrated. Instead we should invest time in understanding why our laws and society structure allows (even promotes) the kind of corporate exploitation of the public that is enough to drive someone to murder.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

okasaki• 2 years ago

I don't really agree. It's fine to celebrate it and to think that he deserved it.

vouaobrasil7• 2 years ago

What if our system is so corrupt that legal investigation and lobbying becomes restricted to a domain in which it can no longer benefit the people?

We have hundreds of analyses already and millions of hours poured into understanding this situation -- the corporate power structure and the unrestricted capitalistic growth of technology. Should people analyze until they are blue in the face?

At some point in many societies, a point of revolution happens because there is no other reliable option, and when such a thing happens, it overrides the morals of the majority simply because those morals only exist to keep a society functioning. But what to do when it no longer can function?

The American goverment frequently decides who lives and who dies and who to kill at war. When that sort of violence flows downwards to those who threaten the existing power structure, it is called policy. When the people take arms against corruption, it is called immoral violence and you bought right into it.

underseacables2• 2 years ago

Good example, I was struggling to come up with other public indifference to killings. Maybe some mobsters?

What makes the UH CEO so different is that he was, presumably, innocent. A bad person for humanity and the public, Absolutely, but legally innocent.

op00to3• 2 years ago

King George III was "legally innocent".

Eddy_Viscosity2• 2 years ago

Instead we should invest time in understanding why our laws and society structure allows (even promotes) the kind of corporate exploitation of the public that is enough to drive someone to murder.

We already know the answer to why. Its because corporate exploitation of the public is profitable. The US could at any time switch to a universal health care system like just about every other industrialized nation and the entire claim-denying middle-man financial parasite insurance model would evaporate.

noisy_boy2• 2 years ago

Instead we should invest time in understanding why our laws and society structure allows (even promotes) the kind of corporate exploitation of the public that is enough to drive someone to murder.

What are you talking about? Isn't blatant corporate greed simply the product of the societal and financial culture that the country is practically built upon?

If you insist on playing naive, let me spell it out for you.

1. A corporation's main aim is shareholder value increase, at any cost that is a) legally permissible b) doesn't kill the company. For what its worth, #1.a is also negotiable now, see 2.2 below.

2. In order to ensure this:

2.1 They pay political campaigns to get the politicians in power so that those politicians can shape the laws in their favor.

2.2 They employ ex-government officials to incentivize them to be not too harsh with the corporations during their tenure at the government - you don't bite the hand that will feed you once you retire from your current government job.

2.3 They pay lobbying groups to influence the laws the politicians will make (most are already bought (see #2.1) but it is so much cheaper to lobby compared to the outsized payout that spending a bit more for maximum support is a no-brainer).

3. In order to maximize shareholder value, they need to maximize their profits. If denying claims helps them do it, they will do so. Who will stop them? Politicians? See #2 above.

4. How do politicians ensure they can enable #1?

5.1 By making it legal for corporations to pump cash via PACs and super PACs so that #2.1 can continue.

5.2 By pushing extremism (left or right) and polarize people into groups. It is easy for sharks to feed if the herring move as a group. How can they do it easily? Technology companies with the power of internet enable it greatly (they are also companies after all, see #1).

6. The cycle continues and worsens and people keep getting squeezed until someone says fuck it and does something like the event this thread is about.

PS: people get all worked up about Roe vs. Wade. The real cancer was Citizens United (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC).

greenie_beans2• 2 years ago

re: citizen's united. something i've been thinking about lately, with the latest rise of gen x tech power: elon musk et al (andreesen, thiel, david sacks, etc) got extremely lucky with timing. the 90s internet boom and all of the tech that came after allowed them to become very rich, thanks also to the zero interest rate policy of the 2010s. combined with the timing of citizen's united, you now have elon musk who reportedly donated $250 million to the trump campaign and is now reaping those rewards.

pixxel3• 2 years ago

Good trolling mrintegrity.

Balgair• 2 years ago

So, my sibling took a Constitutional Law class once. And they were telling me that the lecturer was saying that there is one major factor underappreciated in current law: Dueling

The US system is one that is set up under a very different cultural system than what we currently have (in many ways). But one important release valve that the first generation had was duels. If you were being a shithead over and over, you'd be killed. Maybe not by the first duel, or even the fifth duel. But your luck would run out eventually.

Now, these days, we know that duels are just crazy, and the social effects of them are dumb. But we've also gotten rid of the shaming and shunning effects that came after them. Something else (white/blacklists, anti-NETTR, an anti-trolling league, etc) should come out to replace and gain these functions again. Our system really only works if done in good faith and requires an extra-judicial method of enforcement.

keo3c• 2 years ago

I am beginning to doubt we are going to make much of dent. Some one recently told me ecologists and biologists don't frame it as exploitation when they talk about predator-prey or parasite-host relationships. I really didn't know how to respond to that.

I think we are able to kind of reduce the exploitation A BIT, via social norms and culture. And that too only in regions where resources are abundant and the environment isn't too chaotic.

planet36• 2 years ago

A $10,000 reward is too small. Especially if it depends on a conviction.

underseacables2• 2 years ago

Has there ever been another case like this? I remember some acts in the past where someone was murdered and the general public consensus (even juries) were like yeah, we'll allow it.

silexia3• 2 years ago

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/UNH/financials/

Total revenue (all money brought in) – $389b

All money paid out in claims – $303b

Money left over for running the business $85b

Cost of running the business – $69b

Profit – $14b

So it basically appears that for every $1 us customers pay to United Healthcare, $0.75 goes to medical providers, $.21 to running the business, and $.04 to profit.

Those numbers don’t seem like gouging to me, what do you think?

polotics• 2 years ago

Your math forgets vertical integration. If you're being price-gouged by a provider you own, who profits?

silexia3• 2 years ago

The real enemy here is the regulatory capture of the health industry preventing competition.

$3,000 a night for a hospital bed, $350,000 a year on average for a doctor, and double profits being made by pharma and medical devices companies. Abolish the patent system, allow unlimited new doctors to train instead of a specific number of annual seats, and reduce the regulations on building and operating hospitals and prices will fall.

Currently we give 27% of US GDP to doctors and hospitals.

Top internet sleuths say they won't help find the UnitedHealthcare CEO killer

Related Stories