Humans really struggle with identifying fault past one step. If you shoot a CEO, it's national headlines, but thousands die due to denial of proper treatment and there's no outrage. It seems this shooting made bridging the gap a mentally easier task for many people - Hence why there is very little public support for the late CEO.
I would expect that, politically, the insurance companies are just entering their time in the barrel.<p>The mantle of populist, anti-establishment hero is up for grabs now that the group who campaigned as anti-establishment <i>are</i> the establishment. Their stated position is that private insurance companies are <i>good</i>, actually, and we should be moving more people out of government funded health care and into the waiting arms of UnitedHealthcare and other private insurers.<p>This shooting, and popular acclaim for it, are a bright red signal that there is a huge tailwind for anyone who campaigns to burn these companies down, and the new establishment is going to be forced into opposing that popular demand.
I had expected this to come down to "Hey, a guy is dead, could we take a moment here?"<p>But no, they really seem to be complaining about the attention paid to policies that really should have gotten attention a long, long time ago.<p>He is right, though: refer journalists to the media department. If you're not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, don't. Even if you are, deflection is the safe thing to do, because the press is not your friend and dealing with them is best left to the people who make a living at it.<p>His company is going to get beat up for a few media cycles. And then it will go away. His media department knows this, because that's what they do.
Someone just showed (on national TV) it is possible to murder a CEO of one of the top 10 companies in the US, during broad daylight of downtown New York, and get away with it well long enough to escape the country.<p>Columbine inspired all sorts of copycats despite far worse social signals from the public and much quicker demise of the instigators.<p>Every health insurance executive is shitting bricks right now.
What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.<p>-Jefferson
> I would recommend not responding and, if necessary, simply refer them to our own media organization.<p>> I provided their communications department with an opportunity to tell their side of the story, is that they simply didn’t respond<p>They have nothing to say in their defense. That says a lot.
One of the best examples of bad policy and misplaced incentives is how the Affordable Care Act limits the amount of profit as a percentage of premiums that health insurance companies are allowed to make. Sounds great, right? If they make too much as a percentage (profit margins) they have to give money back to customers.<p>However, all it has done is incentive costs to up for them so they can charge higher premiums (since they have to now) and pocket the same percentage of premiums which is of course a larger number overall. How could an insurance company ever even consider lowering premiums by striking better deals with providers?<p>The dead CEO is a symbolic thing for people to direct their anger at, and with some justification (anger, but not wishing death), but really the frustration is with how bad policy and regulations of the healthcare industry in general is. There's a reason there's very few startups in the space as regulatory capture is all over the space. Between tort law, regulations, and poor policy it's no wonder the space is a mess.
Seems there was lots turmoil at the CEO's company
Resentment for Thompson was widespread at the company, the employee said, citing an internal company announcement about his death that only garnered 28 comments despite being seen by 16,000 employees.<p>Also accusations? of insider trading by CEO in the linked pages. And complaints these accusation's are not mentioned by most media
Things that seem weird to me:<p>- Why are employment and insurance connected?
- Why can't you select an insurance company?
- Why are there no standardized 3 levels of insurance with a legal mandate for the coverage to be the same across all insurers (so they cant play games with denies). You can't have an efficient and competitive market if nobody understands what they are buying
- Costs are inflated due to legal and administrative fees...
- Costs are inflated due to high educational fees...
- Why are we effectively subsidizing research and medicine for the rest of the world?
- Food and health is a major part of what increases the costs<p>Hope someone fixes it one day
Many people forget the history of health insurance in America. Prior to 2010, you could be a good and loyal customer, always paying your premiums, but if you had a heart attack or got cancer, your health insurance company would refuse to renew your policy - for any amount. Then, once your policy lapsed, they would agree to issue you a new policy that excluded from coverage the very condition you developed that caused them to refuse to renew.<p>Laws were passed (in the 1990s I believe) to appease the public that banned the insurers from refusing to renew a policy just because the policy holder got sick. However, the law was a joke because it permitted the insurer to set the premium on the renewal at any price they wanted. So, it was effectively the exact same situation. You have insurance. You have a heart attack or get cancer, and when it comes time to renew your policy, the health insurance company raised the premium so high that nobody could possibly afford to renew. The policy would then lapse and the insurer would immediately offer the insured a brand new policy that excepted from coverage the medical condition in question.<p>It wasn't until the Affordable Care Act in 2010 that health insurers were finally required to keep offering the insured coverage after they got sick. They can no longer raise your rate just because you get sick (after all, what good is health coverage if it doesn't cover you when you get sick?).<p>But health insurers HATE the Affordable Care Act and are paying lots and lots of money to elected officials to change the Affordable Care Act so insurers can once again refuse to renew policies if the insured gets sick with an expensive illness. So, hold onto your hats everyone.
Several other media articles about this murder, mention the book , that details the problem. I've just started reading it....<p>Jay M. Feinman - Delay, Deny, Defend_ Why Insurance Companies Don't Pay Claim and What You Can Do About It (2010, Penguin Group US)
I assume it went much like Downfall. <a href="https://youtu.be/xBWmkwaTQ0k?t=11" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/xBWmkwaTQ0k?t=11</a> for anyone who hasn't seen it.
It's crazy that insurance companies are (rightfully) viewed so negatively that the killing of a CEO is responded to positively in a lot of circles. No doubt the jokes on twitter have been great, and it is a good release like I've heard people say about breaking a window with a brick during a protest. It (edit: represents) a lot more than just property damage. It's unlikely but maybe some good will come of this from insurance companies.
Many people, especially in a certain political class, have confused their movement's rhetoric with reality.<p>The rhetorical tactic is to make yourself the victim, always, all the time. If you're criticized or prosecuted or bad news comes out, you're being persecuted. You can see it all the time, yet few seem to notice the pattern.<p>It also fits other rhetorical tactics: 1) Always stay on the offensive, no matter what; keep the intiative. Attacking the critics is the offensive; responding to criticism is not. 2) Attack the opposition with your own weakness: If you're a liar, call them liars; if you persecute people, call them persecutors. This confuses the issue and disarms them.<p>Rationally and factually, the victim narrative is usually BS. There is all the difference in the world between bad news, etc. based on facts and that based on falsehoods, and especially there is all the difference between attacks on established powers and attacks on the vulnerable. Punching up is an essential social function, to protect society and hold the established powers accountable; punching down is oppression (and true victimization).<p>But the rhetoric works because everyone has embraced the post-truth way, abandoning post-modernism (which is fundamentally a distrust of power) and its tools, and have very effectively disarmed themselves.
Ironically, their denial of insurance is also aggressive, inappropriate and disrespectful. It’s unbelievable how tone deaf these people are. Instead of being introspective, other insurance companies are simply removing leadership pages, and calling for armed guards.
America sure is funny. They just happily elected an oligarchy that can't wait to very aggressively cut anything social spending they can (most government spending is pensions and healthcare, ACA subsidies are also expiring in 2025 and there's 0% chance they get extended), but they're also kinda gleeful about the murder of a CEO that is merely operating a company within the environment they so happily voted back in? It's just an absurd situation all around.
The complete inability for anybody in any of these companies, in the past few days, to ask themselves, "Well, okay, <i>are</i> we the baddies?" and instead just doubling down on rhetoric like this and beefing up their own personal security is just... fascinating.<p>For well over a decade, public sentiment has largely been against healthcare companies. They go to sleep at night knowing the populace hates them. And yet there's a complete inability to look inward.<p>Fascinating.
I'm shocked by all the comments in this thread. Dude was assassinated.<p>Of course that's not going to lead to introspection. Especially not immediately. Assassination is wildly inappropriate!<p>When was the last time you were egregiously, drastically wronged and thought to yourself "maybe they have a point"?
They know that eventually this will fade from the news and people will forget how bad the company is. They probably want to keep quiet until then. Hopefully, this attention will lead to some positive changes so that Americans can get better health insurance.
The public reaction around this reminds me a lot like shinzo abe's assassination given the reaction, although the former ceo wasn't a political figure. The public really seems gleeful around it, to be frank. The abe analogy is the general public reaction is sympathy towards the assassin and antipathy to the murdered.
Please. The media have been nothing but sympathetic and have continued to push the bullshit narrative that this came entirely out of the blue. My favorite quote was from Fox: "as so many try to process the why of it all". Why? I'll give you one guess.