CEO of UnitedHealthcare shot and killed, possibly assassinated.

[fskimospy]

- Regarding your 3rd point. UHC's denial rate is quite a bit higher than the (abysmal) industry average. And a percentage of those excess denials result in deaths (of people with families and children). They knew that would happen, and whoever the CEO is had to ultimately approve it. This gets back to my point where people can design systems that they know will cause deaths, and usually no one goes to jail. Whereas an individual person causes one death directly and off to jail they go.

- Perhaps this person, being smart, could do the math and realize if the company just tweaked their policy to be more in line with the average it could save thousands of lives. And he thought the cost was worth it.

- Or perhaps this person had significant medical issues and had a personal grudge against the company, so logic doesn't enter into it.

While I can think of many reasons why this is the case think about it this way: we wrongfully convict people of murder all the time and that’s a crime that basically requires a direct, causal chain of evidence. If you start jailing people based on second or third order effects you will create a legal nightmare almost beyond comprehension.

Social media has led to increased suicides among teenagers if I’m not mistaken. Should we arrest their CEOs? Should we arrest the developers? Cars kill tons of people each year and every car manufacturer knows their cars will be involved in fatalities. Should they go too?

 

[Brainonska511]

Regarding your 3rd point. UHC's denial rate is quite a bit higher than the (abysmal) industry average. And a percentage of those excess denials result in deaths (of people with families and children). They knew that would happen, and whoever the CEO is had to ultimately approve it. This gets back to my point where people can design systems that they know will cause deaths, and usually no one goes to jail. Whereas an individual person causes one death directly and off to jail they go.

What I'd like to know is what the denials were specifically for. From some stories, the denials were indeed bad. However, I've also seen people complaining about denials for therapies that were arguably experimental at the time (or off-label and not shown to be efficacious) - things that wouldn't be covered in pretty much any other country.

 

[uallas5]

Yup from the link:


I was confused by this method and I am a junkie for voting.
How would someone who isn’t a junkie for this stuff ever understand it.
I love the concept of ranked choice but it’s too complicated for the majority to understand.

It’s not that ranked choice is wrong it’s just difficult to understand in regards to voting.
Does everyone in NY understand the process?

Me: I'm going to the sub shop, whad'ya want?
You: Roast Beef with hots
Me: OK...whad'ya want if they're out of roast beef?
You: I guess I'll take an Italian, still with hots


Rank Choice Voting

 

[Fenixgoon]

Well, that's the question, right?

1. CEO can't truly affect change due to corporate structural constraints

2. Businesses lobby the government as effective bribery

3. People literally suffer as a result of workers "just doing their job"

View attachment 113001

If the CEO can't enact any changes, what the hell are they Chief Executive of exactly, and what is the point of their job?

And there is nowhere in the CFR that CEOs are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value at the cost to everyone else.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

The comparison to OBL is not justified. Sort of like the random hitler stuff.

Agreed it's not justified, as Thompson robbed his victims too unlike Osama

 

[cytg111]

Oooooooooh

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1h8fgk5/7_years_ago_bill_burr_talked_about_the_ceo_of

 

[Kaido]

If the CEO can't enact any changes, what the heck are they Chief Executive of exactly, and what is the point of their job?

And there is nowhere in the CFR that CEOs are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value at the cost to everyone else.

Nuance: there's a difference between business changes & structural constraints. UnitedHealth Group is a publicly-traded company that is bound to SEC requirements. For example, every public company must have a board of directors. The purpose of the BofD is to protect the interests of shareholders & stakeholders. What's a good way for a newly-hired insurance CEO to increase profitability? Deny claims!

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/unitedhealthcare-ai-algorithms-deny-claims

In an October report, "How Medicare Advantage Insurers Have Denied Patients Access to Post-Acute Care," Democrats on the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) released a report claiming UnitedHealthcare’s prior authorization denial rate for post-acute care jumped from 10.9% in 2020 to 22.7% in 2022.

Shocking results!

UnitedHealth, flush off 2022 momentum, eyes membership, value-based growth

Looking forward, UnitedHealth expects growth of its membership rolls, an increase in fully capitated lives in Optum Health and an acceleration of Optum Insight’s integration with Change Healthcare.

www.healthcaredive.com

For full-year 2022, UnitedHealth brought in revenue of $324.2 billion, up 13% year-over-year. Profit of $20.6 billion — UnitedHealth’s highest bottom line ever — was up 16%. The Minnetonka, Minnesota-based company on Friday affirmed its 2023 outlook set at its November investor conference, expecting full-year revenues between $357 billion and $360 billion.

UnitedHealth Group's lobbying costs went from $4 million in 2020 to more than double at $10 million in 2023:

UnitedHealth Group Lobbying Profile

UnitedHealth Group spent $10,760,000 lobbying in 2023. See the details.

www.opensecrets.org

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Kaido]

Another important note is there is no actual requirement anywhere to maximize shareholder value - that is a choice. From my limited understanding there can be cases where someone acts so irresponsibly that they are considered to have breached their fiduciary duties but that standard is almost never met.

Companies could choose to return to the old way of doing things where companies also shared a social responsibility, they just don't.

It's all about the incentives: there are no sticks or carrots in place to generate moral behavior, only legal behavior. In a capitalistic society, the incentives are primarily financially-driven. People join companies & get paid to do particular jobs to improve the bottom line. We can blame the CEO all we want, but he only joined the system in 2021, was not the original architect, and was not hired to destroy it, but rather build the business.

At nearly half a million employees, they could, for example, give everyone a $10,000 raise and STILL make BILLIONS of dollars! But I bet that wouldn't fly past the board of directors! Nor would willingly losing profits in the name of "being a good company" work, most likely!

 

[Homerboy]

What I'd like to know is what the denials were specifically for. From some stories, the denials were indeed bad. However, I've also seen people complaining about denials for therapies that were arguably experimental at the time (or off-label and not shown to be efficacious) - things that wouldn't be covered in pretty much any other country.

UHC overrode my wife's doctor to remove bone calcification in her rotator cuff.

24 hours before my son's spinal fusion (12 vertebrae) they called and said they were denying it. This was after months of build up of anxiety/worry for a life altering surgery. When we told the surgeon, he said he has to deal with this ALL THE TIME. That we should come in the next morning get our son prepped and wheeled off into surgery. Then the surgeon would call right before scrubbing in and talk to their "adjuster" and explain to him that the surgery was happening RIGHT NOW and that UHC better hit the "approval button RIGHT NOW". They did but there's no reason why they should have caused that extra level of stress and anxiety

Absolutely fuck UHC.

 

[dainthomas]

What I'd like to know is what the denials were specifically for. From some stories, the denials were indeed bad. However, I've also seen people complaining about denials for therapies that were arguably experimental at the time (or off-label and not shown to be efficacious) - things that wouldn't be covered in pretty much any other country.

Well, they were using an AI tool to deny claims. Then 90% of those denied claims were overturned on appeal (according to the lawsuit). Given that appeals take time, it's reasonable to assume some people not receiving care during that time died. Then of course UHC doesn't have to pay any more money and the stock goes up.

 

[Kaido]

- Regarding your 3rd point. UHC's denial rate is quite a bit higher than the (abysmal) industry average. And a percentage of those excess denials result in deaths (of people with families and children). They knew that would happen, and whoever the CEO is had to ultimately approve it. This gets back to my point where people can design systems that they know will cause deaths, and usually no one goes to jail. Whereas an individual person causes one death directly and off to jail they go.

- Perhaps this person, being smart, could do the math and realize if the company just tweaked their policy to be more in line with the average it could save thousands of lives. And he thought the cost was worth it.

- Or perhaps this person had significant medical issues and had a personal grudge against the company, so logic doesn't enter into it.

Oh for sure. Nobody does that kind of preparation without a STRONG personal incentive!

I won't spoil it, but there's a scene in Mr. Robot where the evil company setup a fund ages ago for the eventuality getting sued & grows it to the point where that situation becomes a non-issue. Despicable.

 

[MrSquished]

It's all about the incentives: there are no sticks or carrots in place to generate moral behavior, only legal behavior. In a capitalistic society, the incentives are primarily financially-driven. People join companies & get paid to do particular jobs to improve the bottom line. We can blame the CEO all we want, but he only joined the system in 2021, was not the original architect, and was not hired to destroy it, but rather build the business.

At nearly half a million employees, they could, for example, give everyone a $10,000 raise and STILL make BILLIONS of dollars! But I bet that wouldn't fly past the board of directors! Nor would willingly losing profits in the name of "being a good company" work, most likely!

So now you're going to take the responsibility off the actual people in charge. So who's got any responsibility here?

 

[Kaido]

So now you're going to take the responsibility off the actual people in charge. So who's got any responsibility here?

That is EXACTLY the problem! It's like people who blame the President (left or right) for everything wrong in the country: they can literally only do so much due to system constraints. Awful bureaucratic systems grow like gremlins after pouring water on Gizmo. What's going to happen is:

1. Dude will go to jail
2. Politicians will make a big show about temporary reactive (NOT proactive) changes
3. The entrenched machines will march on, resuming the status quo

It's just a very, very difficult situation to change. Let's put a RemindMe! in 5 years to revisit this thread to review the continual, long-lasting, for-the-good-of-the-people changes that we wish would happen, as opposed to what actually happened,

 

[dainthomas]

While I can think of many reasons why this is the case think about it this way: we wrongfully convict people of murder all the time and that’s a crime that basically requires a direct, causal chain of evidence. If you start jailing people based on second or third order effects you will create a legal nightmare almost beyond comprehension.

Social media has led to increased suicides among teenagers if I’m not mistaken. Should we arrest their CEOs? Should we arrest the developers? Cars kill tons of people each year and every car manufacturer knows their cars will be involved in fatalities. Should they go too?

If you're trying to convince me that social media or auto CEO's shouldn't go to prison if they intentionally make changes to their products for the specific purpose of causing deaths so the company makes more money, then I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

 

[fskimospy]

If you're trying to convince me that social media or auto CEO's shouldn't go to prison if they intentionally make changes to their products for the specific purpose of causing deaths so the company makes more money, then I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

They aren’t making these changes for the explicit purpose of causing deaths though. They are making them for the specific purpose of making more money.

The people implementing these changes should also go to prison as just following orders is not an excuse.

We are talking tens of thousands or millions imprisoned. No thanks!

 

[MrSquished]

That is EXACTLY the problem! It's like people who blame the President (left or right) for everything wrong in the country: they can literally only do so much due to system constraints. Awful bureaucratic systems grow like gremlins after pouring water on Gizmo. What's going to happen is:

1. Dude will go to jail
2. Politicians will make a big show about temporary reactive (NOT proactive) changes
3. The entrenched machines will march on, resuming the status quo

It's just a very, very difficult situation to change. Let's put a RemindMe! in 5 years to revisit this thread to review the continual, long-lasting, for-the-good-of-the-people changes that we wish would happen, as opposed to what actually happened,

So who has the responsibility? That was my question. Why do other major first world countries have better systems? What is your excuse why America can't be better?

As far as the president goes, believe me Trump can and should be blamed for a ton of shit.

 

[manly]

It's all about the incentives: there are no sticks or carrots in place to generate moral behavior, only legal behavior. In a capitalistic society, the incentives are primarily financially-driven. People join companies & get paid to do particular jobs to improve the bottom line. We can blame the CEO all we want, but he only joined the system in 2021, was not the original architect, and was not hired to destroy it, but rather build the business.

At nearly half a million employees, they could, for example, give everyone a $10,000 raise and STILL make BILLIONS of dollars! But I bet that wouldn't fly past the board of directors! Nor would willingly losing profits in the name of "being a good company" work, most likely!

This is fucking bullshit. Thompson was at UHC for nearly two decades, he wasn't some newbie that inherited an unstoppable machine.

Furthermore, they roughly doubled net profit under his 3 years as CEO.

I don't dispute your point that the system is the system, but Thompson was very much a major part of it. Don't let him off the hook by acting like he was just a dude in IT doing a job.

None of this is to say that he deserved to get murdered in cold blood, but your diatribe that he strictly and faithfully answered to the BoD is bullshit. In most U.S. corps, the CEO is the head honcho and the BoD is only nominally independent. A CEO only has to worry about the BoD if he's doing a lousy job, and even then he gets to glide away under a golden parachute.

 

[fskimospy]

People running their business like UHC is a big problem we need to address but imprisoning people for legal actions that have second order consequences we don’t like is insane.

If you want to make specific actions illegal then just do that. Don’t try to create some sword of Damocles where people are constantly at risk of imprisonment even if their actions are legal.

 

[manly]

They aren’t making these changes for the explicit purpose of causing deaths though. They are making them for the specific purpose of making more money.

The people implementing these changes should also go to prison as just following orders is not an excuse.

We are talking tens of thousands or millions imprisoned. No thanks!

After Trump 2.0 deports 15M residents, there will be plenty of room in Trump's detention camps for corporate stooges!

/s

 

[MrSquished]

This is fucking bullshit. Thompson was at UHC for nearly two decades, he wasn't some newbie that inherited an unstoppable machine.

Furthermore, they roughly doubled net profit under his 3 years as CEO.

I don't dispute your point that the system is the system, but Thompson was very much a major part of it. Don't let him off the hook by acting like he was just a dude in IT doing a job.

None of this is to say that he deserved to get murdered in cold blood, but your diatribe that he strictly and faithfully answered to the BoD is bullshit. In most U.S. corps, the CEO is the head honcho and the BoD is only nominally independent. A CEO only has to worry about the BoD if he's doing a lousy job, and even then he gets to glide away under a golden parachute.

Well don't give away all the answers just waiting for him to actually say who's to blame 😀

 

[Dave_5k]

View attachment 112987

From: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/insurance-companies-arent-the-main

Insurance companies are definitely an issue, but they are hardly alone in the expensive healthcare dance that is the American healthcare system.

The important summary point - is to pay for $242 billion in medical bills, they took in $291 in medical premiums. So just a bit over 20% markup for the "privilege" of having this private insurer sitting in the middle of the medical care market managing claims.

Do they actually add a full 20% in value to the consumer vs. having, say, Medicare handle all of this at their ~1.4% total admin/overhead cost? lol!

And that is why medical insurance companies lobby D.C. with a couple hundred million a year in spare slush funds (filed under "operating costs") to keep the trough flowing. And insurers aren't even close to the worst offenders in the U.S. medical market bloat and inefficiency.

 

[Kaido]

So who has the responsibility? That was my question. Why do other major first world countries have better systems? What is your excuse why America can't be better?

That's my question as well:

1. How do we effectively change the system?

2. Do we, as a society, really believe that murder in broad daylight is the correct answer?

 

[nakedfrog]

That's my question as well:

1. How do we effectively change the system?

2. Do we, as a society, really believe that murder in broad daylight is the correct answer?

"Soap box, ballot box, ammo box"
Neither party on offer is willing to offer universal healthcare, despite the majority of citizens wanting it. We, as a society, seem pretty fucking okay with murder. We don't do shit to stop school shootings, and you want people to care when a CEO gets gunned down.

 

[fskimospy]

"Soap box, ballot box, ammo box"
Neither party on offer is willing to offer universal healthcare, despite the majority of citizens wanting it. We, as a society, seem pretty fucking okay with murder. We don't do shit to stop school shootings, and you want people to care when a CEO gets gunned down.

So far in this thread this is the most compelling pro-murder argument I have seen. You’re totally right. We don’t care if a dozen innocent children get murdered so why care about this asshole?

 

[Kaido]

Thompson was at UHC for nearly two decades, he wasn't some newbie that inherited an unstoppable machine.

Furthermore, they roughly doubled net profit under his 3 years as CEO.

I don't dispute your point that the system is the system, but Thompson was very much a major part of it. Don't let him off the hook by acting like he was just a dude in IT doing a job.

None of this is to say that he deserved to get murdered in cold blood, but your diatribe that he strictly and faithfully answered to the BoD is bull. In most U.S. corps, the CEO is the head honcho and the BoD is only nominally independent. A CEO only has to worry about the BoD if he's doing a lousy job, and even then he gets to glide away under a golden parachute.

Insurance-wise, he was instated into that section of the company in 2021:

Thompson, 50, was named CEO of UnitedHealthcare, UnitedHealth Group's insurance arm, in April 2021. He first joined UnitedHealth Group in 2004 and had previously served as CEO of the company's government programs, including Medicare and retiree coverage, and community and state programs providing Medicaid and other types of coverage to millions of individuals.

Other than a select few unique personalities (Musk, Steve Jobs, etc.), I don't really know of any CEO's who are free to come in & rock the boat at publicly-traded companies. I don't imagine the concept of paying to take really good care of their customers sat well with the executives. Per my earlier post:

The CEO is the captain of his ship. $40+ million net worth, $20+ billion in annual profits, 1/3 denials, and the media wonders why people are upset

Kind of seems like he played the "profitable CEO" role well...