One story that we couldn’t keep out of the press and that contributed most to my decision to walk away from my career in 2008 involved Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old leukemia patient in California whose scheduled liver transplant was postponed at the last minute when Cigna told her surgeons it wouldn’t pay. Cigna’s medical director, 2,500 miles away from Ms. Sarkisyan, said she was too sick for the procedure. Her family stirred up so much media attention that Cigna relented, but it was too late. She died a few hours after Cigna’s change of heart.
Ms. Sarkisyan’s death affected me personally and deeply. As a father, I couldn’t imagine the depth of despair her parents were facing. I turned in my notice a few weeks later. I could not in good conscience continue being a spokesman for an industry that was making it increasingly difficult for Americans to get often lifesaving care.
One of my last acts before resigning was helping to plan a meeting for investors and Wall Street financial analysts — similar to the one that UnitedHealthcare canceled after Mr. Thompson’s horrific killing. These annual investor days, like the consumerism idea I helped spread, reveal an uncomfortable truth about our health insurance system: that shareholders, not patient outcomes, tend to drive decisions at for-profit health insurance companies.
Thank you for stating that point. I really want to like lemmy as I deleted my reddit account and generally like the idea of a federated system a lot more. The people celebrating this murder as and act of heroism has disgusted me to the core. That it’s so widely believed violence and self-justice will solve the root cause of this system when it will just affect a symptom but not solve anything in the long run.
From nearly all ethical standpoints this murder was unethical and unjust. I wish I could just turn this discussion off on lemmy since its strong bias of this echo chamber is strongly noticeable. I too hope and think the jury will find a decision that is just.
The only way where I see violence justified is in authoritarian dictatorships, where the public has no sovereignty and the dictator acts willingly harmful to their populace in either exploiting them, attacking them and killing them. Other than that probably in self-defence and situation of war. But this is a completely different scenario. Killing a CEO since you don’t like their company.
Whats next? Killing somebody because you don’t like their face? But I guess we agree on that notion.
From nearly all ethical standpoints this murder was unethical and unjust.
Really? I definitely don’t agree with that. The starting base that you’re likely missing is that this man is directly responsible for the preventable deaths of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people. He joined UHC as the CEO in 2021, so has had some time to work and adjust the company. Since he joined, he has changed their policy and implemented measures to deny additional claims (see, chatbot rejecting peoples claims), causing their denial rate to skyrocket to ~30%. Source is here in the XLS files the government provides. UnitedHealtcare claims it pays 90% of claims but hasnt actually provided data showing that.
Since his company posted enormous, increasing profits in every year he was CEO, and the denial rates, I’d argue he’s led the company to deny healthcare claims.
Some easy ethical frameworks where this is acceptable?
Utilitarianism - you could argue that killing him has caused companies to back off other healthcare cuts (see BlueCross and their anaesthesia cuts). The ripples it has caused are likely to impact what decisions CEOs of other healthcare organizations make regarding patient care and denials.
Natural law theory essentially argues that law and morality are separate. An example that might be clearer is slavery - I’d argue killing a slaver is morally correct, because I believe that slavery is immoral, even is slavery is legal in that country. I believe that healthcare should not be a for-profit industry, and that denying people care to prioritize “line goes up” is immoral. Those who are making the decisions to do that are thus directly contributing to the preventable deaths of countless people.
Rousseau talks about the social contract theory, and basically says if a government approves immoral actions (which I count for-profit healthcare as), they forfeit their legitimacy, and thus people have the right to rebel.
Retribuutivism by Kant argues punishment should be proportional to the crime. If you accept that he is responsible for deaths (not legally responsible, but morally), then this is definitely moral, though its worth noting Kant though murder is a serious, irreversible action and recommended other options before murder.
I could keep going, but those are the easy ones.
The people celebrating this murder as and act of heroism has disgusted me to the core
Go back to reddit then, pussy, class traitors aren’t welcome here.
That it’s so widely believed violence and self-justice will solve the root cause of this system when it will just affect a symptom but not solve anything in the long run.
You’re right, continued passivity will fix everything!
I too hope and think the jury will find a decision that is just.
Exactly, Luigi should be freed!
The only way where I see violence justified is in authoritarian dictatorships, where the public has no sovereignty and the dictator acts willingly harmful to their populace in either exploiting them, attacking them and killing them
Soooooooo Brian Thompson except he just didn’t have the exact title you demand for violence? Because uh… That fits him perfectly, so maybe get your tongue out of the shitstain’s dead and rotting asshole, yeah?
The people celebrating this murder as and act of heroism has disgusted me to the core.
Thank you for being brave enough to agree with me! As forward-thinking as the idea of Lemmy and the Fediverse is, I was super disappointed at how much people here are celebrating cold-blooded murder. Luigi is no hero. He legit walked up behind a guy and murdered him. Totally cowardly way too. Shot him in the back!
I’ll stay on Lemmy for now, because I know that most people here have no emotional maturity. I feel that most will look back on this like older people look back on their early cringy, edgy Myspace emo phase.
Thank goodness that most of society does NOT agree with Lemmy on this. All of their talk about “Jury will never find the guy guilty!!” is BS. The jury will find him guilty. Rightfully so.
The guy is a terrorist. And Lemmy admin should realize that many, and I mean MANY posts to Lemmy lately could def raise FBI alarms.
I see people on here saying stuff like, “Don’t talk about your plans here, it’s too public. DM me for the next target…”
Lemmy thinks they are planning some sort of revolution. It’s not a revolution. It’s edgy hippy vegans talking about murdering rich people.
And admins are gonna find out real quick that hey are letting shit get out of hand.