By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned the violence while acknowledging public anger towards the healthcare industry. Ocasio-Cortez attributed the mixed public reaction to the pervasive struggles many Americans face accessing affordable healthcare, citing her own past experiences lacking insurance. She emphasized the connection between extreme inequality and social instability, arguing that widespread healthcare access is a crucial step towards a more stable society. The suspect, Luigi Mangione, has been arrested and charged with murder, pleading not guilty.
Read the original article here
The recent killing of a UnitedHealthcare CEO has sparked a heated debate, with many focusing on the immense frustration and anger stemming from insurance companies’ denial of healthcare claims. The sentiment expressed is that these denials are not merely bureaucratic inconveniences, but rather acts of violence, contributing to suffering and even death.
The sheer scale of claim denials is staggering. Millions of Americans insured by companies like UnitedHealthcare face denials, with estimates suggesting a significant percentage of these denials lead to avoidable pain and suffering. The raw numbers are staggering: Tens of thousands of preventable deaths are suggested, painting a grim picture of the human cost of these denials.
This perspective frames the insurance company as a kind of serial killer, not through direct action but through systematic negligence. The argument is not that the CEO personally murdered anyone, but rather that the system they control directly causes countless preventable deaths through a system designed for profit maximization, regardless of the human impact.
The resulting anger is palpable. It’s not simply about monetary losses; it’s about the denial of essential medical care. People who have paid premiums for years are left to fend for themselves when faced with critical health needs, forcing many into bankruptcy or even death. This is viewed as theft, a violation of trust, and even a form of social murder.
The comparison is made to other forms of violence, highlighting the hypocrisy of labeling certain actions as “just business” while others are considered violent. If denying necessary healthcare is equated to violence, then more severe actions, such as revoking access to vaccines, would be akin to acts of war. The focus is on the disparity of the reaction—outrage only when individuals take matters into their own hands—while corporations enacting policies that lead to widespread suffering are largely shielded from criticism and accountability.
The broader context is also brought into play. This conversation highlights the deeply ingrained issues in the American healthcare system, pointing to how the profit motive has profoundly distorted healthcare access and affordability. For many, the current system is viewed as irredeemably rigged against those without inherited wealth, emphasizing that the structure itself is oppressive.
The idea that for-profit healthcare insurance is a parasitic system is prevalent. It’s seen as a business model that inherently profits from the misfortune of others, further fueling the outrage and anger. The question is raised: why should companies, which have no direct medical expertise, decide who receives vital care? This points to a lack of patient agency, with people feeling disempowered and forced into a system that profits from their suffering.
Another key point is that the cost of premiums is astronomically high, and it is not uncommon for patients to receive unexpectedly high bills even after paying what seems like a significant premium. Even with insurance, millions still face financial ruin due to medical bills, and this is cited as a form of extortion. Many see the insurance industry as a layer of unnecessary cost and bureaucracy that ultimately hinders, rather than helps, the delivery of healthcare.
The debate also touches on the question of individual responsibility versus systematic issues. While acknowledging that individuals have choices to make, the dominant sentiment is that a system that systematically denies necessary care is inherently unjust. The very structure of the system, and the lack of universal healthcare, are highlighted as primary drivers of the problem. The anger and frustration boil down to a sense of profound injustice and systemic corruption.
The ultimate conclusion draws a parallel between the actions of the CEO and the actions of the shooter, implying that the long-term, indirect harm caused by the CEO’s actions might outweigh the direct violence of the shooter. The system itself is seen as the problem, and the outrage stems from the frustration with a system that prioritizes profit over human lives. The killing of the CEO is framed not as a solution but as a symptom of a deeper, more systemic problem that needs a broader, systemic solution.