Summary
Reddit’s r/medicine moderators deleted a thread where doctors and users harshly criticized murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Comments, including satirical rejections of insurance claims for gunshot wounds, targeted UHC’s reputation for denying care to boost profits.
Despite the removal, similar discussions continue, with medical professionals condemning UHC’s business practices under Thompson’s leadership, which a Senate report recently criticized for denying post-acute care.
Thompson, shot in what appears to be a targeted attack, led a company notorious for its high claim denial rates, fueling ongoing debates about corporate ethics in healthcare.
The issue will stay systematic if we dont hold the people who make the decisions in the system accountable. The CEOs decisions directly impacted people, thats not a system thats his choice. Poverty is systematic too, but when a poor person does a crime they have to suffer the consequences of it. God forbid rich criminals see consequences. Mods seem to be arguing he had no agency in his choices which is a lie especially if you compare him to other insurance CEOs
Not only that, but his particular company denies claims at twice the industry average. UHC isn’t in the same category as the rest of the industry, they’re particularly bad.
Alt: image included in a Boston globe article published today that shows claim denial rates per several insurance companies, average is 16% United is 32%
The big gap is indicating they are probably trying to do as shitty a job as possible without incurring legal repercussions on top of already being in a fucked up industry. For-profit insurers makes as little sense as for-profit prisons or military or mail.
Yes, and also all these companies are evil and they all are more than worthy of the UHC CEO treatment.
The CEO is obligated to deliver profits to the board and shareholders. If they approve everything they go out of business. I’m not defending them, but they are a for profit, capitalist business. They lack empathy fundamentally.
Healthcare should not be a for profit venture, and it’s the government to blame for that.
I’m not saying this guy was clean, but he’s just a cog in a fancy suit with a big paycheck.
If CEOs and billionaires wanted the system to change they could change it. They don’t. They like it this way. They like being “obligated” to pursue profit at all cost, they’d do it anyway.
Be clear: I’m not excusing the behavior…they aren’t trapped in the job. I’m saying the behavior demonstrated is par for the course. A CEO in a capitalist system with profit driven shareholder obligations WILL behave this way.
Something like healthcare is the LAST thing such a person/organization should be involved with.
Further, this porson, if they had a magic change of heart wouldn’t change shit. They’d be replaced the same as if they were dead. Sure he’s very wealthy, but he’s a chump compared to the systems he’s a part of.
I’m willing to say insurance in general cannot ethically be for-profit.
Hmm I think as it relates to critical things, I agree. (health and shelter). But insuring your jetski? I’m not sure the government needs to support that at-cost
He could have done a number of other things. He wasn’t just a cog, he actively drove many of the problems with the health insurance industry today, as the person in control of the most egregious offender.
I’m sure he’ll be replaced with someone similar, and I’m sure he had plenty of encouragement; but that doesn’t make him any less culpable.
Well yes, he actively did. That made him a good CEO. Maximizing profits, being cutthroat, being egregious is exactly how a company wants their CEO to be, to enhance shareholder value.
I didn’t say he was not culpable. The opposite infact.
My point is that he was more than just a cog. He may not have been the sole villain and mastermind, but he was more than just a cog - he was a driver.
And that resulted in actual consequences for a change that other CEO’s will actually care about not facing.
You are absolutely right. Our current laws (and precedents) require CEOs and Directors to produce the best results possible for their shareholders. They can and have been sued for failing to do that. It effectively means they have to screw their employees and customers.
If corporations are people, then nearly all of them are sociopaths. The law requires it. (So it isn’t surprising that the people who prove most effective at running them lean strongly in that direction as well.)
I’m not sure how far along it is, but the EU has been working on a change to their corporate laws that would require corporations to balance the good of their shareholders against other factors, such as their employees, their customers, and the public at large. Among other things, it would make them liable for how they deal, or fail to deal, with their companies’ effects on climate change.
The EU has been steadily passing laws that actually help its citizens and provide protection against corporations. Those of us elsewhere in the world are also benefiting from their efforts. Being required to do the right thing in Europe often makes it less expensive to do it everywhere, than to make special efforts to exploit the areas where that is still allowed. The EU laws also encourage people elsewhere to push for better protections of their own.
The EU is far from perfect, but it gives me hope.
Same in America, and our politicians are almost withiut exception, completely corrupt after Citizens United…
The CEOs and Directors wrote the laws and paid legislators to pass them to make this ‘conundrum’ the case.
I agree with you that Citizens United has almost completely corrupted our political system, but the problem with corporate governance goes back a lot further. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read that the landmark case was against Henry Ford as the CEO of Ford Motor Company.
There’s no way to objectively determine what will produce the best results for shareholders. That’s why CEO is a job in the first place.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/18/falsifiability/
But since there’s no surefire way to determine what the most profitable course is, that’s largely up to the CEO to justify his/her – oh who am I kidding it’s usually his – actions and direction for the company.
There’s also no law on the books about this “must be oriented to shareholder profits” crap, most investment in the market is idle investment from index funds, and many of the biggest public companies right now were not profitable for a long time.
It’s an evil system. I get it, but that doesn’t mean CEOs have no power.
Huh? Denying claims but maintaining subscriber numbers seems quite transparent.
It’s not a law, it’s in every company bylaw. They obligate executive staff to work towards certain goals.
You could instead claim to want to grow subscriber numbers by better service to either customers or the employers that often decide whether or not to use your company for insurance.
His was one path he pursued toward profitability and growth, but it isn’t the only arguable path. The CEO determines what internal metrics are important as well as a strategy to try to hit them.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/18/falsifiability/
You can justify completely opposing company strategies on just about anything by appealing to “shareholder supremacy”.
The board and shareholders determine the corporate goals. As the executive officer, the CEO enacts them.
That’s the system we have, not the ideal.
Edit The entire insurance industry is predicated on the approach of denying coverage when possible. The agressiveness to which they do so reflects the needs of the business. If they are pean, you can be sure they will deny more.
Lol yeah the CEOs hands are completely tied. /s
In so much as they are “operating as expected” yes.
In so much as they are trapped in the job? Obviously not. I guarantee that if this dude enacted policy to the likes of folks here, minimal to zero denial of service, he’d be out in a week.
It’s the system that is the root of the problem, and the politicians who build it.
This dude is a cog.
You can make completely opposite company-wide decisions as a CEO and justify them using shareholder supremacy. It’s not a falsifiable position because you don’t know what making the other decision would’ve done to your profitability. That’s my point. They have agency in their decision making. Obviously, sure they’re in service of profits, but there are numerous strategies to get profits. That’s why CEO is a job.
And soldiers are obligated to follow orders. If they follow an unjust or unethical order the soldiers themselves get prosecuted just as hard as the ones that made the decision. He had every opportunity to say no or leave, he didn’t do either. Simple as.
His company denies claims at twice the industry average. They MUST be denying valid claims to double the average. They don’t need to deny valid claims to make a profit, only to squeeze as much as possible at the expense of their customers, which is objectively evil in an industry that already skirts morality.
Agree it’s objectively evil. I make no claim of some sick corporate martyrdom. But it’s inherently expected the corp will seek profit.
Karmas a bitch I guess.
Oh well