Readit News logoReadit News
jeffbee · a year ago
Always seemed pretty strange to me that you can build and oversee an organization widely perceived (whether fairly or not) as evil, host what those evil-perceivers will view as Bad Rich Guy Conference in public, in a country where anyone can get as many guns as they want, and there isn't more violence like this. Seems like an unstable operating point for a society.
toomuchtodo · a year ago
This is the comment that has been in my head since the news broke, and I feel like we are only at the beginning, like the pause before the first drop of a rollercoaster with the forward looking macro (political and economic tension, broadly speaking). Laws and rules only matter so long as we're all willing to believe they do.
ryandrake · a year ago
Same here. With as many guns and victims of corporate greed that we have, I'm actually pretty shocked that we don't see this happening as routinely as, say, school shootings.

I wonder if we'd see slightly more ethical behavior from corporations if their C-level staff and board members had to routinely practice lock-down drills because they were getting offed once a week.

nameless912 · a year ago
I don't know how to write this comment in a way that won't land me in a CIA black site so I'll just start with a disclaimer that this post in no way celebrates or condones any violence, but I wouldn't be surprised if political assassination attempts go up 10-fold in the next 10 years. We already saw two different assassination attempts against Trump during the lead up to the election. You can read my older comments to know my political leanings, I don't like Trump. But wow, I'm genuinely more worried about the stability of our society because of increases in violent acts like this and the inevitable retaliation by the government against all people in the name of "security", than anything Trump could enact.

I wouldn't be surprised if New York passes new gun control laws because of this shooting; I wouldn't be surprised if there's a congresscritter or White House Staffer or judge who's assassinated in the next several years causing some kind of martial law situation. It's scary times we live in right now.

JBlue42 · a year ago
>Laws and rules only matter so long as we're all willing to believe they do.

And everyone has seen it thrown in our faces for a year or so now what the blatant two-tiered system looks like. On a longer time scale if you want to count the lack of consequences for those behind an attempted coup in 2021 and a recession that harmed millions of lives in 2008.

If the government won't hold people accountable, and people are pushed to their ends, then things like this can happen. As OP stated, thankfully, it doesn't happen as often as one would think given our society. It does take a lot to murder someone else.

EA-3167 · a year ago
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1958

I think people skip over this a LOT, but it's the basis for society and was long before we had the means to track down most killers and bring them to any sort of justice. Most people, even when given freedom from consequences and ample opportunities, are not murderers.

toomuchtodo · a year ago
Matt Stoller does a far better job explaining than my comment did.

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/an-assassin-showed-just-h...

Deleted Comment

shadowgovt · a year ago
People do value their lives and liberty and (for all the memes to the contrary) the police are very good at hunting down murderers of high-value targets because most challenges the police face are challenges of focus and resource-allocation and cities tend to authorize a spare-no-expense approach to something perceived as a direct attack on the fundamentals of the status quo. Consider the full-scale house-to-house manhunt after the Boston Marathon bombing as an example case.

So I think most people know that if you come at the king, you are definitely throwing your future away (and Americans, for all the complaining, tend to be comfortable / hopeful enough that they don't want to do that).

jeffbee · a year ago
Are they? I thought homicides committed outdoors, with a gun, between people of no or distant social connection were basically unsolvable. Even for a rich white victim. Unless this guy dropped his wallet, used an exotic caliber, or is somehow connected to a prior threat, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is not found.
francisofascii · a year ago
If these ultra wealthy CEOs don't have body guards now, they will after this. If you are making millions a year, why wouldn't you.
vundercind · a year ago
Even the Secret Service doesn't have a great track record for preventing attempts. Their presence puts some stress on the perpetrators, which does help, and they are good at preventing quick wide-open follow-ups to a miss or partial success, but they're bad at preventing the first shot or two. And I don't think it's because they're exceptionally bad at what they do, but because if someone really wants to take a shot, entirely stopping them is a hard problem by the time they're already close and armed.

Deleted Comment

jerlam · a year ago
I don't think most Americans perceive health insurance organizations as evil, nor do they condense the fault to a specific person (like the CEO). Maybe the entire system is at fault, but individual greed isn't a major failing, it's virtually expected.

On the internet, all conversations about health care will garner comments mocking the US system, but as a resident it's not like we have a lot of choices.

regularization · a year ago
Propaganda of the deed?

I guess suspects will be a list of people who have been paying into United Health Care insurance who thought they were covered, but got turned down, possibly for a terminal illness, for greater profits.

octokatt · a year ago
Adding the ProPublica article which talks about United Healthcare specifically denying claims for terminal diseases for greater profits.

https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...

edit: We do not know the shooters motivations, nor do I presume to know. But wanted to add a link for context to the above comment to show context for the statement.

Teever · a year ago
I'm really surprised that we don't see violent action like this from terminal patients who have nothing to lose.
matt123456789 · a year ago
I can write that query for you:

> select * from subscribers

Deleted Comment

dredmorbius · a year ago
For those unfamiliar with the term:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed>

behringer · a year ago
Good thing for the shooter, that's probably 10s of thousands of suspects in the area.

Deleted Comment

Deleted Comment

globalise83 · a year ago
"When they took everything he had, they left him with nothing to lose"
jmyeet · a year ago
I advocate for the fairer distribution of wealth in society. Not only because it's fair but because it's better for everyone. There are many reasons for this including avoiding the alienation of labor and giving people dignity. All it takes is the ultra-wealthy to have slightly less wealth.

So why is wealth concentration bad for society apart from that? Because the ultimate form of wealth distribution is war and revolution. It's way the descendants of Rockefeller, the Medicis or Caesar don't own the world. Society eventually snaps and a lot of violence ensues. Eventually you end up with the French Revolution and heads end up on pikes or separated by guillotines.

One of the messages of Fight Club is that the rich and powerful cannot insulate themselves from the people they are oppressing. Your gardener, your driver, your chef, your security guard. Any of them is capable of taking matters into their hands and they will only be pushed so far.

You saw this play out in Japan with the reaction to Shinzo Abe's assassination a couple of years ago. While world leaders were outraged, the Japanese kinda got it. You can dig deep into this with the Unification Church, its influence on Japanese politics and, if you really want, how the Unification Church is tied to the CIA.

United Healthcare is quite literally killing people for profit. Just like the Sacklers and so many others. We've become completely desensitized to this. Private health insurance is completely inefficient (look at how much the US pays per-capita for health care vs any other developed nation and then compare our coverage). We could literally save millions of lives and cut costs by getting rid of these lecherous middlemen.

So I don't condone or justify violence like this. It's simply analysis to see that this kind of thing is going to continue to happen as material conditions worsen and wealth inequality rises. In his ~3 year tenure are United Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson quite literally killed thousands of people yet there's so little outrage over that.

sbalough · a year ago
I have the same thoughts especially thinking how we’re on the precipice of possible mass workforce displacement from ai and robots like waymo. What I just can’t understand is why anyone would feel satisfied being the billionaire in a bunker among miles of slums (picturing India) - even if the desperate folks are successfully oppressed.
throwaway48476 · a year ago
A bunker is just a prison with amenities.

Dead Comment

xyst · a year ago
Disgruntled employee? Patient died or suffered lifelong disability due to denied claims and delay in care? Bankruptcy due to paying out of pocket medical expenses?

all potential suspects that can wrap the world, and more.

UNH CEO reaped what he sowed. To be honest, this is unlikely to do anything in the long term. In the short term, dip in UNH stonk, but recover over next quarter.

Next cookie cutter CEO to be installed will just continue the same shit. Will probably demand 24/7 security paid for by company. Costs subsequently passed down to the unfortunate people that have to pay for their dogshit insurance policies.

xkqd · a year ago
> Next cookie cutter CEO to be installed will just continue the same shit.

Maybe, but what lays outside their door will always haunt them. There’s no replacement that won’t have this in the back of their mind, and I suspect this is sort of the point.

From the killer’s perspective, this was probably the best case outcome.

The worst case? The decision makers of these companies fear every day. And you know what? Everyone thinks twice when they recognize danger.

impish9208 · a year ago
> Next cookie cutter CEO to be installed will just continue the same shit. Will probably demand 24/7 security paid for by company.

He probably already had a security detail (obviously not good). For someone at his level, his bespoke life/whatever insurance most likely requires it.

xnx · a year ago
It will always be a challenge to allocate limited healthcare resources. It's an unsettled question why the US accepts such an expensive means (private health insurance) of doing so.
t-writescode · a year ago
> why the US accepts

Because we don't have another option. Your job dictates your insurance, not you, and most jobs explicitly search for insurance companies that don't end up costing them much (but cover enough that people still think they have coverage, maybe).

There's stories going around right now about how BlueCrossBlueShield is going to be dictating the amount of time during a surgery that anesthesia will be covered. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=blue+cross+blue+shield+anes...

Of course, these stories are happening after individuals have made their elections for insurance AND after the companies that would be choosing the various insurance companies to pick from would have already selected their projected insurance provider.

delecti · a year ago
> Your job dictates your insurance, not you, and most jobs [...]

This is answering the question with a very narrow focus on what any one person can do. Sure, when I filled out my job's open enrollment last month, there was no checkbox labeled "Evil Corporation Insurer (y/n)", but there's no inviolable law of nature that requires the US to be this way.

anigbrowl · a year ago
Changing the laws is an option. But it's not happening because many of our politicians are corrupt.
amyfp214 · a year ago
That is absolutely true, even no matter the government, even a non-capitalist socialist commune must allocate and there's no right answer. It can become insidious in capitalism. We have organizations like Kaiser who say "we'll run the hospital and focus on preventative care, if we spend $50 today that avoids $50,000 a few years from now" - Kaiser notably does hospitals AND insurance in a vertically integrated manner. That's all reasonable. Then a United might see "we can spend $5,000 today and patient will be healthier-ish, or $200 yearly for a medically equivalent treatment". And so they do the actuarial math that the patient will die in a few years, they calculate revenue from that patient based on how long they might stay on the plan, and find the solution that maximizes profit. So the mentality isn't Kaiser-like "i.e. we're on the hook for this patient, let's minimize their health problems to save money", it's more like "we will minimize the cost of this patient full stop, if that means they don't get care then they don't get care"
cnst · a year ago
They're limited only because of poor regulations and caps on the market, exclusivity agreements of hospitals, tying of healthcare to jobs etc.
talldayo · a year ago
Privatizing hospitals further would not help the vast majority of Americans. Without non-privatization agreements, the average American could not seek or afford the medical attention they need.

As someone that's lived on the Canadian border for the past 20 years, I frankly think we need more regulations. Drug prices in the US are so absurdly high that most terminally sick Americans will happily drive back and forth to Windsor if it means treatment they can afford. It's a testament to America's core dysfunction, something that Canada can somehow get right on their first try but America... well, we struggled to put Shkreli behind bars.

ttt3ts · a year ago
It isn't like US public system, medicare, is great. I still end up buying my folks supplemental. This narrative of pubic vs private misses most of the nuance.
FactKnower69 · a year ago
there's so much nuance in an insurance company having billions left over every year after subtracting payouts from premiums! it's sooo complex and nuanced
bhouston · a year ago
This case aside, I think generally in both the US and Canada it has been very safe for politically influential and high net worth individuals.

In Russia, things are different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_notable_R...

theshrike79 · a year ago
Because in US and Canada the "poor" think that the middle class (millionaires at best) is the reason why they're poor.

And the middle class thinks it's the poor taking handouts why they're not richer.

When it's the actual billionaires behind all of it.

Deleted Comment

Dead Comment

sergiotapia · a year ago
Just saw video of the shooting on X, the guy was cool as a cucumber. Racking a new round after every shot. Not a hint of desperation, fear or anxiety. He didn't even run off after shooting. https://x.com/Tr00peRR/status/1864376034465890417
cnst · a year ago
I think it's this video, Twitter not showing anything for me, although I'm also not logged in:

https://nypost.com/2024/12/04/us-news/video-shows-gunman-exe...

thewinnie · a year ago
Why did he reload every shot? Is it self made pistol? My best guess that insurance haven't paid his enough to buy glock17
TrackerFF · a year ago
A bit technical:

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons work the way the do because force of the round (recoil) pushes back the bolt carrier, which a spring will then push forward again. Shot is fired, bolt carrier goes back, spring pushes it forward.

Subsonic ammunition have less charge than regular ammunition, to reduce the velocity. This also means less recoil. Combined with the spring now being too stiff, the bolt carrier will simply not move back far enough to successfully chamber a new round. So you have to manually chamber a new round between each shot. One solution is to use a light / less stiff spring that is adjusted to the force of the subsonic ammo.

Same principle for when shooting blanks.

Molitor5901 · a year ago
Perhaps subsonic rounds that did not have enough charge to drive the slide. It looks like there may be a suppression device on the end. My first thought was home made.
igetspam · a year ago
Or it could just be a single action pistol, as noted in the article. They’re not common but there are a handful of them that are relatively easy to obtain. Competitive shooters use them and it seems that Seals are sometimes issued single action pistols too.
sergiotapia · a year ago
not a gun dude, but I read that it is common when using "subsonic rounds" for quieter shots.

Deleted Comment

prettyStandard · a year ago
Just going to go out on a ledge here and guess that a loved one of the shooter died because of some insurance denial.
water-data-dude · a year ago
I’ll just go ahead and drop this link about UnitedHealth’s use of deeply flawed models to deny coverage:

https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/11/ai-with-90-error-rate...

OutOfHere · a year ago
It's a major regulatory failure to allow insurance companies to deny any claims at all of items that have an FDA approved indication. Ideally, the insurance company should not be able to legally deny any FDA approved action that a licensed doctor has prescribed, with no exceptions. Insurance companies are not doctors, and they should not get to play doctor.
xyst · a year ago
Very likely. It was very likely planned in advance due today being “investor day”. A person with nothing to lose at this point.

“ UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) will host its annual Investor Conference for analysts and institutional investors in New York City on Wednesday, December 4, 2024, beginning at 8:00 a.m. EST.” [1]

[1] https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/2024/2024-11-26-u...