And a for-profit insurer expects sympathy? UHC stock is up 7% on the year, so yay them.
This is clearly and obviously false, and using an acronym like "MSM" (which is so slippery as to be meaningless) suggests you don't actually care whether it's false. I hate that the internet encourages ideologically-motivated lying.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/americans-little-sympathy-murdere...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2024/12/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/05/nyregion/social-media-ins...
https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/12/05/brian-thompson-shooti...
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
https://www.barrons.com/articles/united-healthcare-brian-tho...
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/05/unitedhealth-brian-thompson...
Meanwhile the assassin needs a name.. the Midtown Hilton Shooter? The 3D Killer? (since there were 3 bullets found with D-words written on them).
Don't be greedy, or The 3D-Killer will go after you next!
Wouldn't positive wording be more appropriate given the public response?
> Don't be greedy, or The 3D-Killer will go after you next!
It'd feed into wording something like "Might need to re-think automatically denying that claim, as the Denied Claim Hero is still at large".
Encouraging murder is generally frowned upon.
I also think it bears consideration what 'public response' means here. Obviously I am just one person, but nobody I know (personally, or in the communities I'm in) has celebrated this in any capacity, let alone applauded the murderer. Are we basing public perception mostly on social media comments, which are a selective representation of public opinion at best, and blatantly fraudulent at worst?
BTW thinking the comments of people outside of your bubble to be fraudulent seems... elitist.
Well I didn't say that, and I even noted that I recognize my bias in the matter, but ignoring the widespread use of bots to shape narratives online for various purposes and taking social media comments at face value to indicate actual public perception in 2024 seems... naive.
Also the media seem to have settled on "Citi Bike Assassin."
Bingo!
Not sure why many people are missing this point. Beneath all this. The healthcare industry, doctors, pharma companies and all connected infrastructure has a simple equation. Their profits co-relate directly with human suffering. That is, the more you suffer, the more they get rich. And for some people in the chain, their very survival, like making a living depends on this.
You can't have a decent, even bearable conversation when somebody begins an argument on this premise. Notice how you refusing to suffer might appear indecent to them. I have known some doctors get angry on patients here in India for asking questions on alternate lines of treatments. Sometimes they have commissions from insurance, diagnostics and even suppliers, and they find it unfair that the patients think about their own good and not about the doctors. So you mean to say you are not willing to suffer to help me make money? So cruel of you!
There are lots of industries like these. Weapons manufacturing and Armed forces is another one. Im sure the thought of absence of wars, and some long term peace would be deeply disturbing to people in that ecosystem.
Notice how this is different compared to something like hospitality business, where profits co-relate directly with customer joy and inversely with customer dissatisfaction.
The real issue with the health care industry is their profits lie in hurting people, not helping them.
Sickario.
I'm partial to the Chief Executive Offerer.
How about "Chief Officer Executor"?
The thing that struck me was the fact that [the shooter] knew where [Thompson] was going to be and when he was going to be there. Generally, you get that information by observing the individual. You find their schedule and their routine, and then you intercept them somewhere along the line on their routine. This was obviously not a routine setting. So he had to have some reason to believe that Thompson was going to be coming out of that door at an approximate time to be able to lay in wait. Because it’s Manhattan, standing around waiting risks the likelihood of being challenged by a cop or security guard coming by, which suggests that he had reason to know when the guy was going to be coming out. It suggests some sort of inside information.
Also, and not saying this in this case: "Annual Investor Conference Day 1 Agenda, 8am Open Breakfast". Not hard to believe someone would be leaving their hotel nearby at 6.30, 7 for that. It's not staking the place out for hours.
Apparently knowing which door Mr. Thompson planned to use, the shooter arrived outside the hotel about 10 minutes before his intended target and ignored passers-by as he lay in wait.
Waiting for the right person is very far from a co-incidence. ;)
That being said, I think that both the assassination and the public's reaction to it show very well the shift that we have had regarding business leaders in the US. In prior times, these people were often pillars of community and something like this would be unthinkable instead of celebrated.
Edit add: Reddit's actions don't surprise me in the least as they want to appear advertiser friendly.
"Sorry officer, it looks like the camera wasn't recording" type of thing.
Just like the man who attacked Paul Pelosi in San Fransisco had the same standards applied to him. I am glad that the state of CA is so strict on crime that a first time offender(who has mental health issues) convicted of burglary, false imprisonment, threatening a family member of a public official, kidnapping, and threatening a witness is given life in prison.
Or the police response when someone is pushed and their cellphone is stolen. >Boxer, 80, was assaulted in the Jack London Square neighborhood. "The assailant pushed her in the back, stole her cell phone and jumped in a waiting car. She is thankful that she was not seriously injured,"
>I am working on the pier in Alameda right across the channel. There were a ton of police cars and a chopper there and I was wondering what the commotion was. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/oscbxf/comment/h6nmek...
EDIT: I see it's in the source article for this post. Thanks.
a) How do you determine which subreddits need to disclose that information?
b) How do you put something as abstract as what warrants moderation in a community into a simple description? Codes of Conduct can help with this, but as I'm sure others will inevitably point out, those can be abused by poor moderators as well.
Of course, this does work in some places - Wikipedia is extremely transparent about its moderation actions and policies - but I don't think it should be the default for every single community.
The purpose of a community is (generally speaking) to provide a place for people to engage and interact with each other, not to 'benefit' any one particular group of people. Users should have the freedom to discuss what they want, yes - within reason, as long as it doesn't jeopardize the core goal of the community. Moderators need to use their best judgement and knowledge of the community to determine what meets that criteria.
Reddit has a rule about not celebrating the death of someone, which they very selectively enforce.
They allow people to cheer the death of the likes of Adolf Hitler or Muammar_Gaddafi and some random soldier in the Ukraine-Russia war, but they're quite picky about other stuff.
I'm sure they'd clamp down more on this one if they could but the people have spoken and there are simply too many people celebrating this death.
Americans React to UnitedHealthcare CEO's Murder: 'My Empathy Is Out of Network'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalized_(Doctorow_book)
It's a collection of 4 novellas, one of which is about:
A man becomes embroiled in a dark web network targeting insurance
companies after his wife's cancer coverage was declined by their
health insurer.