Assassination of Brian Thompson, CEO United Healthcare: Predictable? Predictive?

 

As details of the assassination of the CEO of United Healthcare, the megalith health insurance conglomerate have emerged, Mad Dog has found himself saying, oh, maybe this makes sense. 

Which is not to say Mad Dog thinks murder is a good idea, but this was no random urban shooting. 

For some reason, it made Mad Dog think about the attempted assassination of Henry Clay Frick in the middle of the steelworkers' strike in 1892. Frick had refused to negotiate with the steelworkers' union and the commonfolk around Pittsburgh were hurting badly and a man named Alexander Berkman, a so called "anarchist" and the lover of Emma Goldman, the most famous anarchist, tried to shoot Frick in his office, but only wounded him. His level of planning for the attack was amateurish compared with the assassin of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare.

Berkman shoots Frick

But the meaning of the attempt on Frick was not lost on the suffering steel workers, and as the shell casings with the words, "Deny" and "Delay" suggested, there may have been a meaning to this assassination attempt.

It is wise to remember this murder may have been a personal attack masquerading as a political statement. The Washington, DC sniper was trying to murder his ex-wife, but he killed random citizens to make it look like the shooting of his wife was just one of those, because he knew shooting his wife would make him the prime, if not only, suspect.

Thompson

But assuming this killing is a statement of sorts, we have an interesting event.

The New Yorker, of course, carries a piece about it, by Jia Tolentino, which points to the reaction to the event in a broader context:

On LinkedIn, where users post with their real names and employment histories, UnitedHealth Group had to turn off comments on its post about Thompson’s death—thousands of people were liking and hearting it, with a few even giving it the “clapping” reaction. The company also turned off comments on Facebook, where, as of midday Thursday, a post about Thompson had received more than thirty-six thousand “laugh” reactions.--Jia Tolentino, The New Yorker

There is no dearth of resentment toward health insurance companies.

Mad Dog knows a patient with type 1 diabetes whose blood sugar control has been brought into dazzling control by an insulin pump. For three years his HbA1c, the measure which assesses his blood sugar control over a  three month interval, has been normal--not just good or excellent but actually within the normal range. His insulin pump has allowed him to achieve normality, which is rare in the management of type 1 diabetes by any method, even using insulin pumps. What a success! 

But then his insurance company refused to pay for his insulin pump supplies, his insulin or anything related to his diabetes. He is normal now, the company argued. Why should we pay for someone who is normal? As if his type 1 diabetes had been cured, rather than managed!  

He asked, "My blood pressure, my thyroid levels and cholesterol are now normal on medication, are they going to stop paying for those pills as well?"

Mad Dog been thrilled with the advent of a new class of medications for type 2 diabetes (DM)--the type of diabetes where the patient makes plenty of insulin but it simply cannot keep the blood sugar under control--unlike type 1 diabetes, where the patient simply cannot make adequate insulin.  For the first time in 50 years he has drugs which actually work, which can normalize blood sugars and patients stop the long list of inadequate medications which only barely managed to lower the blood sugars modestly.

Trouble is, the drug companies which make these medications--Mounjaro and Ozempic (Lilly and Novo Nordisk)--charge $1800 a month for the medications. 

Who can afford that? 

If you have the right health insurance, if you are a Teamster, for example, your cost might be $20 a month, but if your health insurance is not the right one, you're out of luck.

Mad Dog has seen some analyses of what the monthly cost of these drugs could be if the drug companies which make them would be satisfied with a $1 billion profit annually. We are not talking about net income, but profit above expenses. (Of course, expenses include the multimillion dollar advertising campaigns.) The price per customer would be $40 a month. 

Apparently, a billion dollar a year profit from a single drug is not good enough for the drug companies. And remember, the patents last 17 years--so that's $17 billion.

So, it's not just the health insurance fat cats who are reaming out the bank accounts of American citizens. The drug companies are doing their share of vulture capitalism. 

But back to the insurance companies: 

A new policy from Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield also went viral: the company had announced that, in certain states, starting in 2025, it would no longer pay for anesthesia if a surgery passed a pre-allotted time limit. The cost of the “extra” anesthesia would be passed from Anthem—whose year-over-year net income was reported, in June, to have increased by more than twenty-four per cent, to $2.3 billion—to the patient. --Jia Tolentino, The New Yorker

It is understandable that the American public might regard the American health insurance industry as fraudulent, promising one thing and then refusing to deliver, robbing from the poor to deliver to the rich. At least the drug companies are actually creating something new; the insurance companies are just accountants shifting numbers in columns. 

Before we anoint the murderer as a latter day Robin Hood, however, we need to know more. The murderer had inside information according to one police analyst: He knew exactly when Mr. Thompson was going to be walking out of his hotel and arriving at the Hilton. The assassin had to wait only 5 minutes. He knew his victim's schedule. And once he had fired his shots, he walked up to the victim lying on the sidewalk, and he did not deliver a final shot to the head, but simply looked at him and walked on, and escaped. This suggested to the police analyst, the killing was "nothing personal." 

Of course, it may have not been personal to the shooter. It could not have been more personal to Mr. Thompson.

Mad Dog watched "Prime Minister's Questions" for many years. These are the televised sessions in the British Parliament, where Members of Parliament can ask the Prime Minister about issues dear to the hearts of their constituents. We have nothing like this in America. We have rare press conferences where media starlets get to ask the President questions, but we do not have members of Congress asking questions on behalf of their constituents. Fully 40% of the questions had to do with the National Health system, by Mad Dog's count.

Banting & Best: Discovers of Insulin

It is small wonder that Congress and the President have wanted no part in running American healthcare. That is a thankless job. That is a job for big boys, all grown up. 

If you are failing in healthcare, there is no way to fantasize your way past it. You can claim there are millions of dark skinned rapists flooding across the border infesting America; you can say the economy is in tatters no matter what the unemployment rates and inflation indices say; you can say that manufacturing jobs have left America because of China; you can say there is no such thing as climate change; you can say vaccinations cause autism and the fluoridation of water causes dementia; you can say wildfires are caused by Jewish space lasers. But you cannot say American health care is doing just fine, when all the  people out there are all customers and they know better.

So, if Mr. Thompson's assassination was a political/social statement and not just a murder of a rich guy with enemies, then the choice of the victim was telling.