And they're still doing anything except addressing the grievances that lead to that.

EDIT: I think you mean "allegedly"

BobaFloutist 24 days ago | parent | next [-]

Right, because most people recognize that the US has become sufficiently polarized and radicalized that "If enough people are mad at you, a complete stranger might shoot you" is not a theory of change we want to encourage. Yes, even for causes we agree with, most adults in the room understand that "people being mad at you" is pretty independent of how righteous your cause is, and even how civil and thoughtful you are in pursuing it.

▲

_heimdall 24 days ago | parent | next [-]

Are you claiming that the most likely proximal cause for his murder was the legal ability to print a gun rather than any concerns or grievances the shooter may have had related to the healthcare industry or United Healthcare specifically?

▲

BobaFloutist 24 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, I think access to firearms affects the murder rate.

▲

_heimdall 24 days ago | parent [-]

That wasn't the topic though. Are you saying the United Health CEO's murder was motivated primarily by access to printing guns on a 3d printer?

	▲	BobaFloutist 23 days ago \| parent [-]
		I didn't say anything about motivation, I'm explaining why people didn't try addressing the assassin's complaints as a way to avoid a future repeat.

▲

9875325996435 23 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Won't someone think of the grievances that poor far-left terrorist had this vermin murdered Brian Thompson :'(

▲

24 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

cucumber3732842 23 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>because most people recognize that the US has become sufficiently polarized and radicalized that "If enough people are mad at you, a complete stranger might shoot you" is not a theory of change we want to encourage.

God forbid individuals and organizations not choose paths of action that "low level piss off" millions of people such that their chance of being at the business end of some outlier who will actually do violence upon them is non-trivial.

It's not hard to not be "the thing" in any given crazy's life they choose to go out with a bang over, especially if you're not something they deal with every day. If that means that the default amount of screwage your organization applies needs to be dialed back, or that you must clean house a little better or more often then cry me a river.

>most adults in the room understand that "people being mad at you" is pretty independent of how righteous your cause is

Except it's not. The "budget" you have to wrong people and cause despair before people would be apathetic to violence done upon you is pretty directly coupled to the amount of good you do to offset your harm.

	▲	BobaFloutist 23 days ago \| parent [-]
		>It's not hard to not be "the thing" in any given crazy's life they choose to go out with a bang over > The "budget" you have to wrong people and cause despair before people would be apathetic to violence done upon you is pretty directly coupled to the amount of good you do to offset your harm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Abraham_Linco... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kenne... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luther... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_John_Lennon Agree to disagree. I'm not willing to trust the judgement of those most willing to commit gun violence as to whom deserves gun violence.

▲

tbrownaw 24 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> doing anything except addressing the grievances that lead to that.

Well yeah, it's not exactly easy to get everyone to understand that insurance isn't magic and money out has to match money in.

▲

gretch 24 days ago | parent | next [-]

According to this source, united healthcare profits were $14B in 2024. https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/unitedhealth-unh-2024-re...

So yeah, money out not matching money in is exactly the problem.

▲

tbrownaw 24 days ago | parent | next [-]

So a bit under 5% per the rest of the numbers in that link.

▲

delecti 23 days ago | parent [-]

I can't find the detailed breakdown for 2025, but in 2024, they took in $308bn in premiums and paid out $264bn in medical costs. So even ignoring all of the downstream and systemic problems caused by insurance existing as a for-profit entity, they're taking 14% off the top just to exist as a middle-man.

https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/content/dam/UHG/PDF/invest...

▲

parineum 23 days ago | parent [-]

> they took in $308bn in premiums and paid out $264bn in medical costs ... they're taking 14% off the top just to exist as a middle-man.

In 2023, they had a 0.8% profit margin[0]. 9 billion dollars in a trillion dollar industry.

Ignoring the disingenuous framing ("taking off the top" including how much they pay their employees), how does that compare to other industries?

[0]https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/2024-annual-hea...

▲

delecti 23 days ago | parent [-]

> including how much they pay their employees

Highlighting that was actually part of my point. What utility does insurance add to justify its existence as a middle man? How are we better off with a middle man taking a cut vs nationalizing the industry? And that 14% is at best, given the other externalities of the existence of insurance and its perverse incentives.

You're saying "how is that worse than other industries", but I'm saying, why is there an industry there at all?

	▲	AuryGlenz 23 days ago \| parent [-]
		The government would still need employees to basically do everything that the people at insurance companies do. Theoretically it could be more efficient, realistically it would not. The real problem with our system is that for anyone who is going to hit their deductible, or especially their out of pocket max, the costs no longer matter at all. Sure, that cancer drug can be $500,000. GLP1 drugs for $1,000 a month? Why not? Of course, there's no free lunch on this. In a single payer system you get things like the UK not approving certain cancer treatments for people over a certain age, certain medications just aren't available, etc. Otherwise you could make every plan a very high deductible plan, possible just not cover medications at all, etc. But then people will complain about people not being able to afford things, especially in the short term.

▲

nradov 24 days ago | parent | prev [-]

About half of those profits were from the Optum side of the business, not from insurance.

	▲	throwaway173738 23 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you’ve had UHC you’d know very well that Optum is intimately tied to their insurance business. UHC just “administers the plan” while Optum controls plan decisions. So when there’s a problem, which there always is with every claim more complicated than a PCP visit, you get bounced between both companies for hours until you find someone willing to take responsibility for answering questions.

▲

freeopinion 24 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Money out had better not match money in or the insurance company will be in a lot of trouble.

▲

brewdad 24 days ago | parent [-]

Imagine if we removed the need for insurance to turn a profit.

	▲	NoMoreNicksLeft 24 days ago \| parent [-]
		Imagine if we removed the need for life to turn a caloric profit.