Are they concerned that after their CEO was gunned down in broad daylight over his supposed unethical behavior, and the killer is being celebrated as a folk hero. That by doubling down and doing unethical things they may be putting targets on their own back?
I know if I were at UHC I’d be looking to leave before I ended up on a hit list.
> I know if I were at UHC I’d be looking to leave before I ended up on a hit list.
UnitedHealth has half a million employees. If you think individual employees are at risk of getting on a hit list then you don’t really understand the scale of the company.
I’m constantly amazed by how some people adopt the uninformed narratives that sprang up in the wake of this murder. I’ve asked multiple people to guess how much cheaper our healthcare would get if we forced insurance company profits to zero and redistributed their C-suite’s compensation to their covered patients. The answer is always off by orders of magnitude.
It’s all very strange. The narratives around this murder and, by extension, the health care system are being invented by people informed about both yet widely accepted as fact. Even details about the scale of UnitedHealth seem lost on people. This is a very large publicly traded company with scores of employees.
> asked multiple people to guess how much cheaper our healthcare would get if we forced insurance company profits to zero and redistributed their C-suite’s compensation to their covered patients. The answer is always off by orders of magnitude
The media is conflating the far-right and -left wing fringes who are celbrating Mangione as a person and his literal crime with those holding him as a symbol for their frustrations with our healthcare system.
If you're celebrating the person and the crime, you need to speak to a professional. (You're also in a minority. No, your subreddit isn't the world.) If you're upset about the system, it's reasonable to not care if you're being fucked by Bob or Alice.
"A majority of voters (68%) think the actions of the killer of the United Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, are unacceptable. Seventeen percent find the actions acceptable, while 16% are unsure" [1]. Also [2].
That seems like most people who are healthy and military age are atleast somewhat OK with it. Its also excluding people who don't vote and have had their voting rights taken away.
> seems like most people who are healthy and military age are atleast somewhat OK with it
About a quarter of under-30 men and a fifth of under-30 women. For comparison, about 20% of Americans "think holding neo-Nazi views is" acceptable [1].
> excluding people who don't vote and have had their voting rights taken away
Where do you see the 2% of Americans [2] who have had their voting rights taken away being excluded by either poll? (Not challenging. That's just methodologically impressive.) Either way, none of what you're citing is material to an 80/20 margin.
I have friends in that 17%. But I also know people who thought Kari Lake was a shoe in, "defund the police" would work or that every guy is an incel. Echo chambers are powerful, especially online, where they can convince a quarter of a single demographic that they're in the majority on celebrating a dude capping a stranger in broad daylight.
You're selectively moving groups around with your statistics to try and use simple numbers to make it seem like you're always right. 20% of every single person in the US being sort of into Nazis has very little to do with the vast majority of people under 40 (military age) finding it ok with Brian getting shot. The first group includes people who are getting government funded healthcare on top of not having spent most of their lives dealing with insurance companies run by MBAs
Edit: Just noticed statistical manipulation is your job and you're maybe in a similar tax bracket
>> Trade private equity. Former aerospace investment banker, and before that, algorithmic equity derivatives trader. FinTech + Space + B2C angel & seed investor. Jackson Hole local; frequently in New York and the Bay Area.
> 20% of every single person in the US being sort of into Nazis has very little to do with
I’m saying 20% of Americans can be found who believe almost anything. 20% of Americans supporting something is basically background.
> selectively moving groups around with your statistics to try and use simple numbers to make it seem like you're always right
I’m slicing the data to present a number bigger than 17%. I’m trying to find a group in which a majority support Mangione who aren’t on the far fringes of society. If you’re upset about the slicing and dicing you’re confirming my point.
> the vast majority of people under 40 (military age) finding it ok with Brian getting shot
Where do you see this?
18 to 29 is the most favourable bloc for Mangione, and there favourability is 39%. Not a majority let alone a vast majority. And that’s being generous by combining in somewhat favourable.
> I’m saying 20% of Americans can be found who believe almost anything. 20% of Americans supporting something is basically background.
The Lizardman's Constant is lower than 20%, more like 4% for the survey result that gave rise to the name — and also, despite the name, not constant: https://gwern.net/note/lizardman
Sadly, this also means that your chosen example, instead of illustrating your claim, actually has something to say about the state of the American Overton Window when it was taken.
> The Lizardman's Constant is lower than 20%, more like 4%
Lizardman’s Constant is, per Gwern, “‘jokester’ or ‘mischevious responders’.” They’re being disingenuous; think: “deez balls” voters.
I don’t think the 17% of respondents who think favourably of Mangione are trolling. I don’t think the 10% flat earthers (or, including those who are “unsure” about the Earth’s roundness, 19%) are bullshitting [1].
There is simply about a fifth of the population—and it’s a moving fifth, there isn’t a permanently-braindead section—that tends to respond one way in just about any survey about fringe or stupid theories. So 17% supporting Mangione (while making it seem like it’s everyone online) isn’t particularly surprising. (Even if a good fraction of them are responding provocatively for fun.)
Why do people keep quoting "military age" here? There's no a priori reason why the next CEO shooter might not be underage (common in school shooters) or retired (with time, pain, and guns on their hands)?
I know if I were at UHC I’d be looking to leave before I ended up on a hit list.