On the Permissioning of Violence

Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, is dead after a targeted shooting in midtown Manhattan early last week. The shooter is still at large as of this writing, but his actions are largely being celebrated on and offline by people from all political backgrounds and beliefs. (If this story is new to you, you can check out The Guardian’s extensive reporting on it here.)

The celebration of Thompson’s death is due to a few highly discussed factoids:

• UnitedHealthcare (UHC) had the highest claims denial rate in the American insurance industry
• Much of said denials stem from the use of a faulty (90% inaccurate) algorithm
• Nearly every American has a horror story in dealing with insurance companies (myself included)
• A large subset of those with insurance horror stories may have lost a loved one or saw a friend/family member’s lifespan shorten due to the lack of proper healthcare coverage.

Measuring the Sentiment on Healthcare

Thompson’s murder comes at the time when a new political regime is set to take the reins of the U.S. government early next year. This regime has repeatedly made mention of jettisoning the Affordable Care Act and the current way of healthcare — a faulty system that is demonstrably better than what existed prior — in favor of a new system to be determined but, by estimation, likely not as good for citizens as existing programs. 

The sentiment post-murder has indicated that creating a worse climate for healthcare than what currently exists would be received poorly, to put it mildly, by most citizens regardless of political leanings. Could there have been a way to instantly and loudly gauge citizens’ distaste for the current healthcare system at such a crucial time without murdering a key executive in the industry? We will never know for sure, but my guess is that this would be a highly improbable feat. 

A Little Violence (as a Treat)

That said, it does not allow for anyone to permit the murder of another human being — even if that other human being’s death could/would send a message to the powers that be and/or if they were (in)directly responsible for the suffering of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of others through the functions of their work. I say this as a pacifist who wholly believes that murder for the sake of change in any capacity cannot be reasoned or permissioned without creating a slippery slope and permitting comparably “less necessary” murders, so to speak.

If a large percentage of the population will agree with the murder of a CEO for their work in suffering due to insurance claim denial, a slightly lesser percentage can and likely will agree with the murder of another person for slightly lesser actions they took. There is no wholly accepted flow chart for what violence is “good” and what violence is “bad”; there is simply murder and sentiment after a permanent and irreversible act. This trickle-down of lesser murders can lead to murders that are largely seen as “unnecessary” but were permitted or instigated by previously permissioned murders that were themselves permitted by large groups of people.

This may all just be a roundabout way of saying no one person or large groups of people, in a free and just democratic society, should have the ability to call for or celebrate another person’s death, lest they want to permit the deaths of others. This creates a slippery slope by creating reasoning — in the minds of one person or hundreds of millions of people — that justifies another person’s death. While you can argue the level of justice or freedom we as Americans are permitted on a class or status basis — as well as the privileges Thompson would likely have been afforded in a courtroom if sued or tried for his activities — murdering a person in place of legal or democratic action simply begets other like murders and creates a world where anyone can be shot in the street for something they did or even were perceived to have done.

A Lesser Victim of UHC

I say all of this as someone who is entering his twelfth year of engagement with UHC and a local hospital from a surgery I had in 2013. Due to a scheduling error on the hospital’s part and the lack of rooms post-surgery, I was ushered into a private suite post-operation, where I would spend the night. The hospital had made it clear that it was their error, that said room would be on their dime (I have this in writing), and that even if my insurance (UHC at the time) would not cover it (they would not), I would not have to pay an extra cent due to my plush accommodations.

Thanks to my employer-sponsored health insurance at the time, I was lucky enough to only pay $3700 for the life-saving surgery. My surgeon’s office was meticulous in pre-approving every detail related to the surgery with my insurance, and I count myself as fortunate (and, yes, privileged) for their attention to detail. Yet a year after the surgery, I received a bill — first from the hospital, then from UHC after I had connected UHC and the hospital to talk about the extra charge. Every year, on the anniversary of my surgery, I receive a bill from one or both entities, having to reconnect both to talk about this $39,000 charge that I am was repeatedly told in person and in writing that I am not required to ever pay.

I realize that this might be one of the least annoying post-surgery stories related to health insurance out there. I could go on about how I had to plead for UHC not to deny my father’s end-of-life hospice care earlier in 2013, among other stories. Nonetheless, this goes to show that everyone has a healthcare horror story, apparently doubly so with UHC. That said, I do not count myself as better off or “lighter” simply because Thompson is dead and his contemporaries are fearing for their lives. 

A Local Act of Terror

I had planned on writing the above earlier but hadn’t had the chance to get around to it this weekend, especially as more details on the shooter have yet to appear. What prompted me to put a motor on this was a traumatic event that happened a few hours ago.

I don’t live terribly far from a big box chain, which is convenient when my wife hands me a list of things she needs in a short amount of time and buying online is out of the question. I went to this store earlier this afternoon to get the things my wife wanted. 

As I examined an end-cap (a display at the end of an aisle), a man suddenly appeared close to my face, mimed shooting me in the head with his fingers, and slowly walked away. I had noticed this man earlier walking around the store with a notebook and pencil, taking notes and walking in an exaggerated manner. As I stood frozen, I noticed him miming this around the store as if he were to go on a spree of sorts. When he walked down the exit escalator, I located a distracted security guard and told him what had happened. (I then hurriedly left the store from another exit.)

I bring this up not out of trauma, but to remind others of the dangerous message sent by Thompson’s murder: violence begets not just violence, but the ideas and threats of violence when seen as an “acceptable” response to failures — tangible or perceived. A violent act will not stop violent acts or the hints of violent acts to come; they will only persist indefinitely.

A group of people or one person can justify and permit violence or threats of violence, regardless of any factors. But they must remember that, in a society where violence is permissioned, the person next to them can do the same.