In a normal world, most people would consider the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, who was shot to death in Manhattan last Wednesday, to be a tragedy. It left two children fatherless. Assassinations frighten us – they increase people’s sense that society is unstable and in danger of collapse. We might argue that killing is always wrong, though in fact most people are willing to condone it in specific situations, such as war. So why is the Thompson case so difficult? Why did 70% of the people who read about it on Facebook, for instance, react with laughter emojis? When social mores shift on that scale, it’s often evidence that society was already in trouble, because the contract underlying it has been broken.
The brutal reality of US healthcare
A recent paper in the Lancet suggested that 68,000 US citizens die preventable deaths each year due to a lack of healthcare – and that’s not limited to those who don’t have insurance. Insurers frequently contest claims, leaving sick people stuck with huge bills and unable to afford further treatment. They often exclude forms of preventative care, from dental work to pap smears, meaning that people who can’t afford to pay for those in cash are more likely to die due to the late diagnosis of serious illness. The day after Thompson’s death, Anthem Blue Cross Shield announced that it would stop paying for anaesthesia if surgical procedures lasted longer than it deemed reasonable, a policy that it has now put on hold following an outcry from the public and anaesthetists alike.
Thompson, who took home earnings equivalent to £8mn last year and was facing allegations of insider trading, presided over a company notorious for denying ordinary people’s health insurance claims. On his watch, UnitedHealthcare was accused of using AI software with a 90% error rate to assess claims for acute care, though it has denied this. A Justice Department investigation into its trading practices is ongoing.
The key thing here is not simply that a lot of people died as a result of the policies that Thompson oversaw – leaving a great many more fatherless and motherless children – but that when that happened, and when others found themselves with lifelong disabilities or crippling debts, most saw little hope of recourse. The big health insurers can afford expert lawyers and it’s difficult for people who are already saddled with medical debt, especially if they are also dealing with bereavement or ill health, to take them on. In this context, as in others where the interests of the very wealthy come into conflict with those of ordinary people, many people feel that there simply is no justice.
The rule of law
What do we have laws for? One might argue simply that they’re there to stop people doing bad things, but assassination can also be an effective way to do that. Laws are, in fact, there to protect wrongdoers as well as victims, by ensuring that it’s possible to obtain proportionate justice. In this age of massive wealth disparity, however, that simply doesn’t work. The word privilege stems from the Latin privus lex, or private law – something that exists only to help those who can afford it – and yet when it is exploited, it risks failing everybody. That’s because if the law fails to provide justice, people naturally begin to seek justice through other means.
We don’t yet know very much about Thompson’s killer – now popularly known as The Adjuster. He may or may not have done what he did in response to a personal tragedy – it has been suggested by some that he might even have been paid by another corporation to take out a rival, and while that might seem extreme, it’s not unheard of. What is interesting, though, is the response. After the violence in Charlottesville in 2017, after the assault on the Capitol building in 2021, the internet was immediately flooded with information from members of the public trying to help the authorities track down those involved. This time, although plenty of people must have seen what happened and witnessed the killer’s escape, very, very few came forwards. Between this and the open laughter and rejoicing, it’s impossible to escape the conclusion that most people thought the killing was justified. That – subconsciously at least – they see this as something akin to self defence, or even war.
Parts of the media have been quick to suggest that such reactions come only from a tiny minority of extremists. The evidence says otherwise. This doesn’t mean that society has abruptly collapsed, or succumbed to some form of mass hysteria. Arguably – no matter how morally uncomfortable it may be – it represents a healthy social response to an intolerable situation. It’s not completely new, either. It comes from the same place as the widespread celebration of killer whales attacking yachts, and of the Titan submersible implosion.
Not quite business as usual
Thompson’s death was not considered sufficiently important by his colleagues to merit the cancellation of the meeting he had been due to attend in the Manhattan Hilton. Just 48 hours later, his job was relisted. Someone else will soon be doing what he did. But the killing – and the public reaction to it – has had an impact. Major companies have been ramping up security for their top executives (albeit often in ways that would do little to deter a serious antagonist). The NYPD have poured resources into the hunt for the killer despite the fact that shootings – even fatal ones – are common in the city, and rarely receive this level of police attention. None of this will make a difference, however, if the key social problem remains unaddressed – if people are not seen to be equal under the law.
It’s understandable that people would wish to decry violence, but violence isn’t something that comes solely from the barrel of a gun. In today’s world, billions of people are affected by forms of violence that stem from wealth disparity, whether that’s by being denied healthcare without a realistic possibility of appeal, being placed at risk by uncensored hate speech in billionaire-owned media, or having to live with the effects of climate change caused by the policies of corporations more interested in short term financial gain than in human survival. Nobody should be surprised if there is an appetite for resistance, nor if masked vigilantes become more popular than the police. The only way to change this is to restore an effective and equitable legal system. For people to choose badges, not masks, the badges have to mean something.
More in world.
