It wasn't in the cards. The UHC CEO assassin wasn't going to be a folk hero or even a comic-book (graphic novel!) vigilante. Sane people, good people, don't shoot another person in the back unless that person presents an imminent threat to human life.
Americans kill one another quite often, and on little provocation. We're doing so less these days -- but we're still doing it. And if it seems even a little justified -- how many stats have I seen about insurance claim denial rates in the last few days, with United Health Care heading the list -- a lot of us will chime in, or at least nod, or maybe just shrug.
The fact remains that you've got to be seriously off-axis to commit that kind of murder; in fact, being some kind of nut (not to get too technical) appears to improve the odds of success, as I have written about before when discussing political assassination attempts.
Did the killer's actions hold up a distorting mirror to the feelings of many Americans about the health-insurance industry? Undeniably. Just don't confuse the myth/legend/story with the facts.
Murder is wrong.
Running your business in such a way that a plurality (at least) of the people who hear about your murder express positive or neutral feelings about the crime is wrong, too. It doesn't justify the murder -- but it ought to be food for thought.
Update
1 week ago
1 comment:
There is a strong urge to "Yeah, but" in many of us, myself included. Schadenfreude takes up more and more headspace; it seems like a good candidate for a verb: Schadenfreuding. Schadenfreuding would explain our latest Presidential campaign quite neatly.
Post a Comment