United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, After all, Was a Husband and a Father

Why murdering CEOs like Brian Thompson will not solve our problems

How easy can we revert to savagery and give in to our reptilian brain? "Very easily." This was clearly shown when the life of the CEO, Brian Thompson, was cowardly shot dead and cruelly executed from the back at point blank. Let’s not forget that this heinous crime should bring public outrage. He was a human being, a father, and a husband. But the overwhelming reaction to this murder tells a different story.

You can get a glimpse of what people feel about the killing of CEO Brian Thompson in this video above. This is anything but a cathartic, joyful celebration, and that shows just how deep the frustration and hatred Americans have for their healthcare system. "But we are all missing the point."

Firstly, we don’t know anything about the executed executive, yet we behave like we do. We don’t know what his intentions were. We don’t know if he actively and directly engaged in declining insurance claims. We don’t know if he was trying to make things better or worse. Under his involvement with United Healthcare, could he have been a positive force for change? We just don’t know. The man is instantly tried, judged, and condemned—end of story.

A father and a husband are dead. The more we engage in violence, the closer we get to the end of the rule of law and the worse things we get for Americans. And without understanding the nature of why our healthcare is the mess it is, nothing will ever change, no matter how many CEOs get murdered. Demolishing the rule of law will only make our problem worse. First, we need to educate ourselves about healthcare in America. "But firstly"

Understanding Insurance is not healthcare

First, you must understand that America does not have a healthcare system. We have an aggregate of patch fill-in solutions. We are the only country with such a strange arrangement. Most countries have universal healthcare.

Insurance companies are just businesses, and for-profit firms are trying to make as much money as possible. They don’t care about your health, and why should they? They are not in the business of health; they are in the business of selling insurance. The problem is much deeper than we like to think, and it’s not anyone's fault.

America doesn't have universal health care. In other words, the United States government is not responsible for our health. Yes, this might be weird, but it is the truth about living in America. We must dig deeper to understand that because the reasons are entrenched in our history and politics. Without this deep understanding, nothing will ever change.

Why America doesn't have universal healthcare?

Understanding why the U.S. doesn’t have free healthcare for all takes some reflection. The United States, by international standards, has a peculiar institution when it comes to healthcare.

To understand how we can move toward universal health, we must know how we got to where we are. These questions fall into two broad categories: historical and political.

Historically, Americans generally have more negative attitudes about government than people in most other countries, and certainly more damaging than people in other democratic countries. This has been a consistent theme in American history since at least the 18th century. 

In the United States, everyone self-identifies as middle class. This leads to an elementary syllogism about why the United States has no universal health insurance: no self-identified working class—no labor party, no national health insurance. It is hard to disconfirm that syllogism. 

Another historical-cultural explanation for the lack of universal health insurance in the United States is the absence of a labor party, that is, the persistent historical cleavage in the history of American politics—race. We never had a labor party because of our inability to bring Black and White workers together in a large-scale political movement.

Politically, the most plausible explanation is that James Madison was a brilliant guy, and the constitution he designed essentially accomplishes what he wanted: that is, within the confines of a democratic nation, policies that would redistribute significant resources from the wealthy to the more numerous poor and middle-income citizens are almost impossible to achieve. The division of powers among branches of government, the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the role of an independent judiciary are all parts of this design, along with other constitutional features.

The United States is a big, diverse country without the religious, ethnic, or class identity on which national political movements can be built. In the United States, to an extent much more significant than in any other democratic nation, all politics are local.

As a result of these political tendencies and other aspects of the Madisonian system, the United States has some of the world’s weakest political parties.

In the absence of strong parties, the power of money in politics becomes even greater. Individual politicians can succeed in the American political system without the support of political party apparatuses, but they can’t succeed without significant personal wealth or sizable contributions.

The president changes from one election to another without much difference in policy. This is not a new phenomenon in American history: our experience since 1972 mimics the period from 1876 to the end of the 19th century.

For a complete understanding, read this:

Universal Health Insurance in the United States: Reflections on the Past, the Present, and the Future

And this:

Why the US doesn’t have national health insurance: The political role of the AMA

---

Without the rule of law, things will only get worse

After reading my latest post, a great friend called me and reminded me of the rule of law. I have all the reasons to trust him. Not only is he intelligent and educated, but he is a senior lawyer with a ton of experience.

He reminded me we are even more powerless without the rule of law. He said he was more afraid of the public reaction to Brian Thompson’s assassination than to the results of the 2024 election. And he is right.

If you think we’re in trouble now, wait until we have no rule of law. Living without the rule of law means existing in a society lacking established legal guidelines or consistent enforcement. This situation can lead to chaos, arbitrary power dynamics, and a lack of protection for individual rights. Essentially, it resembles a state of "anarchy," where no one, including those in power, is held accountable to the same set of laws. Does that sound familiar?

That is what we are contemplating regarding Trump's second coming. If we decide to resolve our grievances outside of the rule of law, that is, taking justice into our own hands, we are trying to beat the enemy on their own game. This is precisely what fascist and authoritarian governments want. Once it is determined that there is no rule of law, they will blame the people for breaking the rules, just like when people shot the heads of corporations. We will never beat them on their game.

Change is unlikely but possible. Success goes to those prepared to seize opportunities when they arise. It will happen someday, but the timing is unpredictable, so advocates must be ready and understand that only the rule of law can fix our problems. Violence only generates more violence.

Would Universal Healthcare Work in the U.S.?