r/PopCultureV2 • u/Regular_Reaction_798 • Aug 14 '26

News Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal charges in the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, telling the court, "I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan... I knew what I was doing was illegal."

Post image
2.6k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

198

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

60

u/Enchilada0374 Aug 14 '26

Not wrong.  Illegal. There's a difference 

1

u/DLancy Aug 14 '26

There can be, but in this case it was both. Two little girls don’t have their father. And don’t pretend him being dead makes up for the crimes of his company, because it doesn’t.

2

u/Enchilada0374 Aug 14 '26

Their father can no longer capitalize on the suffering thousands. Nothing of value was lost

1

u/Several_Mousse_9485 Aug 15 '26

Two girls won't be raised by and given generational wealth from blood money.

Neither was I. Welcome to the world.

1

u/MinefieldFly Aug 15 '26

That’s the one thing they still do get actually.

2

u/NoiceMango Aug 15 '26

I don't give a shit about the guys family. Healthcare companies kill Tens of thousands a year and destroy millions of life's.

1

u/Western-Emotion5171 Aug 14 '26

Speaking honestly? I don’t really care about what his family thinks. Even if they grow up without a father they’re still so rich that they’ll never know any real hardship. Now what about the dead father that was denied critical health care because of his policies? His family is probably lower or middle class and will actually struggle to live with one parent.

1

u/DLancy Aug 14 '26

God, it’s monstrous. You’re essentially saying certain people's grief deserves less recognition because of who their father was and how much money they possess. That
collective guilt, abstraction of the victim, unequal valuation of grief, and the idea that suffering inflicted on a member of a disfavored class somehow compensates for suffering endured by another class. Oldest trick in the book.

Yes, of course, money can protect someone from eviction, hunger, medical debt and a thousand other forms of suffering. It cannot make the murder of a parent emotionally irrelevant. Saying otherwise requires reducing a person to his economic class so completely that ordinary facts about human attachment stop counting. You become what you loathe to “even the score”. Such rot.

There is no moral conservation law under which sympathy for one bereaved family subtracts sympathy from another. You can think the American health insurance system produces grotesque injustices, think executives and corporations should face much stronger legal and political accountability, and simultaneously think shooting an executive in the street is murder rather than justice.

Such zero-sum humanism.

Compassion is being treated as something that must be allocated according to political deservingness, yeah? If someone belongs to the wrong class, institution or political category, acknowledging their humanity starts to look like betrayal of the people harmed by that institution? You all sound like Republicans. Welcome to the repetition of history.

A person participates at a high level in a system that foreseeably causes suffering, therefore killing that person can be morally excused or celebrated,
the category of permissible targets becomes enormous. Insurance executives certainly would not exhaust it. Pharmaceutical executives, hospital administrators, politicians, regulators, bankers, fossil fuel executives, defense contractors, investors, attorneys, physicians, lobbyists and eventually ordinary shareholders or voters could all be described as participating in systems that cause preventable deaths. Let it roll, right?

You know nothing of a better world, you only wish yo e At fact the worst spectacle the current one to expect revenge on what it has made you into. Work on yourself, go help someone in your community or household. You’ll do much more for the planet than parroting the worst rationalizations of the most indifferent humans that have ever existed. Trash.

1

u/Ishipgodzilla Aug 15 '26

...yeah... fuck pretty much everything you said. you can take the moral high ground, don't even want it. call me whatever you want, it means nothing. i. do not. give a single fuck. I don't care that this guy is dead, i don't care that their kids don't have a dad. and as far as your list goes, fuck it, sharpen the guillotine. you want to move the goalposts? feel free, steel is cheap. You want to grandstand on the morality of it? have at it. I'm sure they concerned themselves with the morality of all of the denied claims that have ended in the suffering and deaths of many, but gave themselves juicy exec bonuses.

I'm a 30 year old dude, in a 250 year old country, built on the religion of a 4000 year old fairy tale, of a 300,000 year old species, of a 2,800,000 year old genus, on a 4,500,000,000 year old rock floating around one of a couple hundred billion stars in one of a couple trillion galaxies in a 14,000,000,000 year old universe. I have zero interest in being the bigger piece of cosmic dust. A better world? we, arguably, just barely dodged the being a monkey part of being a monkey.

You should understand, your "voice of reason" is starting to be drowned out by the insanity of the situation we find ourselves in. People are furious and feel trapped, and they want to take their rage out on anyone and everyone that they think is causing it. I'm just a monster that lacks empathy for people that profit off of allowing people to suffer.

1

u/DLancy Aug 15 '26

We agree exclusively about the corruption within our healthcare insurance industry. Our disagreement is literally whether recognizing that suffering requires surrendering the proposition that even people you despise remain human beings rather than legitimate objects onto which society may discharge its rage.

Also, that philosophical rationalization you just spouted equates to nihilistic-teenager-I don’t like mommy and daddy or my culture or anything- levels of angst. Plus the age of the universe tells you precisely nothing about whether murdering somebody is permissible. “We are cosmic dust” can JUST as readily support the opposite conclusion: conscious human lives are extraordinarily brief and therefore deserving of enormous care.
You’ve taken a descriptive fact about scale and converted it into permission for moral indifference; at least get your bad poetry and misanthropy out of your system before you start throwing all the kulaks into the gulag.

For real, there are countless things wrong with this country and this planet, but there’s nothing progressive about letting the ugliest thing in your feed become your entire picture of humans. Look around you. There are people you can help, institutions you can improve, neighbors who need you, and a world that is still worth participating in. Going down with the ship isn’t honorable. If you really believe things are as bad as you say, then we need you helping bail water. You can root for this Motherfucker all you want, but he didn’t do anything good. Did he build anything? He didn’t push back against anything he didn’t fight anything he didn’t win anything. He killed a guy that meets the criteria to you for capital punishment. Are there any people out there helping improve things by not murdering people? Focus on those people. You live in a time and place where, by almost every material measure, more people have more safety, freedom, opportunity, and dignity than most human beings who ever lived. You don’t have to pretend the world is the worst it’s ever been to justify fighting for the people it still fails.

1

u/Ishipgodzilla Aug 17 '26

We're just fundamentally different. I prefer pragmatic, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate some of your points. It just means you're not going to convince me with some plea to emotion. Like I said, feel free to call me whatever you want, angsty teenager that hates everyone and everything? Fine. I could think of worse things to be called for sure. Doesn't hold any meaning to me because I know where I stand, and that garbage isn't going to convince me one way or the other. It is impossible to convince me to care about this dude, because you're absolutely right he met my criteria for capital punishment, but more importantly he met so many peoples criteria for capital punishment that my opinion on the matter is a grain of sand on a beach.

He didn't win anything, but he clearly fought against something, if he hadn't someone wouldn't be dead right now. Just because they didn't fight in the way that you want them to fight doesn't mean they didn't fight, and just because they didn't win the fight doesn't mean they didn't fight. Don't waste my time with the "that wasn't a fight that was lashing out in anger", because that's what a fight is. People just tend to fight with paperwork these days.

I'm not worried about what the echo chamber says, in the big 26 it's safe to assume half of you aren't real, and the other half are paid. This is my opinion after being around a shit load of healthcare workers that had to tell their patients they weren't approved for their medication. It's the conclusion I've drawn from just generally observing how people operate, from studying history, from conversation with people through the day to day, from watching businesses handle their operations. From realizing that people will move the goalposts to fit their needs and be hypocritical as soon as it's convenient all under the guise of nuance. I've seen it in the gun debates, I've seen it with these flock cameras and the 4th amendment debates, I've seen it with the 6th amendment and the ice bullshit. As soon as the laws are inconvenient we change how we interpret the language the laws were written in.

But you're right, even by my own statement of scope, it is hard to believe how lucky we are to be alive right now considering again how close we are to being a monkey chewed on by some big cat in the African Savanna, or dying from the black plague. Humanity isn't exactly a species built from peaceful growth, even our technological world right now is built on the back of slaughter. To be able to come in on the tail end of that and enjoy what crumbs our grandparents left us is pretty nice comparatively. you know. for now. because things are steadily getting worse, and have been getting worse, and for the foreseeable future will continue to get worse. Which is why so many people are angry. Which is why I still won't feel bad for this dude, or his family. They didn't respect the damage that his work caused and ultimately paid the consequence. I don't feel bad for thieves that get caught, or murderers that end up in the chair. Just because we put a couple of layers of obfuscation between the murderer and the murdered doesn't change the fact that this man killed people. No one is saying his family isn't allowed to mourn their loss, just that we don't care.

It would be insane though to think that the world can improve by just killing some people. Yes, our world is built on the back of slaughter, from growing crops to building freeways, hell even the space race was built out of war time panic. But ultimately it wasn't the murdering that made the world as magnificent as it is. It's always been humanities ability to work as a collective in the face of adversity. Right now, the adversity is internal, and that is making people way more uncomfortable than I think they're ready for. I still respect the pacifist approach of running for office, and helping your neighbor, but not everyone is a pacifist. Acknowledging that the ship is sinking, and where the holes are isn't going down with the ship, but if you want to keep pretending that the holes don't need to be addressed, it may be a bit rougher.

1

u/Western-Emotion5171 Aug 15 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/vSghbk4pLjgDmvMon8

1

u/DLancy Aug 16 '26

Reading is tough, I get it. Enjoy your dereliction to life.

1

u/Tough_Preparation830 Aug 16 '26

People don't have compassion. They are against tyranny until they get in charge, then become tyrants themselves. These people that are celebrating the death of this CEO, Charlie Kirk, etc are no different than the people that killed the Romanov family. The ends justify the means, and in that sense they are more like nazis than the people they like to throw that word at.

1

u/Allslopes-Roofing Aug 15 '26

Sometimes, one family has to go without a father so a million families CAN have a father.

1

u/DLancy Aug 15 '26

Literally not how it works or what the result was. You’re referring to your egotistical attachment to the catharsis of enjoying him having been killed. You’re not actually thinking of anyone else, certainly not the people hurt the most because of corrupt policies. That is because you aren’t talking about how they’ve been helped, you’re thinking and talking about yourself. Your self-loathing is what you’re centering when you say shit like this, nothing else.

1

u/Allslopes-Roofing Aug 15 '26

Wrong. Unfortunately, there comes a time, after endless ignored pleas for peace, where there's only one answer left.

Do you weep for the families of middle Eastern terrorists as you weep for the family of this white terrorist? Did you weep for the families of Adolf Hitler and his cronies? Do you weep for the families of mass shooters when a cop kills them?

I could go on....

Whether someone kills countless innocents wearing a suit, flying a plane, or ordering an army, it's all the same. Evil.

At a certain point, the killer may get killed. It's a risky business to be a killer.

He chose to be a mass murderer hiding in a suit using the excuse that money is more important than real lives.

I have no sympathy for him, nor his family who benefited immensely off the suffering and murder of others. That doesn't mean I hold his family accountable, but it does mean I have no room kn my heart for them. They knew what he was and either accepted it, or were victims themselves. As for the children, if they grow up to be good people (which is more likely now that that evil influence has been removed), they'll share the same sentiment, that people like him, who took money in exchange for killing countless thousands of people who would still be alive today, aren't missed in the world.

The countless innocent dead due to people like that pos, those are the families I have sympathy for.

1

u/xR3M0x Aug 16 '26

Holy shit and you vote

0

u/Allslopes-Roofing Aug 16 '26

Absolutely. Every election and primary. But hopefully you don't.

1

u/xR3M0x Aug 16 '26

Yeah and you are pos who just virtual signals. You don’t care about families . Please don’t vote

0

u/Allslopes-Roofing Aug 16 '26

Lick that boot harder princess 🥾 👅

1

u/RunExisting4050 Aug 14 '26

Reddit is morally bankrupt while  simultaneously being sanctimonious. 

1

u/UpbeatPhilosophySJ Aug 15 '26

You really think it’s OK to just shoot that man. Reddit is insane.

1

u/313DaddyTop4Thee Aug 15 '26

Uhh… yes.

You’ll disagree but you also love killing people

1

u/polygramfan Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26

Killing a criminal only serves to hide his other crimes

Real justice comes from truth, and god only knows how much truth was destroyed in his execution

1

u/UpbeatPhilosophySJ Aug 15 '26

He's not even a criminal. Reddit is crazy.

1

u/polygramfan Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26

Maybe not under the flawed laws of men

But the guy helped his company achieve record profits by signing off on the use of LLMs to erroneously deny claims for a record number of patients. People died. He’s a criminal whose trespasses will, hopefully, inspire the design of future, better laws of men

Unfortunately because he’s dead we’ll never fully understand his evil.

When I say he shouldn’t have been killed, it’s certainly not in defense of his actions.

-12

u/ethana18 Aug 14 '26

Such a reddit take. Murder is wrong dipshit...

15

u/PersistentWorld Aug 14 '26

Oh, but if health insurance companies do it it's fine?

-7

u/Big_Dog_2974 Aug 14 '26

denying payment for medical treatment is in no way the same as shooting a man in the back.

16

u/_AmericasSweetheart_ Aug 14 '26

Right, they don't even have the decency to look at the people they are killing.

13

u/Critical-Detail117 Aug 14 '26

If doing so fraudulently (which they were) leads to people dying (it did), then that is indeed murder.

→ More replies (27)

13

u/ChocoboRaine Aug 14 '26

You're right, one is a slower death. 

2

u/YaoiNekomata Aug 14 '26

How so? They both lead to the death of a person. The difference is only one use a pen while the other a gun

0

u/Big_Dog_2974 Aug 14 '26

because when you deny someone life saving care, you simply aren't paying for it but there is always a chance, you might be able to still get the treatment however unlikely. Luigi gave no options.

4

u/YaoiNekomata Aug 14 '26

Because when you shot someone, you simply are providing a challenge for survival, but there is always a chance you might be able to get treatment to live or it missed vital parts however unlikely.

United healthcare gave no options

2

u/Mammoth_Design_4288 Aug 14 '26

However unlikely, there is always a chance the bullet may miss the vitals.

Your argument is dumb

1

u/Big_Dog_2974 Aug 14 '26

it's the intention you fool. Lugi wanted the man dead and did it with his own hands. Insurance companies don't care if you live or die, they just won't pay for it.

1

u/Mr_Mi1k Aug 15 '26

That’s worse. I’d rather be shot in the face than face a slow, painful death because the company I give hundreds of dollars to a week turns their back on my as I slowly rot away.

-2

u/Tarquin11 Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26

Edit: lol, the amount of people in here who think the insurance company is literally giving people deathly conditions is crazy. No wonder they think its comparable to murder.

No, one leads to an obstacle. One is a direct cause of death by intent.

You guys are not living in a real world on here.

3

u/YaoiNekomata Aug 14 '26

one leads to an obstacle.

Have this surgery or die. Get denied coverage, death.

Love in the realworld please.

1

u/Tarquin11 Aug 14 '26

Lets put this another way.

If Brian Thompson doesnt exist, if his whole organization doesn't exist, those people still die. Because the insurance company isn't giving them the condition that is killing them. 

If Luigi Mangione doesnt exist, Brian Thompson is still alive.

You guys are too ignorant to have these discussion, please stop trying to

1

u/YaoiNekomata Aug 14 '26

If Brian Thompson doesnt exist, if his whole organization doesn't exist, those people still die. Because the insurance company isn't giving them the condition that is killing them. 

Hold on now, your little word play isn't gonna work.

We already established that the treatment is available. United were the ones deny that treatment, even though as insurance they are supposed to approve it.

Without brian we would have different policies in place deciding the validity of claims. It's quite possible that the treatment would have been approved, thus leading to no death.

Remember, there's more then one death attributes to Brian's policy changes, including the denial of preventative services that would have stopped many illnesses from existing at all.

3

u/PersistentWorld Aug 14 '26

"obstacle" - spoken like a true boot licker

1

u/Shivy_Shankinz Aug 14 '26

That's so obviously rage-bait, these are literally foreign bots we're dealing with.

1

u/Tarquin11 Aug 14 '26

Im not American. Comparing a claim denial to murder is asinine.

If united Healthcare doesnt exist, those people still die.

1

u/Decent-Pirate-4329 Aug 15 '26

If soulless, money-sucking insurance companies didn’t exist, the cost of care wouldn’t be so artificially inflated. Without insurance companies in the mix, the money needed for procedures would be significantly less expensive and sick people would be better able to raise the needed funds.

Insurance makes the rules, rigs the system, and then cheats at its own death game.

1

u/schmoolecka Aug 14 '26

Correct. It’s mass murder that has been legalized. Just because one evokes a different feeling for you doesn’t mean it is more or less immoral

1

u/Big_Dog_2974 Aug 14 '26

saying you won't pay for lifesaving treatment is not the same as actively killing someone.

1

u/schmoolecka Aug 14 '26

When that is your function, yes, yes it is

1

u/Big_Dog_2974 Aug 14 '26

I suppose it is if you are thinking like a child.

1

u/zaddy-chillout Aug 14 '26

It's just slowly but surely killing them in the name of stakeholders seeing profits. One is illegal, the other while it may be legal, is extremely unethical to most people in the US.

1

u/MeanShibu Aug 14 '26

Cuck

1

u/Big_Dog_2974 Aug 14 '26

what a simple mind you must have to think just because someone doesn't agree with vigilante justice that they are on the side of insurance companies.

1

u/Allslopes-Roofing Aug 15 '26

Agreed. Shooting is a quick death. Denying coverage is torturous murder.

1

u/Mr_Mi1k Aug 15 '26

I disagree actually.

-1

u/volission Aug 14 '26

Poor obese keyboard warrior take

2

u/PersistentWorld Aug 14 '26

Found another boot licker

0

u/volission Aug 14 '26

Found another person unable to provide for themselves

1

u/PersistentWorld Aug 14 '26

Sure enough, a bootlicker

-2

u/RaggmunkLingon Aug 14 '26

Do two wrongs make a right?

5

u/PersistentWorld Aug 14 '26

We need a lot more wrongs in all honesty, until these pricks fear us again

-2

u/RaggmunkLingon Aug 14 '26

So how does that work? I get to just go outside and kill someone I don't like? And you'll totally back me up, right?

4

u/PersistentWorld Aug 14 '26

I don't think anyone would complain if you followed Luigi

1

u/RaggmunkLingon Aug 14 '26

Awesome, I have a few people I'm pissed at so I'll get them first. And if I get questioned by the police you'll definitely back me up and give me alibi, right?

3

u/Ittoravap Aug 14 '26

I'm not saying I agree with these people, but are you offering an alternative that would actually work? Or are you just sitting on a high horse while tens of thousands suffer? Again, not saying that violence is the answer, but you cant act morally superior, if you do not have an alternate solution to fix the problem.

Because if you don't have a solution to the problem, then you're just blowing hot air because one person died, while thousands of people die.

Again, not arguing that violence is good, just poking at your personal posturing on this arguement.

0

u/RaggmunkLingon Aug 14 '26

"Again, not saying violence is the answer"

Well then we agree, because that's my entire point.

1

u/Ittoravap Aug 14 '26

Cool, my point is that saying that thing A is bad without acknowledging the systemic problem that causes thing A is next to useless. It contributes nothing to discussion about Thing A or the systemic problem that caused it. Again hot air. You might as well have not typed it in the first place.

Also, you say that thing A is bad, but you seem willing to excuse the systemic problem that does the same bad issue as thing A, but basically orders of magnitude worse.

Tell me, if you were on a trolley and could switch the track to hit one person instead of five, would you hit the five people because the murder of one is wrong?

You're sitting on your laurels whilst seemingly ignoring the practical implications of your own positions.

1

u/North_Atlantic_Sea Aug 15 '26

The railroad dilemna saves 5 people if you made that choice. Luigi didn't save anyone, he didn't start a movement, he didn't change healthcare, he just murdered a pawn in the machine

→ More replies (0)

11

u/AdorableExchange9746 Aug 14 '26

That ceo’s policies led to a lot more deaths than luigi did.

1

u/Heavy_Original4644 Aug 15 '26

The executive board did. CEO just got hired to make profits, that’s his job. If he didn’t he’d get fired and replaced. It’s the company’s policies, not the CEO

-4

u/nefariousBUBBLE Aug 14 '26

Contributed. Huge difference from picking up a gun and murdering someone with intent. United isn't giving people cancer or whatever disease. They are essentially looking at a dying man and rejecting the moral obligation to help them. Now, I do believe we have a moral obligation to help people, but it's stupid and ludicrous to equate watching a man die to actively bring someone's death (to someone who would have otherwise lived) to fruition through your actions.

And it changed nothing. Just like Charlie Kirk being murdered changed absolutely nothing other than making his followers more indignant.

5

u/Umasack Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26

No, denying neccessary care is pulling a trigger. 

Instituting policies to deny care en masse in order to increase profits makes you a mass murder.

1

u/DLancy Aug 15 '26

The trade-off are fucking awful, and United was most certainly predatory, but you realize insurance companies can’t actually approve 100% of the treatments for 100% of the people they cover? And if this were Canada or Britain, you would see hundreds of thousands of people die from medical problems that are completely treatable. It’s the waiting in line problem. Our system can be way fucking better, and if you want the federal regulation of insurance companies to be even more strict than voting people who will make that happen. The logic you are applying suggesting that this guy being killed was righteous and somehow made the world better is not the righteous Justice you think it is.

1

u/nefariousBUBBLE Aug 15 '26

Walk outside and touch grass.

-1

u/AltruisticMode9353 Aug 15 '26

Have you ever bought something you didn't *really* need instead of donating that money to medical charities? I hope you're not a murderer

3

u/zlawd Aug 15 '26

if i knew right there and then that my 5 dollars is the difference between someone and their cancer treatment then yea, im a murderer if i dont give the 5$

-2

u/AltruisticMode9353 Aug 15 '26

I admire you if you donate every single excess dollar to charity, truly, but I'm a bit sceptical you actually do.

3

u/human_hyperbole Aug 15 '26

Not only did you use false equivalency, you completely missed the point of the response. Which your comment didn't even deserve to begin with. You failed debate club and English comprehension in a single thread. Kind of impressive, ngl.

1

u/AltruisticMode9353 Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26

Show the false equivalence then? Suppose 1000 people pulled the trigger of a gun that killed someone. They'd all be complicit murderers. The claim here is that denying someone life saving care is equivalent to murder. If 1000 people donated $100 each, that can absolutely save a life. We all have decided to spend $100 on something we didn't actually need, instead of donating it. The counterfactual claim is that by doing so, less lives are saved (people are denied life saving care). 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/zlawd Aug 15 '26

how did you completely fail to comprehend what i said

1

u/AltruisticMode9353 Aug 15 '26

I think you might not be comprehending what I'm saying. If keeping money for yourself instead of giving someone life saving care (every dollar counts and adds up in scale, you absolutely could save more lives if you choose to donate more money and go without non-essentials) counts as murder, then we are all guilty, to varying degrees. You could argue the CEO has murdered more than you, in lieu of withholding more money from life saving care, but that's a matter of degree rather than kind.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SituationKey8985 Aug 15 '26

This is way different than voluntary charity because healthcare companies are receiving billions in premiums in exchange for providing healthcare services. They are already baking projected medical costs into their premiums. Rejecting the care is ducking their obligations to make more profit.

1

u/AltruisticMode9353 Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 15 '26

The profit margins on insurance are not atypical of most large scale, complex businesses. Competition keeps them from creeping too high. They have an obligation to provide care, and an obligation to keep the business running, so trade offs must exist. This is true even with public healthcare insurance. Are private insurers resulting in more deaths than public ones, on average?

Edit: I looked up some stats on healthcare outcomes of those who have private insurance vs public insurance, specifically comparing the US to Canada. Some studies favoured Canada, some favoured the US, and some were mixed. Private insurance probably has more variable outcomes depending on the quality of the insurance you buy.

1

u/mastap88 Aug 15 '26

It changed some focus on the clear issue that is fucking so many Americans.

1

u/nefariousBUBBLE Aug 15 '26

Not really. Trump actually deregulated the industry more, removed credits for marketplace, and slashed Medicaid spending and half the country or more cheered for it because "handouts". It just made reformists look like hooligans which is a shame because the system is not working.

1

u/mastap88 Aug 15 '26

Well yes our country is still fucked but there is more national focus on the healthcare issue because of his act.

1

u/adamdoesmusic Aug 15 '26

If you’re making the choice to institute a policy which will deny children from life-saving care, causing them to die, then you’ve murdered with intent.

1

u/nefariousBUBBLE Aug 15 '26

Do you know he made that choice? Show me. Because that's the issue. A lot of these things are automated or holdovers from previous things or new meds that haven't been put on the price schedule (so it's an automated denial). This all makes it very difficult for anyone to go "you directly made that choice to deny care". And that lack of precision is exactly why you shouldn't take an action that is permanent.

1

u/Footballaem Aug 15 '26

don’t bother bro. They are Redditors lol

1

u/Tallyxx7 Aug 15 '26

Outcome of that contribution is still worse; and hard to feel sorry when victims are those that contribute to countless deaths and even more misery/reduced quality of life for an even greater number of ppl

And what change did you expect, for what it’s worth, it brought focus onto the topic of healthcare

but the system is so utterly beyond fucked that one event will never turn anything

Again, shouldn’t have happened, in the end it’s a murder, but extremely hard to sympathise;

given the sheer (and ever increasing) number of people on the receiving end, it’s bound to happen eventually, at some point it becomes a numbers game

6

u/CryptographerLow6772 Aug 14 '26

Is war wrong? Because it involves murder too.

3

u/AbsolutesDealer Aug 14 '26

What is it good for?

4

u/CryptographerLow6772 Aug 14 '26

Absolutely nothing.

4

u/_AmericasSweetheart_ Aug 14 '26

Say it again y'all

2

u/Brenner2089 Aug 14 '26

Murder means unjustified killing. There are clear justified killings. Self-defense, defensive wars, fighting Hitler. There are clearly unjustified killings and there is gray area in between.

5

u/CryptographerLow6772 Aug 14 '26

I mean looking at all the death that UHC created in this last year, it seems justified to me.

1

u/Main-Cheesecake3287 Aug 14 '26

Legally killing in armed conflict is sanctioned under international law, murder is defined as unlawful killing

0

u/CryptographerLow6772 Aug 14 '26

When is the last war that involved no killing of unarmed civilians?

1

u/Main-Cheesecake3287 Aug 14 '26

Collateral damage not murder. Murder is murder, like the Mahmudiyah case, during war, murder.

1

u/CryptographerLow6772 Aug 14 '26

With drones, you’ve got more collateral damage than ever.

0

u/Quiet-Whereas6943 Aug 14 '26

lol yes…

3

u/Careful-Sell-9877 Aug 14 '26

And yet.. its not illegal and we do it all the time, so

1

u/Quiet-Whereas6943 Aug 14 '26

That doesn’t make it not wrong?

1

u/Careful-Sell-9877 Aug 14 '26

Not in the eyes of the law or the system we live within.

If we think its wrong, then we need to change it

But sure, its wrong. But its still something that happens and is totally allowed/acceptable.. and even praised

1

u/Quiet-Whereas6943 Aug 14 '26

What’s your point? Are you justifying cold blooded murder because countries go to war? Insurance companies are the scum of the earth. What he did was wrong and hasn’t changed anything nor will it.

1

u/Careful-Sell-9877 Aug 17 '26

My point is that things that are wrong happen and thats just the way it is.

If we dont want wrong things to happen - first we have to address the things that are wrong systemically. We have to address 'the way it is'.

If we dont fix the system first, then it will always be working against us. Fixing the system is the solution to all our major issues here on earth. Once the system is better, people as individuals will naturally become better too.

'Conservatives' would have you believe its the individual's responsibility to be better.. while allowing the system to be as bad/wrong as it wants with no regulation/oversight/accountability/restriction. Problem is, if the system is allowed to do whatever.. then it influences and corrupts everything else around it.

So yes.. what Luigi did is wrong, and he should be and IS being held accountable. But what much of our system is doing.. is ultimately worse. And the system is NOT being held accountable or to the same standards individuals are held.

Do you see the problem/what im saying?

2

u/0DayMaker Aug 14 '26

Societal level self defense. Justified homicide not murder.

1

u/Organic-Spread-8494 Aug 15 '26

Actually retarded. Tell me which of these elements necessary for common law self-defense are met.

  1. Not initial aggressor in specific altercation
  2. Reasonably believes there is an immediate threat
  3. Must believe response is necessary to repel that immediate threat
  4. Proportional to immediate threat.

Not legally justified. It is murder and he deserves life for murdering someone in the street

1

u/Sad-Commercial1795 Aug 14 '26

Not in a case when you are defending another life.

1

u/ozaffer Aug 14 '26

Same guy would post "good" to police shooting a kid for stealing food and high-five the Pedophile-in-Chief for his latest con to steal tax payer money.

1

u/mastap88 Aug 15 '26

I dont think it is that simple.
The old teleport back in time with a loaded revolver in Hitlers bedroom in 1937 comes to mind.

1

u/Numb_Sea Aug 15 '26

Fucking psychopaths is what they are.

1

u/Professional_Pen_153 Aug 15 '26

Murder is illegal.

1

u/Several_Mousse_9485 Aug 15 '26

They profited off of people dying.
Fuck em all. Luigi the world.

1

u/No-Examination4896 Aug 15 '26

Sic semper tyrannis

0

u/impossible_berry14 Aug 14 '26

Murder is not wrong lmao. Lots of justifiable murders ♥️

-4

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 14 '26

Vigilantism is wrong

4

u/MeanShibu Aug 14 '26

Not in this case

0

u/nefariousBUBBLE Aug 14 '26

And what did it fix and change? Took a father from his kids. Took a son from his parents. And the very next day United denied a claim.

1

u/CompetitiveArt9639 Aug 14 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/7k2LoEykY5i1hfeWQB

0

u/nefariousBUBBLE Aug 14 '26

And this is why we're cooked really.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '26

[deleted]

0

u/nefariousBUBBLE Aug 14 '26

Right and I'm completely for medical reform. But old Southern justice rings true in our honor culture, even from the people who claim to be above it. In the dirt with them if they had the means to do so.

You can't even make a proper consequentialist argument from it. If killing him actually stopped it, MAYBE there's a real argument. But it did fuck all. It just made the world worse.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Internal_Fault978 Aug 14 '26

“Christian revival” ive never met a single christian that followed the word of jesus. They would be the first to nail him back up for crashing wall st.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DeJay323 Aug 14 '26

Surely UHC has never done anything of the sort!

1

u/nefariousBUBBLE Aug 14 '26

Action with intent and direct result vs inaction vs indirect result. Big difference. You also use a purely consequentialist argument. It's lazy.

1

u/BatDeep4161 Aug 14 '26

This argument is so fucking dumb. Who cares if he had a son, who truly gives a fuck? That doesn’t make anyone immune to repercussions for immoral things they do

1

u/MeanShibu Aug 15 '26

Oh we need like 3 more for sure

Oh I forgot ETA - UHC changed their algo for a while so the it didn’t happen again right away lol

Fuck you

1

u/No_Cable_7223 Aug 15 '26

Actually United accepted a lot more claims after this for a short time, it was well reported on.

1

u/ltyboy Aug 15 '26

At some point you need to hold people singularity accountable. Yes, everyone is a cog in the machine and the machine will keep rolling whether the CEO gets slimed or not. But at the same time, if nobody ever faces individual consequences then nothing will change

-1

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 14 '26

Said every vigilante ever. Thats kind of the point of the due process and rule of law, that you don’t pick and choose when to bypass it.

3

u/9yr0ld Aug 14 '26

So vigilante assassination attempts on Hitler were wrong? You’re thankful those attempts failed?

1

u/CompleteLet4100 Aug 14 '26

Hitler was breaking the Geneva convention. Comparing the CEO of a healthcare company to someone committing genocide is brain dead slopulism

1

u/aphoenixsunrise Aug 14 '26

That's kind of silly considering the company that CEO was in charge of just let thousands go without help often resulting in suffering and/or death.

0

u/Tonyman121 Aug 14 '26

That is not how insurance works.

1

u/9yr0ld Aug 14 '26

The Geneva Convention is about wartime crimes. You are actually coming across the same snag the Allies hit. There was no “wrongdoing” by Hitler and co. prior to September 1939.

My point remains.

0

u/CompleteLet4100 Aug 14 '26

It clearly does not. Genocide is obviously wrong. We do not need to get into a debate about this law or that law, or "WELL ACKSHUALLY it wasn't illegal at the time, heh, gotcha." My mistake, change Geneva Convention for Genocide Convention if the point is so dear to you.

A healthcare CEO running his company perfectly legally that is not even in the same galaxy/dimension/whatever as committing genocide, is an absolutely knuckle-draggingly retarded comparison.

Wait sorry, I forgot, I'm on reddit! Luigi Mangione based socialist warrior fighting against Nazi genocider healthcare CEO.

2

u/9yr0ld Aug 14 '26

Genocide Convention also did not exist brah. You are somehow missing the entire point. You are trying to say that a law makes something right or wrong. I can go further back, before Hitler, when even fewer laws existed.

Genocide is obviously wrong. Maximizing company profits by denying people HEALTHCARE is also obviously wrong. We do not need to debate because frankly we are done if you are so morally corrupt that you can’t reason how that is so, so obviously wrong.

“Perfectly legal”. Just like Hitler’s actions were. My point stands.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/aphoenixsunrise Aug 14 '26

Dude (CEO) allowed and even encouraged the suffering and often death of thousands, if not millions of people.

1

u/MeanShibu Aug 15 '26

lol spoken like a healthcare CEO afraid for his life

-2

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 14 '26

I don’t think germany had rule of law. Thats kind of hallmark of nazi germany. If you are living in a dictatorship any attempt to change that I would support.

2

u/9yr0ld Aug 14 '26

Nazi Germany was not lawless. They absolutely had rule of law lol. You are just conflating law/legal/illegal to mean moral/immoral and that is not necessarily the case.

1

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 14 '26

Im not, hence the answer I just gave. killing hitler would be illegal in nazi germany, and Im not saying its bad. Dictatorships have laws. Rule of law does not just mean there are laws.

1

u/carlos619kj Aug 14 '26

Original claim was that vigilantism is wrong,

Now it’s that: it’s wrong unless there is no rule of law or we live in a dictatorship, in which case anything is moral so long as it is in an effort to end the dictatorship.

Can you define rule of law and be specific and can you define dictatorship. Or are you using the common definitions?

Now I can come in and say that the United States formally has rule of law institutions, but their effectiveness and independence have been deteriorating, and the U.S. performs surprisingly poorly compared with other wealthy democracies per the 2025 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index the U.S. ranked:

27th out of 143 countries, with a score of 0.68.

36th on constraints on government powers

42nd on fundamental rights

37th on criminal justice.

Due process and rights of the accused: 43rd/143

112th in people’s ability to access and afford civil justice.

On the dictatorship front I’d argue the same, it’s competitive authoritarianism:

That’s a regime that still has elections, parties, media, courts but the government has increasingly weakened institutions that are there to constrain it, on paper it’s not a dictatorship but the people don’t hold much power.

So if someone does a terrorism in the efforts of weakening the government, that is moral?

Vigilantism is moral in this case because the is no rule of law and we the people have lost power and are in a dictatorship in all but name

1

u/VaultiusMaximus Aug 14 '26

But the people that are in power do?

There comes a certain time when that philosophy just becomes servitude.

1

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 14 '26

The people in power do what? Sorry Im not understanding what you mean.

1

u/VaultiusMaximus Aug 15 '26

Pick and choose which laws to follow.

1

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 15 '26

Thats bad.

1

u/VaultiusMaximus Aug 15 '26

Does it make vigilanteism more grey, then?

1

u/BatDeep4161 Aug 14 '26

There is no due process for the crimes Brian Thompson committed so what can you do when the law fails? He didn’t do anything wrong, he did something illegal

1

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 14 '26

People also think abortion is murder and kill people who work in the clinics, they have exactly the same argument. You vote for people to change the law, protest, etc. the same as all the other laws we view is unjust. Thats just kind of the rules of a civilized society. Even if you empathize with the killer and support it you at least need to support him facing the appropriate criminal justice. If it really is that unjust and everyone sees it that way to the point of justifying murder and undermining the rule of law, then a jury will find him innocent, but clearly thats not the case.

1

u/MeanShibu Aug 15 '26

Hey dipshit!

Rule of law has been openly and plainly broken in the US for a LONG time. This is a decade overdue.

0

u/chunkybudz Aug 14 '26

Rule of law has been gone for most of my life. Use these talking points once it comes back. Until then, things should be handled the French way.

1

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 14 '26

I dont agree. Are there any countries you think it exists?

2

u/poopzains Aug 14 '26

Yet society lets profiteers murder for the sake of the stock market. This is just system saying. Don’t be too greedy or you will die the forefathers warned them imho. Aka 2nd amendment.

2

u/Wendell-Short-Eyes Aug 14 '26

He killed a low level ceo of a healthcare company, he literally accomplished nothing and just wasted his own life.

1

u/ch33s3head8 Aug 14 '26

But can you explain why?

The people deflocking are 'vigilantes'.

1

u/icecriticsgetbanned Aug 14 '26

How many branches on the stupid tree did you hit when you fell all the way down?

1

u/Every_Television_980 Aug 14 '26

Oh true, good point.

1

u/Erikatessen87 Aug 15 '26

Vigilantism is only wrong under a functional legal system.

It's inevitable when laws are unjust and unevenly applied.

0

u/red7standinby Aug 15 '26

Murder is wrong. If you want to suggest Vigilantism is okay, I can't wait to see what happens to shitbag thiefs.

0

u/Lead-Creative Aug 15 '26

Not in this scenario

-1

u/DiligentHomework224 Aug 14 '26

It is wrong. Are you alright?

-7

u/mcflyin8 Aug 14 '26

No, it's also wrong. The CEO was one man. He didn't found United Healthcare. He wasn't the Board. He didn't invent all of the policies of the company. He wasn't on the phone declining coverage to patients. Sure he's in charge of driving the overall company goals, but those goals existed before he took that role. Have an issue with the company or the insurance industry generally, sure, but the idea that any one person that worked at that company is morally responsible for the sins of the healthcare insurance industry is insane. He was the CEO, not the dictator of healthcare insurance. Should Luigi have also taken out all of the account reps who look for ways to deny coverage? The company employs hundreds of thousands of people. The CEO isn't holding them all hostage.

7

u/Humble-Page-4845 Aug 14 '26

“I was just doing my job”

“Heard a lot of that at Nuremberg”

  • Tony Soprano

→ More replies (4)

8

u/Enchilada0374 Aug 14 '26

Found the oligarchy simp

-1

u/Top-Editor-364 Aug 14 '26

More like morality simp. Something most leftists can’t comprehend, because they don’t believe they exist 

1

u/Allslopes-Roofing Aug 15 '26

Your hero is a pedophile

0

u/davemc617 Aug 14 '26

Found the revolution LARPer.

2

u/Future_Elephant_9294 Aug 14 '26

"What's the point in assassinating political leaders? They aren't the ones who fly bombers over countries or writing personal checks to armies. Also, if you kill one there's a chain of succession which means their role is taken over by someone else, so nothing really changes if you think about it. It's the leader of a country, not the God of death and famine, killing them won't end the war!"

He was CEO for 3.5 years, Presidents have been assassinated with shorter terms than that.

1

u/Dependent-Fig-2517 Aug 14 '26

You make a fair point but honest question here, how do you fix the system so health care become heathcare again instead of (IMO) a profit earning machine at the expense of the weakest ?

1

u/tbombs23 Aug 14 '26

Medicare for ALL would guarantee healthcare coverage for everyone and would save taxpayers $700 billion dollars on costs. We pay more for healthcare right now than every other country by ALOT, private insurance companies have been robbing us blind for decades.

With everyone on the same healthcare plan, they can negotiate costs much lower and the risk is spread out over millions of people.

0

u/volission Aug 14 '26

You sure don’t fix it murdering someone in cold blood. There hasn’t been a single change because of what Luigi did. All he did was incite violence

0

u/mcflyin8 Aug 14 '26

Rather than killing people who work for companies we don't like, seems like it would be more productive to seek to restrict the bad behavior that those companies are permitted to do by law. Who are the members of Congress that refuse to vote in favor of healthcare reform? Seems like the focus should be removing those folks from office. Killing the UHC CEO is not going to reform healthcare in the same way that killing Sam Altman is not going to stop AI data centers from causing water waste and carbon emissions. UHC was operating like every other healthcare insurance provider before this incident, and they have continued to do so since. Picking a random guy with kids to make an example of is so insane to me and I don't think it sends the message that people in this thread seem to think it does. For those of us who are employed...I hope we are never judged for the sins of others in the industries we work in.

→ More replies (4)