Many expressed support, perhaps even admiration for the young man who killed the Brian Thompson, the CEO of the insurance company UnitedHealthcare last week. The reason: the company is universally despised, notorious for the zeal with which it denies claims or makes life otherwise difficult for insured Americans.
However, therein lies the problem. The company is doing EXACTLY WHAT IT IS EXPECTED TO DO. Apologies for the all caps but I need to stress: Commercial companies are not charities. They do not exist to make life easy or pleasant for their customers. They have one goal and one goal only: MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE. Within the confines of the law of course, but not confined by anything else. In particular, not confined by compassion, empathy, or social responsibility.
Brian Thompson did exactly what he was supposed to do as the CEO of a commercial company: he did his best to maximize shareholder value. Had he acted otherwise: had he chosen to place his personal values ahead of his duties as CEO, he could have been held even criminally liable, for failing to act in the interests of his company’s shareholder.
Yet for this, he was killed.
One may wonder: Don’t Americans deserve better? But that’s the wrong question. Health care is not something that is “given” to Americans by some higher power. The health care system—in particular, a for-profit health care system dominated by private insurers—is what a majority of Americans repeatedly CHOSE to have. Many of them speak disparagingly of the single payer, universal health care systems that exist in various forms here in Canada, in the United Kingdom, or in the European Union. “Socialist medicine,” they tell us, exaggerating the systems’ shortcomings while glossing over one basic fact: No one is left without necessary medical care in either Canada or Europe, and no one is going bankrupt due to unexpected, astronomical medical expenses.
In the end, Mr. Thompson was murdered for doing precisely what he was supposed to do: faithfully managing a FOR PROFIT corporation to the benefit of its shareholders. And the system remains the same. Nothing changes, except that health care might end up being a tad more expensive in the future, because now there will be the added expense associated with higher life insurance premiums and personal bodyguards for insurance company top brass.
This event somehow incited curiosity even here on the different side of the globe, where people hardly understand what is the issue with medical insurance system in US. And again I thank you for providing better insight – particularly I had no idea that in US healthcare is handled in different manner than in Canada, UK and EU. I think I need to dive deeper in the topic and stop being that ignorant :)
> Mr. Thompson was murdered for doing precisely what he was supposed to do
That is something, which is reiterated through your post, but which I feel difficulty to agree. It is logical, it is formally right, but something feels wrong about it! Sorry :)
What could it be? I came to think that while US is perhaps one of the best-doing country of the “victorious capitalism” and people there are sensibly concerned about profit etc, meanwhile charitable sentiments are also developed in US people to high degree (I don’t know good statistics to prove this however). There are so many charity organizations, funds – and many notable examples of philanthropists etc.
From this regard it looks like this:
– yes, it was a Mr.Thompson’s job to ensure profit for the company’s shareholders
– no, he was not obliged to *maximize* this profit by any means (bounded only by formal and flexible law)
– company clients are the other side to which he (as a face/head of company) had certain obligations and duties
He supposedly should choose some balance between “moral” and “formal” in the vague range where both sides could be made content, probably. It all boils down to the meaning of the life however – whether to be “the man of success or the man of value” – so there is no clear answer where balance is and is it reachable in the given setup.
However it is clean Mr.Thompson needed to be smarter to avoid such dire end. I don’t mean to by cynic, I don’t approve his killing and feel sorrow it ended this way. But it is just it – he, so to say, lost the game – though perhaps he didn’t know the stakes are that high.
Actually, yes, he was obliged to maximize profit. That is the CEO’s job. If a CEO puts his personal morals ahead of profits without shareholder approval, he could be held even criminally liable. From a legal perspective, there’s little difference between, say, paying patients more than what is minimally required under a policy vs. taking money from the company and giving it to his girlfriend. Without shareholder approval, these acts would be illegal.
Think of it this way. Suppose your retirement savings are in a fund and I am the fund manager. You hope for a nice return. One day you find out that your investment is worth a lot less. You ask me why. I say, oh, I am sorry, but the real estate into which we invested had a lot of poor people. I felt morally obliged to let them live there rent-free.
Am I allowed to do that with YOUR money, when I was hired by YOU not to help strangers with your money, but to make sure your investment grows and you have a secure future in your old days?
And yes, Thompson had duties towards his clients. But those duties are clearly described in the insurance contracts. He did not violate those contracts. He just maximized profits within the confines of those contracts.
And yes, you’re damn right that it is wrong. But the wrong was not Thompson’s doing. It’s the for-profit health care system that’s fundamentally flawed, and which produces executives like Thompson.