'Deny,' 'defend,' 'depose' written on shell casings where UnitedHealthcare CEO was killed, official says
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Shell casings found at the scene where the UnitedHealthcare CEO was shot dead by a masked gunman in front of a busy New York City hotel had "deny," "defend" and "depose" written on them, a senior New York City law enforcement official briefed on the investigation confirmed to NBC News on Thursday.
Brian Thompson, 50, was killed in a "premeditated, preplanned targeted attack" outside the New York Hilton Midtown in the heart of Manhattan, police said.
Police say they don't yet know the motive of the gunman, who remains still at large.
Thompson's family said in a statement they are "shattered to hear about the senseless killing of our beloved Brian."
"Brian was an incredibly loving, generous, talented man who truly lived life to the fullest and touched so many lives," the family said in a statement obtained by NBC affiliate KARE of Minneapolis.
The family requested "complete privacy."
Investigators believe the shooter may have traveled to New York City from Atlanta last month by bus, three senior law enforcement officials familiar with the case told NBC News.
Officials are working to see whether they can find a name from the tickets purchased for a Nov. 24 Greyhound trip that might help identify the gunman. Greyhound said it is cooperating with authorities on the investigation.
Police are also looking into whether the gunman paid in cash and used a fake ID to rent a room at a hostel on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, according to two law enforcement officials briefed on the investigation.
ABC News was the first to report the words written on the bullet casings.
Thompson did not travel with any personal security detail despite known threats against him.
Follow along for live coverage
"There had been some threats," Thompson's wife, Paulette Thompson, told NBC News on Wednesday. "Basically, I don't know, a lack of coverage? I don't know details. I just know that he said there were some people that had been threatening him."
Security video showed Thompson, dressed in a blue suit, walking down the street. The gunman approached him from behind and opened fire, it showed. Thompson stumbled forward as a witness ran to safety. The gunman continued to fire as Thompson fell to the ground, the video showed.
Thompson was pronounced dead at Mount Sinai West.
"The motive for this murder is currently unknown, but based on the evidence we have so far, it does appear the victim was specifically targeted," Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny said Wednesday. "But at this point, we do not know why."
Before the shooting, the gunman bought a water bottle and two protein bars from a nearby Starbucks and discarded the items, according to a senior New York City law enforcement official briefed on the investigation.
Investigators recovered a video showing where the man discarded the items, and police collected them as evidence, hoping it could aid in the investigation, the official said.
Former FBI supervisor Rob D'Amico said Wednesday that Thompson's slaying has all the makings of a personal vendetta tied to the victim's company.
Anyone would have been able to find the whereabouts of the high-ranking business figure with a few quick Google searches, according to D'Amico. UnitedHealthcare's website listed an investor conference set for Wednesday, but it did not mention a location.
"Even a layman can find there's so much on the internet now and people put so much out there," said D'Amico, now a security consultant.
No current or former executives of UnitedHealth Group receive regular company-funded personal security service, according to the insurance giant's twomost recent proxy statements. Companies have to report security expenses for directors or corporate officers if the value exceeds $10,000 per year.
Two of UnitedHealthcare's peers, Humana and Cigna, both said in their most recent proxy statements that they provide personal security to executives. SEC records, though, did not disclose which executives received this protection or how much was being spent.
CVS Health, another major player in health insurance, requires its CEO to use corporate aircraft and a corporate driver as part of a disclosed "executive security program," according to regulatory filings.
Tags
Who is online
294 visitors
Some people are going to settle - one way or another
"For-Profit healthcare" is absurd and sick. And uniquely American.
lol. Where in the world do doctors work for free?
Brian Thompson was a doctor?
what healthcare system in the world doesn't have administrators?
Did he work for free?
Where do healthcare workers for free Bob?
YOu claimed "for profit healthcare" is uniquely American. So show us who who works for free? Do french doctors get paid for their work?
Are you saying that he DID work for free? Gosh!
Instead of deflecting, try and prove your point that for profit healthcare is uniquely American.
[✘]
[✘]
Just to be clear, you are defending the CEO?
There are for profit hospitals and/or for profit private medical practices in many countries,
Where?
In countries where there is also Universal Health Care
So... people can either get their healthcare for free, or they can pay for it?
That's what I understand. I think it's called concierge medicine. I could be wrong
Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom, for a start.
Philippines. Everything is cash up front
Concierge medicine is a different thing. That's where you pay a retainer to a physician so you can get access whenever you need without waiting. It's more popular in the US.
What I'm talking about is just private healthcare, which is pretty much everywhere. (including France)
Why would anyone pay, if free is available?
Are you saying you didn't know that for profit healthcare was available there?
I've lived in France for fifty years. I have French healthcare.
... but a quidam from Texas knows better than I.
yes, yes he does, quadamit !
quadratrue!
So you are saying there are NO for profit private healthcare in France? none at all?
I'm sure you know more than The Commonwealth Fund, the (hardcore left wing) PNHP, and the NYU Graduate School of Public Service combined. None of these people could possibly know WTF they're talking about.
Keep digging. Who pays those doctors? Who pays those clinics?
When I come to Arizona for the winter, i bring six months of heart and lung medicine. (Don't ever smoke, kids.
) When I picked it up at the pharmacy, the cash register slip was in the (big) box. Over €5000. How much did I pay? Zero.
But please! Do continue to tell me about French healthcare...
Would you like to know exactly how things happen between me and my general practitioner? Between me and the specialists who treat my heart and lungs? How my transportation to my semi-annual lung deep-dive at a hospital two hours away is paid for? (Hint: I pay nothing.)
I could tell you anything you care to ask... but apparently you prefer random online whatever.
They're still for profit, regardless of who pays. Not sure how that's not clear.
The US govt pays billions of dollars to Lockheed. That doesn't make them non-profit.
Medicare pays hundreds of billions to HCA for hospital care. HCA is a for profit company, even though the government pays them.
The pharmacy made a tidy profit.
Apparently someone needs to explain the concept of "profit".
I don't understand how you imagine that none of those entities are for profit, even if you're not paying.
It's really amazing to watch. People think healthcare is "free" if their taxes pay for it, or more likely, their childrens' taxes ultimately pay for it, are a wonder to me. Sort of scary they have a vote though.
Have a great life...
Umm... Jack... I never said that. Please read what I write. Don't make stuff up.
My generalist is self-employed. When I see him, he scans my healthcare card, and the national health insurance fund pays him. I use the same card at the pharmacy. And at the private clinic where my cardiologist works. And at the hospital where my lungs people work - a huge public teaching hospital.
So if I have insurance and you have insurance, what's the difference? My healthcare is decided by my doctors. The insurance pays. The insurance does not decide.
But hey...
When did "they" make you "their" spokesperson? Oh, that's right... "they" didn't. You just make stuff up.
Well let's quote you then.
We've now established that for profit healthcare exists many places in the world, including France.
Which makes him for profit.
And? He's still a for-profit provider.
Tens of millions of people in the US go buy their groceries using a national payment card under a program called SNAP. That doesn't make WalMart, Tyson Foods, Borden Dairy or Nabisco non-profit.
Tens of millions of Americans show their Medicare cards at hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies all over the country. Some are non-profit, some are for profit, just like in France.
The government paying for something has absolutely zero to do with whether the entity they purchase it from is for profit.
That has nothing at all to do with for-profit vs non-profit.
Perhaps you do not understand the difference between "healthcare" and "doctor". A doctor is a person who makes their living by taking care of patients. Healthcare is a system that (supposedly) ensures the health of a large number of people. A doctor participates in healthcare. Healthcare employs doctors.
Doctors in the UK are employed by the NHS (National Health System). Doctors in France may be self-employed or employed by a clinic or hospital which may be public or private.
In all cases, doctors need to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves. As far as I know, they can do these things, because they are paid.
"Doctors are paid" does not equate to "healthcare is for-profit".
When you demonstrate that you understand this concept, we may be able to to further.
So CEOs shopul be paid millions to do what exactly?
Healthcare is the service provided by a doctor. That's why he's called a "healthcare provider".
If a doctor is in private practice, he is a for profit entity.
It appears you do not understand the difference between healthcare and health insurance.
Bye
thanks
Medica MN closed their offices today after receiving online threats.
that kind of shit is only going to multiply during the next 4 years ...
That is not hard to imagine since online threats have likely to multiplying every year since the internet went public and will likely continue doing so far beyond the next 4 years
If it is health insuirance ceos then I will consider the tru,p term to be a success.
I honestly don't know that I have ever seen less collective outrage, and more collective apathy towards a very public and high profile murder. Aside from a few media headlines telling us about this "horrible act" or whatever, most people say "he had it coming."
Health Insurance companies and the executives that run them are not held in high regard in the US,
I’d say that has been accurate for quite some time here and isn’t about to change anytime soon.
the US healthcare insurance corporate scam is a financial shell game and a burden on taxpayers ...
On the contrary, change is right around the corner! Trump has been promising a great new healthcare system that we are all just going to love. He’ll have an announcement on it in a couple of weeks. You know it’s true because he’s been making that promise for 8 years.
And after all this time he has produced a concept of a system.
Of course we haven’t actually heard any of the concepts. Perhaps there will be a big announcement in a couple weeks.
Two weeks, to be sure.
Or eight years, depending...
Thanks for reminding me, Tacos. Now do we give him a new start on his two week project or do we go back to the beginning of 8 years ago?
I’ll have to get my abacus out to get to those numbers.
Here is a link to an excellent article on the French Health Care System and it is unlike any other in Europe. It is well worth the read.
Link doesn't work.
I don't know each EU system. I know the French because I deal with it constantly, and its enormous budget is constantly in the news. I know the UK system a little bit, because its enormous budget is constantly in the news and I live just across the Channel from Dover (and I speak English). I‘ve read a bit about the Swiss (who are not in the EU.)
All the systems are different. There is a common denominator: medical decisions are made by medical practicioners and NOT by insurers.
This is about as "duh" as a topic can be. Only a fool - an obstinate fool - will see medical decisions being made by a financially interested third party as a good idea.
Oh, and... France's "socialist" healthcare was created by that notorious leftist, Charles de Gaulle.
Try it now, it’s working for me.
It's working. Good article.
The oversight is by a committee of three: business (big contributor), labor (representing the patients) and government (because BIG budget).
Most of the time, of course, business and labor don't agree on whatever, so the government has the deciding vote. But!!
I remember some years ago, the government wanted to raid the insurance fund to prop up some other social program. Obviously a terrible precedent. So business and labor joined to defeat the government attempt.
I've seen arguments that this is not a significant point. Very unconvincing arguments...
(Gotta go have lunch. I'll be back.)
Not only is life expectancy better in France the cost is much less for a better program. France is considered to have the best program for health care in Europe.
If Insurance coverage drives life expectancy, why did Americans life expectancy go down after Obamacare reduced the number of uninsureds?
much less for a better program
As long as you don't actually need health care
If you want to know why French health care is cheaper?
The average salary is less than 150,000 euros.
https://www.erieri.com/salary/job/physician/france#:~:text=The%20average%20pay%20for%20a,of%20education%20for%20a%20Physician.
The French live longer than Americans because they have better healthcare. Period.
You can twist and turn, but it's really that simple: better healthcare, longer lives.
(There's a dirty little story hiding in the statistics, about how rich Americans live much longer than poor Americans, but hey... I'm sure there's a justification for that, too.)
I tried to explain this many times, but between the readers who are incapable of understanding, and those determined to never understand anything... it's... tiresome. But I‘ll try once more...
"Average income" is a VERY bad indicator. Income inequality is so extreme in America that the "average" is meaningless. (The U.S. also has the highest Gini coefficient among the G7 nations. The top 1% of earners in the United States earn about 40 times more than the bottom 90% of earners, and roughly 33 million U.S. workers earn less than $10 per hour, placing a family of four below the poverty line.)
"Median" is still skewed too high, but it's far better than "average". "Income" is not easy, either, because of crazy shit like "deferred income".
And of course, there's the impact of taxes and services. For example, the French pay a higher tax rate, but receive much better services (healthcare and education being the most blatant).
So it's hard to find, but the best comparison for real people is "median revenue after redistribution". An acceptable substitute is "gini coefficient" which shows the spread between highest and lowest incomes. The US is a bit under 0.5. France a bit under 0.3.
My own very unscientific comparison is this: When I arrived in France in the 1970s, an ordinary French household had a small/medium color cathode-ray TV. An ordinary American household had the same, but bigger. Fifty years later those are flat screens, big in France and bigger in the US. In the meantime, France built a nationwide high-speed rail network (that I've been riding for decades).
Right. Sure.
The fact that they eat better, exercise more, have lower stress and half the obesity rate has nothing at all to do with it.
Sorry, but because you equate "doctor" and "healthcare", I can only understand that you believe American doctors are really, really bad.
OK, how about if we clarify the legal definitions in the US?
In the United States, "healthcare" is the services delivered associated with acute or preventative care. (as opposed to custodial care)
A "healthcare provider" is the person or entity who delivers that care, like a doctor or hospital or lab or imaging center, etc.
"Health insurance" is a type of program most Americans participate in that pays for the majority of those services. We have private health insurance (both individual and employer sponsored), public insurance for poor people (MedicAid), public insurance for old people (MediCare), and public insurance for veterans (TriCare). Public insurance plans are frequently outsourced, so a person might be on a MediCare Advantage plan with a private insurer, but it's paid for by the govt.
We license "healthcare providers" to do things like surgery or prescribe/dispense medications or draw blood or read MRI results. We license "health insurers" to produce policies, pay claims, and stay solvent enough to do so.
If that terminology is different in France, I'll defer to you on that, but those are the legal definitions in the US.
So as far as non-profit/for profit goes:
Healthcare... the set of services provided to heal you... is done on both a for-profit and non-profit basis in both the US and France. Not just doctors, but clinics and pharmacies can be for-profit or non-profit in both places.
Health insurance in the USA is done on both government sponsored and privately funded basis, and provided by both for profit and non-profit mutual entities.
Health insurance in France is predominately publicly funded, with the availability of small, supplemental policies on the private market.
No. It's jointly funded by employees and employers. The fund is entirely separate from the government budget. There is basic insurance, obligatory, and complementary to cover co-pays, held by over 90% of the population. The complementary is mostly managed by private insurers... who have no role in medical decisions - they learn of a medical act when they get the order (not request) to pay.
Your definitions are ok. It would be helpful to cite a source, because it's always good to know who‘s doing the writing.
I suspect (but have no evidence) that the absence of costly litigation about whether or not to treat... and how to treat... is a significant difference between the US and French systems. Cost control in France is after treatment. The system tracks each practitioner's costs, compared to similar profiles. Excessive costs must be explained and can lead (VERY rarely) to sanctions. No lawyers!
Are there special provisions for small businesses (especially sole proprietorships) where there is no economy of scale?
How do the employers pay that? Is there a claims pool and they hire an administrator or do they pay sort of a tax to the fund?
That's how Medicare supplement plans work here.
How often are providers sued for malpractice over there? Most of our doctor clients whine loudly about the cost of their malpractice insurance... which isn't that high compared to what most of them make... and didn't go down when we capped malpractice awards.
Health insurers do that here.
A lot of treatment decisions here that appear to be made by insurers are actually not up to them, but they get blamed for the bad news they deliver. For example, if you work for a big company, they don't buy insurance, they self insure. They'll hire an insurance company to process the claims and negotiate the physician contracts, but the employer decides what's covered or not. There are similar situations with MediCare and MedicAid, where an insurance company will process the claims, but they're following the rules of the contract they have with Medicare. Those arrangements are not widely publicized, so people often don't realize what's happening.
Yeah... *sigh* .... Well.... This is America. The lawyers are everywhere. This is the place where you can sue the restaurant because you spilled coffee on yourself.
I was self-employed my last ten active years. I was the single shareholder in a one-shareholder "corporation". So I made both the employee and employer payments into the system. That was a big chunk of my revenue. OTOH, I had very good coverage.
Now of course, I have "serious problem" coverage at 100%. (I'd rather not
.)
Been there and done that, at least as far as Social Security and Medicare taxes go here in the US.
Out of curiosity, what was that tax rate paying both sides? I guess you said it was itemized? So you know how much is going into the health fund and how much is regular income tax for everything else?
A percentage of salary. Once the employer has paid their part, they're done. That money is out of their reach. They can go bankrupt with no impact to the employee‘s coverage.
Dunno. It's not a significant topic, so it's probably a lot less.
Can't do that in France. Everyone goes through the same pipeline. All money is held by the national fund.
So when I said insurance was "publicly funded", that's what I was talking about. I'm just not familiar with how it's described over there.
The French consider it important to distinguish between the government and the health system. Their budgets are held strictly separate. The health system is managed by a three-sided committee: labor, business, and government. The alliances can be... strange.
Of course, politicians being politicians, there are occasional attempts to slip money from one budget to the other.
Makes sense. We do that here with Medicare.....for the most part.
But as you say, politicians being who they are, the decisions are not always actuarially sound.
Is the French health system non profit…..YES
Another good article.
About paying into the system: basic insurance is obligatory. It covers about 80% of expenses, up to 100% if things go south. Complementary insurance (to cover those basic insurance co-pays) is not obligatory, but 95% have it.
Personally, I'm covered 100% by the basic insurance because of my serious heart and lung problems. (My wife who has the usual miseries of going-on-80 always has a few euros at the end of the month. I don't... but I think I'd rather
.)