It was rich to watch the TV pundits, who excel at creating storms in a teacup, feigning shock at the public response on social media to UnitedHealthcare’s CEO being gunned down. They were aghast at the over 57,000 laugh emojis on the statement of condolence platitudes put out by UnitedHealthcare. Mr. Smercornish on CNN was properly clutching his pearls and, after some scolding, declared at least the responders on the phone to his poll question were not that crass and had voiced their concerns more responsibly. After all, the victim had a wife and two children.
The talking heads missed the plot. What about the tens of thousands who die in the U.S. every year due to health insurance shenanigans, are denied health care, or are financially ruined? All those hyperventilating should at least faint at the scandalously poor quality of care in the richest country in the world. That it stood out was because the manner of death was unusual for a CEO of an insurance company. What of the nameless who cannot afford lifesaving treatment for their loved ones, not even a cab (forget an ambulance!) ride to an emergency department? Death by poor health care is routine and not newsworthy.
Another difference is that the CEO had an individual identity, and one could also point to him being a husband and father. The thousands who suffer or die at the hands of the health insurance industry are an anonymous mass and, therefore, denied the same particular acknowledgment. The insurance industry seems unaccountable, other than perhaps to its stockholders. That picture of hardware in the killer’s spine hints at a story. Apparently, the industry made one victim too many. It was as if the killer’s action was a finger pulled out of the dyke, and a flood of dammed resentment came crashing through. The social media responses from the general public were visceral and brutally honest, bearing the pain of those who had helplessly and long suffered.
If there are any people in the world who positively celebrate another’s success and, rather than being envious, aspire to achieve the same, it is the Americans. So, why the vitriol against a successful individual brutally gunned down on a New York street? It may have to do with how that success was achieved. The health insurance industry should take note.
A company is not an unalterable behemoth or a giant subterranean fungus. An institution is what its people make it, not vice versa. When policies and practices are undertaken that harm its clients, it is done by a person or persons, not the passive office building bearing the company’s name and insignia. In a drive for profit that is insensitive to the life and health of people, sharks, not Mother Teresa, rise to the top. Who is ultimately responsible for the culture, policies, and procedures of a company? The buck stops with the CEO.
Rather than taking a long, hard look at how matters came to a head, “leaders” of other health insurance companies vanished from their company websites and coughed up millions for their personal security. To be insecure in one’s own backyard is quite a price to pay for “success.”
Nor does the blame lie entirely with the health insurance industry. Given the opportunity, it is human nature to take a mile when given an inch. Hence, the necessity of checks and balances. This brings us to the politicians, especially those scolding the hoi polloi for sympathizing with the killer instead of the victim, who seemingly achieved his position by stepping all over them. Had there been effective accountability measures in place, the tragedy may not have occurred. That there is no such system is largely due to politicians beholden to special interest (including health insurance) donors.
Consider this: It is a given that a government (including that of the United States) would spend appropriately to maintain an effective military force and find it unthinkable to farm out that responsibility to mercenaries because it was more cost-effective. Nor would dispensing justice be contracted out to a private company. So, if supporting those situations does not go against the grain of capitalism, how does providing satisfactory health care to its citizens become objectionable and cause politicians to raise the specter of “socialized medicine”? Just call a rose by another name, if they must! The politicians misguide the electorate with their smoke and mirrors. Needless to say, they are hypocritical when they then wag their fingers at the behavior of the masses.
Trust is another essential ingredient for human society to function properly. That trust is abused at the risk of accountability—the latter being the sword of Damocles, so to speak. Widespread abuse of trust and lack of accountability have created the Frankenstein’s monster that is our health care. People pay through their noses for the promise of coverage that turns out to be a mirage come the hour of need. Insurance or no insurance, a health event may bring financial ruin. Those who have suffered at the hands of the health industry usually have nowhere to turn. More often than not, when wronged, they lack the deep pockets of the health insurance industry and hospitals to pursue their cause legally. Can they be blamed then for lauding David instead of Goliath?
So, to all the pundits and politicians wagging their fingers at public misbehavior: chill. Had you done your jobs, there would have been no need for Robin Hood.
Shah-Naz H. Khan is a neurosurgeon.
