Before You 'Eat the Rich', Consider This
The disturbing chorus following the murder of UnitedHealthcare executive, Brian Thompson
I posted a couple of Threads yesterday following the cold-blooded murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel. The responses were mostly vile and of the “eat the rich” flavor.
Many other comments were the same. Some people even appeared to openly celebrate Thompson’s murder.
I can understand these comments and celebrations to some degree if you or a loved one were denied coverage or had approval delayed for a necessary operation. If the health insurance company behind that decision was UnitedHealthcare, you may be out for blood if their denial or delay led to a loved one’s death.
It appears to have been a motive for the person who murdered Brian Thompson. The New York Times reported that words including “delay” and “deny” appear to have been inscribed on the bullet casings next to Thompson’s body.
But while this type of vigilante justice may seem like logical retribution at the moment, there are numerous fatal flaws in its reasoning. Flaws that would be disastrous for society should they become norms or appropriate actions to take against corporate executives you feel oppressed by.
Let’s first start with some brief history.
The French Revolution and “Eat the Rich” today
One of my favorite books is A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. In this exemplary work of historical fiction, Dickens told the story of the French Revolution primarily through the eyes of the Manette family. He told how French aristocrats treated the poor like annoying objects in their way.
In the character of Madam Defarge, Dickens embodied a typical revolutionary at the time. Working class. Aggrieved. Filled with rage and a desire for revenge against the elites of French society.
Madam Defarge’s rage, like the rage directed against Brian Thompson, was both as understandable as it was troubling. For there is no due process in revolution.
Dickens illustrates this flaw in Defarge as she obsessed throughout the novel with exacting revenge on Charles Darnay (who married into the Manette family), despite the fact it was Darnay’s extended family (the Evrémondes) who were truly to blame for certain injustices.
For Defarge and many like her, anyone with even a minor association with aristocracy was at risk of the guillotine; a morally questionable approach that leads to many unjust and unintended outcomes.
While this led to regime change in France in the 18th century, absent more coordinated action, it’s unlikely to affect change at UnitedHealthcare or across the healthcare industry today. If UnitedHealthcare was denying or delaying coverage unfairly or even illegally, the actions of this gunman are unlikely to make a difference.
The system goes on. Someone will take Thompson’s place. But nobody can replace his role as husband and father.
Where does vigilante justice stop?
If we can’t agree that vigilantism is bad for society, we’re in trouble. If vigilantism is celebrated or even addressed indifferently, we’re on a fast track to 18th-century France. Placing the enforcement and execution of laws into the hands of ordinary citizens can only lead to trouble.
In addition to a lack of due process, there’s also the issue of where vigilante justice stops. Do we eat some of the rich or does “eat the rich” literally mean everyone with even a minor association with aristocracy, as it did for Madam Defarge?
This is why we decided centuries ago that organizing ourselves around a social contract and system of laws works better than placing the execution of justice into the hands of random citizens.
Citizens all have their own preferences. Some are outraged at health insurance companies. Others want to exact revenge against pharmaceutical companies that aggressively distribute opioids in their communities. Big banks, industrialized farming giants, mining companies, big tech, and the list of targets goes on with no end in sight.
One change I can guarantee comes from this is better corporate executive security for every C-suite executive in America. Probably not the change the vigilante in this case was looking to achieve.
This is how the left loses
Many of the commentators on the Threads I highlighted above appeared to be of a left-leaning political ideology based on their profiles. It reminded me of similar extreme statements and actions that I’ve written about, including how many on the left openly supported or excused the heinous actions of Hamas on and after October 7th.
It follows the extremes of the literal meaning of “defund the police.” Yes, this message may have been one of “reform the police”, but that wasn’t the explicit battle cry.
Then the left wonders why it loses elections.
Perhaps avoiding advocacy for vigilante justice is a good place to start. Maybe laughing on the grave of someone murdered in cold blood on a Manhattan street is perceived by many as disgusting and extreme.
Unless people are prepared to enter the dark world of 18th-century France, they should check their advocacy for vigilantism at the door. If you don’t want to show remorse for Thompson’s death, fine. But that doesn’t mean you need to communicate your lack of remorse to the world with celebratory undertones.
Instead of “Eat the Rich” vigilantism, do this
If you feel so strongly about the horrid state of the healthcare insurance industry in America (and understandably, many do), organize a protest. Go to the offices of UnitedHealthcare and other big insurers and voice your concerns. Make sure you don’t leave out the countless middlemen that disrupt the entire healthcare insurance process too. They are arguably an even bigger part of the problem.
You could also advocate for stricter laws on healthcare insurers. Call your Congressman. Insurers should not be able to overrule a doctor or hospital in determining whether a patient needs medical treatment unless there’s a very compelling reason. This process and the laws around it must be improved.
Advocate for more transparency in healthcare insurance. UnitedHealthcare and other insurers have been the subject of scrutiny over denial rates in their private Medicare Advantage plans - the denial rate for post-acute care increased to 22.7 percent in 2022 from 10.9 percent in 2020 - but the public doesn’t get any transparency from private, non-government plans (where denial rates could be even worse).
Write and make content online. The barriers to letting your voice be heard on the internet have never been lower. If you’re concerned about the healthcare industry, come write about it here at The Political Prism. Find me on TikTok - I will follow you. The more people who advocate for change (instead of pursuing vigilantism), the more likely it is that positive change can arrive.
We should also pressure employers to drop companies like UnitedHealthcare as insurance providers if they arbitrarily deny or delay coverage. More extensive audits of their practices should be required before employers contract with them. Employees as a collective group hold massive bargaining power over who employers choose for healthcare coverage. Use it.
Finally, vote for people who have more than “concepts of a plan” for healthcare. Donald Trump infamously refused to give details recently of his healthcare plan, saying that he had “concepts of a plan.” What he has promised for the past decade is to do away with Obamacare, although many of his calls for that have since quieted as he’s probably realized that his constituents actually like it.
The overarching point here is that there are many civil ways to influence positive change. None of which involve murdering corporate executives.
The lack of remorse from some of the same people who strongly oppose the death penalty, any cruelty to animals, and even the slightest microaggression is beyond disturbing. We cannot lecture people on democracy and the rule of law while simultaneously cheering on the vigilantism that led to Brian Thompson’s murder.
So before making a joke about how “Brian Thompson’s coverage was denied”, ask yourself what type of society you want. One where random vigilante murders of rich corporate executives make funny social media posts at best and serve as legitimate means for retributive ends at worst? Or where due process and laws actually govern and matter?
We don’t need to eat the rich. We just need to regulate them better.
For more, find me on Medium, Threads, X/Twitter, BlueSky, TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube.