The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson prompted a range of perspectives on the killing, with many commenters debating the act’s justifiability.

A divide in perspectives quickly surfaced, as the killing was both praised and condemned.

Stance 1: Violence Is Justifiable Against a System that Kills Even More

CORE ARGUMENT: The murder of Thompson pales in comparison to Thompson’s role in a healthcare system that creates vast, needless suffering.

More arguments for this stance:

• UnitedHealth, one of the world’s 10 largest companies and the largest health insurance company in the US, is corrupt, and a radical response was justified in order to bring the need for change to the forefront. 
• With a revenue of $359 billion in 2023, yet so many preventable deaths among Americans, UnitedHealth is a purveyor of a broken system that harms Americans and must be addressed.
• UnitedHealthcare may not pull a trigger and shoot its victims on the street, but it has many victims who die of cancer, heart disease and other conditions. When democratic means of change fail, some people may take extreme actions. 
• 68,000 Americans needlessly die each year so that insurance company execs like Brian Thompson can become multimillionaires.

Back to Top

Stance 2: Violence is Wrong, But The Healthcare Industry is Reaping What It’s Sown

CORE ARGUMENT: Violence is wrong, but not inexplicable given the corrupt state of the existing U.S. healthcare system. 

More arguments for this stance:

• Our healthcare system is a tangled mess of government mandates and costs that drives some people to desperation.
• “The visceral response from people across this country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the health care system… Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far.”
• “The problem is not Brian Thompson. The problem is not UnitedHealthcare. The problem is not payors trying to maximize profit. The problem is the American system to fund and reimburse health care is broken.”

Back to Top

Stance 3: Violence is Never Justifiable, Even Within a Corrupt System

CORE ARGUMENT:  Thompson’s murder is terrorism, not vigilante justice. No matter how unjust a system is, it’s not morally acceptable to try to reform it by killing people. 

More arguments for this stance:

• It’s a sign of cultural decay that an alleged killer is being celebrated as an avenger instead of as a deranged killer. 
• It does no good to pretend that the killer did not have agency, and he should not be absolved of a heinous act. 
• We can both not celebrate murder and simultaneously hold health insurance companies accountable for harm. There are rational and honorable ways to address injustice without resorting to the celebration of murder.
• Violence is a sign of a decaying civilization — clear signs today that lead to violence include income inequality, declining trust in democratic institutions, a heightened sense of victimhood, intense partisan polarization based on identity, rapid demographic change, flourishing conspiracy theories, violent and dehumanizing rhetoric.
• Murder is inherently anti-democratic: a civil society handles corruption and disputes via rule of law, a court system, freedom of speech, nonviolent activism, and other mechanisms.
• The U.S. healthcare system as it stands is not unjust enough to warrant such drastic action.

Back to Top

Reviewers and Editors:

Malayna J. Bizier, News Analyst and Social Media Editor (Right bias)

Andy Gorel, News Editor (Center)

Evan Wagner, Editor and Product Manager (Lean Left)

Julie Mastrine, Director of Marketing and Media Bias Ratings (Lean Right)

Henry Brechter, Editor-in-chief (Center)