More than five days have passed since the murder of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson. While investigators have since apprehended a suspect, political pundits are still struggling to understand a public reaction to the killing that was widely unsympathetic and, in some cases, even jubilant.
Thousands of Americans took to social media with comments like “My thoughts and prayers are out of network.” referencing United Health Care’s lamentable record of denying insurance claims at rates far above the industry standard.
Conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro were quick to condemn these reactions, labeling them as evidence of a morally corrupt leftist philosophy that condones the murder of ideological opponents. In a 50-minute YouTube video, Shapiro reminded viewers that Thompson had a family, emphasizing that the appropriate response to “bad” or “disliked” policies is democratic reform, not violence.
Shapiro is mistaken in suggesting that the positive public reaction to Thompson’s killing was unique to the left. Comments celebrating or mocking his death have come from across the political spectrum. Under Shapiro’s own video, dozens of conservatives expressed little sympathy for the CEO, reflecting widespread frustration with a health care system that prioritizes profits over people.
With 40% of bankruptcies in the U.S. tied to medical debt, nearly every American has felt the sting of greedy insurance practices. It is no surprise that resentment toward Thompson transcends political lines.
The disproportionate moral outrage Shapiro directs at the reaction to the murder, compared to the systemic suffering caused by companies like UnitedHealthcare, is disappointing. For Shapiro and other conservative pundits, death and suffering—even on a large scale—that occurs within or because of an established system are morally excusable, worthy only of tepidly critical descriptions like “bad” or “not ideal.”
Imagine this: your child is battling cancer. Her treatment causes constant nausea and vomiting, but your insurance company refuses to cover anti-nausea medication, claiming it’s “nonessential.” They deny other critical treatments as well, leaving you unable to afford the care she needs. After months of suffering, she dies. You are left not only with unbearable grief but also with crushing medical debt.
This scenario is not hypothetical—it reflects the reality for countless families denied essential care by UnitedHealthcare, which reported $22 billion in profits last year.
Had this level of suffering been caused by a terrorist attack rather than a corporation, public celebrations of the perpetrator’s demise would likely be lauded, not condemned. Shapiro and others would likely lead the applause.
On another note, the notion that Americans can simply “change the system democratically” ignores the immense barriers to reform. Billion-dollar corporations wield disproportionate influence, drowning out the voices of ordinary people. For many, peaceful avenues for change feel inaccessible, if not impossible. The people drowning in medical debt, in other words, the people most in need of systemic change, are precisely the people with the least access to the resources needed to bring it about. Quite frankly, it is surprising that Thompson’s murder is the first of its kind in recent history.
Framing the killing of Thompson as "revolutionary leftist evil" ignores the broader context. It is not a rejection of democracy but an act of desperation against a system that permits the wealthiest members of our society to make a profit out of sickness and pain. If the killing and its celebration are antidemocratic, why doesn't the system that inspired it receive similar criticism?
If anything, the killing aligns with an American tradition of radical resistance against oppressive systems—an uncomfortable truth for those who romanticize acts of rebellion in the past while condemning present ones.
— Sam Foglesong of Hays