'Deny, Defend, Depose'

 

The tragic killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson is a stark reminder of the volatile intersection between corporate power and public frustration in the U.S. about the state of the health system. While no murder should be justified, the chilling reality is the positive public reaction from vast swaths of America, which, rather than mourning a life lost, sees Thompson’s death as symbolic retribution for the systemic failures of America’s health insurance industry.

To many, this reaction feels extreme, even cruel. However, for Koreans who don’t think twice about going to the local clinic to get a shot for fatigue or take their small children to a pediatrician for a sniffle, it’s difficult to convey the pervasive uncertainty and feeling of dread that the most commonplace visit to a medical professional entails for a majority of Americans, even for those who are insured. The byzantine maze that is health insurance coverage is bewildering.

Therefore, the American public’s fury is not about one individual or even one company — it is rooted in decades of policies that have prioritized profits over patients, left millions in debt and perpetuated inequalities in accessing care. The words that the alleged perpetrator wrote on the bullet casings — “Deny, Defend, Depose” — is a powerful condemnation of the system.

For millions of Americans, their first interaction with health insurance is often through denial — denial of coverage, denial of claims and denial of humanity. Patients often find themselves trapped in endless loops of bureaucratic red tape when they need care. A child’s surgery is postponed because a treatment is deemed “not medically necessary.” A cancer patient’s life-saving drug is denied coverage under the pretext of cost-effectiveness. These stories are perceived to be commonplace, not outliers.

The system’s ethos is clear and true for any for-profit company in a capitalistic society. Underneath these denials is the inevitable business calculus to minimize payouts and maximize profits. They do what all businesses do. The industry has been successful, and its executives awarded accordingly. The critical difference, however, is that this is a business of people’s health, and there is a risk to treating people as liabilities to be managed and not patients to be cared for because this pervasive culture of denial has left Americans not just frustrated but dehumanized. The widespread outrage at Thompson’s death reflects this collective disillusionment. It is not that people hate an individual — it is that they see him as a symbol of a system that consistently prioritizes profit over their well-being.

When confronted with criticism, health insurance companies adopt the second stage of the playbook: defend. They defend their practices with corporate jargon, citing “cost-sharing mechanisms” or “efficiency improvements.” Even when glaring failures are exposed, the industry rarely acknowledges wrongdoing. Instead, it blames external factors: rising hospital costs, pharmaceutical pricing or even patients themselves for overutilizing services. The strategy is to paint the system as the best of bad options, convincing the public that any disruption — such as the transition to universal health care — would be catastrophic.

Having said that, I am always skeptical when a narrative seems too one-sided. It’s become a universal truth that health insurance companies are predatory and driven to profits at all costs without regard to the insured. I am sure that this isn’t the truth. The story is far too complex. But Americans are increasingly aware that the United States spends more per capita on health care than any other developed nation yet ranks poorly in health outcomes. The public reaction to Thompson’s death, as morbid as it may seem, is a manifestation of this awareness: a visceral rejection of the status quo. The logical conclusion of this widespread anger is to depose. That is, dismantle the existing health insurance structure and replace it with something more humane and equitable.

But what are they actually asking for? It’s not necessarily for universal health care, even though, according to a 2023 Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans now favor some form of government-managed health system. This is more of a demand for the public to be seen as individuals and validated for their pain. In other words, the demand to depose is also a demand for more certainty and fairness in the system that treats each patient as individuals. Americans want a system where decisions about their health are not made by profit-driven executives but by health care providers committed to their well-being.

The public reaction to the killing reveals a deep-seated belief that change will not come from within the industry but must be forced upon it. Thompson’s death, while tragic, has become a lightning rod for anger — a symbol of the broader fight against a system that many feel has failed them at every turn. It actually echoes the predominant emotional narrative of the latest election. Brian Thompson’s death should not have happened. But the public’s reaction to it is not about one man — it is about pushing back against a faceless system that has commoditized people as entries in a spreadsheet. The slogan of “Deny, Defend, Depose” captures the essence of the collective frustration.

Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect The Korea Times’ editorial stance.