Addressing Corporate Corruption Without Violence

United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was assassinated outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown, Manhattan on December 4, 2024. The bullets used to kill Thompson were inscribed with the words “delay,” “deny,” and “depose,” referring to the practices healthcare companies often use to handle insurance claims. Following a four-day manhunt, suspect Luigi Mangione was apprehended after being identified at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania. However, during this search, social media’s atmosphere took an odd turn. 

From the very beginning, people commented on Mangione’s looks and smile rather than his alleged actions. Many young people began to support Mangione, going as far as celebrating his actions and hindering the initial police search. Recently, 41 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 29 found Mangione’s actions acceptable while only 40 percent found them unacceptable. Most people defending Mangione believe that they’re part of a moral righteousness movement against insurance companies’ frequent patient exploitation.

Health insurance companies will often deny claims either before or after a prescription or procedure in order to widen their profit margin. This leads to financial stress on customers, specifically from unexpected and possibly unaffordable out-of-pocket payments. It also leads to major emotional stress when a patient is forced to battle with said insurance company while managing a health issue. Conflicts with insurance companies are more common for underprivileged patients. A study of over 1.5 million patients found that low-income patients are 43 percent more likely to have their claims denied than high-income patients. Insurance companies take advantage of what may be low income customers’ inability and lack of resources to hire a lawyer and appeal claims, even though few claim denials are upheld under an appeal. Estate of Gene B. Lokken et al. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., a lawsuit from last November,  found that 90 percent of United Healthcare claim denials that were appealed in court resulted in a reversal, demonstrating that claims are often loosely or unjustly denied.

Despite these flaws and frustrations within the healthcare system, Mangione’s actions crossed a line. Engaging in direct violence that violates basic morals and laws only worsens the situation. Furthermore, it doesn’t address the larger issue at hand. The healthcare system is just one of many industries that provides services and goods, possibly harming and ostensibly killing customers for profit.

During the opioid epidemic that began in the mid-1990s, Purdue Pharma, run by the Sackler family, produced and promoted OxyContin, a powerful and addictive painkiller. According to lawsuits, the Sacklers were aware of the risks associated with the drug and still chose to market the drug and hide its true addictive qualities from the public. Their aggressive marketing tactics extended as far as persuading doctors to prescribe opioids for minor pain, which further escalated the crisis. From 1996 to 2000, OxyContin sales grew from $48 million to $1.1 billion. The Sackler family was worth $11 billion in 2021, in large part due to their profits from the opioid crisis; however, as of 2022, opioid addiction has resulted in upwards of 700,000 deaths. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P, the lawsuit against Purdue Pharma, originally resulted in a settlement that would require the Sackler family to relinquish their ownership of the company and pay up to $6 billion in damages. However, the Supreme Court reversed the settlement, and negotiations are likely to restart. The Sacklers may never see a courtroom or have to pay even half the assets they made from their contribution to the opioid epidemic. This represents an example of harmful companies and the massive failure of our judicial institutions to hold individuals accountable. 

Likewise, during the 2008 financial crisis, nearly nine million jobs were lost and unemployment rates soared to 10 percent; people and companies at every level were responsible for the housing and economic crisis. Loan originators issued mortgages to people they knew did not have the funds to repay them. These mortgages often included adjustable rate terms that started low and then ballooned in a few years. Banks repackaged these high risk mortgages into financial instruments like mortgage-backed securities, selling them to other investors while hiding the risk. Credit rating agencies gave these mortgage-backed securities high ratings, which misled investors into thinking they were reliable investments rather than investments built upon high-risk mortgages. Despite negligence and fraudulent activity from a variety of actors that catalyzed the financial crisis, no individual or company was held legally responsible. Rather, the government rolled out the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout. While the program stabilized the market, it also revitalized many of the banks responsible for the crisis, allowing them to continue operating. This deepened public discontent: many criticized the program and the justice system as a whole for prioritizing the safety of responsible financial institutions over people affected by the recession and for failing to prosecute individuals and companies that engaged in illegal and unethical practices. 

There are a myriad of industries—fast food, alcohol, and cigarettes—developing products that pose health risks and cause serious harm to consumers and using unscrupulous business practices. Our legal and political systems often fail to hold responsible individuals and companies accountable; this is a fundamental issue that rightfully frustrates the public. 

While we must address the issue of allowing people at the forefront of major corrupt companies and systems to walk away scot-free, it’s a moral wrongdoing to kill someone or cause violence. It’s terrifying to imagine where killing individuals who we perceive as responsible for the ills of society and supporting vigilante justice to solve systemic issues could lead us.

Vigilante justice undermines our country’s established legal system and harms society’s natural order. Typically, law enforcement officers prevent abuses of power and protect the public. Vigilantes, on the other hand, put the public at risk by acting on bias and emotion, eroding the public’s trust in the justice system and due process. 

The legal system may be slow and arduous, but it exists for a reason. Rather than condoning or outright celebrating vigilante violence and perverting our legal system, we need to channel the grievances and emotions of the public into an organized effort to support a legal process which will hold those responsible accountable. On an individual level, staying educated about the companies you support and give your money to, joining petitions, and supporting ethical companies and practices can be effective methods of avoiding exploitative industries and businesses. If there’s anything that the public should extrapolate from this situation, it’s that vigilante justice only creates a greater divide and undermines the very foundation of our society. The only way to achieve true justice is through meaningful and enforced legal processes.