Health insurer that says its role is to avoid healthcare spending and paid nursing homes not to send old people to hospital relaxed refusals policy slightly after CEO shot in street
A group of investors in US health insurance giant UnitedHealth (UHG) – which is deeply embedded in the NHS – is suing the company for relaxing its notorious rate of refusing healthcare to its customers and therefore not making them enough money.
The investors claim that the killing of its then-CEO Brian Thompson, who was shot in the street in what many believe to have been a reaction to the company’s predatory behaviour, stopped the company from pursuing its usual “aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve” its earnings goals and that UHG is therefore not making them as much money as it should.
UHG, which has been repeatedly sued and fined for overbilling and “immoral and barbaric” denial of treatment, now has a British chief executive, Sir Andrew Witty. In reaction to the killing Thompson last December, Witty made a video for staff in which he told them that UHG’s ‘critical’ role is to block ‘unsustainable’ treatment – a euphemism for denial of care:
The firm was recently exposed paying nursing homes to enrol residents in its healthcare programme and then not to send them to hospitals for treatment – and a group of doctors quit en masse from a medical centre purchased by UHG after it told them to it focus on “money, efficiency & quotas”, prompting Oregon’s state legislature to move to ban companies from telling doctors how to practise, as this video from US union media outlet More Perfect Union explains:
UHG, through its subsidiary Optum RX, sits at the heart of the NHS, as do other giant US healthcare companies invited and empowered by the Tories and their red-team – and Starmer’s Health Secretary Wes Streeting has just appointed a long-term advocate of health-rationing programme ‘Integrated Care Systems’ (ICS) to run his ten-year ‘slash and burn’ ‘reform’ plan.
A former UHG vice-president also helped to design ICS (known in the US as ‘Accountable Care’, which has reduced the UK’s NHS to a fractured system of forty-two accountable care profit centres incentivised to withhold treatment by giving them as profit a share of ‘savings’ generated by not treating patients.
The Starmer government is also, for the same profit-maximising reasons, expanding the use of non-doctor and non-nurse ‘physician associates’ and ‘nursing associates’, who have less than half the training of doctors and nurses to cut costs – and is doing so despite the government’s own analysis concluding that the more these roles are used, the more patients will needlessly die, especially those who are poorer.
Please remember to support Skwawkbox if you can, to help ensure it can keep running. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (Skwawkbox will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount as it has to be entered by us). Alternatively, if you prefer to make a one-off or recurring donation by simple card payment, please use the form below:
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your support is hugely appreciated.
Your support is hugely appreciated.
Your support is hugely appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyThanks for your solidarity so Skwawkbox can keep doing its job of inconveniencing the right and helping to build the left!
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so, but please include the donor information above – see here for more.
There is far too much American rentier-class involved in the UK and (former) UK companies, including the takeover of yet more UK media – in this caser the Telegraph.
You can be guaranteed weasly screeching won’t be rationing gay drugs.
Toffee – Which “gay drugs” are you referring to?
What’s it to you? You don’t contribute to, or use the NHS,
Toffee – ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The concept of “gay drugs” on the NHS was a new one for me, so it was only natural that I curious about precisely what you were referring to. Although it is mildly disappointing that you are unable to share your “knowledge” I won’t be losing any sleep over it.
This could possibly be a reference to puberty blockers?
See here for some commentary, with examples.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/if-you-tolerate-this/
Dave – “This could possibly be a reference to puberty blockers?”
Really?
Your assertion appears to be somewhat at odds with Streeting”s clearly stated position.
https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/wes-streeting-puberty-blockers-469741/
Billy, don’t be gormless. Did I make any mention whatsoever to the little thug Streeting?
That observation was an attempt to be helpful in trying to supply a possible interpretation of Toffee’s 11:35 a.m. post, to which you were seeking an answer at 12:32 p.m. and again at 1:56 p.pm.
However, thanks for confirming that you are not serious about seeking any answers to your questions, preferring instead to pound sand.
Dave – “don’t be gormless. Did I make any mention whatsoever to the little thug Streeting?”
Oh dearie, dearie me, how disappointing. 😞
Nobody said that you did, it’s just unfortunate that you missed the fact that the comment byToffee at the head of this thread did. 🥱
” That observation was an attempt to be helpful”
Was it really? 😳
Better luck next time. 😏
“Nobody said that you did”
Really? 6:11 p.m. 23/05/2025:
“Your assertion appears to be somewhat at odds with Streeting”s clearly stated position.”
Toffee may have missed what you think the point of your original post was, however, you moved the debate on in the posts of 12:32 p.m. and 1:56 p.m. 23/05/2025 by asking for details of Toffee’s claim about certain drugs on the NHS.
Clearly, you subsequently changed your mind about wanting to know more on the additional matters Toffee raised which initially which raised your initial curiosity.
Given Toffees responses at 7:30 p.m. 23/05/2025 and 7:56 a.m. 24/05/2025 your comment of 6:11 p.m. 23 /05/2025 regarding what you incorrectly interpret as “my assertions” is way off the mark as it is self-evident to anyone with a functional brain cell that my original post of 3:26 p.m. 23/05/2025 was in line with Toffee’s original theme.
You really need to learn the concept of consistency.
Dave – Thanks for your elaborate little story. I wonder how many will, like me, ponder why you didn’t simply admit that you had made a mistake.
What mistake would that be, Billy?
In what way was my reply not congruent with the wider point Toffee was making and which you were seeking information about?
Your argument and evidence is what, exactly?
Dave – “Your argument and evidence is what, exactly?”
Oh dear. 🥱.
I don’t need one, I’m not the one who is desperate to manufacture an argument and as for evidence well that’s in plain site for everyone to see from Toffee’s original comment downwards.
Yeah, whatever. Ta-ra then.
Toffee – How sweet of you,
I love you too. 😘
Weren’t a reference to any puberty blockers.
I was referring to prep and now the meningitis vaccine that they’ve now discovered can work against gonorrhea.
Both of which are supposedly to prevent the spread of STDs, but in fact further promote promiscuity amongst the homosexual community.
Toffee – Thank you for the additional info but now I’m struggling to understand why you would think that this is a problem.
Are you really that puritanical?
You struggle to understand common courtesy, instead of accusing me of being the british version of a westboro baptist; so how about you shut the fuck up with your faux concern for anyone other than yourself, keef and screeching.
Shrieking that it’s ‘puritanical’ to expect people to bear responsibility and rein in their excesses rather than encourage hedonism, ffs.
‘But it prevents the spread of STDs’
Oh, does it? I’ll tell you something else that prevents the spread of STDs…
Its called abstinence.
Example: when overweight people are refused operations….And we’re told through just about every outlet that being overweight is a ‘lifestyle choice’
But promiscuity (of ALL kinds, but were talking about it being amongst bi/homosexuals) isn’t??
And the spread of STDs are far more prevalent within the homosexual/bisexuality community, and continue to be so – even with these drugs being prescribed to them.
Which means the postcode lottery for other drugs/treatments will continue.
Toffee – Thank you for the insight into your prejudices.
Once again, you have it arse about face, Billy.
Toffee gave you an opportunity to give us an insight into your prejudices.
Dave – …. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯