In an opinion piece for the New York Times<\/em> on Friday, UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty critiqued the current for-profit U.S. healthcare system, stating it “does not work as well as it should” and that it was a system “no one would design on purpose.” These comments emerged while his industry faced significant public outrage after the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s chief executive.<\/p>\n Witty mentioned that his company, which is the parent organization of UnitedHealthcare and the largest private insurer in the country, is “ready to work with anyone\u2014as we have always done\u2014including healthcare providers, employers, patients, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and others to find ways to improve the quality of care and reduce costs.”<\/p>\n However, skeptics are questioning Witty’s commitment to transforming an industry that his company has significantly shaped and from which it has profited immensely. Witty was the top-earning healthcare executive in the U.S. last year, and since the Affordable Care Act was passed, 40% of the private insurance industry’s total profits have gone to UnitedHealth Group.<\/p>\n Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams<\/em>, “It is (just barely) true that UnitedHealth didn\u2019t create the U.S. corporate insurance system, which annually causes the deaths of tens of thousands through care denial. But they have certainly refined it and turned it into a vast medical killing machine. They not only resist any changes toward public health, they also use their vast wealth to further harden and even worsen the system.”<\/p>\n Lawson further stated, “Andrew Witty is a major figure in what amounts to a cult of death and greed. The only way he could absolve himself would be to resign and use his wealth to dismantle the current system and replace it with one based on public health.”<\/p>\n “Medicare for All is the only current proposal that could achieve universal, uninterrupted coverage for everyone, while also realizing the cost-effectiveness and savings that eliminating private insurance could bring.”<\/p>\n Though Witty has publicly committed to participating in reform efforts, he has defended his company\u2019s care denials in private and advised his staff to avoid interacting with the press following the murder of Thompson.<\/p>\n Despite Witty\u2019s portrayal of his company in his Times<\/em> op-ed, UnitedHealth has traditionally been a strong opponent of reform initiatives aimed at reducing the damage caused by for-profit insurance and creating public alternatives. In 2021, The Lever<\/em> reported that UnitedHealth Group conducted a webinar urging its employees to oppose Connecticut\u2019s attempts to establish a state-level public health insurance option.<\/p>\n This year alone, UnitedHealth has spent over $5.8 million lobbying federal lawmakers, according to OpenSecrets.<\/p>\n Michael Lighty, president of HealthyCalifornia Now, extended condolences to the family of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in an email to Common Dreams<\/em> and argued that true healthcare reform must avoid paths dominated by economic elites, such as the collaborations Witty proposes. Lighty emphasized, “Our demand is simple: free healthcare funded by our taxes, similar to firefighting services. We must utilize this critical moment of justified anger to transform what is achievable.”<\/p>\n Witty, originally from a country with a public healthcare system, did not specify what types of reforms he would support in his Friday op-ed, but he clearly opposes a shift to a single-payer model like Medicare for All, which would eliminate private health insurance and offer all Americans free service at the point of use\u2014and at a lower overall cost than the current system.<\/p>\n In a piece for The Nation<\/em>, writer Natalie Shure argued, “The vast resources and energy we expend on maintaining the existence of health insurance are squandered on an industry that offers no societal benefit. These corporations could be abolished tomorrow, and we could build a system without them that is more efficient, less expensive, and simpler.” Shure added, “Other countries have already established such systems. Medicare for All stands as the sole proposal capable of providing universal, continuous coverage while also achieving the efficiency and cost savings that can only come from eliminating private insurance.”<\/p>\n Shure concluded, “This does not mean that murder is justified or useful, but anger can be. Some politicians, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have started to publicly link the reaction to Brian Thompson\u2019s murder to widespread anger over the health insurance industry. The next step is to channel this anger and create something new.”<\/p>\n This story has been updated to include comments from Michael Lighty, president of HealthyCalifornia Now.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n