The massive insurer hired a lawfirm that specializes in defamation to force a public apology from a doctor in Texas following a post on social media.
UnitedHealthcare threatening to sue Dr. Elisabeth Potter MD for her Instagram video and the comments supporting Luigi it received. This video discussing the time she was interrupted in the middle of a patient's surgery by a United representative to ask whether the patient really needed to stay overnight to recover.
UHC was so upset about the video that it contacted Clare Locke, a Virginia-based defamation law firm to chase down the doc. Potter said the law firm sent her a letter, dated January 13, that she has posted on her Instagram page. UHC’s version of events is that Potter’s office had filed paperwork incorrectly and that it would never ask her to leave surgery to talk to them
So what does UHC want the doctor to do? “You must promptly correct the record by removing your videos, posting a public apology to UnitedHealthcare, and condemning threats of violence aimed at our client resulting from your posts,” the letter said. It also wants Potter to contact Newsweek and other outlets that reported the story to ask them to remove the stories entirely. Something that Potter would have no power to do, even if she wanted to.
My personal favorite insurance story comes from a neurologist I know. They were trying to get a prior authorization approved for a curative hemispherectomy. For those outside the medical field, that basically boils down to removing half of someone's brain to try to cure an uncontrollable seizure disorder. This is usually limited to patients under 4 years old to maximize motor and language development, but I digress. After much arguing with the insurance representative, it was approved on the grounds that the patient only gets one.
Sounds like healthcare CEOs still unfortunately don't fear being dropped from the life premium plus plan by a 9mm bullet enough.
Look I don't casually condone violence, but these people are unambiguously mass murderers who will see no justice for their crimes, being against violence in this context has become a very complicated question.
I do not relish the multitude of pitfalls this road has waiting to push us into blind hate, that is why leftists like me advocate so hard for universal healthcare.
The violence of denying basic necessary healthcare does not simply happen and then disappear like a flash of lightning, it adds another snowflake to the teetering snowbank up on the mountain.
The potential energy will become kinetic energy at some point, the only real thing in question is whether we will destroy ourselves in the process, which is why advocates for universal healthcare are so incessant and demanding, they know not proactively dealing with this will eventually lead to terrible violence.
being against violence in this context has become a very complicated question.
Reminds me of the French Revolution. Big changes like that were attained through violence. We've rightfully pushed away from violence to become a better society, but it is clear that the changes we want will not be obtained with likes and TikTok dances (or comments like this, ironically). The rich and powerful do not fear the people anymore because of this. People can strike all they want but the elites have learned that they just need to sit and wait (see Gilets Jaunes French protests or Iranian protests) because no one will even dare punch them in the face. Luigi was an exception and they are trying to flag this as a one time incident.
Violence never solved anything, unless you look at all of human history.
Just about every good societal change only happened after massive violence. Even in the case of nonviolent movements like Gandhi's Indian independence movement, he probably wouldn't have been successful if the state had responded non-violently. The massive violence inflicted on his movement is what drew international attention, forcing the British to change.
A handful of CEOs getting shot in the head might be seen as a small warning sign that things need to change. If that change doesn't happen, the result might be the kind of chaos you got with the French Revolution.
Say you're a French aristocrat in Grenoble, hit by a flying roof tile. Is the smart move to get a bunch of soldiers to go round up as many civilians as possible and torture them to figure out who threw the tile? Or is the smart move to head back to your estate set your serfs free, give them some of your stuff, and ask them to please spread the word that you're one of the good aristocrats and a man of the people?
These kind of reactions always remind me of the quote:
"You own everything that happened to you. Tell your stories. If people wanted you to write warmly about them, they should have behaved better." - Anne Lemott
Truth is a defense to defamation claims. If she wants to call their bluff, she should be able to beat them in court. Counterclaim for tortious interference with business. We'll serve discovery on them for how their unqualified deniers interfered with her business. We will also fight protective orders trying to keep that information out of the public's hands.
I am a licensed Texas lawyer. If I wasn't so busy doing other work (I write software professionally today because I got tired of the stress of multi-million dollar litigation), I'd take the case.