The assassination of the CEO of one of the largest health insurance firms in the U.S., which occurred Wednesday in New York City, should have prompted widespread shock and sympathy from the public.

Brian Thompson, 50, was killed during what law enforcement has described as a “shamelessly targeted attack.” As of now, the assailant remains unidentified, and their motives are unclear. Thompson was in Manhattan attending UnitedHealth Group’s annual event.

However, the public’s response has been filled with anger and disdain—not because a man lost his life or because a family has been shattered, but due to his role as the leader of a significant health insurance entity.

The unsettling lack of regard for human life is troubling to witness.

A significant amount of the negative feedback has surfaced on social media, often a breeding ground for our worst impulses. Instead of expressing condolences, Thompson’s death has sparked a torrent of resentment towards health insurers, stemming from complaints about rejected claims and perceived corporate greed.

‘People ask why we want these executives dead.’ Seriously?

Let’s examine some of the remarks made following his death.

“Independent journalist” Ken Klippenstein remarked on X: “Today we remember the legacy of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.” That legacy? A graph illustrating disputed insurance claims by the company, which showed UnitedHealthcare as the frontrunner.

But what relevance does that have in the immediate aftermath of a human being’s death?

Then, Tobita Chow, a social justice advocate, noted: “I saw the mainstream media discussing the murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare on TikTok, and it seems political and industry leaders should consider reading the comments and reflecting on them.”

These comments, reshared by Chow, were disturbingly harsh, suggesting that Thompson reaped what he sowed.

Especially appalling were the posts from Taylor Lorenz, a frequent and controversial voice in journalism. While I hesitate to give her more visibility, she must be acknowledged due to her media presence.

Up until recently, Lorenz was a reporter at The Washington Post and had formerly contributed to The New York Times. Her words carry significant weight across major media platforms.

What was her primary response to Thompson’s murder?

“And people wonder why we want these executives dead,” Lorenz articulated on Bluesky, referring to a post about Blue Cross Blue Shield eliminating anesthesia coverage for certain surgery lengths.

She further commented: “There is a very valid anger directed towards insurance company CEOs for the immense suffering they contribute to. As someone opposed to suffering, I find it essential to address this flawed system and those who profit from it.”

For someone claiming to be against “death and suffering,” Lorenz displayed a striking lack of compassion for Thompson.

Remember the outrage following Trump’s assassination attempt?

This reminds me of the prevailing attitude after the assassination attempt on President-elect Donald Trump in July, where a bullet merely grazed his ear.

Despite the seriousness of that attack, many responses were disturbing. I encountered sentiments on social media, and received emails that expressed a desire for the shooter to have succeeded.

A subsequent survey revealed that one-third of surveyed Democrats wished the attack had been successful.

Regardless of personal views regarding Trump, violent language is never justified.

The same principle applies to Thompson, an executive who did not deserve such a fate.

We can engage in discussions about our political disputes and propose enhancements to various sectors.

Rejoicing in someone’s death or violence? That crosses a line.