Readers Write: CEO pay, UnitedHealth’s reputation, rural health care

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

Am I alone in this? I wonder how many people look at the Star Tribune’s annual list of CEO pay (July 13) and get sick to their stomachs. It makes me heartsick for American society and the majority of our people. Making over $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, even over $9 million a year in salary and bonuses seems obscene and immoral to me. In a country with thousands and thousands of homeless people and millions living in poverty, it is a travesty and a condemnation of our social and economic order. These CEOs and corporations should be ashamed of themselves. And now we’re giving the uberwealthy and corporations new tax breaks.

Our postwar economy and the growth of the middle class from the 1950s to the 1970s was remarkable and the envy of the world. In the 1950s, under President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, the tax rate on top earners was over 90%. Now that tax rate is at 40.8% (this is according to the Bradford Tax Institute). And during the ’50s and ’60s, CEO income was commonly an average of 10 times that of the average employee. As you can see from last Sunday’s article, many Minnesota CEOs’ incomes now are hundreds of times more than the median pay of their employees.

There is something completely out of whack going on here, and it is very wrong.

According to Hedrick Smith in “Who Stole the American Dream,” in the postwar period, good corporate leaders “saw a competitive advantage in caring for their workforce.” They held to the mantra of “stakeholder capitalism,” balancing the needs and claims of stockholders, employees, customers and the public at large. Casual observers of the exorbitant pay of uberwealthy CEOs, while many Americans live in poverty and college grads struggle to pay rent, might say we have our priorities all mixed up. No wonder many people are worried by the wealthy and corporations gaining more and more power in our politics and elections, and there is so much discussion about our country being run by wealthy oligarchs. Let’s get back to a society of the people, by the people and for the people, not a free-for-all for corporate leaders and the rich.

I would like to thank the Star Tribune for reprinting the New York Times article on UnitedHealth and its recent legal threats and actions against media companies, filmmakers and social media creators over articles, videos and other content it views as false and defamatory (“UNH to its critics: Stop or we’ll sue,” July 13).

Mere criticism, whether it occurs on social media or in the press, should not be perceived as an incitement to violent action, as representatives of UnitedHealth have argued. No company, nonprofit or government agency should be shielded from public scrutiny in a democracy. This fundamental principle should especially apply to large corporations, which have a huge influence on many aspects of American life.

If UnitedHealth is unhappy with its recent media coverage, it should change its behavior, simply ignore the negative attention or mount a public self-defense on the merits in the media.

Brian Wagenaar, Eden Prairie

Sunday’s article regarding UnitedHealth’s campaign to silence critics demonstrates that UnitedHealth remains entirely tone-deaf to the criticisms lodged against it. UnitedHealth had a choice to make. Option one: Listen to those criticisms and make honorable, constructive changes to repair its reputation. Option two: Double down on current practices, maintain a righteous indignation of those criticisms and use legal threats and lawsuits to deter or penalize criticism. Not surprisingly — and consistent with its tarnished reputation — it chose option two.

It justifies this tactic by arguing that intense criticism of the company risks inciting further violence. For goodness’ sake, did it ever dawn on the company that its questionable billing practices and denials of patient care are the causes of this violence?

Stock price, reputational damage and exposure to regulatory scrutiny matter to UnitedHealth. So why not just run the company more honorably?

Barbara Dahlgren, St. Paul

For a retired family physician who spent his entire career in small, rural towns, where providing care to those in nursing homes was an integral part of the practice, the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill is the last and most dramatic demonstration of the unfathomable paradox in American health care.

We are a people enamored with and demanding high-cost, amazing technology, specialist care and wonder drugs in the pursuit of extending longevity. At the same time, as the Big Beautiful Bill demonstrates, we have an aversion to funding access to less expensive, basic health care for all and even basic human comfort care such as that provided by nursing homes. If we are unwilling to guarantee to those in the final act of their lives that they will be assured of being clean, warm, safe, fed and comfortable, why are we fixated on extending life when we have no way of predicting those who will need this end-of-life care? How do we expect to have our desire that our lives be treated with respect and dignity honored when we are so loath to give that same degree of empathy to others by guaranteeing them access to the most basic forms of health care?

Given the degree of dysfunction of American health care and all of its shortcomings, it seems that it is only a matter of time until it ceases to function at all. We will rue that day when we, too, will face the abandonment that we are now inflicting on so many in our country.

David Detert, Northfield, Minn.

The harrowing experience of Kathryn Reese and her 3-year-old son (“When a hospital makes you fight for basic care,” Strib Voices, July 10) is a cautionary tale for parents and medical providers alike. The substandard emergency department care that they received at a small, rural hospital was nearly tragic — only nearly, because the mother acted on her instinct in spite of the provider’s hesitation. The child’s symptoms and the mother’s concern demanded urgent attention.

Uncertainty, however, is not a bad thing in itself. In fact, it’s the starting point for every diagnosis. Providers should engage every patient with curiosity and humility and acknowledge their uncertainty if it persists. Use it as an invitation to the patient and family to participate in the search for an accurate diagnosis and care plan. The patient (or parent) is the expert on their experience and must be empowered to question or challenge medical authority when treatment is delayed or just doesn’t make sense. As a wise pediatrician friend has said, “Listen to the mother!”