I don't think any of them deserve to be murdered, but the pundits are an odd place to place blame.
Guns are inanimate objects and cannot be ascribed blame. Gunmen and lawmakers can.
To some degree, that's the nature of running health insurance companies, but if he put profits ahead of patient outcomes, I think we could have a very reasonable discussion on the morality of letting people die at scale vs murder.
Sure, but so have you unless you dedicated every second of your life and penny you own.
The question in both cases is obligation to mitigate and who, if anyone, has an obligation to put patient outcomes ahead of profit.
Doctors who take salary are putting profits above patients.
It's more "hey, pay me a percentage of your wages and when you need help with medical bills, we will help you..." then denying the help.
You can always decline the health insurance and pay out of pocket if you think it is a bad deal.
> You can always decline the health insurance and pay out of pocket if you think it is a bad deal.
Ha. You could make this same argument about literal scam insurance that denies almost everything once your claims go above your payments. That's not a reasonable defense.
Corporate greed is a race to the bottom and CEOs are the avatars of that greed. Nobody needs a pundit to tell them that, they're experiencing it first hand for themselves, and you're playing a losing game defending them. You will never convince a man who struggles to pay rent and buy food that a CEO deserves millions of dollars. You will never convince a woman that she deserves to be in thousands of dollars of healthcare debt so that the CEO can buy extra houses and cars.
Human nature will never accept this, no matter how much you wish your libertarian philosophizing about the world was representative of reality. Corporations and billionaires continue to gain power and working class people are getting exploited more and more. There's a breaking point and we're racing towards it fast.