>This CEO, in particular, has almost certainly taken actions that resulted in preventable suffering and death.

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.

Some people are more guilty than others. This CEO may have committed more murders than that of kings of past centuries.

Only if you take a twisted consequentialist definition of murder that equates gutting someone with a sword to refusing to help.

You make it sound like "refusing to help" was in the context of a random person begging for help to a stranger.

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.

They never offered a blank check for all medical bills. If someone thinks that is the case, they should re-evaluate.

You can always decline the health insurance and pay out of pocket if you think it is a bad deal.

It's supposed to be a pretty blank check for critical bills, and this company does a bad job of fulfilling that.

> 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.

The CEO has bosses, and was presumably doing what they wanted him to do.

Ah yes, the Nuremberg Defense.