A better question would be why you’re trying so hard to exonerate some of the richest and most powerful people in the country. Trying to blame nebulous politicians without thinking about how they got elected or what they were asked to do legislatively, or how much public opinion is shaped by mass communications and the status quo, feels like a joke about a physicist trying to say another field shouldn’t exist because their “assume a perfectly spherical cow” thought exercise wasn’t too complicated.
The guy who was killed, with annual compensation of $10M, is one of the richest and most powerful people in the country? There are FAANG ICs making more than that.
Do those FAANG ICs set policy for the largest healthcare company in the world? I don’t know why you’re so committed to trying to dismiss the idea that the policies his company sets have produced many angry customers but it’s not unreasonable for people to think that a CEO has some control over policy in a way that those ICs at adtech companies do not.
There may be a few IC's who make that amount but they do not wield nearly the same amount of power as the CEO of one of the largest healthcare companies in the country.
I'm not the GP and in fact I don't agree with the GP, but I really don't think anyone should have to explain why they are defending someone who they think is innocent, regardless of how much money that person does or does not have.
This isn’t a criminal case. They’re trying to say this is just like any other unhappy customer, ignoring the life-altering outcomes healthcare problems have unlike most other industries or how much more Americans pay for lower-quality, high-stress service. Trying to understand why so many people were conflicted about a murder without understanding that context is like trying to explain what’s going on in Gaza while refusing to consider the role religion played.
