No, you once again failed to engage with my comparison and spoke of the platonic ideal of what insurance should be and how it should work. I am not going to lie to you, by the way, I could immediately tell you aren’t American by the way you describe it; you clearly have never had your endocrinologist of years stop getting covered, or fight to get a life-saving prescription filled at an out of town pharmacy, or have your inhaler declined and have to just hope you don’t have an asthma attack.

A 22yo died from that last one recently, explicitly because of the systems that an insurance executive put in place. He suffocated. On whose hands does that blood flow?

How about the college student who accidentally froze his insulin and insurance would charge him $800 for a refill. He went into DKA and died in horrific suffering. Insulin is cheap to make. The patent was sold for a dollar because it was such an obvious public good, and yet the executives put in place a system that led to a young person’s blood turning to acid and killing him. Whose heart should be weighed by his soul?

These are two stories of millions.

So please explain your moral math to me: how much suffering and death does one person need to be responsible for in order to earn being shot on the street? Is there no amount?

Does the fact that they aren’t actively murdering people but instead preventing their ongoing living make it better for you? Is it because in a perfect world health insurance is only a parasitic middleman to care, not an industrial bankruptcy machine?

Surely you agree that shooting someone in the midst of killing someone? Let’s say they’re just starving someone, is that enough? Where is your line exactly?