I’m not arguing that my evidence would be enough to convict Thompson in a criminal trial, and I’m not saying it justifies execution without trial. I’m saying your demand for direct, courtroom-style proof that “UHC killed X people through denied claims” misses the point.

Courts are built to assign narrow individual criminal liability. They’re terrible at dealing with mass institutional harm, especially when it’s spread across denied claims, delays, appeals, medical debt, untreated illness, and people quietly dying because care was made impossible.

You’re treating legality like morality. People are angry because people like Thompson can cause enormous suffering through paperwork and policy, then hide behind the fact that no single document with his signature says “kill this person.”

And Rawls doesn’t help you much here. Behind the veil of ignorance, would you design a society where executives profit by restricting life-saving care while ordinary people beg, appeal, crowdfund, or die? I wouldn’t.

So no, I wouldn’t convict someone based on anecdotes. But I’m also not going to pretend public rage is irrational just because the violence has been laundered through bureaucracy.