Compared to no healthcare at all, yes, but similar could be said of Crassus' firefighting service in ancient Rome. He brought his slaves to your burning property and they stood around outside while you negotiated selling your property to Crassus at a bargain price. If you agreed, he ordered his slaves to fight the fire and you got some money. If you didn't, they let it burn and you got nothing. Crassus would be there to buy the ruins for even less if you couldn't afford to rebuild. That's a net positive for Rome compared to no fire service - fires don't spread to other buildings as often, people get something instead of nothing - but it's hardly a ringing endorsement, and it could be better.

Observation 1: you are bothered by the murder of the CEO. You dismiss the business-as-usual harms to hundreds of thousands of poor people. You consider yourself to have a good grasp of what is crazy.

Observation 2: when faced with claims that insurance companies kill people, you turn to dreaming of a world where you can talk of killing Democrat leaders. You still consider yourself to have a good grasp of what is crazy.

Complaints, letters to the editor, letters to congresspersons, achieved nothing; the murder of a CEO has achived nothing; what size event would make you notice?

> "Imagine I believe that the Democrats are net-negative"

Just feels important to say, for the record, that facts don't support that position; the Economic Policy Institute[1], and the Senate Joint Economic Committee[2] found that since 1949 the economy performs better under Democrat administrations than under Republican administrations. Job growth is greater. GDP growth is faster. Unemployment is lower. Small business creation is higher. Manufacturing investment is higher. Stock market returns are higher. Wage growth is faster. Recessions start less often.

> "Would this justify people saying that Democrat leaders should be murdered?"

First problem here is your implication that I would support the Democrats being awful and not be on the side of people objecting [although not calling for murder]. Second is the implication that I would want to silence your free speech instead of, say, supporting your right to say things I disagree with, or sarcastically mocking you. Third (or really, first) problem is that you're replying to claims that insurance company behaviour causes humans to die with "Left bad".

[1] https://www.epi.org/press/new-report-finds-that-the-economy-...

[2] https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/1...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...