I can't say it any better than this:

" everyone " yes, everyone " has grievances, and there is nothing within our social compact that permits a small subset of them to exempt themselves from its elementary standards. In other countries, where some or all of the medical system has been socialized, it is politicians, rather than private insurers, who deny or delay or ration health care. Were America to adopt such a system, there would remain many Brian Thompsons, but, instead of being called "CEO," they would be called "senator," "representative," "director of Health and Human Services" or the like. To establish the principle that one may take revenge against anyone who is obliged to deal with scarcity would be to greenlight the routine assassination of the elected or appointed officials who would take responsibility in an altered status quo. Is that what we want?

... ... ..

. The New York Times, in particular, has been keen to inform its readers about the "hate," "anger," "frustration," and "rage" against health insurance providers that supposedly exists abroad in the land. If pushed to explain this tack, its editors would likely claim that the paper is merely stating a fact. But surely one cannot imagine that this approach would have been taken if Brian Thompson had been the CEO of, say, ABC News. Unlike with health insurance, it is an indisputable fact that a supermajority of Americans "hate" the legacy media, and that a minority of Americans exhibit "anger," "frustration," and "rage" toward it. Do we really think that, following the killing of a prominent media executive, the Times would have commissioned a series of indulgent pieces pointing to the legitimate feelings that culminated in an illegitimate act? Or do we think that, in such a circumstance, the Times would have recognized the evil inherent in adopting that perspective, and, instead, reminded their readers that even the most disdained human beings do not deserve to be killed?"