America’s healthcare crisis is not just a policy failure — it is a deeply personal tragedy for millions, cutting across political lines and economic divides. Being the son of a doctor and physician’s assistant, blessed with financial security and good health, I was shocked to hear from so many Americans, left and right, who have experienced or love someone who has experienced degrading — and even lethal — encounters with health insurance companies. Take, for example, comments published in response to our Nate Jackson’s piece on the matter from over a week ago:

Let’s add a few more things. The cost of healthcare. The perpetuity of “treatments” as opposed to cures or prevention. Care being given or compromised based on a patient’s ability to pay or what insurance will cover vs. what is best for the patient’s specific needs. This does not line up with the American way.

Another reader wrote:

Health insurance companies are notoriously subjective in their handling of life and death issues. I’ve known people who did not receive treatment for serious health problems resulting in death. A job comes with the duty to do it morally and correctly.

Of course, no one is seriously accusing these patriotic readers of supporting left-wing vigilantism or justifying Luigi Mangione’s murderous actions. But their comments underscore a common theme: millions of Americans have been buried in debt or lost loved ones to a healthcare industry dominated by a small cluster of powerful insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

Conservatives now find themselves in a difficult position. How do you sympathize with hard-working Americans victimized by the consolidation of corporate and state power without endorsing violence? To the dismay of many right-wing audiences, most conservative commentators have not even tried to thread this needle.

One glaring example is Ben Shapiro. Initially, he seemed poised to address the plight of those bankrupted or killed by insurance claim denials. He hinted at recognizing something “very serious bubbling under the surface.” But rather than express any genuine sympathy for the system’s casualties, he pivoted to blaming “the Revolutionary Left,” declaring that Thompson’s killing had “unleashed a wave of evil from members of the Left” and how this revolutionary movement is “creeping into the mainstream.” Putting aside the obvious fact that the Revolutionary Left has been more than “creeping into the mainstream” for years (cough, cough, the Racial Reckoning of 2020), Shapiro’s dismissive commentary rightfully earned him enormous backlash from his staunch conservative viewers.

Further, it is jarring how conservatives are now adopting tactics they often condemn — tarring anyone who tries to delve into the systemic flaws of U.S. healthcare as an apologist for murder. This mirrors how some on the Left respond when conservatives discuss race, policing, and criminal justice in terms of family breakdown, cultural factors, and crime data: they’re accused of justifying murder or white supremacy. A similar script applies to school shootings: those who highlight mental health issues or security lapses are actually defending the deaths of children.

Another irony in this mess is how conservatives — who have traditionally been the defenders of individual responsibility — are not just sanitizing Brian Thompson, the CEO of the country’s largest health insurance company, of any wrongdoing but actually ascribing moral deficits and evil toward those who harbor contempt against the American healthcare system. Take Matthew Continetti, for example, who wrote, “Religion, tradition, and the law tell us that we are moral agents. We possess free will. We are responsible for our actions. And we will be judged by a higher power.”

One might think that this invocation of “free will” and moral agency would similarly apply to Brian Thompson — but no. Thompson is exempt from any judgment of his character since he had no agency when it came to deciding how his company would handle life and death emergencies. Instead, Thompson was just a product of the system in which government subsidies and a labyrinth of regulations render it impossible for one to place responsibility on Thompson’s back.

Two weeks after the murder of Brian Thompson, I find myself in a rather unusual position. By no means do I think murder is a solution to the affordability crisis of healthcare. In fact, this heinous act will only discredit those who advocate reform. However, I still think it is important to distance myself from the hyper-moralistic claim that anyone trying to understand the experiences of millions of suffering Americans must be defending murder. This sort of simplistic thinking will only drive right-leaning, patriotic Americans into the beguiling arms of a single-payer healthcare system.

This brings me to my final point: Calls to increase government intervention in healthcare will only exacerbate the affordability crisis we currently face.

As Ann Coulter astutely pointed out last week, the “middle class pays through the nose for health insurance in order to enable insurance companies to comply with a preposterous array of government mandates and regulations.” Unfortunately, I suspect that Coulter’s argument that the government creates more problems than it fixes will fall on deaf ears. After all, if one side of the political aisle relentlessly demonizes you — calling you evil or heartless — why would you bother to listen to their proposals? I, along with countless patriotic Americans who’ve endured sneers and scorn from left-wing circles, understand this frustration on a personal level.

This is why conservatives must do better. The longer we brush aside the genuine anger Americans feel toward our broken healthcare, offering instead a vague “concept of a plan,” the likelier it is that ObamaCare was just a stepping stone on the road to socialized medicine.