It's certainly deep speculation. The people in charge have an incentive to want to NOT reward the shooter by admitting that was a factor, but we have no idea how much it might have been in their minds.
According to the article to which Goblin linked,
Would it normally take a shooting to make Democratic lawmakers criticise so outrageous a change that directly affected their constituents?
of course not! But the shooting likely had a huge impact on the insurance executives they were negotiating with. But still, I admit this is just speculation.
Something I posted years ago:
Exactly. They will step over the line over and over again figuring that if it works, great! If it doesn’t, oh well, so sorry… Then they will try it another way. It isn’t like much harm will come to them. Worst scenario, they’ll pay a fine.
ETA -- I'm losing track of what I've read where, but this feels like an unproductive avenue (on my part, not yours). Whether or not the shooting had any effect on the policy reversal is another of those unknowables, unless someone spills the beans from the inside.
And then there's the storefronts that look like Urgent Care clinics but are run by hospitals and charge like they're an ER. Because there's nothing wrong with satisfying your Fiduciary Duty to the Stockholders over the corpse of the Hippocratic Oath.
There's something about this that feels...incredibly naïve, let's says.
Yeah, I am sure the shooter knew there was a good chance they would get caught or killed by a body guard or something. They probably already made peace with death and I dount there is anything that could be threatened even if they are not the one dying of ailment.
