Agreed. But I also thinks this sets a bit of a bad precedent. Apparently all you have to do to get a hated industry to back off is murder one of their leaders.
Kind of a no win situation they put themselves into.
I suspect the long term effect will be determined by if the guy gets caught. If he doesn't get caught, people will think, "hey, you can get away with this," and it will happen more. If does get caught, people will think, "these people are greedy and unjust, but I don't want to die or spend the rest of my life in jail and deprive my family, I'll just deal with it."
I think most people cheering him on expect him to get caught and probably the shooter expects that himself. Having a long term effect will be if his reasons for doing it inspires law makers to enact change. Or if he inspires 3 or 4 other people who are successful in gunning down CEOs of other exploitative industries, even after upping security.
If he is killed and/or we never learn a motive, he'll just be forgotten under a pile of online and media speculation. Hopefully his plan anticipated some kind of dead man's release of his motive.
When there is no justice for the people who have to suffer and/or die due to the callousness of management at health insurance companies like this, then I don't see another option. Suing doesn't do any good. The government can't or won't do anything. Nobody cares if you're denied life-saving care, or if it's delayed until it's too late. Until now, there were never any consequences. They have a captive market where all the competitors behave the same way at the expense of people who need health care.
Kind of a no win situation they put themselves into.