That charge seems more like a spaghetti-against-the-wall attempt to make the health insurance CEOs happy and comfortable that the crime is being taken "super" seriously. (Why not charge him with (high) treason as well? Yes, obviously, that would also be ridiculous.)
An unusually wide-spread and expressed degree of public apathy about the lack of survival of the target of a crime does not make a terrorist out of the alleged perpetrator any more than it would make the alleged perpetrator a traitor. It just means that the victim was perceived to have had certain egregious ethical or moral flaws of which the public had made note (e.g. Osama bin Laden). So, it seems that the prosecutors are just overplaying their hand, and that overreach might not sit well with a jury unless they happen to seat exclusively a jury of CEOs or other corporate officers.
Regardless of the above, yes, murder is bad/wrong/etc. ad infinitum ... whether it is done by bullets to the back or by a lengthy denial of healthcare by actors shielded behind a corporate wall that acts to diffuse responsibility. So, the murder should never have happened, and for-profit health insurance companies need to be disbanded.