Arch, (Gentoo, Nix, Mint, etc.) have no commercial aspect on the other hand and certainly doesn't have the money, but those distros are offered on the same "as is" basis as the downstream software.
Money alone makes poor filler material to patch such holes. Microsoft famously doesn't make their stuff for free, and yet somehow Windows systems have gained this reputation of having holes such that a train can go through.
People build trust, take shortcuts, cut corners all the time. It's how we are wired. Doing otherwise is an energy sink for our bodies. We don't make ourselves overspend energy when we can.
There is software out there that is both much worse and costs in the tens to hundreds of thousands per seat per year.
I see no problem.
Nope. With open source the user is responsible. It's been this way from day one. Come to think of it, almost every piece of software I've ever used that is commercial has a no warranties and not suited for purpose clause in the EULA... because all the components the vendor used have that clause in the license to the vendor.
Much of the worst professional service I've ever received, despite paying them a lot of money, has been from the example you gave, doctors.
Doctors aren't alone, of course. The most expensive restaurants I've ever been to have been some of the worst dining experiences I've ever had, while friends or relatives inviting me over for a backyard barbecue have been among the best, for example.
I've also found this to be the case for lawyers, accountants, teachers/professors, mechanics, and other well-compensated "professionals".
Software hasn't been an exception, either. I've had more success with free software than I have had with the equivalent paid offerings many times over.
In general, I've found that service quality is far more tied to the provider's level of passion for the task at hand, rather than anything to do with the amount of financial compensation that may be involved.
