There is definitely a bit of "rich idiot" syndrome on Everest (a syndrome which is not helped by needing over $50,000 just to get on the mountain), but let me assure you that they are in excellent physical shape. I don't care how many Sherpas you bring, how many ropes are preset for you; trekking to that altitude carrying nothing but your clothes and an ice axe is extremely difficult. And of course there are still expeditions who go to Everest and climb unassisted, without Sherpas, set up their own ropes, etc. Everest, for existential reasons, will always appeal to climbing enthusiasts regardless of its commercialization. But even for the ignorant non-enthusiasts who probably shouldn't be there and are less than self-sufficient in getting up, it is a monumental feat.

As far as the dangers go, keep in mind that many of the lives claimed by Everest were not "rich idiots." Rob Hall was an experienced guide known for excellent judgment until he perished in the 1996 disaster. Experience helps a lot but there are always things left to chance, always decision points with ambiguous outcomes that can only be resolved in hindsight.

I won't weigh in on the morality of leaving stranded climbers on the mountain other than to provide a little bit of context: climbers know going in that rescue above high camp borders on impossibility. Any responsible outfitter sets an expectation that beyond your climbing partners, you are on your own. There are many climbers who will help others at great personal expense (see: 1996 storm where many gave up their summit attempts to do so). But you get one shot at the summit, and most climbers go in with an awareness that unless their rescue seems surprisingly achievable, they will be passed over by other climbers, either heading towards or returning from the summit. Again, not weighing in on the ethics of that; just trying to provide context for it.