>You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly).
You don't need data to know that health insurers deny claims to to preserve their existence and protect profits. It's how every form of insurance works. The only thing that data will tell you is to what degree they deny claims in this pursuit relative to their other tactics, from jacking up premiums, imposing high deductibles, etc.
>Average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon?
They're not variably immoral, because that's not the premise. The premise is that they're entire existence is unnecessary and immoral and has caused the bankruptcy and deaths of many. This isn't even internally consistent with your other arguments, as you've claimed that the variability of denials makes aggregate figures not a particularly useful measure.
Since we're also demanding responses now, please, again, feel free to describe what threshold of bankruptcy, injury to the sick and disabled, and deaths you feel is appropriate for the status quo. How much of this is necessary?
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018....