You don't see a moral error with a health insurance company going out of their way to more than double the claims they deny, not because it's ethical or necessary but because they find ways to do so legally and the motive is profit?

Perhaps you're not well equipped to evaluate moral errors in the first place.

I think you understand very clearly what point is being made, and are just pretending not to get it.

My understanding is that people are twisting themselves into pretzels to blame the murder victim for something, but they have extremely hard time finding anything explicit to point to, so they just throw allusions, hoping that the reader will complete the bogus argument in their head.

Here, for example, the parent poster brings up some statistic that some very specific category of insurance claim denial went up in some period. The allusion is that this is nefarious, and is a result of some specific action by the murder victim. The reader is supposed to interpret it this way. Of course, there's absolutely zero evidence for any of these claims, and when you lay it down like that, it sounds pretty stupid without anything backing this up.

It's a general category (all claim denials) and it did not go up, it more than doubled; as you are probably aware, it's far, far above the industry average. Also you're misusing the word 'allusion' which means 'to refer to something. You probably meant 'implication'.

No, denial of “post-acute care, or services and support needed after a hospitalization” claims is a narrow category, it’s not all claim denials.

Just goes to show you how incompatible your morals are from others, I suppose.

Why not, I pay them. Do you pay your phone company to not provide service?

Of course, there are plenty of places and circumstances where my phone company does not provide me service.