Well, let's see: * More people obtained health insurance after receiving the letters than those who didn't. * Among the people who received a letter, fewer pe

Well, let's see: * More people obtained health insurance after receiving the letters than those who didn't. * Among the people who received a letter, fewer people died than those who didn't. * Since we're agreed that the study was properly randomized, there were no other differences between the treatment and control populations. What conclusion are we to draw, if not that having health insurance prevents deaths? Literally the only differences are that the treatment group got a letter, more of them purchased this thing which then existed called "health insurance" than in the control group, and fewer people in the treatment group died over the course of the study. Are you going to sit there and tell me that people who were already less likely to die went out and bought the thing that at the time of the study was called "health insurance" just because they got a letter? That doesn't pass the smell test. Are you trying to tell me that health insurance is somehow different now than it was before? Also doesn't pass the smell test. I am at a loss for what you are actually trying to say. Could you please just say it, rather than being oblique to the point of opacity about it?