- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Why do you suppose that is? What conclusions can you draw about Medicare based on this fact?
Really? So if I'm an elderly man who goes to a witch doctor who uses a voodoo doll to try to cure me, there's no excuse for Medicare denying my claim?
Irrelevant to the subject at hand.
If you have more sick people, of course it's more likely that more claims will be denied. :roll:
Why would denial of coverage by medicare be based on a different criteria than the denial of coverage for private insurance companies?
Agent Ferris said:And yet they still deny as a % they still deny claims .5% higher than the worst provider Aetna.
Is that really the best argument you can come up with? I mean, no ****, really?
apdst said:It's very, very, very relevant to the subject at hand. All we've heard, to date, from the Libbos is how government insurance won't deny claims. Obviously that's not true.
If you have more sick people, of course it's more likely that more claims will be denied. :roll:
Obviously if you make a medical insurance claim you are sick or injured
Agent Ferris said:and if you're elderly you're probably more likely to be really sick and/or injured thus one should come to the conclusion that they should have less of a claim rejection %
Are you or are you not claiming that there are no circumstances where the government should deny claims? If so, I just provided you with one.
You have heard no such thing, and you know it. However, a government plan would be less likely to deny you claims for silly pretexts like an unrelated preexisting condition from ten years prior.
Because Medicare bureaucrats, unlike private insurance bureaucrats, don't have to worry about maximizing profits.
I can think of several explanations, none of which have anything to do with the big evil government wanting to pull the plug on grandma:
1. More fraudulent claims are filed with Medicare then private insurers.
2. Certain claims are specifically excluded from Medicare, but not from private insurers. (In which case it's silly to argue against the effectiveness of Medicare based on these denials, as the easy fix would be to end the exclusion.)
3. If high cost medical claims are uniformly more likely to be denied, then it makes sense that the insurer with the most old and sick people would have the most denials.
Unless you have some evidence that the circumstances of these claims and denials are all identical, you can't draw any meaningful conclusion from the data.
That's obvious? I file a claim with my insurance company every time I have a routine checkup. I would imagine that such claims are a larger proportion of a private insurer's total claims than the government's, since private insurers try to avoid covering the old and sick whereas the government specializes in it.
And if insurers are not likely to deny a claim for a routine checkup...well, you do the math.
Why? If high cost procedures are most likely to be denied, then the insurer with the highest proportion of high cost claims is the one most likely to deny claims.
That's right folks, medicare denies more sick people coverage then every single private insurance company combined. But hay by all means let's crush those evil insurance companies and vest our healthcare in the state. Obama, Reid, Pelosi you are sick ****ing jokes.
You have heard no such thing, and you know it. However, a government plan would be less likely to deny you claims for silly pretexts like an unrelated preexisting condition from ten years prior.
None of what you posted means much unless we know the reason for rejection.
That's right folks, medicare denies more sick people coverage then every single private insurance company combined. But hay by all means let's crush those evil insurance companies and vest our healthcare in the state. Obama, Reid, Pelosi you are sick ****ing jokes.
When I worked for the Aetna we administered one of the major regions of Medicare coverage so are the MEDICARE reject stats included inthe Aetna's totals ?
Hold your horse ferris : NHXS is a company that has an axe to grind. They work and are paid by providers to try and squuees more payment out of "us" the insurance companies. This is from their own website " healthcare providers the advantages they need to recover more revenue and appeal denials more successfully "
See all these people are after "us" insurance companies and want "us" to pay out more.
Therefore they will go and post so called reject rates that are not based on sound principles or most likely skewed against "us" insurance companies.
I was supicious when I saw your initial post now I see that you are quoting a company that is not playing fair since they are playing the game for the provider gainst the insurance companies.
Steven Israel just made that very claim and I quote:
"the days of insurance companies dropping your coverage because you get sick will be over."
Um the statistics are based on the AMA's National Health Insurance Report Card which is based on datapulled from the nationally mandated Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Do you have contradictory statistics or just an ad-hominem logical fallacy?
I have no idea who Steven Israel is. At any rate, as soon as you show me some evidence that Medicare IS dropping people because they get sick, this might actually make sense. :2wave:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?