Re: Lie of the Year

Computer Numeric Control - All aspects of Computer Numeric Control - machinery as well as software 

Bookmark this page:   Yahoo!   Google   Windows Live   del.icio.us   digg   Netscape

Subject Author Date Re: Lie of the Year Ed Huntress 12-22-2009  Re: Lie of the Year Hawke 12-22-2009  Re: Lie of the Year Ed Huntress 12-23-2009  Re: Lie of the Year Curly Surmudgeo... 12-22-2009
Posted by Ed Huntress on December 22, 2009, 2:09 pm Please log in for more thread options > >> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223 >> $32348@allthenewsgroups.com: >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment. >>> >>>> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an >>>> acne condition they had decades earlier? >>>> >>>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf >>> >>>> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too >>>> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with? >>>> >>>> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html >>> >>> If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have >>> alternatives available to you. >> >> >> If your insurance company drops you after you >> are diagnosed with cancer - as in the above cases - >> you have the alternative of just dying, because no >> company is going to cover you. > > "According to the American Medical Association's National Health Insurer > Report Card for 2008, the government's health plan, Medicare, denied > medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare > denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ > 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of > medical claims by private insurers of 3.88% > > In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that > Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better > still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier, > Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with similar > declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%. > > Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers > satisfied in order to make that profit after all." > > http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459 Not really. Medicare serves people over 65. Private insurers serve relatively few such people. As you get older you run into more potentially expensive treatments that have very little or no documented benefit, but the reasons for denial are roughly the same between Medicare and private insurance. The biggest gripe that doctors have with Medicare is that it pays a bit less than private insurers. Imagine that -- a government payer who pays less than private payers. There must be something more there than meets the eye, huh? -- Ed Huntress (former Senior Medical Editor, Publicis Managed Markets) Posted by Hawke on December 22, 2009, 8:44 pm Please log in for more thread options Ed Huntress wrote: >> In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that >> Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better >> still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier, >> Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with similar >> declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%. >> >> Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers >> satisfied in order to make that profit after all." >> >> http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459 > > Not really. Medicare serves people over 65. Private insurers serve > relatively few such people. As you get older you run into more potentially > expensive treatments that have very little or no documented benefit, but the > reasons for denial are roughly the same between Medicare and private > insurance. > > The biggest gripe that doctors have with Medicare is that it pays a bit less > than private insurers. Imagine that -- a government payer who pays less than > private payers. There must be something more there than meets the eye, huh? > The government pays less than private insurance. Why, that's shocking. The government expecting to actually get a fair deal for its buck? It just shows that it can be done and that private doesn't always do that great a job. The thing I never hear about is what private insurance would cost people 65 and older if there was no Medicare. The right wing always makes such a fuss about private business doing things so much better than the government, well, what do you think it would cost if our seniors were all paying for health insurance out of their own pockets? I'd bet that they would charge the average 70 year old 40 or 50 thousand a year. We all know that it's the old people who cost all the health care money. If they charged them what the actuarial tables said they needed to for a profit the price would be through the roof and none of the seniors would be able to buy insurance except for millionaires. So once again, Medicare allows private insurance to not have to foot the bill for the old people who cost all the money. They put the old people onto the government, they won't insure anyone that is already sick, and they deny or terminate coverage on anyone that costs them too much. Geez, it's no wonder they are so profitable. With companies like this it's no wonder that we are on the verge of putting in a government run health system. It's about time. Hawke Posted by Ed Huntress on December 23, 2009, 1:15 am Please log in for more thread options > Ed Huntress wrote: > >>> In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that >>> Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better >>> still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier, >>> Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with >>> similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%. >>> >>> Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers >>> satisfied in order to make that profit after all." >>> >>> http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459 >> >> Not really. Medicare serves people over 65. Private insurers serve >> relatively few such people. As you get older you run into more >> potentially expensive treatments that have very little or no documented >> benefit, but the reasons for denial are roughly the same between Medicare >> and private insurance. >> >> The biggest gripe that doctors have with Medicare is that it pays a bit >> less than private insurers. Imagine that -- a government payer who pays >> less than private payers. There must be something more there than meets >> the eye, huh? >> > > The government pays less than private insurance. Why, that's shocking. The > government expecting to actually get a fair deal for its buck? It just > shows that it can be done and that private doesn't always do that great a > job. The thing I never hear about is what private insurance would cost > people 65 and older if there was no Medicare. The right wing always makes > such a fuss about private business doing things so much better than the > government, well, what do you think it would cost if our seniors were all > paying for health insurance out of their own pockets? I'd bet that they > would charge the average 70 year old 40 or 50 thousand a year. We all know > that it's the old people who cost all the health care money. If they > charged them what the actuarial tables said they needed to for a profit > the price would be through the roof and none of the seniors would be able > to buy insurance except for millionaires. So once again, Medicare allows > private insurance to not have to foot the bill for the old people who cost > all the money. They put the old people onto the government, they won't > insure anyone that is already sick, and they deny or terminate coverage on > anyone that costs them too much. Geez, it's no wonder they are so > profitable. With companies like this it's no wonder that we are on the > verge of putting in a government run health system. It's about time. > > Hawke Most of the private insurance held by seniors is part of their retirement benefits from working for big companies, back when they were very generous with such benefits. The statistics and costs for that bunch are combined with the working people who are part of the same company coverage; because they're part of the larger insured community, it's hard to identify just how much they add to the costs for everyone in the plan. I'm sure the corporate benefits managers know to the penny, and it's probably in the insurance literature somewhere, but I never ran into it when I was writing to the health care insurance industry. Or at least, not that I remember. Aside from them, there are some older wealthy people who have extensive coverage from private insurers, but I think their number is quite small. Otherwise, as you say, individual policies would be prohibitively expensive, if the communities are separated by age. -- Ed Huntress Posted by Curly Surmudgeon on December 22, 2009, 9:04 pm Please log in for more thread options On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:09:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress" >> >>> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223 >>> $32348@allthenewsgroups.com: >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment. >>>> >>>>> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an >>>>> acne condition they had decades earlier? >>>>> >>>>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/ testimony_beaton.pdf >>>> >>>>> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too >>>>> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html >>>> >>>> If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have >>>> alternatives available to you. >>> >>> >>> If your insurance company drops you after you >>> are diagnosed with cancer - as in the above cases - you have the >>> alternative of just dying, because no company is going to cover you. >> >> "According to the American Medical Association's National Health >> Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government's health plan, Medicare, >> denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private >> insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private >> insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ >> 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers >> of 3.88% Of course. Would you expect Medicare to cover cosmetic surgery? Without comparing apples to apples those numbers are meaningless. Pick 5 or 10 life saving proceedures (not cherry pick) and/or life saving drugs and then show which program has the greatest number of denials. Further, you must compare particpants. Medicare is for the aged while Corporate Healthcare is for younger workers so the procedures and drugs are not comparable either. Oranges to oranges, not apples to oranges. >> In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that >> Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced >> better still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private >> denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% >> improvement-with similar declines by all other private insurers, to >> average only 2.79%. Same deal. >> Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers >> satisfied in order to make that profit after all." >> >> http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459 > > Not really. Medicare serves people over 65. Private insurers serve > relatively few such people. As you get older you run into more > potentially expensive treatments that have very little or no documented > benefit, but the reasons for denial are roughly the same between > Medicare and private insurance. Better put than my post above. Same deal though. > The biggest gripe that doctors have with Medicare is that it pays a bit > less than private insurers. Imagine that -- a government payer who pays > less than private payers. There must be something more there than meets > the eye, huh? -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Similar Threads Posted Re: Lie of the Year December 20, 2009, 8:19 am Re: Lie of the Year December 20, 2009, 8:42 am Re: Lie of the Year December 20, 2009, 8:44 am Re: Lie of the Year December 23, 2009, 1:05 pm Re: Lie of the Year December 25, 2009, 11:45 am Re: Lie of the Year December 27, 2009, 1:15 pm Re: Lie of the Year December 28, 2009, 12:19 pm Re: First Buzzword of the new year... December 30, 2007, 1:01 pm It's That Time of Year Again July 16, 2008, 10:01 am Next year, 11% unimployment!!!! October 5, 2008, 4:20 pm