Re: Lie of the Year

>>>
>>>> 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

>>
>> IF you look at the Medicare data again you may note that it was usually
>> a case of improper billing that needed to be corrected, such as
>> something left off the bill (like the patient's name) and just
>> needed to be properly rebilled.
>> Plus perhaps some attempted fraud, which they can
>> probably do better at reducing now that the dems (I assume) will
>> again allow them to do (the rethugs had defunded the fraud checkers
>> it seemed).