• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guess Who Has the Highest Medical Claim Rejection Rate?

And government is burocracy-driven, and therefore artifically drives-up cost by adding levels of unneeded administration. Eventually it becomes the mission of this burocracy to sustain itself, instead of the public service.

Interestingly enough, all of this is true of the health insurance industry as it exists today.

:doh
 
So how long have you been in the insurance business? I'd really like to know since you can undoubtedly say what a company's motivations are, or can assign which points I am right on, you know, since I actually DO work in the Life/Health insurance industry.

Ho-hum. Another one of those "If you're not up to your neck in the middle of it, you can't possibly know the truth" arguments. *yawn*

Here's the thing. From where I stand I can see the health insurance ripoff forest for what it is - a greed fest at the expense of others' lives. You are blinded by the trees you hide behind - those massive trees owned by the insurance companies, whose ugly bidding you do and to whom you are beholden.

I don't have to be a health insurance paper-pusher to know that people are regularly denied life-saving treatment (Hint: It's what this whole thread is about) from the very people who are compensating themselves to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Nor do I have to be an insurance company tic sucking the life out of the public hide to know that 45,000 people die every year because they simply can't afford to pay the blood money the insurance companies demand for their [sarcasm] invaluable services [/sarcasm].

It's disgusting and unconscionable.


many agents will lose their jobs

It's high time the poor health insurance make-work paper-pushers join the rest of us in the 21st Century, where we have the highest unemployment rate in 26 years. And, you know, if you had no job and no health insurance, you might actually start to see that forest the rest of us are looking at.

and everyone will suffer the consequences of public healthcare,

People are DYING RIGHT NOW because they're being denied treatment by their insurance companies. People are DYING RIGHT NOW because they have no coverage at all. People are DYING RIGHT NOW while insurance company salespeople continue pushing little pieces of paper around, desperately inventing new and more insidious ways to deny coverage.

Bottom line, I'd rather take my chances with a not-for-profit option ANY day than be forced to live and die by an insurance company's greed margin.

if it gets passed and fails, I will expect an apology from all of the pro-subsidized healthcare people on this forum

I sincerely hope you'll be holding your breath in anticipation of that. :rofl
 
A) Those are number of claims not number of those insured.

B) Those are the seven major insurers.

C) Do you know what a % is? Even as a % of claims denied medicare still rejects more people.

D) 200 million people are covered by private insurance, only 35 million are covered by medicare.

E) Aetna provides insurance to 21 million people.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


F) Anthem provides insurance to 11.6 million people.

Business Partners

G) CIGNA provides insurance to 46 million people.

CIGNA Newsroom: As Employee Benefit Enrollment Season Begins, CIGNA Suggests a ?Spring-Cleaning? Approach to Putting the Family Financial House in Order

H) Coventry provides insurance for 4.6 million people.

Coventry Health Insurance

I) Healthnet provides insurance to 7.3 million people.

Health Net - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

J) Humana provides insurance to 11.5 million people.

Humana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


K) UnitedHealth group provides insurance to 70 million people.

UnitedHealth Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


L) That's a grand total of 172 million people.

Care to explain why Medicare has more claims even though it insures less people?
 
Their denial percentage is comparable to each of those other insurance companies, especially Aetna.

Misrepresentation FTW!

I think he may be trying to dispel the myth that UHC is somehow the perfect solution. Also, UHC isn't made to support old people for decades. There aren't enough funds for that. More claims from the elderly and terminally ill will be rejected because of the costs. I'm sure that's true for any insurance company or government system.
 
Ho-hum. Another one of those "If you're not up to your neck in the middle of it, you can't possibly know the truth" arguments. *yawn*
Oh, I get it, a politician who wants the bill says something is so, Michael Moore says it's so, and a bunch of left leaning pundits say it's so, so it's so. Nevermind the fact that people in the medical and insurance fields are telling you it's smoke and mirrors and an overblown and overrepresented occurance, what would we know, we only WORK, in the industry. :roll:
Here's the thing. From where I stand I can see the health insurance ripoff forest for what it is - a greed fest at the expense of others' lives. You are blinded by the trees you hide behind - those massive trees owned by the insurance companies, whose ugly bidding you do and to whom you are beholden.
Yeah, okay, care to bring facts instead of demonizing people who do.
I
don't have to be a health insurance paper-pusher to know that people are regularly denied life-saving treatment (Hint: It's what this whole thread is about) from the very people who are compensating themselves to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Nor do I have to be an insurance company tic sucking the life out of the public hide to know that 45,000 people die every year because they simply can't afford to pay the blood money the insurance companies demand for their [sarcasm] invaluable services [/sarcasm].
But you DO need to bring credibility, which you seem to have a problem understanding, I am telling you what is and what I've seen, you are using faulty sources and using empty rhetorical emotionalizations which do not prove your point.







People are DYING RIGHT NOW because they're being denied treatment by their insurance companies.
Right, so do you care to bring facts, like percentages, proof that it was a necessary procedure, proof that the doctor wasn't ordering an unnecessary procedure, etc. etc. It's easy to blame insurers, it's hard to actually tell both sides.
People are DYING RIGHT NOW because they have no coverage at all. People are DYING RIGHT NOW while insurance company salespeople continue pushing little pieces of paper around, desperately inventing new and more insidious ways to deny coverage.
And yet.....with all of this.....the government programs have the highest denial percentage.........hmmmm......kind of takes the wind out of your "people are dying because of denials" rant doesn't it?


I sincerely hope you'll be holding your breath in anticipation of that. :rofl
Ah, I see, so if you get your way, and when it fails miserably, you won't admit you were wrong.....fine, have it your way.
 
Nevermind the fact that people in the medical and insurance fields are telling you it's smoke and mirrors and an overblown and overrepresented occurance, what would we know, we only WORK, in the industry.

1. You don't work in the medical field.

1a. Those in the medical field (you know, the people who actually PROVIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES?) overwhelmingly support a public option.

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option

When polled, "nearly three-quarters of physicians supported some form of a public option, either alone or in combination with private insurance options."

Most doctors — 63 percent — say they favor giving patients a choice that would include both public and private insurance. That's the position of President Obama and of many congressional Democrats. In addition, another 10 percent of doctors say they favor a public option only; they'd like to see a single-payer health care system. Together, the two groups add up to 73 percent.

When the American public is polled, anywhere from 50 to 70 percent favor a public option. So that means that when compared to their patients, doctors are bigger supporters of a public option.

Here's ANOTHER poll on the same topic, with similar results:

Doctors Support the Public Option

That's the conclusion of a national poll conducted by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. The survey included more than 5,000 doctors spread across an array of specialties, and asked two sets of questions. The first gauged support for a public health-care system, a system with public and private options, and a solely private system. The second measured attitudes towards Medicare. The results should be generally cheering to reformers.

Doctors overwhelmingly support either a public option or a public system. Indeed, when you add the two groups together, it's more than 70 percent of respondents. There were some differences across specialties, but not a lot: about 75 percent of primary care doctors favored a public option or public system, while about 67 percent of surgeons felt similarly.

Next, the survey asked about opening Medicare up to individuals between 55 and 64. Support overwhelmed opposition by more than 2 to 1.

Oh, look! The AMA also supports a public option!

AMA President Says House Bill Is a Good Start Toward Health Reform

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association offers its support of the U.S. House bill on health reform and reiterates its commitment to effective, comprehensive health-care reform in a new video message from AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D.

“The status quo is unacceptable,” says Rohack in the video message posted to YouTube and the AMA’s Web site. “Let me be clear: Without a bill that can pass the House, there is no health reform this year. The debate is far from over, and the AMA is going to be at the table to improve the final legislation.”

“As physicians and healers, we’re at the heart of the health-care system,” says Rohack. “We know our position at the center of the health-reform debate is both an honor and a serious responsibility.”

The House bill includes provisions key to effective, comprehensive health reform, including:

* Coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms
* A choice of plans through a health insurance exchange
* An end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions
* Fundamental Medicare reform, including repeal of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula
* Additional funding for primary care services, without reductions on specialty care
* Individual responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance to those who need it
* Prevention and wellness initiatives to help keep Americans healthy
* Initiatives to address physician workforce concerns

And we can't ignore the New England Journal of Medicine, can we?

In April 2009, we obtained data on a random sample of 6000 physicians from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile, which includes current data on all U.S. physicians. We excluded physicians from U.S. territories because health care reform may not be as relevant to them, and we excluded physicians in training because of their limited experience with insurance; a sample of 5157 physicians remained. We categorized physicians into four groups: primary care physicians (in internal medicine, pediatrics, or family practice); medical subspecialists, neurologists, and psychiatrists; surgical specialists and subspecialists; and other specialties. The survey instrument we used was developed with the input of an expert panel, and we conducted cognitive testing and pilot testing to ensure its clarity and relevance. (More detailed information about our methods can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.)

Survey respondents were asked to indicate which of three options for expanding health insurance coverage they would most strongly support: public and private options, providing people younger than 65 years of age the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans; private options only, providing people with tax credits or subsidies, if they have low income, to buy private insurance coverage, without creating a new public plan; or a public option only, eliminating private insurance and covering everyone through a single public plan like Medicare. We also assessed the level of physician support for a proposal that would enable adults between the ages of 55 and 64 years to buy into the current Medicare program — a strategy that the Senate Finance Committee has proposed.

Data were also collected on additional variables that might be associated with preferences for different expansion options, such as time spent on clinical duties each week, whether physicians owned their own practice, salary status, and type of practice. The survey has been in the field for approximately 2 months (June 25, 2009, to September 3, 2009). All available data were analyzed on September 4, 2009. A third survey wave was initiated on August 27, 2009.

Overall, a majority of physicians (62.9%) supported public and private options. Only 27.3% supported offering private options only. Respondents — across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice locations, and practice types — showed majority support (>57.4%) for the inclusion of a public option. Primary care providers were the most likely to support a public option (65.2%); among the other specialty groups, the “other” physicians — those in fields that generally have less regular direct contact with patients, such as radiology, anesthesiology, and nuclear medicine — were the least likely to support a public option, though 57.4% did so.

Physicians in every census region showed majority support for a public option, with percentages in favor ranging from 58.9% in the South to 69.7% in the Northeast. Practice owners were less likely than nonowners to support a public option (59.7% vs. 67.1%, P<0.001), but a majority still supported it. Finally, there was also majority support for a public option among AMA members (62.2%)


2. Of COURSE the health insurance paper pushers are telling me it's smoke and mirrors. They're worried their literal stranglehold on the American public is in danger of loosening. :doh

Yeah, okay, care to bring facts

1. This has already been done.

Study: 45,000 Americans die each year for lack of insurance

2. For more facts, scroll up and click the links...

instead of demonizing people who do.

You, personally, and all your insurance make-work, paper-pusher colleagues are a major part of the problem. Why shouldn't I demonize you?

I am telling you what is and what I've seen

Why would I believe a guy who pushes paper for the health insurance industry? Your career is at stake; of course you're going to try to sell me a lot of indignant "I know the truth and you do not" hot air. :roll:

you are using faulty sources

Let's see, the sources I've supplied include the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, the American Journal of Public Health, Harvard, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the AMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine. Please provide us with valid documentation that these sources are "faulty." :roll:

Right, so do you care to bring facts, like percentages, proof that it was a necessary procedure, proof that the doctor wasn't ordering an unnecessary procedure, etc. etc.

Without the ability to research the specifics of each of the 45,000 annual cases where individuals died because they did not have healthcare insurance, such a request is as impossible as it is pointless.

But hey! YOU'RE in the health insurance industry! Why don't YOU provide us with those intimate details from each and every case, which you seem to think are so readily available? If you're unable to do this, I recommend you contact Harvard and the American Journal of Public Health. Perhaps they can straighten you out.

:rofl
 
baucus, nelson, nelson, lincoln, carper, landrieu, conrad, dorgan, pryor, bayh, the united bluedog coalition and most democrat freshmen oppose the PO

indeed, just wednesday 30 dem senators refused to sign a letter to reid demading the govt designation

demonize them

they matter

we'll watch
 
wouldn't it be easier to cut NOW the half trillion dollars of waste, fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid which the president banks on?

what's he waiting for?
 
1. You don't work in the medical field.
No, but my mother, godfather, cousin, and other relatives and friends do, and they are on MY side. Sorry, you lose.

1a. Those in the medical field (you know, the people who actually PROVIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES?) overwhelmingly support a public option.
HAHAHAHA, good one, the fact is many physicians have already said they will leave that field of practice under Obamacare, they already HATE medicare.


Oh, look! The AMA also supports a public option!
And? The AMA is an association of some physicians, again, many even in it's membership are opposed.



And we can't ignore the New England Journal of Medicine, can we?
Sure can, considering it's not the end game in medicine, it's a trade journal, much like I have trade journals related to my field that are based on opinions as well as advice(based on opinion) etc.








And again, the numbers have been exposed, so bring the right ones.





You, personally, and all your insurance make-work, paper-pusher colleagues are a major part of the problem. Why shouldn't I demonize you?
Because you have nothing else. I understand, you want to get your way, why let facts and fair debate get in the way.



Why would I believe a guy who pushes paper for the health insurance industry? Your career is at stake; of course you're going to try to sell me a lot of indignant "I know the truth and you do not" hot air. :roll:
I personally don't give a **** what you believe, and frankly, if you can't trust people who provide services based on clients needs then that's too bad, hope you have one hell of a gameplan, and frankly, I will say that you wouldn't be one of my clients, by my choice, because I don't deal with people who "know it all".


Without the ability to research the specifics of each of the 45,000 annual cases where individuals died because they did not have healthcare insurance, such a request is as impossible as it is pointless.
It's been done in explicit detail, the numbers don't say what you want them to, and the breakdown is less than 5% of the American populace.

But hey! YOU'RE in the health insurance industry! Why don't YOU provide us with those intimate details from each and every case, which you seem to think are so readily available? If you're unable to do this, I recommend you contact Harvard and the American Journal of Public Health. Perhaps they can straighten you out.
Wow, you used biased sources, incomplete info, and talking points from the hard left, you really showed me.:roll: Maybe since you made a bunch of generalized attacks on an industry with no working knowledge of it you could burden yourself to back it up, again, I'm not bringing numbers since I'm not the one attacking 1/6th of the American economy because free healthcare isn't my goal. I called you on bringing out the bull**** sources and rhetoric, it's not my job to back your claims.
 
No, but my mother, godfather, cousin, and other relatives and friends do, and they are on MY side. Sorry, you lose.

Three or four close relatives do not constitute "the medical field."

I've supplied plenty of documented evidence that a significant majority of our health care providers support a public option. Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. Please provide us with at least as much valid documentation to the contrary.

the fact is many physicians have already said they will leave that field of practice under Obamacare, they already HATE medicare

How many is "many?" Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. Please provide us with valid documentation for this questionable assertion.

The AMA is an association of some physicians, again, many even in it's membership are opposed.

How many is "many?" I've already provided links to several polls that indicate physicians overwhelmingly support a public option - physicians from every medical specialty and from every geographic location in the country. Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. Please provide us with valid documentation for your questionable assertion that "many AMA members are opposed" to a public option.

And again, the numbers have been exposed, so bring the right ones.

You've "exposed" nothing. Provided no links. Offered no valid documentation. Just a lot of bluster and posturing. Please provide us with valid evidence that 45,000 people do NOT die annually due to lack of health insurance.

Because you have nothing else. I understand, you want to get your way, why let facts and fair debate get in the way.

What "facts" are you referring to? I've provided numerous links to valid, indisputable, factual data. Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO.

if you can't trust people who provide services based on clients needs

"Provide services?" What "services" do health insurance salesmen provide besides endlessly pushing little pieces of paper around? The health insurance industry is one huge circle jerk - each salesman beating off the other to keep their money-making death panels alive and functioning.

"Based on client's needs?" Riiiight. I guess you can easily explain then, why health insurance companies do NOT cover pre-existing conditions... :doh

Tell you what. When I need the services of someone who does nothing more than push little pieces of paper around in order to jack up my final bill, of an industry that regularly denies me the very thing I'm paying through the nose for, I'll call you.

It's been done in explicit detail, the numbers don't say what you want them to, and the breakdown is less than 5% of the American populace.

Really? Publishing the explicit details ("proof that it was a necessary procedure, proof that the doctor wasn't ordering an unnecessary procedure, etc. etc.") of the deaths of each of the 45,000 people who die annually for lack of health care insurance has been done? By whom? When?

Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. If this research has actually been done and the data from each case is publicly available, please share it with us. Then everyone can decide for themselves if these individuals' lives were or were not directly related to having no health care insurance.

We'll wait. :2wave:

Wow, you used biased sources,

You've already indicated that you believe my sources to be biased. Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for this assertion. ZERO.

incomplete info,

I've offered more than enough "complete" information. Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO.

and talking points from the hard left,

HA!@! "Hard left!" That's rich! The only way I could be considered so is if the "hard left" suddenly starts vigorously supporting the death penalty and the right to keep a loaded Mossberg at the front door. :rofl

Maybe since you made a bunch of generalized attacks on an industry with no working knowledge of it you could burden yourself to back it up,

I'd say I've backed up my arguments quite well - with plenty of legitimate documentation. Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO.

I'm not bringing numbers

Ah. So your idea of grown-up debate is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LLALALALAAALA I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOUUUUUUU," and an across-the-board refusal to provide any sort of evidence of any kind to support your position? Well done!

it's not my job to back your claims.

Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. Furthermore, I've not asked you to back up my claims; I've asked you to back up your own. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Three or four close relatives do not constitute "the medical field."
Neither does the AMA, nor the New England Journal of medicine, or Harvard Medical, so what's your point?

I've supplied plenty of documented evidence that a significant majority of our health care providers support a public option.
Many do, it's a liability dump, so what's your point? Other than thinking that "some" of an industry or a weak consensus equals a good idea.
Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. Please provide us with at least as much valid documentation to the contrary.
I'm not making claims, you are, and frankly it's been a busy weekend, you know, owning a business and all, I don't punch out at five o'clock.


How many is "many?" Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. Please provide us with valid documentation for this questionable assertion.
Again, it's as valid without numbers as you citing the AMA, New England journal of medicine, etc.



How many is "many?" I've already provided links to several polls that indicate physicians overwhelmingly support a public option - physicians from every medical specialty and from every geographic location in the country. Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. Please provide us with valid documentation for your questionable assertion that "many AMA members are opposed" to a public option.
You did in fact post links, to biased sources, incomplete analysis, etc. etc.



You've "exposed" nothing. Provided no links. Offered no valid documentation. Just a lot of bluster and posturing. Please provide us with valid evidence that 45,000 people do NOT die annually due to lack of health insurance.
I won't post sources on that because they are biased in either direction, not the numbers, just the resources, the numbers make sense, but not to a proponent of subsidies.



What "facts" are you referring to? I've provided numerous links to valid, indisputable, factual data.
No, you haven't, you have provided opinion pieces and incomplete analysis. Your sources show generalized numbers and no methodolgy, that screams informational bias, but if you want to keep thinking that's great information then be my guest.


"Provide services?" What "services" do health insurance salesmen provide besides endlessly pushing little pieces of paper around? The health insurance industry is one huge circle jerk - each salesman beating off the other to keep their money-making death panels alive and functioning.
You have no idea what we do for clients, I am constantly doing cost-benefit comparisons, company shopping, crunching numbers, and customizing needs to budgets, but then again, I wouldn't expect an outsider to either industry to know what actually goes on after the meetings.

"Based on client's needs?" Riiiight. I guess you can easily explain then, why health insurance companies do NOT cover pre-existing conditions... :doh




Really? Publishing the explicit details ("proof that it was a necessary procedure, proof that the doctor wasn't ordering an unnecessary procedure, etc. etc.") of the deaths of each of the 45,000 people who die annually for lack of health care insurance has been done? By whom? When?
Yeah, see I remember when that Democrat senator made the claim too, here's the catch, can he prove that each one of those 45k procedures would have saved the person's life, or better yet, that a life threatening condition was denied against federal law at an emergency room. Yeah, thought so, morbidity tables based on the procedure would line up against that.
Thus far, you have provided absolutely zero documentation for anything you've claimed in this thread. ZERO. If this research has actually been done and the data from each case is publicly available, please share it with us.
Oh, so now it has to be publicly available, hmmm, well, can't do that, see, we have information we can't just release like other professionals.


You've already indicated that you believe my sources to be biased.
I don't believe they are biased, I know they are biased, they start with a stated agenda and word the debate in ways that don't play out to the facts, then they don't release their methodology, that IS biased.


- Aside from the repetive crap and ludicrous assertions, I will also remind you that this thread is about a government system denying the most prodcedures, your claims, as well as Pete's are all recycled from other debates and have nothing to do with this discussion, the simple FACT is that a government program with LESS enrollees has a HIGHER percentage of denials than any of those "evil" for profit companies with a smaller needs base, and that will only be increased when more non-paying recipients are added, since there is no way for the government to pay for these things out of pockets, that leads to higher cost and cost cutting, which means.......stay with me now........denial of claims.
 
Hmmm. Still no data. No links to polls, no verified research, or the slightest hint of documentation for your self-serving assertions. Just a whole lot of "I know what I know and you're wrong."

:shock:

Well, gosh. Your many outstanding and impeccable proofs have certainly changed my mind. And your debate skills are impressively nonexistent.
 
More documentation, just because I found it quite interesting:

since you can undoubtedly say what a company's motivations are

Let's take a closer look at that. What are a health insurance company's motivations?

Health Insurance Insider: 'They Dump the Sick'
Retired Health Insurance Executive Blows the Whistle on His Former Industry

Frustrated Americans have long complained that their insurance companies valued the all-mighty buck over their health care. Today, a retired insurance executive confirmed their suspicions, arguing that the industry that once employed him regularly rips off its policyholders.

"[T]hey confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors," former Cigna senior executive Wendell Potter said during a hearing on health insurance today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Potter, who has more than 20 years of experience working in public relations for insurance companies Cigna and Humana, said companies routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

"They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment," Potter said.


Small businesses, in particular, he said, have had trouble maintaining their employee health insurance coverage, he said.

"All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year's premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether," he said.

Potter also faulted insurance companies for being misleading both in advertising their policies to new customers and in communicating with existing policyholders.

More and more people, he said, are falling victim to "deceptive marketing practices" that encourage them to buy "what essentially is fake insurance," policies with high costs but surprisingly limited benefits.


Insurance companies continue to mislead consumers through "explanation of benefits" documents that note what payments the insurance company made and what's left for consumers to pay out of pocket, Potter said.

The documents, he said, are "notoriously incomprehensible."

"Insurers know that policyholders are so baffled by those notices they usually just ignore them or throw them away. And that's exactly the point," he said. "If they were more understandable, more consumers might realize that they are being ripped off."
 
Uh-oh. Health insurance salespeople had better start worrying... They might end up exactly as screwed as millions of other Americans are - no job AND no health insurance.

:doh

WellPoint cuts workers health benefits

INDIANAPOLIS - WellPoint Inc., the largest U.S. insurer, dismissed a "small number" of workers last week and announced cuts to employee health benefits Friday, in its latest attempt to deal with the recession's toll on enrollment.

WellPoint eliminated the positions last week and expects to let more go before year's end, though the number will be "relatively small," Kristin Binns, a spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview. The company will also raise deductibles and premiums for some of its employee health benefits, the Indianapolis-based insurer told workers in a memo obtained by Bloomberg.

In the memo from Randy Brown, WellPoint's chief human resources officer, the company said it would lower its contribution toward worker premiums and raise deductibles in two of its three benefit plans. "Your cost per paycheck will probably increase," the memo said.

I'm willing to bet that none of Wellpoint's top executives have had a cut in pay or benefits, while they happily eat their own... :roll:
 
Hmmm. Still no data. No links to polls, no verified research, or the slightest hint of documentation for your self-serving assertions. Just a whole lot of "I know what I know and you're wrong."

:shock:

Well, gosh. Your many outstanding and impeccable proofs have certainly changed my mind. And your debate skills are impressively nonexistent.
Cute little tactic of insulting people, but do you care to get back on topic and debate the FACT, that has been documented in the op, that medicare, which is public, has the highest decline rate of any plan, or do you want to keep derailing with long discredited talkiing points? First off, I don't carry any health providers at this particular moment for two reasons, one, your side is being childish and wants to take private companies out of just about every facet of the economy, including health care and it's funding mechanisms, secondly, I hate dealing with health insurance selling because of people like yourself who don't want to pay for it individually. Secondly, polls don't matter in the health care debate, because if everyone has the wrong opinion or has consensus on incorrect, it's still incorrect. Third, you made the same discredited claims that have been covered ad-infinitum on this board, which is one of the many reasons I haven't bothered to waste my time on public information sources, one can read back all over this forum to see your side discredited, but that is a cute little tactic of asking for sources. Fourth, the sources I found were opinion pieces, much like everything you have put forward, I don't do opinions as sources in this kind of debate, I bring facts, indisputable facts, if you really want them I'll find them, but as it stands, you are bringing opinions and insulting my profession, not exactly a great debate tactic yourself. Oh, and I'll go ahead and use biased sources myself, since you stand by yours.
 
Still refusing/unable to provide even the tiniest shred of documentation for your worthless assertions, I see.

If I may make a suggestion... perhaps a debate board isn't the right place for you. You're clearly not up to it.
 
Kandahar,looks like your goverment, is the public enemy of the people of the United States of America,well thats what u voted for and thats what u get.I dont know why u guys get so uptight about this health probs,what do u want
for your health care,make up your minds once and for all.

NHS is the Best so there u go

Kandahar.
or just suffer.
sorry for u m8.

god bless u.

mikeey
 
Uh-oh. Health insurance salespeople had better start worrying... They might end up exactly as screwed as millions of other Americans are - no job AND no health insurance.

:doh



I'm willing to bet that none of Wellpoint's top executives have had a cut in pay or benefits, while they happily eat their own... :roll:

That's a guarantee.
 
Back
Top Bottom