3 ms·

Why would I directly address someone who didn’t respond in good faith in kind to me last go around, but instead played semantic games when they exhausted their

Why would I directly address someone who didn’t respond in good faith in kind to me last go around, but instead played semantic games when they exhausted their argument? Here’s my perspective: for profit healthcare is a form of eugenics against the poor and disabled. Insurance companies are parasitic middlemen who are directly responsible for the deaths and bankruptcy of many. Denial of claims under the ACA is done to preserve the existence and profits of these middleman. Thinking you can suss out whether the 20% of claims they deny are moral or necessary entirely misses the point.

tptacek 7y ago
You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly). Here's just one example of what's flawed about your argument: average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon?
- claudeganon 7y ago
  >You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly). You don't need data to know that health insurers deny claims to to preserve their existence and protect profits. It's how every form of insurance works. The only thing that data will tell you is to what degree they deny claims in this pursuit relative to their other tactics, from jacking up premiums, imposing high deductibles, etc. >Average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon? They're not variably immoral, because that's not the premise. The premise is that they're entire existence is unnecessary and immoral and has caused the bankruptcy and deaths of many. This isn't even internally consistent with your other arguments, as you've claimed that the variability of denials makes aggregate figures not a particularly useful measure. Since we're also demanding responses now, please, again, feel free to describe what threshold of bankruptcy, injury to the sick and disabled, and deaths you feel is appropriate for the status quo. How much of this is necessary? https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901?journalCode=ajph https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018....
  - tptacek 7y ago
    You might not "need" data, but you brought this data up, and it doesn't support your argument. It seems like you've conceded that now.
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      I concede nothing other than your love of removing individual arguments from their context (in this case, the failure and unraveling of the ACA) to distract from your inability to provide a coherent or ethical defense of the status quo. For example, please describe how denial of claims by ACA plans is unrelated to the continued medical bankruptcies I cited? Or, if it is related, what level of medical bankruptcies is permissible in your perspective?
      - tptacek 7y ago
        As I observed before, the overwhelming majority of denied claims aren't even challenged, and a substantial number of them are probably miskeyed by providers. You have no evidence that the claim denial numbers are a driver or even an indicator of medical bankruptcies. Have you read the study that established this data point that you provided?
        claudeganon 7y ago
        >You have no evidence that the claim denial numbers are a driver or even an indicator of medical bankruptcies. I mean, this is absurd on its face, but you can read the study I linked about medical bankruptcies. It explicitly states that insurance coverage (which inherently includes denial of claims) is a leading driver of medical bankruptcies. Here’s what it’s co-author said about the issue if you can’t get access to it: “The culprit for the lack of improvement [in medical bankruptcy rates] was inadequate health-care insurance, according to a co-author of the research, Dr. David U. Himmelstein, a distinguished professor at Hunter College and founder of advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program. ‘Unless you’re Jeff Bezos, people don’t have very good alternatives, because the insurance that is available and affordable to people, or that most people’s employers provide them, is not adequate protection if you’re sick,’ Himmelstein said.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most... Claims denial and the struggle to pay medical bills has also been examined by Kaiser: “About a quarter (26 percent) of the insured who had medical bill problems say they had a claim denied by their insurance company. Common reported reasons for denial include a particular treatment not being covered (25 percent of those with denied claims) and receiving care from an out-of-network provider (14 percent); 21 percent of those who say they had a claim denied did not know or could not provide a reason for the denial.” https://www.kff.org/report-section/the-burden-of-medical-debt-section-2-the-role-of-health-insurance/ https://www.kff.org/report-section/the-burden-of-medical-deb... Still waiting on what level of bankruptcy and suffering justifies the status quo too.

tptacek 7y ago

You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly). Here's just one example of what's flawed about your argument: average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon?

claudeganon 7y ago
>You're still not responding to what I actually said. Instead, you've extrapolated from the study your own preferred interpretation, which the authors not only didn't do, but were careful not to do, because the data doesn't exist to do it (and, indeed, the data probably points in the other direction, albeit weakly). You don't need data to know that health insurers deny claims to to preserve their existence and protect profits. It's how every form of insurance works. The only thing that data will tell you is to what degree they deny claims in this pursuit relative to their other tactics, from jacking up premiums, imposing high deductibles, etc. >Average claim denials in Oregon are just 8%, a fraction of what they are in Illinois. Are health insurers in Oregon more moral than they are in Illinois? Will your rationale for that argument hold up when I note other states with low denial rates that aren't at all similar to Oregon? They're not variably immoral, because that's not the premise. The premise is that they're entire existence is unnecessary and immoral and has caused the bankruptcy and deaths of many. This isn't even internally consistent with your other arguments, as you've claimed that the variability of denials makes aggregate figures not a particularly useful measure. Since we're also demanding responses now, please, again, feel free to describe what threshold of bankruptcy, injury to the sick and disabled, and deaths you feel is appropriate for the status quo. How much of this is necessary? https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304901?journalCode=ajph https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2018....
- tptacek 7y ago
  You might not "need" data, but you brought this data up, and it doesn't support your argument. It seems like you've conceded that now.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    I concede nothing other than your love of removing individual arguments from their context (in this case, the failure and unraveling of the ACA) to distract from your inability to provide a coherent or ethical defense of the status quo. For example, please describe how denial of claims by ACA plans is unrelated to the continued medical bankruptcies I cited? Or, if it is related, what level of medical bankruptcies is permissible in your perspective?
    - tptacek 7y ago
      As I observed before, the overwhelming majority of denied claims aren't even challenged, and a substantial number of them are probably miskeyed by providers. You have no evidence that the claim denial numbers are a driver or even an indicator of medical bankruptcies. Have you read the study that established this data point that you provided?
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        >You have no evidence that the claim denial numbers are a driver or even an indicator of medical bankruptcies. I mean, this is absurd on its face, but you can read the study I linked about medical bankruptcies. It explicitly states that insurance coverage (which inherently includes denial of claims) is a leading driver of medical bankruptcies. Here’s what it’s co-author said about the issue if you can’t get access to it: “The culprit for the lack of improvement [in medical bankruptcy rates] was inadequate health-care insurance, according to a co-author of the research, Dr. David U. Himmelstein, a distinguished professor at Hunter College and founder of advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program. ‘Unless you’re Jeff Bezos, people don’t have very good alternatives, because the insurance that is available and affordable to people, or that most people’s employers provide them, is not adequate protection if you’re sick,’ Himmelstein said.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most... Claims denial and the struggle to pay medical bills has also been examined by Kaiser: “About a quarter (26 percent) of the insured who had medical bill problems say they had a claim denied by their insurance company. Common reported reasons for denial include a particular treatment not being covered (25 percent of those with denied claims) and receiving care from an out-of-network provider (14 percent); 21 percent of those who say they had a claim denied did not know or could not provide a reason for the denial.” https://www.kff.org/report-section/the-burden-of-medical-debt-section-2-the-role-of-health-insurance/ https://www.kff.org/report-section/the-burden-of-medical-deb... Still waiting on what level of bankruptcy and suffering justifies the status quo too.