2 ms·

How can you simultaneously contend that United’s denials of coverage are responsible for killing people, and also contend that increasing healthcare spending wo

by nickff 2y ago

How can you simultaneously contend that United’s denials of coverage are responsible for killing people, and also contend that increasing healthcare spending wouldn’t save people?

cogman10 2y ago
You are using binary thinking. It's not a binary. I can contend that United's denials are responsible for killing people because they are denying at 2x the industry average. To prove me wrong, you'd have to show that actually the rest of the industry isn't denying enough and that United has somehow stumbled upon the real rate of spurious insurance claims. And for the 100% of money to healthcare that makes the assumption that we have that much healthcare need to spend that much money on. There are limits to needs which is why the argument you make is flawed.
- nickff 2y ago
  Why is the burden of proof on me? You’re the one justifying a murder! Also, I wouldn’t have to prove than increasing healthcare spending to 100% of GDP would be optimal, just proving that there is some incremental gain by spending a tiny bit more than is currently spent by a single-payer would justify the murder of one or more legislators (by your logic).
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > You’re the one justifying a murder! I'm not, nor have I ever. And with that I think this conversation is done. If you won't engage with any point I've made and instead are just here to insult me there's no point in continuing further.
  - antasvara 2y ago
    By my cursory Google search, the successful appeal rate for claims denials is somewhere between 30 and 60 percent. With the caveat that this isn't a representative sample (people appealing likely have the denials most likely to be overturned), 30% at the low end still feels too high. This rate is even higher for prior authorization denials. Those get overturned on appeal more than half the time. Probably safe to assume that if your denial rate is 2x competitors, those numbers would be even worse.

by nickff 2y ago

How can you simultaneously contend that United’s denials of coverage are responsible for killing people, and also contend that increasing healthcare spending wouldn’t save people?

cogman10 2y ago

You are using binary thinking. It's not a binary. I can contend that United's denials are responsible for killing people because they are denying at 2x the industry average. To prove me wrong, you'd have to show that actually the rest of the industry isn't denying enough and that United has somehow stumbled upon the real rate of spurious insurance claims. And for the 100% of money to healthcare that makes the assumption that we have that much healthcare need to spend that much money on. There are limits to needs which is why the argument you make is flawed.

nickff 2y ago
Why is the burden of proof on me? You’re the one justifying a murder! Also, I wouldn’t have to prove than increasing healthcare spending to 100% of GDP would be optimal, just proving that there is some incremental gain by spending a tiny bit more than is currently spent by a single-payer would justify the murder of one or more legislators (by your logic).
- cogman10 2y ago
  > You’re the one justifying a murder! I'm not, nor have I ever. And with that I think this conversation is done. If you won't engage with any point I've made and instead are just here to insult me there's no point in continuing further.
- antasvara 2y ago
  By my cursory Google search, the successful appeal rate for claims denials is somewhere between 30 and 60 percent. With the caveat that this isn't a representative sample (people appealing likely have the denials most likely to be overturned), 30% at the low end still feels too high. This rate is even higher for prior authorization denials. Those get overturned on appeal more than half the time. Probably safe to assume that if your denial rate is 2x competitors, those numbers would be even worse.