Two weeks ago people were posting stats on the front page showing the industry average denied claims is around 16% and UnitedHealth denies double that at 32%, so that means the vast majority of claims are approved even for the worst examples.
I’m sure we’d be pretty sanguine about a school bus driver who gets 68% of the kids to school safely, too.
If the options were a bus with 32% fatality and no bus with 100% fatality, would you advocate we tear down the bus?
And we only have those two choices because of capitalist gaslighting. Given those two options, I would advocate deposing a few more insurance executives to improve the situation.
If you presume the other health funds are acting rationally, accepting legitimate claims, rejecting those that are not covered by the policy of the person claiming them, then for every illegitimate claim denied by the average fund United deny one illegitimate and one valid claim.
In what way is that not terrible?
I’m not sure who you’re arguing against but it isn’t me.
I’m not defending anything. I’m just pointing out an obvious lie.
Why do you think none of the claims being accepted is not terrible but 84% being accepted is terrible? Are you pro-debt and unnecessary death and sickness?
100 minus 36 is 64, not 84.
I never suggested all should be accepted. I made an assumption for my argument that the average health funds are acting fairly. I don’t believe that, incidentally, since many are far below the average and I don’t believe they are approving invalid claims
68% in particular is stretching the term “vast majority” especially when that 32% is people who pay for insurance every fucking month for the explicit purpose of being covered.
They aren’t asking for a handout. They are entitled to this coverage. They paid for it already!
This, I’m tired of the 1% saying we “Just want free stuff”, like we’re demanding Xboxes and snazzy T-Shirts with pictures of [Insert Profitable Brand Here]
We’re asking for the systems we actively maintain (often against our will and under threat of homelessness, starvation, and death I remind you) to do anything for us.
I wish it were only the 1% saying bullshit like that, but sadly it seems the majority of voters are sold on the idea.
Right right right, but that’s more than zero. That’s tens of millions more cases than zero. We need to understand every action, or inaction, will have consequences to make the best possible decisions. Some users are advocating armed violence against the offices that would be allocating funding for healthcare, not even the CEOs but the actual workers at the company, it is each of our responsibilities to weigh the pros and cons and examine all of our options to solve these problems.
Theres no easy way. It’s not as simple as pushing a button or pulling a trigger.
Ideally it should be 0% (this is too optomistic, but I am not one make that figure) people pay into an insurance system to distribute risk. If a company cant resolve the inflow/outflow problem (not even going to get into profits, for-profit insurance is unethical) then it needs to be managed by an organization that can. ~30 governments (USA not amongst them) that have solved this problem for their citizens and anyone requiring medical assistance within their borders.
Right right right all cool, but I was conversing with that other user who claimed nothing was getting approved.
