Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker
A few comments to flesh out the debate:
It's really not that easy to discriminate, when health insurance is tied so closely to employment.
Providers deny 100% of claims from those who are uninsured. Put differently, if you're in Priceless's situation, would you rather have a 94% probability of success, or 0%?
Claims are a less interesting unit of analysis than dollars. Having a $200 claim for a prescription rejected is not the same as being rejected for a major procedure.
To be really interesting, then, you'd need to compare rates for specific procedures. Aggregate comparisons like these can be dangerous if you don't control for anything.
Along those lines, it might be much, much harder to maintain 90+% approval rate when you have predominantly elderly (read: expensive) clients.
God knows, I'm not trying to suggest that Medicare is perfect, or that single-payer is so perfect an idea that it would implement itself. But that table looks to me as if it were put together more to serve a predetermined political purpose more than to provide real, usable information.
Here is a table I found from National Healthcare Exchange Services website for the fiscal year 2007.
It appears that the much lauded government insurer denies a higher percentage than the much maligned private insurers. I sympathize Priceless. But there is no guarantee a single payer government run provider would be any better, in fact it could be worse.
edit: Like geezer said, customers can discrimminate against Aetna or others because of their high denial rate. With a single payer they can't.
A few comments to flesh out the debate:
It's really not that easy to discriminate, when health insurance is tied so closely to employment.
Providers deny 100% of claims from those who are uninsured. Put differently, if you're in Priceless's situation, would you rather have a 94% probability of success, or 0%?
Claims are a less interesting unit of analysis than dollars. Having a $200 claim for a prescription rejected is not the same as being rejected for a major procedure.
To be really interesting, then, you'd need to compare rates for specific procedures. Aggregate comparisons like these can be dangerous if you don't control for anything.
Along those lines, it might be much, much harder to maintain 90+% approval rate when you have predominantly elderly (read: expensive) clients.
God knows, I'm not trying to suggest that Medicare is perfect, or that single-payer is so perfect an idea that it would implement itself. But that table looks to me as if it were put together more to serve a predetermined political purpose more than to provide real, usable information.
Last edited: