Archive for October 6th, 2009

Heartless Medicare Bureaucrats Deny More Claims than Top Providers

Now that it’s been discovered that Medicare’s denial rate is roughly 1.7 times that of the top private carriers combined, will the AMA and Brother O’s “cherry picked” medical practitioners continue to sacrifice what’s left of their professional integrity and creditability to promote a government-run health care system that is more likely to deny patient care than administer it?

Supporters of ObamaCare’s public option parrot bromides damning private insurance companies for denying claims and canceling coverage.

“We are held hostage at any given moment by health insurance companies that deny coverage or drop coverage or charge fees that people can’t afford,” Brother O said in August.

Brother O neglected to mention that the worst offender is the oft touted government model, Medicare. The American Medical Association (AMA) and Brother O’s cherry-picked medical professionals endorse the public option because, like Medicare, it would be a better provider for patients when it comes to decision-making autonomy and the ability to get patients the care they need.

Beverly Gossage, Research Fellow for Show-Me Institute and founder of HSA Benefits Consulting, discovered in the AMA’s 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card that Medicare is most likely to reject a claim, denying 6.85 percent or 475,566 claims, which is more than the seven top commercial health insurers and is double their average.




Gossage’s findings mean the AMA, the cherry-picked medical professionals, and the ObamaCare supporters have endorsed a plan “whose closest existing example is the most frequent denier of claims.”

In television ads and news releases, supporters of ObamaCare have shamelessly portrayed insurance companies as insensitive greedy louts with itchy fingers on hair triggers willingly to deny claims for wealth. 

Will the shameless supporters of ObamaCare now portray the government-run insurer Medicare as a cold-blooded bunch of bookkeepers and bureaucrats? The cows will be home long before such a portrayal happens.

I.M. Kane

Read Full Post »

Consumer Reports Chucks Reputation to Hawk ObamaCare

Consumer Reports has tossed away political neutrality to side with Democrats in support of a government run health care system that will be costly to consumers.

“[W]e are doing something that we’ve never done before. For the first time ever, Consumers Union is weighing in with a TV ad that calls on lawmakers to find a solution for health reform,” said Jim Guest, publisher of Consumer Reports.

The Consumers Union insists that the Democrat proposals will provide high quality care at lower costs, yet the exact opposite is true.  If enacted, the Democrats’ proposals would exacerbate a system in which consumers have no stake in the cost of medical services and products.

Consumer Report fails to present  the downside of the Democrats’ health care proposals to help consumers distinguish between truth and propaganda.

The Democrat proposals would create bureaucracies to monitor people’s lives, inject government into people’s private lives via centralized medical records, mandate health care that would tax people for failing to engage in economic activity, and involve the IRS in enforcing the mandate through receipt of individual health insurance information.

By aligning itself with proposals “laden with taxes, penalties, punishments, government bureaucracy and out-of-control spending,” Consumer Reports has diminished its status and destroyed a once noteworthy reputation for providing politically neutral, accurate information.

Read Full Post »