Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 434 posts

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#391

Post by nathan_compton »

eecc wrote: post #92
stemlord wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fully insured and healthy but still just paid almost $3000 in deductubles for a single upper endoscopy (common procedure for 40+ folks). Cigna. In Italy last summer I received a dental xray and diagnosis as a walk-in, for FREE.

Just adding that in Lombardy, the region around Milan who have a bad case of parochial wanna-be NYC, local (right wing) government is pushing towards private health care with lavish subsidies for privates and a grossly underfunded public health system. To get an MRI via public you can wait 1k days, invia private is a next-day appointment although you must be ready to pay thousands EUR. frankly it’s obviously delibera…

People should be out in the streets.

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#392

Post by alphanullmeric »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #368
alphanullmeric wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. You have no idea how much I make, which your claim entirely depends on. You also don't seem to be reading very carefully, I'm stating what I believe should happen. I would like people to be forced to pay for less things. You would like people to be forced to pay for more things. Simple as that.

> Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. So you’d pay for law enforcement and a military, but without roads and highways they would be ineffective. What is your proposal? Do police and soldiers have to pay money for its use? > You have no idea how much I make, which your claim entirely depends on And you have no idea whether I’m overpaying for h…

The government already operates roads. Nothing would change. The people that use it (ie. most people including myself) pay for it. I like the idea that part of the police and military budget be put towards the highways they use.

You made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you. All I said is that you wish people be forced to pay for things they don’t use and I do not, which you conveniently ignored after asking me to address every bit of your comment.

People like you always pull this “indirectly use” argument to justify making people pay for things they do not use. I don’t pay for the gym membership of the delivery guy, this is no different.

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#393

Post by explaininjs »

davidw wrote: post #321
explaininjs wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Bernie Sanders? Who was then placed in a debate in an “insurance town” where every audience question was some insurance leech complaint that his plan would destroy their jobs? Yeah dude. That’s the point, your job is bullshit and you shouldn’t be doing it. The media also loved to bring on people who “adored their current insurance plan and would hate to lose it”. I’ve never met someone like that in real life, bu…

> If voting could change anything it’d be illegal. The absolute best way to ensure that nothing changes is to get cynical and try and demotivate anyone else from trying.

The only path to substantial change is and has always been violent revolution. I welcome anyone to try that.

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#394

Post by mmranger »

I worked customer service for years with a cell carrier in the US. It was tiring hearing everyone's problems with their luxury devices(at that time). I left and got a job at Aetna customer service 6 weeks of training and I walked in the first week on the job. After getting off a call with an elderly gentleman trying to figure out why we weren't paying for his wife's medical care. And all I could say was the plan you have well not cover that because you didn't jump through some ridiculous hoop. A hip that as a young adult I would have struggled to complete let alone a very old person who doesn't understand what is required and there is no one to help him.

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#395

Post by glenstein »

thallium205 wrote: post #204
glenstein wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of public healthcare is incorporated into health insurance conglomerates? And what potential benefits of privatized healthcare are we missing out on?

Who do you think run all state level Medicaid programs? Government employee health plans? Private conglomerates. That’s one of many many examples.

The person I was responding to was suggesting it was a connection to public programs that made private health programs so stingy in denying claims, and I don't see how your answer gets me any closer to understanding what that means.

I'm also not sure what you mean when there's plenty of other examples. Examples of what? I'm still trying to figure out what the "what" is. Private health insurance companies in America ruthlessly deny claims, this is supposedly because of something about public administration of healthcare, and I'm still waiting for an explanation of how that works.

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#396

Post by nobodyandproud »

alphanullmeric wrote: post #392
nobodyandproud wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. So you’d pay for law enforcement and a military, but without roads and highways they would be ineffective. What is your proposal? Do police and soldiers have to pay money for its use? > You have no idea how much I make, which your claim entirely depends on And you have no idea whether I’m overpaying for h…

The government already operates roads. Nothing would change. The people that use it (ie. most people including myself) pay for it. I like the idea that part of the police and military budget be put towards the highways they use. You made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you. All I said is that you wish people be forced to pay for things they don’t use and I do not, which you conveniently ignored after asking m…

> Highways are no different from healthcare. I don't care if the government does them. You use it you pay for it. …

> The government already operates roads. Nothing would change.

Okay. So we established that you don’t mind if the government runs the roads as long as they pay for it (tolls, gas tax).

I’ll go out on a limb and say that until the Federal stepped in, our road system was haphazard and ineffective. Having standards and an interstate system was crucial, and only possible with government.

Now given that law enforcement and military can incur injuries, can we have an effective law enforcement without the medical support to get them back up when injured or sick?

Now for this portion: > So it’s not unsurprising that your attempts at forcing others to pay for your things is met with hostility when you and others that share your views don’t even want to face those policies themselves.

Why would you assume the worst ? This goes against Hacker News’ core principles.

> People like you always pull this “indirectly use” argument to justify making people pay for things they do not use. I don’t pay for the gym membership of the delivery guy, this is no different.

I help pay for all of infrastructure, the building safety codes that ensure the gym doesn’t collapse or electrocute me, that the machines aren’t death traps, etc.

It’s great that I don’t have to pay for a membership or other services if I don’t want it, but the foundation that makes these services even possible or reliable costs money.

Having these services on standby also costs money, even if you don’t use it. So yes, I’m already paying more than I’ve ever received in healthcare.

Back to healthcare. What I find frustrating is that your kneejerk reaction is neither unique nor uncommon, yet it never comes with a workable alternative and solution.

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#397

Post by bithead »

I am a T1 diabetic, and worked for UnitedHealth Group. During that time they decided to stop paying for my insulin with no substitute for it, in spite of several cheaper substitutes existing. Thank god for Canada mail pharmacies.

No amount of oversight of health insurance is too much. Health insurance companies should be forbidden from owning or otherwise influencing any health care provider (sounds like a RICO thing now that I type it out). Mandatory prison time for CEO's and any other corporate officers if they knew about the offense and failed to notify authorities. Also fines base on gross revenues, at least 10%. Make shareholders pay as well. Also mandatory incarceration of corporate officers while investigations take place.

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#399

Post by laurex »

explaininjs wrote: post #393
davidw wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If voting could change anything it’d be illegal. The absolute best way to ensure that nothing changes is to get cynical and try and demotivate anyone else from trying.

The only path to substantial change is and has always been violent revolution. I welcome anyone to try that.

There’s nonviolent revolution, too. But it’s still likely to yield violence in response because these systems are inherently violent and ultimately enforced with violence.

Re: Cigna saves millions by having its doctors reject claims without reading them

#400

Post by zestyping »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #303
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I don't want to say "start shooting them until they get the message that we won't put up with their bullshit", but I honestly can't think of a better plan given that people will find all sorts of excuses to keep voting for the kinds of assholes who prefer it this way. I'd really like to hear one, cause the violence option isn't really very appealing.

This. So, so, so many flavors of the "abuse of the public to make a few bucks" that is codified in the business models and job duties and KPIs of all sorts of organizations is only viable because people bend over and take it. If there was real risk that came with abusing the public employees would either a) not do that part of their jobs b) demand compensation, likely making the abuse not economically worthwhile c) s…

What kind of "real risk" are you talking about? Risk of what?
Post reply on HN