The fact that the system is transparent, that every one is denied in a way that is public knowledge, makes the system much easier to change. It’s not directly comparable to the opaque way that US insurance companies deny claims, and the way you said “often have ways” implies the same level of subterfuge.
I feel like you also missed the other commenter’s point entirely. No one makes comparisons on raw numbers, that would be silly. But the rate at which UHC denies claims is likely greater.
Rate is just one data point. I’m back again to asking for in depth analysis. Do people who use UHC submit more bogus claims than those who use other insurance for example? There are many more important questions that need to be asked.
The fact that the system is transparent, that every one is denied in a way that is public knowledge, makes the system much easier to change. It’s not directly comparable to the opaque way that US insurance companies deny claims, and the way you said “often have ways” implies the same level of subterfuge.
I feel like you also missed the other commenter’s point entirely. No one makes comparisons on raw numbers, that would be silly. But the rate at which UHC denies claims is likely greater.
Rate is just one data point. I’m back again to asking for in depth analysis. Do people who use UHC submit more bogus claims than those who use other insurance for example? There are many more important questions that need to be asked.
Holy moly, are you really this much of a bootlicker that you buy “bogus claims” as an excuse for insurance denying people life-saving treatment?
You’re right, rate is just one data point. One I think you purposefully ignored now.
I’ve been around long enough to know that people who want to make a point will yell about one number in their favor and ignore everything else.
How’s that leather taste mate?