#ATOS week: The influence of the American insurance company Unum, formerly UnumProvident

EXPOSED HERE in the United Kingdom
"The influence of the American insurance company Unum, formerly UnumProvident." 

Unum developed the technique of 'Disability denial' seen here (in the United Kingdom) used by Atos for the government in America and used it successfully for some years to deny perfectly legitimate health insurance claims till it became general knowledge and a national scandal. 

This is a matter of record, you can read more about it by using a search engine (such as Google, Yahoo, Bing etc) for Unum Scandal. 

The government here in the UK, promptly got them (Unum) in as 'consultants about welfare reform'.

So, I ask you: 

Why would you consult with known criminals unless it was to have them teach you the same techniques?  This appears to be what we're seeing here in the UK right now. 

It may not be coincidence that the former chief medical Officer at Unum, Michael O'Donnell, now has that same role at Atos. It goes without saying that if the benefits system was done away with it would open a multi-billion pound market for insurance companies like Unum. 

No doubt politicians and MP's in the UK - who helped do away with the benefits system would be handsomely rewarded. 

It looks like we have a criminal insurance company colluding here with corrupt UK politicians to deprive genuinely ill people of their rightful benefit entitlements. 

It's worth noting that whenever they're asked to justify their policies the politicians involved can't, referring instead to the likes of intergenerational workless families without providing any evidence whatsoever that such people exist, for instance. 

All involved in this Welfare 'medical insurance' scam in the UK are: IDS (Ian Duncan Smith), Grayling, Purnell, Cooper, Maria Miller MP, Lord Freud etc should be answering questions in the dock of a UK Court, about their involvement. 

This needs a criminal investigation, so neither politicians/MP's nor Atos nor Unum can hide behind 'commercial confidentiality' as they do now when presented with FOI (freedom of information) requests.

Comments