"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


What a lot of people don't realize is that insurers don't have to stall
much
more than usual when dealing with a seriously ill patient to turn them
into
a terminal one. I've read case after case where the insurers, after
weeks
of delay, finally approved a costly procedure that turned out to be too
late
to apply to the now-deceased patient. I found that behavior by private
insurers to be where the REAL "death panel" decisions are made. Not the
BS
"panels" postulated by people who wanted to kill universal health care
and
who deliberately misread the "advisement of options" sections of the new
law. "Misread" or outright lied.

The same has held true for ages with MCare and (especially)
MCaid. They pretty much taught the privates everything they know about
not paying and/or paying late.

Reminds me of the old joke: "He's slower than a postal worker on Valium."
Adding government bureacracy to *any* process isn't like to speed up the
results. (-:

I have long noted that the death panels
do exist in both types of programs and to pretend either doesn't is just
blowing smoke up my ass from both sides.

Well, you've always been enough of a realist, Kurt, to know that both sides
like to believe their narrative is the only factual one when in reality,
neither side's narrative is anywhere near 100% true. As someone reminded me
off-list, the public option was torpedoed by both R & D alike, a testament
to the fact that both sides are beholden to their campaign contributors like
the health insurance lobby, etc.

If anything, the structure of the ACA will actually increase this, plus
(when things are bundled) add
in incentives for docs and hospitals to join the game.

It's a "brave new world" when it comes to how the Affordable Care Act will
be implemented. One thing is clear to me, despite the brickbats being
thrown about: universal health care is coming to stay. Plenty of countries
have made it work (my Australian friends, from one, and they're no goddamn
commies!). There are a lot of different roadmaps for others to follow
because so many others have been able to do successfully what we're still
arguing over. You'd think Americans would want to be a leader in providing
quality healthcare to all its citizens and not just a distant also-ran.

Americans, especially older ones who remember a fairly functional health
insurance system, don't realize how much the landscape has changed. They
don't realize that workers coming up in the economy now don't have anywhere
near the benefits that we had. Once again, the decades of business shedding
their previous committment to health insurance and health insurers seeking
to contain costs, sometimes unfairly has led to the current situation.

All during the debate over the ACA, giant businesses like Wal*mart are
cutting back health benefits even further. That means that more and more
people are eventually going to lose what meager coverage they have and will
likely become advocates (and voters) for universal health care. With all
the ways employers can now dodge providing health care coverage, universal
health care will represent the only chance they have of buying affordable
coverage.

As more companies cut back, that pressure simply increases. Clouding the
issue with accusations of socialism, fascism or Scientology g doesn't
really add to the debate, just to the background noise level. I don't think
the original/current structure of the new law was done very well. That
doesn't mean we'll never hit on the proper formula/implementation. It will
just take a while.

--
Bobby G.