Yesterday I was working a case and looking for a potential witness. Story is this - witness is a two-time Veteran of Iraq, deployed twice (obviously). Came home with "anger issues." Went to VA which is understaffed and overworked. They suggested private counselling which he cannot afford. Was at a baseball game; coach yelled at Veteran's son; Veteran came out of stand and knocked coach down; Veteran admits it was all his fault. Veteran ordered to pay all related medical bills and go into anger management. Paid the bills, does not have money for anger management.

So he's in jail to serve out a sentence instead of "outside," getting help. I guarantee he's going to come out with more issues than he had when he went in.

His wife and child are on public assistance because she lost her job due to the economy.

I see this family spiralling downward. I'm not a charitable foundation but felt so awful that I stopped on my way home, bought a grocery store gift card and mailed it to the wife this AM. I simply don't know what else to do.

I am not saying people should be allowed to run around knocking down and otherwise bullying other people and blaming anger issues. I am saying it's the Korean War and Viet Nam all over again - soldiers are coming home after horrific experiences, unable to cope, out of the mainstream and this Country turns its back.

Clunk. Off my soapbox.

Don't get me started on the VA. My husband has to go there for some things, but always get a second opinion.

Somehow, I don't think this Veteran is going to have his anger issues fixed by going to jail. Seems like community service would have been a better deal all round.

Good for you for lending a hand! That case was put in your hand for a reason and you answered the call.

It is appalling what our veterans are going through... again!

Because of the nature of the humveees,we are seeing more head trauma than ever before but there is little if any expertise in treating people with this type of trauma and there are no funds to insure it will get better.

Walter Reed is a mess and these people who fought for our country are being treated like second class citizens.

I refer you to an article I think you will appreciate.

If there is any soapbox to stand on.. this is one!

Bless you for your Patriotism and human decency.

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html)

Maybe the VA could quit coddling my ex and start spending it where it really matters.

Hello Judy:

I'm amazed by the "we support our troops", wing, who only support them when they're TROOPS, but not when they're men.

Ok, I take it back. They don't amaze me anymore.

excon

And it's the geniuses who think that putting someone who admits he was at fault, has asked for counselling, cannot afford counselling, can't get into VA for counselling in JAIL because he can't afford counselling. Duhh.

VA

"understaffed and overworked"

I wonder why that is? Government run. In general there is no reward or incentive for excellence.

The VA where I use to work only did what they were able to do because some of the employees took pride in what they do and went beyond there stated duties.

The Va where I use to work only had St Louis, 1-3 hours away, as an option for a lot of specialty care. Quite a few vets I took care said they would rather die than go to St Louis [ VA ].

Look up Marion IL VA surgeon and deaths. Yes during Obama's tenure as senator, the Va hired a surgeon that was not qualified.







G&P

I'm amazed by the "we support our troops", wing, who only support them when they're TROOPS, but not when they're men.

Ok, I take it back. They don't amaze me anymore.

That would be America as a nation throughout it's history with the exception of WWII ;where there was an economic incentive to retrain returning troops for civilian life after demobilization.

Veterans of the Revolutionary War made their way home alone. No parade, no public homecoming ceremony welcomed them. They had been recruited for a long engagement and were treated as soldiers under conditions of professional soldiers during that time .Congress kept the army weak, undermanned, and undersupplied to prevent it from turning on its own government but strong enough to stalemate British forces. The country had tired of the long and costly war by the end . Veterans received no benefits ;they were ripped off by speculators . These men were soon forgotten by the country they had liberated from Britain's empire.
It took until about 1825 for them to begin to get the recognition they deserved .

You will recall from history I'm sure what happened to the WWI vets . They had returned home from WWI and unlike the WWII veteran just expected to return to civilian life.

Things came to a head when they began to demand bonuses they were expecting . WWI Bonus Army of vets took matters into their own hands and occupied Anacostia Flats in Washington .The US Army assaulted them and forced them out of their tent encampment .

I would say by comparison vets are treated with much more understanding today.
Could they be treated better ? Certainly... we have a long ways to go . But let's not forget [since this has become political now ]how Vets were treated by a Democrat Congress that dominated politics throughout the 1960s and 1970s .

I would say by comparison vets are treated with much more understanding today.
Could they be treated better ? Certainly ...we have a long ways to go . But let's not forget [since this has become political now ]how Vets were treated by a Democrat Congress that dominated politics throughout the 1960s and 1970s .



I think you are placing all of the blame on the Government - my "ex" was a Viet Nam soldier. Came home and people spit on him at the Airport, called him a baby killer. Right or wrong, he went because he was drafted, not because he wanted to go.

I had no intention of turning this into another political argument - I think it's terrible the way returning soldiers are treated by the Government and by citizens alike.

Somebody's house burns down and it's all about a fund raiser; some guy comes back from Iraq and nobody can reach out.

But let's not forget [since this has become political now ]how Vets were treated by a Democrat Congress that dominated politics throughout the 1960s and 1970s .Hello tom:

I got discharged in the 60's. My GI Bill paid for exactly what it was supposed to pay for. I went to a VA hospital too. They weren't falling down.

Maybe it wasn't any better then. I don't know. I just have this feeling, that the dufus and his "support the troops" crowd COULD have done a better job thanking these guys for putting their lives at risk for US.

excon

Absolutely, things should be better for our vets. I don't think you'll find many of the "we support our troops" crowd that feel any different. But on one hand the system IS run by the federal government, which is just one more reason I can't understand so many people wanting to put so much faith in them now!

I have to say not all VA facilities and services are deficient, our local VA hospital always gets high marks from the locals and we just built a brand new VA retirement center that gets high marks as well.

Look up Fischer house veterans charity

Or Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund

To support the troops







G&P

But on one hand the system IS run by the federal government, which is just one more reason I can't understand so many people wanting to put so much faith in them now!Hello again, Steve:

Nailed it!

The answer too, is embodied in your post. ".... government IS the problem.." Ronald Reagan... For the last 30 years, THAT idea reigned.

Let me ask you this. If you were a bureaucrat from a party who held that philosophy, and you were running a government agency, how hard would you work to prove that philosophy false? Katrina exposed that philosophy for the fraud that it is.

However, if you're from a party who believes government HAS A ROLE TO PLAY, then government might work better...

It might not.. But, I'd rather my government be staffed with people who think that they matter, instead of people who are trying to take their agency's down.

excon

The Russian Politburo was never the problem.

Obama wants vets to pay for treatment of their service related injuries .
Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html)

How dare these veterans take preemptive action on something that isn't law yet.

BTW ex, I've always agreed that government has a role to play... but being the nanny ain't one of them.

First of all, I think you are a good guy for trying to help. Thank you for doing what you can.

Next, we need to address the VA system. The VA system is broken. It is indeed understaffed and underfunded and way overworked. They forced your friend/client to look for help outside the system because they are unable to help him within the system. They need to ration health care, because there is not enough to go around. And since he is totally reliant on the VA system which is down to rationing its services, he is unable to get the care he needs.

This is Universal Government Health Care in a nutshell. This example happens to millions of vets every year. And it will only get worse when EVERYONE is under the same government-run healthcare system.

It looks like your friend needs several forms of help. He needs legal help to get him out of jail. For that, you can try this website:

National Veterans Legal Services Program - Veterans Benefits - Medical Health Disability Claims (NVLSP) (http://www.nvlsp.org/) National Veterans Legal Services Program. They do pro-bono (free) legal work to help veterans. They also have a links page to other veterans advocacy groups.

Then he needs health care, both mental and likely physical as well. People suffering from PTSD and other forms of post-battle mental disorders tend to be lax about getting the medical help they need in general. In addition to a psych counselor, he likely needs a regular medical exam too.

Try this website.
The National Veterans Organization of America (http://www.nvo.org/) The National Veterans Organization of America

They have a website that lists some doctors who help vets.
The National Veterans Organization of America (http://www.nvo.org/medpersonnel.html)

Maybe some of this can help. It's the best I can do for your friend.

Hello again, Steve:

Nailed it!

The answer too, is embodied in your post. ".... government IS the problem.." Ronald Reagan... For the last 30 years, THAT idea reigned.

Let me ask you this. If you were a bureaucrat from a party who held that philosophy, and you were running a government agency, how hard would you work to prove that philosophy false? Katrina exposed that philosophy for the fraud that it is.

Really? I think that Katrina proved that philosophy to be 100% true. States like Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida that took care of their own damn selves instead of hoping for government assistance did just fine. The ones who relied on government to fix things (ahem>Louisiana<ahem) got screwed.

Here's an interesting tidbit of information for anyone who hasn't figured out the real world yet... the Government can't help in an emergency. The bureaucracy of government is too large to effectively react to ANY emergency in time to do any good. The larger the government, the slower the response. If you are relying on the government to save you, then you are already dead.

After the Towers came down on 9/11, CIVILIANS and LOCAL COPS and LOCAL RESCUE WORKERS started working to try to rescue those trapped in the rubble. The NY City government was unable to react for hours, and that was actually a very quick response time. The State didn't get involved until MUCH later, and the Federal Government took three days to redeploy anything to the site of the disaster. That is not anyone's fault. It is the nature of bureaucracies everywhere. Nothing that big can move quickly.

So it is no surprise that when the government tries to react to an emergency, they do so too little too late, and usually based on information that is outdated. The lag time for decision-making and action-taking in the Federal Government is huge.

If you rely on government to fix your problems, you will, of nature, be waiting a long time.



However, if you're from a party who believes government HAS A ROLE TO PLAY, then government might work better...

It might not.. But, I'd rather my government be staffed with people who think that they matter, instead of people who are trying to take their agency's down.

Excon

Excon, the problem is not that government employees feel worthless or that they don't matter. The problem with the government is that they believe that EVERYONE ELSE is worthless.

When was the last time you went to the DMV in your state? Tell me that the primadonas standing behind the counter, with their little bit of authority over your driver's license and your license plates, don't think that you are a waste of their precious time, and darn it, they're going to have to actually provide you with a service by their good graces, and how lucky you are to be getting served by such a perfect specimen of bureaucratic expertise. Ever been to the unemployment office? Tell me they don't look down on you as if you were something they scraped off their shoe. Ever see a government employee's union representative? They actually believe that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, and they really deserve a two-hour work day with an hour off for lunch and two 20-minute smoke breaks and a 20-minute coffee break.

The government has become so big and powerful that it's employees have forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around. Government employees do not have the problem of low self esteem in their jobs. They suffer from narcicism and egomania and Nepolionic Complexes. They KNOW that they matter. They just think that nobody else does.

Hey, there are some good government employees out there. I know a couple of them. Really nice people, if somewhat under-educated, but willing to help and willing to learn. But most people with good attitudes toward customers make a hell of a lot more money in the private sector than in the government. The losers end up in government for their entire careers.

And the result is programs like the VA, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are all broken and bankrupt, or your local DMV, Unemployment Office or other government service office, where people are just nasty and often incompetent.

Reagan was right when he said that government can't solve the problem, government IS the problem. And the bigger the government, the bigger the problem.

Our government is WAAAAYYYY to friggin' big.

Elliot

Yesterday I was working a case and looking for a potential witness. Story is this - witness is a two-time Veteran of Iraq, deployed twice (obviously). Came home with "anger issues." Went to VA which is understaffed and overworked. They suggested private counselling which he cannot afford. Was at a baseball game; coach yelled at Veteran's son; Veteran came out of stand and knocked coach down; Veteran admits it was all his fault. Veteran ordered to pay all related medical bills and go into anger management. Paid the bills, does not have money for anger management.

So he's in jail to serve out a sentence instead of "outside," getting help. I guarantee he's going to come out with more issues than he had when he went in.

His wife and child are on public assistance because she lost her job due to the economy.

I see this family spiralling downward. I'm not a charitable foundation but felt so awful that I stopped on my way home, bought a grocery store gift card and mailed it to the wife this AM. I simply don't know what else to do.

I am not saying people should be allowed to run around knocking down and otherwise bullying other people and blaming anger issues. I am saying it's the Korean War and Viet Nam all over again - soldiers are coming home after horrific experiences, unable to cope, out of the mainstream and this Country turns its back.

Clunk. Off my soapbox.

VA is not understaffed and overworked, sir! Your answer is very offending to fellow Virginians. You did not need to comment like that.:mad:

So true I have a family member did two tours in Iraq and one in Afgan, after getting out ( was wounded slightly) he has emotional issues from the war.

He went in to the VA and YEP guess what same story, get counseling and medication, but VA will not pay for it, his private insurance has to.
Lucky he has it.

So true I have a family member did two tours in Iraq and one in Afgan, after getting out ( was wounded slightly) he has emotional issues from the war.

He went in to the VA and YEP guess what same story, get couseling and medication, but VA will not pay for it, his private insurnace has to.
Lucky he has it.

Doesent matter! No need to critizice VA

Let's see - criticism of every person who disagreed with Lala.

How odd - particularly now that Lala is suspended. Wonder if they live in the same area or have the same IP?

VA is not understaffed and overworked, sir! Your answer is very offending to fellow Virginians. You did not need to comment like that.:mad:



You think VA stands for Virginia? I am on the floor - this is the funniest thing EVER.

Sir, I cannot believe you posted this! Hilarious.

And you're mad about it, too.

Just why do you think the great State of Virginia would be responsible for the care and treatment of Veterans?

Doesent matter! No need to critizice VA


Keep in mind this person thinks VA stands for Virginia - off in gales of laughter again.

The VA medical system is government-run healthcare. It is the very definition of government-run healthcare. If you are dissatisfied with the nature of the VA system's medical care, if you think that the system is overworked and underpaid, just imagine what it is going to be like when 300 million Americans are added to the system in the form of nationalized healthcare.

That's what we're headed for, folks.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Elliot

It is the very definition of government-run healthcare.No it's not, many variations exist. Why do you make crazy extrapolations? To try and scare people?

No it's not, many variations exist. Why do you make crazy extrapolations? To try and scare people?

No, because it is true. The VA system is government-run healthcare. It is healthcare as run by the US government. It is the system that is already in place, and which acts as a model of what American Government-run healthcare will be if everyone is part of that system.

Why are you trying to deny it? It is what it is.

Elliot

... and which acts as a model of what American Government-run healthcare will be if everyone is part of that system..Are part of the team planning universal healthcare for the US?

No, because it is true. The VA system is government-run healthcare. It is the system that is already in place, and which acts as a model of what American Government-run healthcare will be if everyone is part of that system.

Why are you trying to deny it? It is what it is.

Hello El:

I don't know. I don't think they the same at all. The VA owns hospitals, and that's where you go for treatment... If it's no good, veterans have no choice...

However, Medicare doesn't own a hospital - NOT one. You can go to ANY hospital, and to ANY doctor to get treatment.

Nope, they don't look ANYTHING alike, except in your warped right wing mind. They're not even close.

excon

Are part of the team planning universal healthcare for the US?

Yes. That's the whole point of what we have been arguing about over the past several months. The Obama admin wants universal healthcare, and THIS is what it will look like.

Elliot

Hello El:

I dunno. I don't think they the same at all. The VA owns hospitals, and that's where you go for treatment... If it's no good, veterans have no choice...

However, Medicare doesn't own a hospital - NOT one. You can go to ANY hospital, and to ANY doctor to get treatment.

Nope, they don't look ANYTHING alike, except in your warped right wing mind. They're not even close.

excon

They aren't proposing Medicare for everyone. They are proposing something more like the VA hospital system. The doctors will be government employees, will be paid by the government, will work the hours and for the wages the government demands. The facilities will be set up and run by government employees. Records will be kept by the government (in the form of this new GE company called Healthymagination). Government employees (not doctors) will determine what procedures you get, where and when you get them, and most importantly, what you cannot get. Medicare just pays for stuff. The VA delivers the service... and does so poorly. THAT is the system we're headed for. That's what you seem to be missing in this entire argument.

Elliot

THAT is the system we're headed for. That's what you seem to be missing in this entire argument.Hello again, El:

Who told you this? The same guy who said there were WMD's in Iraq? Jeez, El. You believe the darndest things.

excon

Yes. My question missed a word:
Are you part of the team planning universal healthcare for the US?

Hello again, El:

Who told you this? The same guy who said there were WMD's in Iraq? Jeez, El. You believe the darndest things.

excon

We'll see. But don't say I didn't warn you. The signs are all there. You just refuse to see them.

My question missed a word:
Are you part of the team planning universal healthcare for the US?

Nope. I'm part of the team trying to keep it from happening.

Elliot

Nope. I'm part of the team trying to keep it from happening.Hello again, El:

That would be the just say NO team, right? Well, it IS easier to say NO than to come up with a solution...

Oh, I forgot, you have a solution: Scare everybody!

excon

Hello again, El:

That would be the just say NO team, right? Well, it IS easier to say NO than to come up with a solution...

Oh, I forgot, you have a solution: Scare everybody!

exconThat pretty much sums it up.

So El you don't mind that right now an underwriter at an insurance company determine what procedures you get, where and when you get them, and most importantly, what you cannot get.

So El you don't mind that right now an underwriter at an insurance company determine what procedures you get, where and when you get them, and most importantly, what you cannot get.

See my posting about crony socialism.

see my posting about crony socialism.What the hell does that have to do with a bureaucrat approving your medical procedure??

Spit made a specific point about for profit insurance companies making health care decisions for you.

My posting shows that under the President's plan ;for profit companies will still be making that determination in conjunction with faceless nameless bureaucrats .

Spit made a specific point about for profit insurance companies making health care decisions for you.

My posting shows that under the President's plan ;for profit companies will still be making that determination in conjunction with faceless nameless bureaucrats .
President Obama has made you the person who will craft a new health care plan. What will your plan look like?

Hello again, El:

That would be the just say NO team, right? Well, it IS easier to say NO than to come up with a solution...

Oh, I forgot, you have a solution: Scare everybody!

excon

We already have a solution. We came up with it about 233 years ago. It's the solution that the Founders used. It's a very simple solution. It's called the free market.

And it's the DEMS who keep saying NO to it. They have refused for DECADES to even try a free market solution.

We're not the party of NO. We're the party that has solutions that have worked for over 2 centuries. The DEMS are saying NO to what works. THEY are the party of "NO".

"Yes We Can" is better translated as "NO More Doing Things The Way They Have Worked In The Past." Or perhaps "No More Free Choice". Or maybe "Our Way or the High Way."

Elliot

President Obama has made you the person who will craft a new health care plan. What will your plan look like?

Under the false assumption that we absolutely need 100% universal health care coverage ;gun to my head...

I would probably model something close to the Swiss system which still gives the individual wide latitude of choice .
Healthcare in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland)

But ;as I said ,that is under the assumption that we need 100% coverage .
My other option would be for separate coverages for basic care and catastrophic care . But mostly I think that if people are truly given a wide range of options ,providers would have to compete for the patient and that would automatically reduce costs.

So El you don't mind that right now an underwriter at an insurance company determine what procedures you get, where and when you get them, and most importantly, what you cannot get.

Spitvenom, I have explained this before, but you haven't been listening.

Yes, there is some underwriter in an office somewhere at your insurance company making decisions about your health. However, it is in his best interest to make sure you continue to live a long time so that you can continue paying your insurance premiums. That's how the insurance company makes a profit. The longer you live, the more money he (or his company) makes. Therefore, it is in his best interest to get you the medical care you need so that you continue to pay for health insurance. To put it simply, "thar's gold in them thar old people".

However, when the government is in charge they don't make money from your premiums. They make money from your taxes. The less they pay out, the better off the government is. Therefore, it is in the government's best interest for you to die. In fact, the older you get, the more they need you to die, because you are no longer contributing to the tax base and are consuming the greates amount of medical care... the older you are, the more you are a leech on the system. The less they give you in terms of services, the better off the government is in terms of profitability.

I would MUCH rather have someone who is interested in keeping me alive be the person in charge of my health decisions than someone who's best interest is in my death. I'll take the private health system any day of the week.

Follow the money, folks.

Elliot

The DEMS are saying NO to what works.
So you believe your healthcare system is in good shape?

However, when the government is in charge they don't make money from your premiums. They make money from your taxes.So by your logic the longer a person lives the more he pays taxes right? It is in the government's interest that people live longer.

Yes, there is some underwriter in an office somewhere at your insurance company making decisions about your health. However, it is in his best interest to make sure you continue to live a long time so that you can continue paying your insurance premiums. That's how the insurance company makes a profit.Hello again, El:

That's the idea. But, in the real world if you need a $250,000 operation, the insurance adjuster can make a quarter of a million $$$'s drop to the bottom line TODAY, by DENYING you the operation. If he's allowed to do that, you betcha he will.

How long, if EVER, will they recoup $250,000 from YOUR premiums?? Dude! You think you'll be protected because they pay attention to the bottom line. I say you won't, because they pay attention to the bottom line.

excon

Spitvenom, I have explained this before, but you haven't been listening.

Yes, there is some underwriter in an office somewhere at your insurance company making decisions about your health. However, it is in his best interest to make sure you continue to live a long time so that you can continue paying your insurance premiums. That's how the insurance company makes a profit. The longer you live, the more money he (or his company) makes. Therefore, it is in his best interest to get you the medical care you need so that you continue to pay for health insurance. To put it simply, "thar's gold in them thar old people".

However, when the government is in charge they don't make money from your premiums. They make money from your taxes. The less they pay out, the better off the government is. Therefore, it is in the government's best interest for you to die. In fact, the older you get, the more they need you to die, because you are no longer contributing to the tax base and are consuming the greates amount of medical care... the older you are, the more you are a leech on the system. The less they give you in terms of services, the better off the government is in terms of profitability.

I would MUCH rather have someone who is interested in keeping me alive be the person in charge of my health decisions than someone who's best interest is in my death. I'll take the private health system any day of the week.

Follow the money, folks.

Elliot

You are right I don't listen to anything on here. I read a lot of stuff though. But that gets pushed out when I have something more important to remember.

That is your assumption on how it will work but since we don't have that system you are just assuming.

Yes. US Patients have better access to healthcare facilities than those in nationalized systems. Cancer survival rates show that the USA is far ahead of Europe and Canada for every type of cancer... we have lower mortality rates, higher cure rates, and quicker recovery times from surgery. We also have wider cancer screening. For all diseases, we have better medical outcomes than those of Europe and Canada. For heart care we have better surgical and medicinal outcomes. For elective surgery, we have quicker response, better success rates, and shorter rehab times. We are quicker at diagnosis of all diseases because we have more diagnostic equipment. We are the largest producer of new medical techniques and pharmaceuticals. And we have shorter wait-times for medical procedures.

Am I satisfied? YES!! I am 100% satisfied at all levels. What I can't understand is why anyone who has experienced both private healthcare and public healthcare WOULDN'T be satisfied with the US system as it is.

Is the US health system in good shape? Yes. It is, quite simply, the best system in the entire world. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination... after all it is run by humans. But it is much better than any other system, which is also run by humans... but those humans have no incentive to be better at their jobs than anyone else, because they get paid the same either way.

Yes, I am 100% satisfied.

So by your logic the longer a person lives the more he pays taxes right? It is in the government's interest that people live longer.

Uhhhh... wrong. People who are retired no longer pay significantly into the tax system because they are no longer earning income. They have outlived their usefulness as a source of income for the government. In fact, their main source of income in most cases is Social Security... which means they are a drain on the system both because of healthcare costs AND because of Social Security. They are a net loss for the government no matter how you slice it. Even if they pay taxes, it is less than they are receiving from the government in SS and medical benefits. Old people cost the government money.

In a private system, though, they have to continue to pay for their health insurance regardless of whether they are retired or not. They are a continuing source of income for insurance companies.

Elliot

If you're satisfied with the system then that's great for you. It doesn't seem to be the case for many though. This website is one example.

How do the older folks pay for their healthcare once they are retired and it costs more for the insurance?

You are right I don't listen to anything on here. I read a lot of stuff though. But that gets pushed out when I have something more important to remember.

That is your assumption on how it will work but since we don't have that system you are just assuming.

No Spitevenom, I'm not just assuming. The Netherlands government is already performing euthenasia against the wishes of patients in order to keep their medical costs down. The UK, France and Canada are regularly denying life-saving medicines and techniques on the grounds that they are "experimental" despite their proven efficacy in the USA because those medicines and techniques are too expensive. The VA system regularly denies lifesaving procedures that are de rigure in the private system on the grounds of cost. (Just look at the OP of this string for one example.)

I'm not assuming anything. I'm observing what is going on elsewhere where universal healthcare is the norm. There's no assumption involved at all. The money thing is already in play in universal/government-run health systems, even in the USA. It WILL happen because it is ALREADY happening.

Elliot

If you're satisfied with the system then that's great for you. It doesn't seem to be the case for many though. This website is one example.

How do the older folks pay for their healthcare once they are retired and it costs more for the insurance?

Interestingly enough, I saw a poll last week that said that 60% of Americans do not want universal healthcare. At the same time, 60% of Americans wanted to see "fundamental change" in the US healthcare system.

Clearly whatever it is they want changed, nationalization of their healthcare system is NOT what they want. But they were never asked what kind of changes they want to see.


How do the older folks pay for their healthcare once they are retired and it costs more for the insurance?

Usually by spending their retirement savings. That's what it's there for. But that's not the issue. Once they are in the insurance company's computers, they are an ongoing source of income. They need to be protected so they can remain a source of income.

Elliot

excon was correct in last post here.

So now we are like Europe. You don't think the US is better then those countries? You don't think the US can do it better then these countries. Hmm some American you are.

Hello again, El:

That's the idea. But, in the real world if you need a $250,000 operation, the insurance adjuster can make a quarter of a million $$$'s drop to the bottom line TODAY, by DENYING you the operation. If he's allowed to do that, you betcha he will.

How long, if EVER, will they recoup $250,000 from YOUR premiums??? Dude! You think you'll be protected because they pay attention to the bottom line. I say you won't, because they pay attention to the bottom line.

excon

If they do that enough times, excon, people start leaving that insurance company for other choices. That's the advantage of a multi-payor system... if you don't like the service you can go elsewhere, and there is always someone else willing to give better service so they can take your money. And the company that keeps dropping patients because they aren't giving good service is going to go out of business soon enough.

But in a universal system, there is no other choice. They can give as terrible service as they desire and there's NOTHING you can do about it. You're stuck. If they refuse to give you the surgery you need, there is no other insurance company to switch to, and you are not allowed to pay privately for the procedure. That's is what "single-payor" means.

Follow the money, excon.

So now we are like Europe. You don't think the US is better then those countries? You don't think the US can do it better then these countries. Hmm some American you are.

Do I think the US can do better than Europe? Not when we have European-style socialists in office trying to create a socialist system just like that of Europe. But you already knew that, Spit.

You see, capitalism takes human nature, specifically greed, into consideration and focuses it toward the goal. Socialism tries to deny the existence of human nature, and the result is that the system fails because both greed and laziness come into play.

Nationalized healthcare is a case of socialism ignoring human nature... the greed factor that will cause the government to limit the care it gives and the laziness that causes mediocrity in the healthcare system. PRIVATE healthcare understands both greed and laziness, and so uses greed as an incentive for success and a counterforce against laziness. This is pure Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations stuff. And it has been proven true over and over again. It's what killed the Soviet Union.

So now we have a government that is attempting to re-try a failed experiment that has no chance of succeeding because human nature precludes the possibility of its success. It has failed here where it has been tried (the VA system, the auto industry's labor unions, public education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,) it has failed in Europe, and it will fail on a much grander scale if we are forced into government-run single-payor healthcare. It is a system based on a utopian view of the world that is completely at odds with human nature and the real world we live in. Humans can't live in utopia because we're humans, not angels.

Elliot

excon was correct in last post here.

No he wasn't. Read my follow-up.

That's a shame that you don't believe American's can get this done. We as a country are better then that.

We as a country are better then that.

On what particular bit of history do you base that statement?

As I said, every time we have tried a socialist response to a problem, it has failed miserably. The VA system, medicare, medicaid, social security, price fixing of vaccines (under Clinton), the UAW's control of the auto industry, the public education system, welfare, etc.

What makes you think that this time would be any different? What makes you think it is something we should even attempt?

There is nothing American about socialized healthcare.

I am not going to waste time trying to convince you because when it comes to the government you are a gloom and doom type of guy.

I am not going to waste time trying to convince you because when it comes to the government you are a gloom and doom type of guy.That's pretty much what I get too. Pessimistic about everything, no solutions about anything.

Spit and NK,

I have been giving solutions. I have been doing nothing BUT give solutions.

Well, that, and explaining why Obama's solutions won't work.

But I have been giving alternatives to his plans. You guys just refuse to accept them as viable alternatives to Obama's ideas.

In other words, I'm not the one lacking in solutions. YOU are.

You have no solutions for the problems that are inherent in socialism. Your answer when I raise those issues is to say that I'm just "doom and gloom" and "the party of No". You have not given a viable response to any of my valid points. You have not even proven that the system we have now doesn't work. But you have come to the conclusion that I'm wrong and you're right...

And you call me and other conservatives the "party of No". YOU guys are the party of "No Answers".

If there were no evidence for my position, then yes, I would be a pessimist. But there is, and you have done NOTHING to allay those issues.

So please, refrain from the "doom and gloom" talk until and unless you have the ability to show me how this system can possibly work better than any other government run healthcare system.

Put up or shut up, guys.

Elliot

I like a two tier system.

El if you have all the solutions when are you running for any politcal office? Seems like you are doing a disservice to the country if you are just going to sit on a website and talk about all your great idea's. I am not paid to have a solution but what I can do Is support the one that has been presented. Sure you think it won't work but then again you think Hybrids have to be plugged in so...

Hello again:

Elliot isn't wrong. He's just forgetful, and doesn't grasp context. He complains that all we need is a free market, and it'll be OK. What he forgets is that we HAD a free market at one time. It worked good too. Doctors even made house calls, and people could pay for their own health care.

But, something changed. Lots of people began jumping on the health care gravy train; insurance companies, first and foremost, the trial lawyers, the pharma industry, med schools, government bureaucrats, medical device companies... I'm sure there are others. Me being able to name them isn't important...

What's important, is that there is a lot of dead weight being carried around by ALL of us. If we could go back to the good old days as Elliot would like, I'm all for it.

But, he lives in the fantasy world of "wouldn't it be nice". Because in the real world, where you and I live, those hangerson ain't going to go willingly.

Therefore, they're going to have to be reformed, re-regulated, and maybe even removed from the equation. That's fine with me.

excon

I like a two tier system.

I would not have a problem with a 2-tier system as well. At least then we have a choice of whether to be part of the government-run system or not. But that is not what is being proposed by the Obama Admin.

Elliot

El if you have all the solutions when are you running for any politcal office? Seems like you are doing a disservice to the country if you are just going to sit on a website and talk about all your great idea's. I am not paid to have a solution but what I can do Is support the one that has been presented. Sure you think it won't work but then again you think Hybrids have to be plugged in so....

Run for office? Bite your tongue.

No, I'm not a part of the Washington elite and have no desire to become part of it. I'm a person with ideas, not a whore for power.

Besides, I have too much baggage in my past to run for office.

Now... just because I don't run for office, does that mean that a) I'm not entitled to an opinion on the issues, or b) I HAVE to support the ideas of the current government? Because that seems to be your argument here. You seem to believe that if I'm not being paid to have a solution, then I have to support the solutions of others.

Well you're right, I don't agree with the solution being presented. It is a failed solution with lots of examples of that failure, both here and in other countries. Why should I support something that has a history of failure? Do you support policies being put forward by governments that are in power that you know are fundamentally flawed?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. Communism tried it and failed. The VA system has failed. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. The countries that have nationalized healthcare do not have the beneficial outcomes that we have here in the USA. Why would we try the same failed thing again and expect the result to be any different from what it has been every other time it was tried?

You can talk about not having solutions all you want, but the fact is there is an alternative. It's called the free market. And it HAS been proven more effective than the socialist system of health care. Even those who do not have health insurance still get health care in the USA. That is NOT true in socialist health care systems where the wait times for procedures have been known to kill the patients that would otherwise have lived, and that have denied life-saving procedures to patients based on cost. The socialist system has failed, whereas the American private system has succeeded.

Elliot

The proposals being floated by Obama and others on Capitol Hill in no way propose the elimination of the insurance industry's involvement . If anything the popular plan (Kennedy's ) would give 100 % coverage by shifting payment for the gappers to the tax payers . Insurance companies ,doctors ,those "evil " Pharmaceutical companies ,the really evil slip and fall lawyers (who also make the laws ) will still be getting their cuts... and if their cuts are less ,then expect the services provided to become curtailed.

But that is not what is being proposed by the Obama Admin.Can you link us to the details of what he is proposing please?

Hello again:

Elliot isn't wrong. He's just forgetful, and doesn't grasp context. He complains that all we need is a free market, and it'll be ok. What he forgets is that we HAD a free market at one time. It worked good too. Doctors even made house calls, and people could pay for their own health care.

But, something changed. Lots of people began jumping on the health care gravy train; insurance companies, first and foremost, the trial lawyers, the pharma industry, med schools, government bureaucrats, medical device companies... I'm sure there are others. Me being able to name them isn't important...

What's important, is that there is a lot of dead weight being carried around by ALL of us. If we could go back to the good old days as Elliot would like, I'm all for it.

But, he lives in the fantasy world of "wouldn't it be nice". Because in the real world, where you and I live, those hangerson ain't gonna go willingly.

Therefore, they're going to have to be reformed, re-regulated, and maybe even removed from the equation. That's fine with me.

excon

Excon,

You're right, we should talk about context.

Insurance companies exist because they make health coverage less expensive to the clients than if they had to pay out of pocket. The insurance companies get paid a monthly fee from ALL their clients, pool that money, and use it to pay out for medical benefits for the few who are sick. They provide a service, and it is a service with value.

I'll agree with you on the thing with the trial lawyers, but I have also presented a solution to that problem... tort reform in the form of civil grand juries.

The pharmaceutical industry creates the medications. It is EXTREMELY expensive to create medications. Some of the rough numbers I have seen look like this:

Animal (screening) in rats—about 1–2 years, cost about $500k/year, in monkeys—about 2–5 years, cost $2 million a year. Phase I in humans is strictly toxicology: 2 years, $10–20 million a year. Phase II testing for effectiveness: up to 10 years, cost $100+ million/year. If statistics suggest a beneficial effect, then on to Phase III to determine effective dosage, side effects, other benefits and "off-label" uses: 5–10 years at another $100+ million a year. So for ONE DRUG that is successfully fielded, the cost is roughly $2 BILLION. But that's just for the research and development on that one drug. For every successful drug fielded by a drug company, there are roughly 10,000 compounds that fail somewhere along the line... all of which adds to the cost of developing that one successful drug. If every one of the 10,000 failures failes during rat screening (which is not the case... they usually fail later in the process), the cost of those failed drugs is only another $5 billion. But that's a low-end estimate.

So the cost of developing ONE new drug is roughly $7 billion dollars... as a low estimate. And it doesn't even consider the cost of liability insurance in case they are sued over their new drug.

And yet, despite the incredible cost of developing those drugs, most pharmaceutical companies in the USA have a program to give reduced-cost or even free drugs to patients with financial difficulties. THOSE ARE PATIENTS FROM WHOM THE DRUG COMPANIES WILL NEVER RECOUP THEIR COSTS. But they do it anyway, because they see it as a civic responsibility.

Patient Assistance Programs | Pfizer: the world's largest research-based pharmaceutical company (http://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/patient_assistance/us_patient_assistance_programs.jsp)
The Merck Company Foundation (http://www.merck.com/corporate-responsibility/philanthropy/the-merck-company-foundation.html)
Bristol-Myers Squibb: Patient Assistance Programs (http://www.bms.com/products/Pages/programs.aspx)
Eli Lilly and Company » Patient Assistance Programs (http://www.lilly.com/responsibility/programs/)
https://www.genentechaccesssolutions.com/patient/patient-assistance.jsp
Alcon Assistance Program for Patients, Clinics, and Institutions | Alcon (http://www.alcon.com/en/corporate-responsibility/patient-clinic-inst-assistance.asp)
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Patient Assistance Program | Wyeth (http://www.wyeth.com/patientassistance)
Amgen - Patients - Patient Assistance (http://www.amgen.com/patients/assistance.html)
Products & Care - Patient Assistance and Support Programs (http://www.schering-plough.com/products/patient-assistance.aspx)

Ditto for most medical device companies. The costs of development are high, but these companies generally offer free or reduced price products to those who cannot afford them.

So what is your issue with pharmaceutical and medical device companies? Are they too profitable for you? Are their costs too high? Look at the numbers and tell me, truly, if they are making too much money and killing the medical system.

I agree with your assessment of government bureaucrats. What I can't understand is if you believe that government bureaucrats are part of the problem, why would you advocate more government intervention in the medical system? I guess it's the same logic that tells you that the best way to cut the national debt is to increase borrowing, and the best way to fix a national budget deficit is to spend more. But I sure don't understand it.

I don't get what your issue with medical schools is. Seems to me that medical schools have been pretty much unchanged over the past 200 years. The system by which doctors are trained is the same today as it was in the days that you agree the free-market system worked. The stuff they learn has improved, but the method by which that information is imparted is unchanged. It is a guild-based system, wherein advanced practitioners teach less advanced ones (fellows teach residents who teach interns), a system of hand-on training, and a system of theoretical testing (board certification). This is the same system that has existed since the Medieval Persia, and probably earlier. I'm not sure what your issue is with the medical school system in the USA, or how nationalizing medicine will improve medical education.

So what is your issue? What part of the system is broken? What part of the "broken system" do you believe will be fixed by nationalizing it? How will nationalizing it fix the problems without causing worse problems, like a lack of products and services, increased wait times for basic services, a decrease or complete elimination in R&D, and a decrease in both the number of and quality of practitioners? Not to mention a mass exodus from the industry (like the one we saw from vaccine companies in the Clinton era).

Elliot

Can you link us to the details of what he is proposing please?

No, I can't. That's because he hasn't put it online, because he's afraid that people might actually learn what he has planned.

But if you are trying to find out what he has planned, all you need to do is look at what he did with the S-Chip (child health care) program... he rammed that through as a part of the "stimulus bill". He is creating a government-run health system in which even people who can afford their own health care will be part of the government system. His expansion of S-Chip without allowing debate on the issue, and by keeping it hidden in a much larger bill, is a clear statement of Obama's intent. He wants to nationalize healthcare for everyone, whether they need it or not, and he will brook no debate on the issue.

So in answer to your unasked question of "how do I know", my response is "look at what he has already done." His plan is clear.

Elliot

No, I can't. That's because he hasn't put it online, You keep on your fear mongering, it's what you do best.

So what is your issue? What part of the system is broken? What part of the "broken system" do you believe will be fixed by nationalizing it? Hello again, El:

We have discussed this at length over the years. Suffice to say, that you're just fine with it the way it is. You find no fault with any of the hangers on.

The problem is, there is more going out than is coming in. Something has to be cut out. You think ALL those hangers on are going to get THEIR money, because they somehow DESERVE it, and it's going to be the PATIENTS who loose services. I think it's going to be one or more of useless hangers on. Then there will be MORE services, and cheaper prices.

An example of that would be the insurance industry. They are absolutely unnecessary. I'll bet if we threw them out, there would be BILLIONS and BILLIONS of $$$'s available for health care... It could even be TRILLIONS!!

excon

You keep on your fear mongering, it's what you do best.

You mean as opposed to the fear-mongering you did about Bush being a dictator?

At least I have some evidence to back me up. All you had was your hate. In fact that's STILL all you've got.

I also notice that you NEVER seem to have a response to any of my points. It's easier to just try to dismiss it as "fear mongering" or "pessimism" or "no solutions". But there are other people who read this, see the points I'm making and agree with them.

Peekaboo, I see you, NK. You don't respond because you CAN'T respond. You have no response because there IS no response.

I'm right, you're wrong, that's the end of the story. Your own inability to actually answer the points I have made proves it.

Elliot

All you had was your hate. In fact that's STILL all you've got.Nice try, you must be getting desperate for material. :)

Obama's plan such as it is (he likes defering to Madame Mimi ) is not as some are suggesting a single payer /remove the insurance companies from the equation plan. It is simply adding about 50 million people (some who want coverage... many who don't) into a "public " insurance plan. Medicare is $80 trillion in the hole and this will just add to the public obligation to entitlements.

The longer strategery(in theory ) is that since this public insurance plan would be run as a non-profit ;that the private companies would find it hard to compete ;and the government can lure more and more people into the public plan. Employers will be given incentives to drop their employee benefit programs and encourage the employees to sign on. This will incrementally create a universal government run insurance... probably in cooperation with the select private businesses that have garnered favor with the government (see my crony socialism posting ) .

To pay for this nonsense he floated the idea of draconian carbon emission taxes. But someone got to him and told him the reality that if you tax something revenues actually end up reduced. Now there is talk of taxing soda and potato chips instead.

Social Security,Medicare,Post Office... the list goes on and on of incompetently run government agencies. Guess we will be adding national health care to the list.

Social Security,Medicare,Post Office...the list goes on and on of incompetently run government agencies. I guess that's one of the problems with the US, their entire government is run by buffoons and has been for decades.

Governments by nature are inefficient . Surely you aren't saying there is no inefficiencies and waste in the Canadian government .

Hello again, El:

We have discussed this at length over the years. Suffice to say, that you're just fine with it the way it is. You find no fault with any of the hangers on.

The problem is, there is more going out than is coming in.

And yet you decry the fact that the insurance companies are making too much profits. If there were more going out than coming in, they would not have those high profits you complain about. They wouldn't be staying in business. But they do.

Here's another point: how are you going to fix the budget deficit if you incure more debt by paying out more than we take in?

And another point: if there is more going out than coming in, who is going to pay for it when the government takes the system over and it becomes just as bankrupt as social security, medicare and medicaid? Where is the government going to get the money to pay for it?

They're going to be getting it from you and me, fool. WE are going to be paying for it, while those who don't pay get the majority of services. Just like they do now, only on a grander scale.


Something has to be cut out. You think ALL those hangers on are going to get THEIR money, because they somehow DESERVE it, and it's going to be the PATIENTS who loose services. I think it's going to be one or more of useless hangers on. Then there will be MORE services, and cheaper prices.

Which system of government-run health care gives you an example that you can point to that proves your point. What government-run healthcare system makes MORE services available to the people without taxing them into oblivion? The UK? Uh... no. Canada? Non. The Netherlands? Switzerland? The old Soviet model? Nicht, nyet and NOT. There has NEVER been an example of a government run healthcare system that provides cheaper service with availability to all as soon as it is requested. IT DOESN'T EXIST. It CAN'T exist.


An example of that would be the insurance industry. They are absolutely unnecessary. I'll bet if we threw them out, there would be BILLIONS and BILLIONS of $$$'s available for health care... It could even be TRILLIONS!!

Excon

So your answer is to take the money out of the hands of the insurance companies (who are more profitable when they are more efficient) and put it in the hands of the government who run the most inefficient systems in the entire world, and you expect that to result in BETTER SERVICES at CHEAPER PRICES because there is going to be extra money lying around?

Are you effing insane? When does the government leave money lying around without using it for its own pet projects? They couldn't even keep their hands off our retirement funds!! And what will the government spend it on? Not healthcare. You know it and I know it.

So you will have killed a profitable industry, put hundreds of thousands out of work, and DECREASED GOVERNMENT INCOME in the form of taxes, while at the same time increasing government spending for healthcare. Keep in mind that 85% of Americans have their own healthcare already... you are going to force those Americans to stop paying for their own healthcare and take that burdon onto the government... and you think there's enough money to cover not only the 46 million uninsured American and illegal aliens, but also the 260 million Americans who already pay for their own insurance and are happy with the services they get.

And you think this is an improvement? To save 15% of the population that doesn't need to be saved, you're going to screw the other 85%?

What the heck are you thinking?

Besides, when something goes wrong in the medical system right now, you can sue the doctor, the hospital, the insurance company, etc. If everything is run by the government, who are you going to sue for legitimate relief? The Federal Government? The judges are EMPLOYED by the Federal Government. What are your chances of getting justice against the government if your doctor screws up?

M y G-d, excon. The entire concept of government-run healthcare is diametrically opposed to your libertarian beliefs. You actually believe that the government is going to give you, an old jailbird, a fair shot? Or anyone else that is forced into the system? What part of your own history or the history of world governments leads you to that conclusion? When you go to your local government healthcare office and tell them you need expensive drugs for cancer, and the supply for such drugs is limited, and they have the choice of giving those drugs to you, with a criminal record, or the guy who's never been to jail and has been a big-money supporter of the Democrat party over the past 20 years, who do you think is going to get the drugs? And there WILL be a shortage of drugs, because the companies that produce the drugs are going to go where business is cheaper, less regulated and more profitable. Israel, maybe. Or the Caribbean. Perhaps Ireland... the fastest growing capitalist nation in the world right now. Or Micronesia the most solid and unwaveringly capitalist nation in the world. But they won't be HERE anymore. And with government price-fixing, they won't be selling here either. So there will be shortages.

What are you thinking, excon?

Elliot

I guess that's one of the problems with the US, their entire government is run by buffoons and has been for decades.


http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/pdf/budget-planbugetaire-eng.pdf

Budget 2008 - Economic Leadership (http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/pamphlet-depliant/pamphlet-depliant1-eng.asp)

I suggest, NK, that you look to your own buffoons.

Dude, we're not the ones slagging our government - you are.

Dude, we're not the ones slagging our government - you are.

Perhaps you should be.