VA health care sucks?

You might want to read this

Are you "where's the plan, Obama has no plan, it's all bullshit" guys just too lazy to actually read the bill? Easier to say "there's no plan" than to look at the plan, I suppose. I know, it's long. Downright un-American to ask you to read 1000 pages, I know. :rolleyes:

sounds like a good fluff piece from time. i've spent time in a VA hospital, wouldn't want to do it again. A friend of mine has to go alot due to his MS difficulties, he hates it when a 2 hour doctors visit takes 8 hours. horribly inefficient.

And to which bill are you referring to? Isn't there like 3 in the House and 2 in the Senate? Or is it the other way around, damn I don't remember and I'm to lazy to look it up this morning. You would think with something this important and life changing the Democrats would come up with ONE plan, READ the bill, KNOW it well and get everyone on the same page before all this hurry up and vote crap started. When the people got pissed that they was going to vote on something they hadn't read, much like the stimulus bill that made the rich richer and the poor poorer and buried deeper in tax debt than they ever have been in their lifetimes, they decided to wait until after the summer recess and a few bullshit televised "town hall" meetings for the President to sell the fact that something needs to be done before voting. And for the record I'm equally pissed at both sides that neither side of the aisle seems to think it's important to read and understand what the hell they are voting on before they vote. That's why the fuck they are making the big bucks, to read and understand the bills they vote for and what ramifications they will have on all Americans whether they be rich or poor.

Yeah lots of fluff pieces make statements like-

Yep, total fluff.

I think the point was independent studies found things are improving and in some areas the VA beats private hospitals and HMO's-

Unless you think the University of Michigan and Harvard are in some conspiracy to make the VA look good.

Personally, though I am a Vet, I don't think I can use that system unless I have no other option. I had a major injury and subsequent related health issues. I spent 3yrs of my life battling my insurance, bouncing from one Dr. to another, waiting 5-6 hrs at a time in waiting rooms, sometimes I showed up (after driving two+ hours) only to be told the doctor was "out" that day. In the end it cost me 30k out of pocket and I had to hire an attorney to keep it from costing me several hundred K.

I think this comes down to people who think the government can't do anything right and people who see the current system as completely screwed up and are willing to let the government take a shot at it. Personally I think the government does some things right, wouldn't have a hwy system without them. The military seems like a professional group of people. And I like that the FBI is out there tracking down serial killers, ID thieves and terrorist. Are they prefect at these things? Hell no. Do I think a private organization could or would be better? Absolutely not.

Things like this amuse me-

It was awful... no It's the best anywhere!



---------- Post added at 09:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------

I'm interested in this position. I hear it often and it may have some merit. But many of the people I hear expressing this view were completely 100% for the tax cuts. What your personal position was I have no idea. But people thought, even though we were having to borrow huge amounts of cash to fund two wars, the tax cuts were the right move because they'd improve the economy and thus create new tax revenue simply due to increased economic activity. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think that trickle down theory has ever worked the way it's been sold. In fact I think it just made the debt grow faster.

But right now we have a large number of people who are not working due to health issues and people who are under employed because they have a pre-existing condition(s.) I personally know three people (Ok, one lady is a person my ex used to work with, I know of her and her story- but don't really personally know her) who can not find work in their fields because employers will not hire them. Their medical history makes them uninsurable or the employer would have to pay millions more for their group plan just for that one person. What if we made these people insurable? Move them from the min. wage jobs they're currently struggling to survive on back to careers they used to have. What if we helped sick people move from sick to healthy productive members of society? How much tax revenue would this create?


I'm betting more then the trickle down tax cuts ever did.


Heck, what would the impact be of just removing uninsured people from using the ER as their only health care option? I've been to the ER in the US and I've taken people to ER's here in Mexico. In the US if the wait time is less then several hours you're lucky. Here the place is near empty and you're seen right away. ER's aren't full here because it isn't a treatment of last resorts. Maybe if everyone wasn't using the ER this way in the states then if you did have to go there, say for a auto accident, you're wait time wouldn't be hours and the aspirin they give you wouldn't cost $50.

In any insurance system, private or public, people ARE responsible for the medical welfare of others. The only way they wouldn't be was if they didn't have any insurance and were solely responsible for paying their medical bills. Insurance, public or private, is basically a transfer of resources from the healthy to the sick.

Yep, as long as you're covered you're either paying for someone elses major health care cost or dependent on other's to pay the major portion of your major costs. Only difference is the government doesn't pay any CEO's millions of dollars a years. I wonder how much could be saved just cutting that cost out of health care? It's no wonder these CEO's are willing fund the lobby groups fighting the public option.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. In a private system you are not responsible in any way for anyone elses health status or medical bills. If someone is uninsured and goes to the ER. someone with healthinsurance doesn't pay for their visit. They are billed directly. A public plan is a transfer of resources via taxes paying for premiums.

Do you not understand what an insurance is? Health insurance is by definition a transfer of resources from the healthy to the sick.

Really so in a private system you are not paying for any one elses treatment? Ok, who pays for it? I mean if I have private insurance and I see a oncologist who pays for that? Do I have to pay for that? Or is my insurance company suppose to pay for that? If my insurance company pays for it where do they get the money to pay for it? From money accumulated and collected from other policy holders? Or do they have some magical money pixie who farts cash?

Since I'm an insurance agent i understand the meaning of insurance very well. The point powerclown was trying to make is that there are people who don't want to pay for your insurance. Which is what a public plan would mean. In a private system nobody pay's for your insurance or medical care but you.
The definition of insurance by the way is: coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract.

and that reimbursement comes from thin air, right? Or maybe they print the money in the basement?

The difference between private and public insurance is merely administrative. You might claim that one system is more efficient than the other, but at its basis they are the same. A redistribution of income from the healthy to the sick.

And, again, where does the money "to indemnify or reimburse" come from?

you both are missing the point. Obviously the money for indemnity comes from a pool of insurance premiums. But if you don't have insurance you don't get the coverage. If you don't pay into it you don't get it. that is the point other people are trying to make. They don't want to pay for YOUR care. I'm not totally against a public OPTION as long as it isn't single payer.

No you're avoiding (or at least you were) the point and omitting the facts we agree upon. See when dippin said-

And I said-

Neither one of us were talking about uncovered persons. We were simply pointing out that people in a plan health care costs are paid by other people in the plan.

That's an incredibly simplistic outlook. By your way of thinking everything I have has come from someone else. My house my car my groceries etc. PC was not talking about the pool of money that everyone pay's into. He's talking about paying for people who do not contribute to that pool

Some things really are that simple. Who do you think pays your salary? The company(ies) you work for or the people who pay premiums? I used to work in Law Enforcement. Who do you think paid me? The agency I worked for or the tax payers? I have a friend who works for the Tillammok Cheese Factory (man, I miss that cheese) Do you think the factory pays him or is it the people that buys the cheese?

Follow the money and I believe you'll find the answer.

Let's look at what PC said-
Sounds to me like he's flat out saying I don't want to pay for anyone else's medical care. I don't see any mention of uninsured people, I see him mention "strangers." I assume he doesn't know all the other people in his plan.

The most awesome thing since the invention of awesome.

99% of the outrage over health-care reform is built on the rhetoric and out right lies and deception of Beck and his ilk.

I'm not going to argue with you. He doesn't want to pay for people other than himself to have coverage period. Thats the way alot of people feel who oppose this bill. I understand what your saying about a pool of money, but it has absolutely nothing to do with his point.

it may be that one of the things which informs more conservative viewpoints in general is either a refusal or inability (hard to say which) to think in terms of system.
it is self-evident that salaries are transfers of money from one place to another. it is self evident, then, that what you own is possible because you participate in a particular network of transfers. you sell your labor power in exchange for access to that network. what you do within that network is expend your energy for a wage or a salary.

i think conservative viewpoints like to imagine that there is no system, but rather value originates with their activity. this leads to all kinds of strange consquences logically and analytically when seen from the other, general perspective.

Again, I get it. I don't have his particular viewpoint, but I understand his point. others were trying to side step his concern by saying he already pays for uninsured people.

Saying he already pays for uninsured people? No, again, no one is saying he is paying for uninsured people. No one said that. Do I need to use caps or smaller words? Cause I keep correcting your error and you keep ignoring it. People, including myself, were and are saying he's already paying for other peoples care. That isn't sidestepping anything... it's pointing out the obvious.

His point was that he didnt want to pay for the "health welfare" of others. In a very narrow sense, he already is when he signs up for insurance.

In a broader sense, we all already pay for a significant number of medical discoveries, regulation, and so on.

Not only that, we already pay for the uninsured. Indirectly, as when someone without insurance doesn't get treatment for an infectious disease and spreads it around. And quite directly, when hospitals have to stabilize even those without insurance. And when it comes to that, we end up spending a lot more than if the problem was treated early in the first place. Now, Im sure some will say that the solution would be to simply let those uninsured die without care (even the children, who make up a lot of the uninsured), but I would love to see anyone defend that option publicly.

Since I don't pay for anyone else's medical bills with my insurance, then it's perfectly reasonable for me to get a refund on all of the money I paid into my insurance this year that I didn't have to use on my own procedures, right?

Are you serious?

No. But it proves the point that the money that I'm putting in as a healthy person is being used to pay for procedures for less healthy policy holders.

which has nothing to do with PC's point of not wanting to pay for someone elses Health Coverage public or private. He only wants to pay for his own.

How about this- You stop telling me what you think PC meant and I'll stop telling you what I think he meant. PC can come explain his post if he feels like.

You express your opinion on the town halls and I'll express mine.

Deal?

never said it did. I was commenting on your assertion that I'm not paying for someone else's healthcare

Deal. Guess I shouldn't have put words in his post...for that I apoligize.

No worries, I figured out after doing it myself a couple times it was fairly pointless... and kind of dumb.

So agreed- PC's a big boy, he can speak for himself and we'll express our own opinions.

I guess the only way to avoid paying for someone elses health coverage is to not join an insurance pool but go it alone and pay cash but even then you can't avoid it. The last time I checked the local hospital charged cash payers more than twice as much as those who belonged to an insurance pool. Something to do with agreements and discounts given to insurance companies for being listed as an acceptable provider. I guess it is similar to what they do with people on Medicare or Medicaid.

Also I don't think there is a way to avoid paying for the uninsured since everyone's charges are jacked up to cover the ER costs.

OK, here's my honest take... least as of right now.

In my opinion this issue, like many, get broken down into such a narrow focus in the public arena that solutions often end up being problems. Right now the divide and conquer rule is leading the pack. Which sucks because it just means instead of find solutions people are just yelling at each other. That solves nothing, though it does help folks who have a vested interest in the keeping things the same. Currently staying the course, in my opinion, is not an option. Health care costs are, I think, the number one reason people file bankruptcy. I know that just about busted me. And I HAD insurance, hell I worked for the government. People used to give me shit because my benefits were suppose to be so great. So I don't think doing nothing is an option. I don't think it's good for the individual tax payer or the nation as a whole. When people go bankrupt everyone pays a little. Kind of like shop lifting, every item has a built in cost to cover theft. There's a reason a .03 anti-inflammatory in the ER costs $50. Actually that should read there are reasons it cost $50. People can't pay their bills, little bit more for the pill. Someone sues the hospital and wins big, little bit more for that pill. CEO's need to make millions, little more for that pill. And on and on and on.

Here are the main issues that I think need to be addressed (not necessarily in this order, or any order)-

Everyone should be able to obtain health care. Seems like a basic human right to me. Letting people die because they can't afford Tx seems , well, asinine.

Insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to turn people down for coverage or cancel policies so easily.

Insurance companies should be held better accountable for paying claims. There should be a penalty for dicking people around instead of just paying what they know they should. Better oversight.

There should be a public option. That public option should be on a sliding scale. It should also be designed to reward healthy habits. Eat crap, smoke and drink 24/7 don't expect to get 30 MRI's a years or one for every time you have gas. If you end up killing yourself, well, that's your fault. If you end up with a undiagnosed tumor see Boy V. Wolf.

The public option, as well as other coverages, should focus more (then they do now) on preventive care and promoting healthy living habits. Kind of a "put down the remote and get off your ass, you'll feel better" campaign.

There needs to be some sort of tort reform. People who sue because they woke up to loud music in the OR shouldn't be rewarded with big cash, they should get a shift kick in the ass for trying to sue for such silly reasons.

Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to sell medicine in the US for 100 times what it can be purchased elsewhere.

That's my current thoughts, they're likely to changes or be an addendum as I think and read more about this issue.

I think a reasonable solution would be to cover anyone who can prove they can't afford health insurance, meaning, if you are working two jobs trying to raise a family living on the bare essential and have to choose between food or medicine then you should be covered. But all too often I see(know) people who are on some form of welfare(food stamps, medicaid, etc) who have 2 big screen tv's a playstation3, xbox 360 and a wii. Digital cable with every package offered, and a dvr for every tv. These people are taking advantage of the system and waisting money on luxuries instead of being responsible and providing for their families first.

Finding a way to break through the barriers Doctors and patients have with insurance companies.
More education for people about their policies ex. don't go to ER for a runny nose, go to your PCP. or atleast an urgent care. ER's should be reserved for life or death emergencies as they were intended. I have several friends who are medics, the vast majority of their runs are for people calling the squad to give them a ride to the er to score some narcotics because they are so far under the influence they can't drive themselves. Systems need to be in place to track prescriptions each person has filled in a given month, often times people bounce from hospital to hospital receiving multiple Rx's for narcotics that the doctors don't know they already have had 120 filled.

these are just a few ways imo that would help

This was kind of what I was getting at with my sliding scale comment.

Not sure how you're going to enforce this, it's a good idea, IMO. But unless you start going through people homes to inspect TV sizes or game console price tags it's not very feasible. Every system has someone working it. I have little doubt they are people scamming your company right now.

Not sure what you mean here.


People should be arrested and charged for this, it's misuse of the emergency system.

Maybe it depends on the state but in Oregon there is a system for this, has been for while. I know when I crushed my leg and was taking pain killers my doctor would have to either call or enter into a system that would verify I had an Rx for X number of tablets. I think anything schedule II. If he didn't when I got to the pharmacy they'd call him to verify. Once it was filled it would show a person with my name and date of birth was given that Rx on that date. Twice this messed me up. Once a person on the other side of the state picked up a similar Rx the day before I went to fill mine. The system kicked it out. After a few questions from the pharmacist we both noticed the middle name didn't match and I assured him I hadn't done any traveling. So he filled it, but he questioned it first. The other time I'd gone into one pharmacy, waited 20 mins and was told "sorry we only have half of this and we need to either fill it completely or not fill it at all." They asked if I wanted to come back in the morning or go elsewhere. I told them I'd check elsewhere. so off to another pharmacy. When I got there they told me "you just filled this at another pharmacy." "Umm, no I didn't, please call them.

Both cases left me feeling like some drug addict. The second time the lady at the counter announced loud enough for everyone in the waiting area hear"These are pain killer, you just filled this Rx... WE"RE NOT FILLING THIS!" There was a sign that read "Please stand behind this line to wait your turn, This is for the privacy of others." I guess privacy only mattered if they didn't think you were and addict. Not all people seeking pain killers are addicts, some happen to be in actual pain.



Yes these could help.

Alot of times doctors will do one of two things. They will treat a patient and bill an insurance company then the patient receives a statement that the insurance company has denied the claim for whatever reason(miscoded or not covered) and the patient is stuck with the bill. Or the doctor will have to waste time delaying treatment by contacting the insurance company to see if said treatment is covered. A little more education done by insurers to policyholders would eliviate some of these problems, but the doctor would still not know what said patient is covered for or not.

K, I just finished the bill. It's not perfect by any means, but it has potential. Based on what I've seen of the town hall crashers, they've not read the resolution. I don't see this as being any more complicated than they are puppets, which is ironic because they think they're fighting for freedom.

I cannot imagine a more perfect allegory for this movement; the stings of puppets being pulled, "freedom" escaping from their wooden lips.

Make health insurance mandatory (like auto insurance). Subsidize it for those who can't afford it. If you show up to the ER without health insurance, you're fined.

I am beginning to believe that the way the health care industry and insurance works it's almost as if we decided to design a system to be as complicated as we could make it. The reform bills now before congress seem to reflect this thinking.

As I understand it health care insurance is cheaper the bigger the insured pool is because the risk is spread out to a greater degree than individual or small groups. That's why large companies or groups get better rates than small companies for similar coverage.

I wonder if the mayor of my town could get us a lower cost deal if he could join us together as a group for health insurance purposes? Maybe he could get together with other mayors and convince the governor to group the whole state for an even better deal. Maybe the governors could get together and convince the president to group the whole country together for an even better deal. Maybe the president could get together with other world leaders and..... Uh Oh, I think I am going too far.:)

Not bad. But then also regulate it so they can't rescind coverage, and so rates are reasonable (which they're currently not). Enforce a maximum profit margin--something reasonable, but not (as is the current situation) excessive. Do away with the state regulations, so the policy you get in Nebraska is the same as the policy you get in Oregon. Simplify, de-complexify, un-obfuscate.

I know that second-to-last sentence sent a few of you Libertarians into conniptions. I'll just say this: if the individual states could have solved this, they would have by now. It's time for a broader, bigger-picture approach.

It's a shame we've backed down from single-payer, IMO. I guess it's politically impossible right now, but it's a shame. In My Humble Opinion, having a healthy populace is a perfectly valid way to spend my tax dollar. Every bit as valid as having working roads and police and firetrucks.