Fix Care for Veterans and than we can talk..

[Jagged]

As the Health care Bill comings to an end kicking and screaming or rises from congressional ashes I have to wonder, does this all make any sense at all? Think about it when you were growing up, when you showed you were more responsible people gave you more responsibility. If you were a good student and helped out around the house you got to borrow the car more. If you were a bad student and a lousy kid, well you were walking everywhere.

The point is that the government already handles medicare and care for veterans. Now both groups aren't small, but they're a minority of those who need health care in the United States. Those I know who have to deal with both systems speak about them with argue and frustration. They say the process is confusing and few are helpful along the way. The only true positive is they know it is there, but that is like saying the Chinese place across the street food is lousy but there is always plenty at the buffet.

Now I oppose Nationalized Health Care for a host of reasons, but the challenge I've always placed to liberal friends is, fix medicare and care for veterans, and than we can talk. It is just that simple. Take care of those you're already reasonable for, and when they're raving about how good it is, than you can take on more responsibility.

When veterans are spending their days recovering in top of the line facilities, and a trip to the VA is simple and pleasant you can add more people. When the seniors and disabled who need medicare say they'd use it even if they had a choice of another plan than you can add more people. Also just keep it to US citizens.

Nobody should be denied emergency care, but the ER shouldn't be someone's doctors office. Just posting a police officer who can enforce immigration laws in a hospital will cut costs very quickly, but that is a discussion for another time.


President Obama I know you're doing this with the best of intentions, but how about you take care of what you're responsible for already. Improving care for those on medicare and veterans would be no small legacy, and could get you a second term. Separating the Veterans Administration from the Pentagon, so they'd have separate budgets would make a huge difference. There are no easy answers here, but you can start by taking care of your responsibilities now.

Wally Winkerbean comes home to a different world after being a POW. The story reflects how this hero has had a rough time over the years, and in this latest bought comes home to find his friends older his wife remarried and his children grown. While friends and family are there to support him the government seems to offer little help to one whose given so much for h is country. A depressing strip at times, but it is like life. Funny, wonderful, and sad moments are part of it all, and it is a good ride.

http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100301&name=Funky_Winkerbean
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100302&name=Funky_Winkerbean
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100307&name=Funky_Winkerbean
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100308&name=Funky_Winkerbean
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100309&name=Funky_Winkerbean
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100310&name=Funky_Winkerbean
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100311&name=Funky_Winkerbean

To all those who have borne the burnt of battle we thank you....you deserve better.

 

[3113]

Argument based on a false dichotomy based on false assumptions

Now I oppose Nationalized Health Care for a host of reasons, but the challenge I've always placed to liberal friends is, fix medicare and care for veterans, and than we can talk.

That's your challenge, huh? I don't wonder that anyone's bothered. It's a pretty dumb challenge. Allow me to show you what I mean: Who or what pays for vets healthcare? Taxpayers, right? Who pays those taxes? Working people, right? Anyone who works pays taxes, a portion of which then goes to the doctors and hospitals that look after vets.

Okay. So. If the people making this money have to use to to pay enormous sums to heath insurance companies and such, then they have less to pay out in taxes. And these companies then deny them coverage when they get sick, they have to pay enormous sums to doctors and hospitals. It's very easy for someone to quickly go bankrupt, in fact, because everyone is using their need for doctors and such to take their money--and no one is trying to help them actually get well.

Who is going to have any money to give to making those veterans hospitals better?

Your challenge is fucking backwards. Get rid of insurance companies, and all the rest that only want to make money--and will do anything to wiggle out of paying for procedures which would lose them money--offer non-profit health care (meaning it can sustain itself because it's not about making money!), and people will go to doctors before things get bad (rather than waiting till they've no choice and crashing the emergency room). They'll be healthier, or at least not burdened with bills. They'll work more, have money rather than be in debt, they'll be able to pay their taxes and THEN we can fix all thats wrong with Veteran's hospitals and such.

Your challenge is no challenge at all, because it's a false dichotomy based on a false assumptions. This includes the assumption that if we can't manage Vet healthcare, we can't manage national healthcare. We can and did mange the health care of veterans from WWII on. It was only when President Bush CUT billions of dollars from the VA budget to put into the deep pockets of contractors, that vet's heathcare got so bad. So while it is our responsibility to make it better, it wasn't an inability to manage vet heathcare that put it in its current bad state. That was the fault of a bad president's inability to budget wisely. Hence, the state it is in doesn't reflect on whether we can create or maintain a national health care system. And it certainly makes no sense at all to deny healthcare to those paying the bills for everyone vets included.

In fact, it's downright stupid to let the taxpayers get ill and/or go into debt; the healthcare of vets vets is entirely reliant on those taxpayers.

 

[DeeZire]

Now I oppose Nationalized Health Care for a host of reasons, but the challenge I've always placed to liberal friends is, fix medicare and care for veterans, and than we can talk.

Tell that to the 45,000 Americans who will die this year because they have no access to health care.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Despite all the horror stories I've heard about the VA, I happen to use them for the majority of my medical care and I've been perfectly satisfied with the care I've gotten. I was advised of my diabetes the instant it showed up, given medication for peanuts to treat it until I could lose enough weight for it to go away. My provider is as proud of me as she can be and will probably recommend that I stop taking the meds next time I go in. Now I'd call that good preventive care, myself, followed up with appropriate treatment.

I asked her, because it bothered me seeing them, about all the old guys going around with oxygen tanks and IV stands wherever they went. I was advised that most of them were heavy smokers who wouldn't quit and diabetics who either didn't find out their condition or who would follow doctors' orders once it was diagnosed. You want the country to have better health care? Get the country to stop behaving so stupidly!

 

[patrick1]

Lots of Europeans have said this elsewhere but here I am again: in most countries of Europe there is universal free or near-free health care. There is the British 'nationalised' model, or there are various compulsory insurance-based models like France, Germany and Spain. Actually the systems have taken to copying some features from each other, so that Britain now has more of an internal market, and Continental Europe often has a failsafe nationalised sector. All of them have regulatory frameworks and independent inspections. They cost a lot less per head than the US system, life expectancy is greater and no-one is deprived of health care for lack of money.

There you go. Obviously a crazy idea.

 

[popcorn2721]

Lots of Europeans have said this elsewhere but here I am again: in most countries of Europe there is universal free or near-free health care. There is the British 'nationalised' model, or there are various compulsory insurance-based models like France, Germany and Spain. Actually the systems have taken to copying some features from each other, so that Britain now has more of an internal market, and Continental Europe often has a failsafe nationalised sector. All of them have regulatory frameworks and independent inspections. They cost a lot less per head than the US system, life expectancy is greater and no-one is deprived of health care for lack of money.

There you go. Obviously a crazy idea.

We are stupid, that's all (we elected that dick head for the second term after he stole the first election didn't we?)... The idea isnt crazy, its the nation as a whole that cannot unplug there lazy asses from the fucken bullshit they are being fed. The insurance companies have us right where they want us.

 

[imalickin]

Tell that to the 45,000 Americans who will die this year because they have no access to health care.

That is so wrong! Under federal law a hospital has to provide care whether the patient can pay or not. True it is only life saving care that is provided but most, if not all, medical facilities do have funds (pro-bono) available in order to continue the care needed. Now if that patient requires a transplant well they go on the list just like anyone else regardless of their financial standing.

 

[cloudy]

That is so wrong! Under federal law a hospital has to provide care whether the patient can pay or not. True it is only life saving care that is provided but most, if not all, medical facilities do have funds (pro-bono) available in order to continue the care needed. Now if that patient requires a transplant well they go on the list just like anyone else regardless of their financial standing.

If only "life-saving" treatment is given, it may be too late to actually save someone's life. Preventative care is what's needed, so no...it's not wrong, you are.

I know of absolutely ZERO free treatment plans, other than medicaid, and millions of people don't qualify, but can't afford insurance. Proof, please.

 

[laurafairlie]

That is so wrong! Under federal law a hospital has to provide care whether the patient can pay or not. True it is only life saving care that is provided but most, if not all, medical facilities do have funds (pro-bono) available in order to continue the care needed. Now if that patient requires a transplant well they go on the list just like anyone else regardless of their financial standing.

No, you're wrong. Maybe it is a federal law that hospitals must provide care whether the patient has money or not, but they don't do so! Haven't you seen the documentaries showing hospitals taking sick patients whose insurance runs out down to the street where the homeless shelter is and dumping them out there with only a hospital gown and nothing else? Well, I have, and it happens all the time.

Hospitals are in the business of making money, and doctors have a vested interest in keeping you sick, not making you better. If you get better, they go broke. So, they don't care if you get better.

 

[Jagged]

In fact, it's downright stupid to let the taxpayers get ill and/or go into debt; the healthcare of vets vets is entirely reliant on those taxpayers.[/QUOTE]



Wow how wonderfully mean spirited and off topic. I put the challenge forward to make a point. It isn't just about funding. I know taxpayers pay for veterans care though I believe they should some of the cost themselves, I'm talking about how it is administrated. Now it was said above some one is satisfied with their VA care, but many aren't, and I'm sure all would agreed things need to be improved.

I just don't see how handing over health care 1/6 of the economy to the government will make things better. Bureaucrats in Washington deciding what care you need that doesn't put me at ease. Right now they're trying to pass a bill without telling the public what is in it, and they're not even following proper procedure. But it is all good right? Blame it on President Bush and start spending more money, that will solve everything right?

 

[Jagged]

Despite all the horror stories I've heard about the VA, I happen to use them for the majority of my medical care and I've been perfectly satisfied with the care I've gotten. I was advised of my diabetes the instant it showed up, given medication for peanuts to treat it until I could lose enough weight for it to go away. My provider is as proud of me as she can be and will probably recommend that I stop taking the meds next time I go in. Now I'd call that good preventive care, myself, followed up with appropriate treatment.

I asked her, because it bothered me seeing them, about all the old guys going around with oxygen tanks and IV stands wherever they went. I was advised that most of them were heavy smokers who wouldn't quit and diabetics who either didn't find out their condition or who would follow doctors' orders once it was diagnosed. You want the country to have better health care? Get the country to stop behaving so stupidly!

Well let me first say thank you for your service and I agree healthier living is the key to dealing with the health care crisis. I know people who have used the VA for over 20 years without any major issue and I know others who are suffering and not received any creditable treatment. I just want to see very high levels of satisfaction before handing any more power over to the government. Also I think some simple reforms would help, but thanks for your input.

 

[DeeZire]

Bureaucrats in Washington deciding what care you need that doesn't put me at ease.

As opposed to health insurance bureaucrats deciding what care you need?

Right now they're trying to pass a bill without telling the public what is in it, and they're not even following proper procedure.

Right now, insurance companies are selling policies with so much fine print and legalize language, it's impossible for a layman to find out what procedures will be covered until the claim comes back denied. Then, the layman may or may not be able to get reimbursed for the procedure by going through the appeals process, depending on which way the wind is blowing on the day the appeal is processed.

Your arguments ring hollow, my friend. A public option would give consumers an alternative to being ripped off by private insurance. Then, if the consumer was not happy with the public option, they could go back to the private option. Lucky for you, the public option appears to have been torpedoed by the insurance lobby, so I really don't see what you're complaining about. The current reform package is not a government takeover, it is an increase in regulations so that people with pre-existing conditions can finally buy coverage - from private insurers. WTF is wrong with that?

 

[Liar]

I just don't see how handing over health care 1/6 of the economy to the government will make things better.

Fallactious talking point 1. The proposed bill does not to that. It makes changes to the regulatory framework of what is, and will remain, a private industry. Just like there are federal and/or state regulation for almost ANY industry. And along with these changes are provisions to make it possible for the health insurance industry to deal with the new regulations. Namely the mandate to be insured. You have to have a pretty twisted propaganda mind to spin that into "handing over health care to the government".

Bureaucrats in Washington deciding what care you need that doesn't put me at ease.

Fallacious talking point 2. The proposed bill does not give buerocrats in Washington any power to decide what care you need. What it does is take away some of that power from your insurance company.

Right now they're trying to pass a bill without telling the public what is in it,

Fallacious talking point 3. I know the main provisions in the bill. They weren't that hard to find information on. Just because you don't want to listen and (as it seems) are content with regurgitating fallacious talking points, don't make the mistake to believe that the American people at leage are you.

and they're not even following proper procedure.

Fallacious talking point 4. They're following the current rules of the House and Senate. What other "proper procedure" are you referring to?

But it is all good right? Blame it on President Bush and start spending more money, that will solve everything right?

Fallacious talking point 5. Can't even be arsed to respond to it.

This showed me clearly as anything that you're not interrested in debating the issues in good faith. So I'm not gonna.

 

[Jagged]

As opposed to health insurance bureaucrats deciding what care you need?



Right now, insurance companies are selling policies with so much fine print and legalize language, it's impossible for a layman to find out what procedures will be covered until the claim comes back denied. Then, the layman may or may not be able to get reimbursed for the procedure by going through the appeals process, depending on which way the wind is blowing on the day the appeal is processed.

Your arguments ring hollow, my friend. A public option would give consumers an alternative to being ripped off by private insurance. Then, if the consumer was not happy with the public option, they could go back to the private option. Lucky for you, the public option appears to have been torpedoed by the insurance lobby, so I really don't see what you're complaining about. The current reform package is not a government takeover, it is an increase in regulations so that people with pre-existing conditions can finally buy coverage - from private insurers. WTF is wrong with that?

Not a take over? It is over 1,000 pages and not even the members of congress can say honestly they've read through it. I mentioned a need for reform, but a one payer system which is what they desire and are on the road too isn't the answer. Also I'm not defending the insurance companies by any means, and there are problems that need to be fixed, but the government isn't the answer. Having the government take control over 1/6 of the economy is unsettling, and they don't have the Constitutional grounds to pass the bill they way they're doing this.

There needs to be to be improvements and gawd knows they need to happen fast, but I don't see this bill as the solution. Talk to people overseas and they will tell you that government involvement in Health care has its pluses, but it sure as hell has some negatives that those in office are just ignoring.

 

[Jagged]

This showed me clearly as anything that you're not interested in debating the issues in good faith. So I'm not gonna.[/QUOTE]



Drinking the cool aid a bit much are we? You've read the 1,000-2,000 page bill? I know I haven't, and why aren't they bringing it up for a vote like every other bill? Yes I know the Republicans have done similar things, but it doesn't make it right and you can't convince me this is a good thing. The speaker of the house even said "jokingly" that we can't tell you what is in it until they pass it. This is insane and people are so desperate they'll take any option.

God to Massachusetts and find out how well state run health care works. If we're just talking about reforms the President isn't educating the public very well about it considering how many are opposed to this bill.

Still though I'd rather see medicare and veterans care reformed first those are areas the government has direct control over. Personally I don't look forward to being fined for not having health insurance, but than again it might be cheaper than buying a policy.

Oh and if anyone has any links to the complete bill I would like to read it. I'm sure all of this will be much clearer.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]Talk to people overseas and they will tell you that government involvement in Health care has its pluses, but it sure as hell has some negatives that those in office are just ignoring.

Who have you talked to "from overseas"? Any friend or acquaintance I've ever met from a country that has government-provided healthcare has said flat out that the US is pretty much a laughingstock in the area of healthcare.

 

[Jagged]

Who have you talked to "from overseas"? Any friend or acquaintance I've ever met from a country that has government-provided healthcare has said flat out that the US is pretty much a laughingstock in the area of healthcare.

I've heard complaints about us not getting health care with all we pay in taxes...which begs the question where does all that money go, but I've known many to wait months for very necessary surgery.

One case a long time family friend suffered waiting for heart surgery in England despite his doctor ordering it right away.

One couple from Australia found the government denying the woman's claim because she had a preexisting condition and was told to get a private policy, but they don't cover it either so she's in pain.

Canada the drugs are cheap because the government sets the price, and tells drug companies sell at this price or we just take it an make our own generic. One business acquaintance talked about waiting for months doctors visits, so he came to the US for treatment.

These are just a few of the stories and maybe they're just anecdotal and you have friends who speak glowingly of their countries system, so I don't think either of us will be able to use them to support facts.

The USA might be the laughing stock, but I always wonder why so many come to this awful country year after year. I mean they have such great systems elsewhere they must be crazy right?

 

[Boxlicker101]

If only "life-saving" treatment is given, it may be too late to actually save someone's life. Preventative care is what's needed, so no...it's not wrong, you are.

I know of absolutely ZERO free treatment plans, other than medicaid, and millions of people don't qualify, but can't afford insurance. Proof, please.

There are at least two where the patients don't have to pay anything. One is that provided to members of the armed forces and their families. The other is retired members of the military. The latter often go to military facilities, or they may go to VA hospitals.

 

[oggbashan]

...

The USA might be the laughing stock, but I always wonder why so many come to this awful country year after year. I mean they have such great systems elsewhere they must be crazy right?

The best medical care in the US is among the best, if not THE best, in the world. If you are suffering from a very unusual condition, probably someone in the US can offer treatment not available in your own country - at a cost that is high to reflect the difficulty of treating that condition.

You know what your health care and health insurance systems' failures are.

Other countries have different solutions that provide cover for those who couldn't afford US rates of health insurance or have pre-existing conditions. Those health care systems aren't perfect either but they are designed to treat EVERYONE. It is easy to say that "this patient didn't get the best care" or "there was a mistake in treating this patient" and those statements can be true BUT the majority of people in Europe get medical care that many US citizens can only dream about.

Og

 

[Liar]

Drinking the cool aid a bit much are we?

Not really. I'm just staying away from the Haterade. If you don't like the provisions that are in the bill, that's one thing. I base my opinion on facts. What is actually there in the bill. And I don't think it's a very good bill. It's a bit better than no bill at all, and my amateur assessment is that it will adress some of the problems and do some good, but not as much good as the Democrats are hoping. But that doesn't measn it's a nerfaroius Bolsjevik plot to plunge America into Stalinism.

You've read the 1,000-2,000 page bill?

Yes. Moreover, I've read summaries that gives the broad strokes of it pretty clearly.

I know I haven't,

Well, there you go.

and why aren't they bringing it up for a vote like every other bill?

They did. It passed one chamber 60 to 40. And now they are going to bring it up for a vote like every other bill in the other chamber. What's you're up in arms about are tweaks and detalís. Hopefully telling Ben Nelson and Many Landrau to suck it and take away their pork. The big strokes have passed normal voting already.

Yes I know the Republicans have done similar things, but it doesn't make it right and you can't convince me this is a good thing.

I'm not trying to. You said it wasn't proper procedure. That is not true. I pointed that out. That is all.

The speaker of the house even said "jokingly" that we can't tell you what is in it until they pass it. This is insane and people are so desperate they'll take any option.

Mkay. I'd rather focus on actual policy and procedure than to lap up the spin of the latest sound bites. But hey, each to their own.

God to Massachusetts and find out how well state run health care works.

I'm not that familiar with Mass health care. Go to Germany and see how well a tightly regulated private health insurance market can work. That's a pretty close analogy to what's actually up for vote here.

If we're just talking about reforms the President isn't educating the public very well about it considering how many are opposed to this bill.

Indeed. I'm kind of surprised about this. If the White House just took a KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach to their message and gave the main outline, lots of more people would get it.

1. Prohibit "bad behavior" from insurance companies. (Like denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or giving extortion rates to high risk people.)

2. Expanding the pool of low-risk insured by requiring that everyone buys an insurance. This I imagine is a part that some will object to. And quite rightly so. But it's there for a reason, since it compensates for increased costs for the insurance companies when they can't deny expensive treatments. For those who can't afford it, there will be subsidies.

3. Increasing mobility for consumers, malking it easier to say buh-bye to an insutance company that you don't like and sign up with one that gives you better conditions.

4. Giving individuals bargaining power with the insurance exchanges, like the Government, unions and big companies already have.

I'm not saying it's that easy, or even that it will work. But this is what the people who favor this bill believe it does. Why they don't come out with a clear and unfified message about it, baffles me. But i suppose steamlining a Democratic (capital D) message is like herding cats.

Still though I'd rather see medicare and veterans care reformed first those are areas the government has direct control over.

Why first? Why not after? Or at the same time? There's a lot of things that needs a'fixin'. Why let Medicare problems hold up fixing the health incurance problem?

Personally I don't look forward to being fined for not having health insurance, but than again it might be cheaper than buying a policy.

Yeah, I get that. That's one of the bitter pills of this bill. The Dems things it's a nessecary evil. And I can understand their reasononig, even though I may not agree it's the right thing to do.

Oh and if anyone has any links to the complete bill I would like to read it. I'm sure all of this will be much clearer.

Ask and ye shall recieve.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22734971/Senate-Democrats-Health-Care-Reform-Bill

And here's a pretty good QnA from Reuters about the main outline of the bill, or at least the Dem's ambitions with it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK0KA20091221

 

[3113]

But that doesn't measn it's a nerfaroius Bolsjevik plot to plunge America into Stalinism.

Little do you know, Comrade Squirrel!

http://www.sci-experiments.com/chromatography/Chromatography_Detective_files/Boris.jpg

I mean, yes, indeed. How true!

 

[bronzeage]

Well let me first say thank you for your service and I agree healthier living is the key to dealing with the health care crisis. I know people who have used the VA for over 20 years without any major issue and I know others who are suffering and not received any creditable treatment. I just want to see very high levels of satisfaction before handing any more power over to the government. Also I think some simple reforms would help, but thanks for your input.

Could veterans treatment be improved if VA provided care was limited to service related injuries and excluded self inflicted wounds such as smoking and untreated diabetes?

 

[oggbashan]

Could veterans treatment be improved if VA provided care was limited to service related injuries and excluded self inflicted wounds such as smoking and untreated diabetes?

Untreated diabetes is often undiagnosed diabetes. The early symptoms can easily be overlooked.

Og

 

[bronzeage]

Untreated diabetes is often undiagnosed diabetes. The early symptoms can easily be overlooked.

Og

Of course. That goes without saying. It is less easy to over look 25 years of high blood sugar, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Those are the root causes of most chronic problems in middle age and later.

One of the real problems we face with healthcare is that we have made lifestyle choices that make us unhealthy. No one wants to face the fact that the only way to reduce health care costs is to be healthier.

It doesn't matter who is providing the care or how it is paid. It will cost more money than we have.

The argument over quality of care is pointless as long as most of it is spent trying to control damage that occurred over decades, in order to prolong life for a few more decades.

 

[oggbashan]

Of course. That goes without saying. It is less easy to over look 25 years of high blood sugar, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Those are the root causes of most chronic problems in middle age and later.

One of the real problems we face with healthcare is that we have made lifestyle choices that make us unhealthy. No one wants to face the fact that the only way to reduce health care costs is to be healthier.

It doesn't matter who is providing the care or how it is paid. It will cost more money than we have.

The argument over quality of care is pointless as long as most of it is spent trying to control damage that occurred over decades, in order to prolong life for a few more decades.

I have Type II diabetes. It is mild and controlled. If my blood hadn't been checked for an unrelated condition I wouldn't have known.

I persuaded two friends to get themselves checked for diabetes. One had Type I that was beginning to affect her and if left could have been very damaging if not fatal. The other had Type II. He knew he had problems but had dismissed them as "just my age catching up with me". Both had led better lifestyles than I had and at the time were working out several times a week.

If I believe the medical pages of our daily newspapers, anything and everything threatens my health. If anyone followed all the advice, they would either die of malnutrition or live such boring lives that it would not be worth it.

One of our local centenarians, when asked his advice for living a long life, said: "Wine, women and song - a lot of the first, one at a time for the second, and as much as you like of the third - and believe your sergeant when he says "Dig that foxhole deeper if you want to live!".

Og