Like it or not.....VA = microcosm of single payer

[TheBlueVue 177]

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/20/miami-va-whistleblower-exposes-drug-dealing-theft-abuse/

[autigeremt 6,970]

Yep. And it "should" send warning signs to everyone but for some it's just not true.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Should all combat veterans receive Tri-care?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

For it to be a microcosm of single-payer, I think we'd need some sort of evidence of this same problem on roughly the same scale in a country like Canada, Germany, Britain, etc. Is there any evidence of that?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

For it to be a microcosm of single-payer, I think we'd need some sort of evidence of this same problem on roughly the same scale in a country like Canada, Germany, Britain, etc. Is there any evidence of that?

Oh, so you want to hijack this thread and discuss in logical, realistic terms? This here thread is for what you call rettorik buddy. What are you one of them libtards?

[cptau 169]

For it to be a microcosm of single-payer, I think we'd need some sort of evidence of this same problem on roughly the same scale in a country like Canada, Germany, Britain, etc. Is there any evidence of that?

The VA heathcare system is not really single payer. It is single provider. The VA provides everything like the British NHS does, payment, hospitals, doctors, medicines.

The Canadian Medicare system is single payer (sort of). The government provides payments to private hospitals and doctors for medical services provided to citizens.

The British National Healthcare Service (NHS) provide healthcare to it citizens using NHS owned hospitals, clinics, and it;s employee doctors. Similar to the VA here.

The British NHS has total control unless you want to pay out of pocket to a private healthcare insurance plan and provider.

The British newspapers are full of stories about problems with the NHS.

[autigeremt 6,970]

Should all combat veterans receive Tri-care?

If they received wounds due to combat, yes. If they retire from service, yes. If they serve more than 1 tour in combat, or the combat zone exposed them to chemical or radiological harm, yes. If you are impaired or injured as a result of non-combat training or operations, the I say yes. If you serve without exposure to combat or military operations in a hazardous environment without injury, then I say no.

Right now the VA and the benefit structure is disproportionate to the true need of the veteran. Just as with Medicare, the system has become a doorway to social enterprise instead of managed care.

[TheBlueVue 177]

For it to be a microcosm of single-payer, I think we'd need some sort of evidence of this same problem on roughly the same scale in a country like Canada, Germany, Britain, etc. Is there any evidence of that?

The VA heathcare system is not really single payer. It is single provider. The VA provides everything like the British NHS does, payment, hospitals, doctors, medicines.

The Canadian Medicare system is single payer (sort of). The government provides payments to private hospitals and doctors for medical services provided to citizens.

The British National Healthcare Service (NHS) provide healthcare to it citizens using NHS owned hospitals, clinics, and it;s employee doctors. Similar to the VA here.

The British NHS has total control unless you want to pay out of pocket to a private healthcare insurance plan and provider.

The British newspapers are full of stories about problems with the NHS.

The bottom line is the healthcare system will be a 2 tier system. Those with the cash to buy concierge services will get premium healthcare. Everybody else will be at the mercy of the system. If history in THIS country has taught us anything it is this. When the govt gets involved in things best left to the private sector tremendous inefficiencies, waste, corruption and poor delivery becomes the norm.

Left to evolve on its own, public healthcare 15 - 20 years from now will very closely resemble what is currently happening at the VA. The extremes may be lessened to some degree but, for the love of all that's holy, would it be considered good if it just avoided patients dying while waiting to see a doctor?

[cptau 169]

Should all combat veterans receive Tri-care?

If they received wounds due to combat, yes. If they retire from service, yes. If they serve more than 1 tour in combat, or the combat zone exposed them to chemical or radiological harm, yes. If you are impaired or injured as a result of non-combat training or operations, the I say yes. If you serve without exposure to combat or military operations in a hazardous environment without injury, then I say no.

Right now the VA and the benefit structure is disproportionate to the true need of the veteran. Just as with Medicare, the system has become a doorway to social enterprise instead of managed care.

I heard that the VA spends $10,000 average per year for each veteran being treated in their care. It would be cheaper to close the VA down and provide Tri-care.

[AUFAN78 4,060]

Should all combat veterans receive Tri-care?

Yes

[TitanTiger 20,708]

For it to be a microcosm of single-payer, I think we'd need some sort of evidence of this same problem on roughly the same scale in a country like Canada, Germany, Britain, etc. Is there any evidence of that?

The VA heathcare system is not really single payer. It is single provider. The VA provides everything like the British NHS does, payment, hospitals, doctors, medicines.

The Canadian Medicare system is single payer (sort of). The government provides payments to private hospitals and doctors for medical services provided to citizens.

The British National Healthcare Service (NHS) provide healthcare to it citizens using NHS owned hospitals, clinics, and it;s employee doctors. Similar to the VA here.

The British NHS has total control unless you want to pay out of pocket to a private healthcare insurance plan and provider.

The British newspapers are full of stories about problems with the NHS.

The bottom line is the healthcare system will be a 2 tier system. Those with the cash to buy concierge services will get premium healthcare. Everybody else will be at the mercy of the system. If history in THIS country has taught us anything it is this. When the govt gets involved in things best left to the private sector tremendous inefficiencies, waste, corruption and poor delivery becomes the norm.

Left to evolve on its own, public healthcare 15 - 20 years from now will very closely resemble what is currently happening at the VA. The extremes may be lessened to some degree but, for the love of all that's holy, would it be considered good if it just avoided patients dying while waiting to see a doctor?

I think Canada more or less has this now. It's not perfect but I've known people who are from there and can speak to both systems. Overall they were happy with the level of care and the cost.

[TheBlueVue 177]

For it to be a microcosm of single-payer, I think we'd need some sort of evidence of this same problem on roughly the same scale in a country like Canada, Germany, Britain, etc. Is there any evidence of that?

The VA heathcare system is not really single payer. It is single provider. The VA provides everything like the British NHS does, payment, hospitals, doctors, medicines.

The Canadian Medicare system is single payer (sort of). The government provides payments to private hospitals and doctors for medical services provided to citizens.

The British National Healthcare Service (NHS) provide healthcare to it citizens using NHS owned hospitals, clinics, and it;s employee doctors. Similar to the VA here.

The British NHS has total control unless you want to pay out of pocket to a private healthcare insurance plan and provider.

The British newspapers are full of stories about problems with the NHS.

The bottom line is the healthcare system will be a 2 tier system. Those with the cash to buy concierge services will get premium healthcare. Everybody else will be at the mercy of the system. If history in THIS country has taught us anything it is this. When the govt gets involved in things best left to the private sector tremendous inefficiencies, waste, corruption and poor delivery becomes the norm.

Left to evolve on its own, public healthcare 15 - 20 years from now will very closely resemble what is currently happening at the VA. The extremes may be lessened to some degree but, for the love of all that's holy, would it be considered good if it just avoided patients dying while waiting to see a doctor?

I think Canada more or less has this now. It's not perfect but I've known people who are from there and can speak to both systems. Overall they were happy with the level of care and the cost.

That's a tribute to Canada but i think its important to not lose sight of the fact that Canada has about the same population as California. Overall the US is roughly 10 times the size of Canada. One might ask what is the relevance of that comparison but I think the relevance is fairly obvious. The larger pool of those that require service the more difficult IMO it will be to manage the size bureaucracy required to serve it. With an expanding bureaucracy there always seems to be a slippage into those things I've already pointed out..inefficiency, waste, corruption and poor delivery. I'm not sold it will ever be as good for as many people as what is being destroyed in order to get there but, obviously, that's just my judgement.

It's developments like these that support my complete lack of confidence in big government programs.

http://www.cnsnews.c...untability-bill

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/22/al-qaeda-terrorists-at-guantanamo-treated-better-than-our-vets/

[TitanTiger 20,708]

That's a tribute to Canada but i think its important to not lose sight of the fact that Canada has about the same population as California. Overall the US is roughly 10 times the size of Canada. One might ask what is the relevance of that comparison but I think the relevance is fairly obvious. The larger pool of those that require service the more difficult IMO it will be to manage the size bureaucracy required to serve it. With an expanding bureaucracy there always seems to be a slippage into those things I've already pointed out..inefficiency, waste, corruption and poor delivery. I'm not sold it will ever be as good for as many people as what is being destroyed in order to get there but, obviously, that's just my judgement.

But at the same time, the size of the tax base here to support it is 10x larger too. I don't see why you couldn't come up with a way to scale it.

And it's not like we're talking about a healthcare system that is a model of efficiency, lacks corruption and waste, doesn't do a poor job of serving its customers, etc now. Certainly there are good systems and insurance companies and there are a whole lot of bad ones. And it's cumbersome because it's tied to employers most often. And we don't cover everyone which is a cost down the road in and of itself...

[cptau 169]

That's a tribute to Canada but i think its important to not lose sight of the fact that Canada has about the same population as California. Overall the US is roughly 10 times the size of Canada. One might ask what is the relevance of that comparison but I think the relevance is fairly obvious. The larger pool of those that require service the more difficult IMO it will be to manage the size bureaucracy required to serve it. With an expanding bureaucracy there always seems to be a slippage into those things I've already pointed out..inefficiency, waste, corruption and poor delivery. I'm not sold it will ever be as good for as many people as what is being destroyed in order to get there but, obviously, that's just my judgement.

But at the same time, the size of the tax base here to support it is 10x larger too. I don't see why you couldn't come up with a way to scale it.

And it's not like we're talking about a healthcare system that is a model of efficiency, lacks corruption and waste, doesn't do a poor job of serving its customers, etc now. Certainly there are good systems and insurance companies and there are a whole lot of bad ones. And it's cumbersome because it's tied to employers most often. And we don't cover everyone which is a cost down the road in and of itself...

If we copy anything, copy the Canadian Medicare system and let the individual states run it. Do not copy the NHS. The British NHS is the largest employer in Europe because they insure and treat almost every person in Britain. The NHS is rationing to keep slow down going broke and will probably soon charge a copay fee for any treatment.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

How does Canada's system differ from NHS? They cover everyone too.

[TheBlueVue 177]

That's a tribute to Canada but i think its important to not lose sight of the fact that Canada has about the same population as California. Overall the US is roughly 10 times the size of Canada. One might ask what is the relevance of that comparison but I think the relevance is fairly obvious. The larger pool of those that require service the more difficult IMO it will be to manage the size bureaucracy required to serve it. With an expanding bureaucracy there always seems to be a slippage into those things I've already pointed out..inefficiency, waste, corruption and poor delivery. I'm not sold it will ever be as good for as many people as what is being destroyed in order to get there but, obviously, that's just my judgement.

But at the same time, the size of the tax base here to support it is 10x larger too. I don't see why you couldn't come up with a way to scale it.

And it's not like we're talking about a healthcare system that is a model of efficiency, lacks corruption and waste, doesn't do a poor job of serving its customers, etc now. Certainly there are good systems and insurance companies and there are a whole lot of bad ones. And it's cumbersome because it's tied to employers most often. And we don't cover everyone which is a cost down the road in and of itself...

Not to be argumentative but if money was the issue we wouldn't be seeing veterans dying while waiting to see a doctor now. The VA has plenty of funding...PLENTY but you see what they delivered....waste, inefficiency, corruption and poor delivery. There is no perfect system. The healthcare system we had provided coverage for 85% of the people. What has happened, or at least it will eventually is, its been virtually turned upside down on the 85 who were pretty happy to accommodate the 15 who were not.. There is no utopia on earth but the left will sell the utopian dream and it will fail. Watch.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

That's a tribute to Canada but i think its important to not lose sight of the fact that Canada has about the same population as California. Overall the US is roughly 10 times the size of Canada. One might ask what is the relevance of that comparison but I think the relevance is fairly obvious. The larger pool of those that require service the more difficult IMO it will be to manage the size bureaucracy required to serve it. With an expanding bureaucracy there always seems to be a slippage into those things I've already pointed out..inefficiency, waste, corruption and poor delivery. I'm not sold it will ever be as good for as many people as what is being destroyed in order to get there but, obviously, that's just my judgement.

But at the same time, the size of the tax base here to support it is 10x larger too. I don't see why you couldn't come up with a way to scale it.

And it's not like we're talking about a healthcare system that is a model of efficiency, lacks corruption and waste, doesn't do a poor job of serving its customers, etc now. Certainly there are good systems and insurance companies and there are a whole lot of bad ones. And it's cumbersome because it's tied to employers most often. And we don't cover everyone which is a cost down the road in and of itself...

Not to be argumentative but if money was the issue we wouldn't be seeing veterans dying while waiting to see a doctor now. The VA has plenty of funding...PLENTY but you see what they delivered....waste, inefficiency, corruption and poor delivery. There is no perfect system. The healthcare system we had provided coverage for 85% of the people. What has happened, or at least it will eventually is, its been virtually turned upside down on the 85 who were pretty happy to accommodate the 15 who were not.. There is no utopia on earth but the left will sell the utopian dream and it will fail. Watch.

"Not to be argumentative, but..."

You LIVE to be argumentative!

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Every large system has problematic incidents for which there needs to be accountability, including private healthcare. Blue's ideology governs every view he has .

On the whole, the VA system compares pretty favorably:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLIc5ABThjBk

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/06/vha-vs-medicare-winner-is-…/

[TheBlueVue 177]

Every large system has problematic incidents for which there needs to be accountability, including private healthcare. Blue's ideology governs every view he has .

On the whole, the VA system compares pretty favorably:

http://www.bloomberg...id=aLIc5ABThjBk

http://news.harvard....er-is-…/

ideology has nothing to do with my observations of big government failures. There are so many it is hard for me to believe there are actually people like you holding on to that utopian dream. Have fun waiting...you're in for a LONG wait. For the record, it is the utopian dream that is the ideology ole buddy and it has NEVER worked....EVER. Conservatism is a tried and true way of life that has worked better than any alternative that the left has ever dreamt of. Only a leftie could claim the VA is working pretty well and keep a straight face. When 40 people + die waiting to see a doctor,what metric is your evaluation based on that shows the VA compares favorably to anything?

[cptau 169]

How does Canada's system differ from NHS? They cover everyone too.

Canada's medicare system is just a medical insurance program that covers everyone. It owns no hospitals or clinics. It employs no doctors, etc. Similar to the US medicare system that only covers people 65 and older.

The British NHS is a national heathcare system composed of government owned hospitals, clincs, and it employs doctors, nurses, etc. It covers everyone in the country.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Every large system has problematic incidents for which there needs to be accountability, including private healthcare. Blue's ideology governs every view he has .

On the whole, the VA system compares pretty favorably:

http://www.bloomberg...id=aLIc5ABThjBk

http://news.harvard....er-is-…/

ideology has nothing to do with my observations of big government failures. There are so many it is hard for me to believe there are actually people like you holding on to that utopian dream. Have fun waiting...you're in for a LONG wait. For the record, it is the utopian dream that is the ideology ole buddy and it has NEVER worked....EVER. Conservatism is a tried and true way of life that has worked better than any alternative that the left has ever dreamt of. Only a leftie could claim the VA is working pretty well and keep a straight face. When 40 people + die waiting to see a doctor,what metric is your evaluation based on that shows the VA compares favorably to anything?

A totally non-sequitur ideological response. Classic!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

How does Canada's system differ from NHS? They cover everyone too.

Canada's medicare system is just a medical insurance program that covers everyone. It owns no hospitals or clinics. It employs no doctors, etc. Similar to the US medicare system that only covers people 65 and older.

The British NHS is a national heathcare system composed of government owned hospitals, clincs, and it employs doctors, nurses, etc. It covers everyone in the country.

Ok. I'm much more inclined to the Canadian version if we had to go to a single payer system then.

[channonc 466]

How does Canada's system differ from NHS? They cover everyone too.

Canada's medicare system is just a medical insurance program that covers everyone. It owns no hospitals or clinics. It employs no doctors, etc. Similar to the US medicare system that only covers people 65 and older.

The British NHS is a national heathcare system composed of government owned hospitals, clincs, and it employs doctors, nurses, etc. It covers everyone in the country.

Ok. I'm much more inclined to the Canadian version if we had to go to a single payer system then.

Not sure where I fall with single payer, but I agree. It's not a good idea to have the same agency that makes the payment perform the service.

[autigeremt 6,970]

We don't have to go to a single payer system but if we did, Chanda's is the best option I've seen. I'm not in favor of it unless it's ran by someone outside of DC.

[TheBlueVue 177]

We don't have to go to a single payer system but if we did, Chanda's is the best option I've seen. I'm not in favor of it unless it's ran by someone outside of DC.

It wont be because the ulterior motive is to concentrate that power of control with the federal govt. Single payer will fail in this country. The IRS will be in placed in charge of it and i think Ive seen enough of the IRS to state with conviction they will not succeed. Like everything else, it has become a politically motivated agency and I dont see anything changing that.