Read on Military.com (http://www.military.com/news/article/mccain-plan-moves-some-out-of-va-care.html)


Some excerts:

A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that "VA patients were more likely to receive recommended care" and "received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up" than that delivered by other U.S. health care providers.

Virtually all veterans groups oppose McCain's plan. The Veterans of Foreign Wars' national legislative director has said the VA card would "undermine the entire system."

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a D+ when they scored his voting record, whereas Obama got a B+. In addition McCain has voted with the interests of Disabled American Veterans only 20 percent of the time.

Thanks for the article, need fuel to fight the retards here at work who blindly follow chain mail about why John Mc is so great...we are going to loose our GUNS!!!, Obama is a muslim!!!! We are doomed if the Muslim gets in.

To the people that focus on Obama being a "muslim" there's no hope to have any type of intelligent discourse with them. Whatever candidate a person stands for is his/her own business, but if that opinion is based upon lies from either side, that person is just an idiot and worthy of nothing but contempt.

Well said Taleren. Its amazing that this election is coming down to those informed vs those who aren't.

Republicans have NEVER been "troop friendly" when it comes to the military, they have only been corporate friendly.

They advocate overpriced and mostly useless weapons systems, they push for companies like KBR/Halliburton, Blackwater to take over duties that were previously handled, with exceptional performance, by the military while these companies fleece the shit out of the taxpayer. They have ALWAYS ignored the aftermath of combat, the physical and almost more importantly the psychological effects.

Halliburton Example: Almost everyone deployed to Iraq will say the food in the mess halls is excellent, I assure you it was pretty damn good back in the late '70s and 80's but now it costs the taxpayer $56.00 per plate served which is about six times as much to feed a soldier than it should.

McCain is far from troop friendly his record is abysmal for service members and veterans.

The Republican senator had argued that giving veterans a VA card that they can use for private doctors would shorten the long wait times that many veterans face in seeing government doctors, who are nearly universally viewed as among the best in the world. They can use for private doctors. It was my understanding this could be used at both. You don't need the best doctor in the world to give you antibiotics for an ear infection.

They can use for private doctors. It was my understanding this could be used at both. You don't need the best doctor in the world to give you antibiotics for an ear infection.

LOL...you think that this is about ear infections? Tow that line...tow that line at the expense of veterans.

So you'd rather force veterans to wait an extra day or two just so they can see the 'best doctor in the world' to cure a simple ailment? Give them the choice I say. What's so wrong with that?

Akipt, you aren't normally this ignorant. The article shows most veteran groups dislike his medical plan and gave him a D- on veteran issues. Isn't that them making the choice?

So you'd rather force veterans to wait an extra day or two just so they can see the 'best doctor in the world' to cure a simple ailment? Give them the choice I say. What's so wrong with that?


The waiting argument is pure bullshit, it's not true when are you going to recognize that fact? I have waited longer for an appointment with a private Dr than I ever waited for an appointment with a government Dr and apparently so have all the other veterans.

You see Akipt, there is a reason that more veterans and active military personnel throw their weight behind Obama than McCain...they/we don't have to read about it they/we live it.

Neither of you are answering the base question. What's wrong with giving them a choice in the matter? If they're being completely denied access to the VA and kicked to the curb because they're given a coupon to a private doctor I could see your point. But that isn't what is happening from what I have read. If that is not the case, demonstrate it instead of calling me ignorant and spewing a "I know better than you" bullshit line.

You're missing the forest for one tree.

If that choice comes with a decimation of the rest of your benefits, that is not a win.

Is that the case?

How does Obama get a B+ for voting when he was only been in a political office for, what, 18 months???? What kind of record could he compare too ..... McCain has been in for a gillion years......

It seems that is an unfair comparison.....

Neither of you are answering the base question. What's wrong with giving them a choice in the matter? If they're being completely denied access to the VA and kicked to the curb because they're given a coupon to a private doctor I could see your point. But that isn't what is happening from what I have read. If that is not the case, demonstrate it instead of calling me ignorant and spewing a "I know better than you" bullshit line.


The base question? Choice = Free Market I assume you mean. I don't see any real choice in free market healthcare how is an insurance company telling someone what doctors they can go to free choice?

Here is the bottom line: Free market is not always the answer, free market is for business and business is for profit. Some things should not be "for profit" healthcare being one of those, it doesn't work, it drives up costs, cuts on care and results in a poorly run system all around, we are the victims of it in our country, we let the republicans privatize it, let the insurance companies run it and it has become a total fucking mess.

The "it's about choice" is nothing more than a buzz word for let my friends and familys businesses rip off the tax payer.

Just to rehash what you seemed to have missed:


"VA patients were more likely to receive recommended care" and "received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up" than that delivered by other U.S. health care providers.


Paul Sullivan, a Gulf War veteran and executive director of the nonpartisan Veterans for Common Sense, said that for McCain, free market ideology is more important than providing care for former Soldiers.



"They hate the fact that there's a functional example out there of the government providing better care at a lower cost than the private sector,"


The problem that the VA faces now is that the Bush administration failed to hire enough doctors and disability claims adjusters when they chose to go to war with Iraq. If these doctors had been hired, the VA would be an example of the government doing good work. Bush and McCain don't want the public to see that."


McCain has also never spelled out what he means by a "combat injury," leading many veterans worried they could be left out in the cold.



"If I'm driving a Humvee in Iraq and a roadside bomb explodes and I veer off the road and crush my arm and end up losing it and needing a prosthetic, is that a combat wound according to Sen. McCain?" asked retired Air Force Colonel Richard Klass, the president of the Council for a Livable World's VETPAC, which has endorsed Obama.

Official Pentagon policy calls such an incident a noncombat injury. Technically speaking, the only Soldiers "wounded" in combat are those hit by direct enemy fire. As of Aug. 5, Department of Defense statistics showed that 32,799 U.S. Soldiers had been "wounded" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another 10,685 had sustained "non-hostile" injuries which required a medical evacuation, while 29,881 were classified as ill enough to be airlifted out of the war-zone.

How does Obama get a B+ for voting when he was only been in a political office for, what, 18 months???? What kind of record could he compare too ..... McCain has been in for a gillion years......

It seems that is an unfair comparison.....


Because in the short period of time he has been in office he voted in favor of the troops and veterans, in that same period McCain voted against them. Thats how.

So you're claiming veterans are too stupid to figure out their private doctors cost them more and would give them inferior health care?

By the looks of http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

You get higher scores for not voting no. Not voting and yes earn you high marks.

Other than that Obama has voted 96% of the time along the party lines.

I do like alot of his votes, but the thing I don't like about this voting record is you really can't see the entire bill being voted on (unless I'm missing this) so the riders aren't clear to the common folks.

I assume the grades given are flat out based on the overall vote as opposed to what may be on the bill that the voters took exception to.

By the looks of http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

You get higher scores for not voting no. Not voting and yes earn you high marks.

Other than that Obama has voted 96% of the time along the party lines.

I do like alot of his votes, but the thing I don't like about this voting record is you really can't see the entire bill being voted on (unless I'm missing this) so the riders aren't clear to the common folks.

I assume the grades given are flat out based on the overall vote as opposed to what may be on the bill that the voters took exception to.

To this end, McCain voted his party line 95% of the time. Is either really a surprise? You could then attempt to argue that that's not change from Obama's side, but the Democratic party as a whole is more in tune with change than the Republican party.

I find it funny that people (not necessarily you Fandros) state that Obama votes the party line yet ignore that McCain does exactly the same thing. Obama discusses change. McCain is trying to win over voters by calling himself a 'maverick.'

Ummmm this is about Obama, please everyone quit saying it's okay for Obama to do something because Bush/mcCain did so.

You're muddying the waters, I'm not voting for McCain blast it and more than likely Obama is going to win.

Start learning to judge him on his own actions.

Crikeys!!

To this end, McCain voted his party line 95% of the time. Is either really a surprise? You could then attempt to argue that that's not change from Obama's side, but the Democratic party as a whole is more in tune with change than the Republican party.

I find it funny that people (not necessarily you Fandros) state that Obama votes the party line yet ignore that McCain does exactly the same thing. Obama discusses change. McCain is trying to win over voters by calling himself a 'maverick.'

If 95% of the votes you actually attended you voted party lines you are not discussing change.

You're placing a round peg in a round hole and doing as told.

Let's get back to Obama please, ya'll think he's about change and I contend that he's same ole same ole.

There is no way he deserves a b+ when he missed as many votes as he did on the very subject of vets/military.

So you're claiming veterans are too stupid to figure out their private doctors cost them more and would give them inferior health care?

No, it seemed that you are. What I'm claiming is that although you seem to harbor some intelligence you are amazingly gullible and keep buying the rhetorical drone of the republican party.

Ummmm this is about Obama

Actually the article and thread is about McCain.

No, it seemed that you are. What I'm claiming is that although you seem to harbor some intelligence you are amazingly gullible and keep buying the rhetorical drone of the republican party.Gullible? Go fuck yourself Rover. You, Kelraz, all of you fucks. Have a rosey day.

lol... when he runs out of talking points he gets all mad and quits for the day!

From my experience the VA system sucks and needs to be overhauled. Also military doctors suck and I would rather see a civillian any day of the week. In fact that was part of my considerations when I bought my house. I ended moving out of the Catchment area so I could see a civillian doctor.

If it wasn't for a military doctor I may be able to see out of my right eye.

The RAND corp. reccomendations also are pathetic and should be revisted and given proper discussion. As it stands by there reccomendation people who do 20 years in the military will not get pension payments till they are 55 or something along those lines, which is bullshit.

lol... when he runs out of talking points he gets all mad and quits for the day!It's called a question that none of you are bothering to answer, not a talking point.

Ohh and at least with civillian care you can shop around for a doctor that you like and cares for you. With the military doctors you get what you get not what you pay for.

Also military wait times if you are not in uniform blow balls I have spent 12hours trying to get care from a military emerg room and only spent 2-3 in a civillian emerg room.

Careful Korlis, you're being ignorant, gullible, or spewing talking points... or all of the above.

Oh shit, umm *hits edit*!!!

Funny thing, I never had a bad expeerience with military doctors nor with any care provided through the VA.

And yes Akipt, you're gullible. You buy into the biggest lies perpetrated on the American public. You believe privatizing everything is the answer and actually believe that companies like KBR and such actually give a shit about the people of this country or the people in the military. They don't, plain and simple. It's all about profit that's all.

Did you ever wonder why EVERY year there is some type of crisis in April or May that causes the price of gas to rise in June, July and August and every year around September that crisis ends and gas magically goes down? Then suddenly around November another crisis which causes fuel oil to go up and magically around the end of February the crisis ends. Did you ever stop and think about that?

Of course your answer will involve "go get a new foil hat" but it's not that, it's a fact...just think about it.

The RAND corp. reccomendations also are pathetic and should be revisted and given proper discussion. As it stands by there reccomendation people who do 20 years in the military will not get pension payments till they are 55 or something along those lines, which is bullshit.

You need to re-read the article, the Rand Corp did a study, they didn't recommend anything.

Yes they did the study and I will find the recomendations made for changes.

The changes were retirement based and include increasing premiums which i kinda do not mind but include changing the retirement system also. RAND did the study QRMC did the recommendations.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,173279,00.html

And yes Akipt, you're gullible.You can't give me the simple logical answer to my question, yet you call me gullible. You should be embarrassed.

You can't give me the simple logical answer to my question, yet you call me gullible. You should be embarrassed.

Stop playing the game, I know you are trying to have me say one of two things. Either choice is good or choice is bad, I'm not falling for your parroting of Rush Limbaugh that time in America is coming to a close. The over simplification of something so necessary as healthcare is so patently wrong it defies all logic.

You're gullible because you think it all comes down to simple choice...laughable...absolutely laughable.

Yes they did the study and I will find the recomendations made for changes.

The changes were retirement based and include increasing premiums which i kinda do not mind but include changing the retirement system also. RAND did the study QRMC did the recommendations.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,173279,00.html

I was speaking of the article in question not about another completely different subject...get that water out of your ears squid ;)

Stop playing the game, I know you are trying to have me say one of two things. Either choice is good or choice is bad, You've already made it abundantly clear that you think choice is bad. I'm asking you why choice is bad in this case. You have no answer other than talking points, misdirection, and ad homs.

You've already made it abundantly clear that you think choice is bad. I'm asking you why choice is bad in this case. You have no answer other than talking points, misdirection, and ad homs.


LOl...you leave me speechles...is your real name George Bush or is it Dick Cheney?

Ok...choice is good, it's that simple...it's just about choice thats all..choice...simple choice...duh...I never knew...and all this time I was sitting here thinking that I had to put thought into things, that there are things that take actual calculation and thought. But now, thanks to you, I now know it's just all about choice.

I've been following this thread but not the issue. So, if the argument here isn't about choice, what is it about? Without me reading pages and pages on this issue to completely educate myself, what is or isn't wrong about the plan that's in place now versus the plan that Obama supports.

What benefit or specific cost(real or tangible) does either plan have? If it's as simple as the veteran making a choice about his doctor as Akipt has stated, what's wrong with the vet choosing his doctor? If it's more complex, what is the issue that's causing the problem?

Hmmm.

I can choose between substandard choice A or Substandard choice B.

It must be good because I have a CHOICE! YAY! HURRAH FOR CHOICE! I get to choose the manner in which I can get fucked over! What a country!

Johnny comes home from Iraq. He suffered a wound which took his leg. The wait for the doctor is 45 days.

The fact is that while we have lost 3,000 men in Iraq, we have suffered 50,000 casualities. Thanks to some of the really amazing advances in medical technology and body armor, thousands of those injuries would have been fatal a few years ago. But never the less, these soldiers are suffering catastrophic, life long, injuries.

VA hospitals are overwhelmed.

So what is the Republican solution? Ship out the health care. Privatize. Somebody else's problem.
Fuck no.
We OWE every single man and woman who has served this country the very best care possible. It is a moral imperative. If the wait times are too long.... THEN FUCKING SHORTEN THEM. We put a man on the goddamn moon, im pretty sure this is in our strike zone.

An interesting read on this
The battle of the wounded

By Linda Bilmes
January 05, 2007 in print edition A-23

THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what’s equally alarming – and far less well known – is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That’s an unprecedented casualty level. In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two.

That means we now have more than 50,000 wounded Iraq war soldiers. In one sense, this reflects positive change: Better medical care and stronger body armor are enabling many more soldiers to survive injuries that might have led, in earlier generations, to death. But like so much else about this war, the Bush administration failed to foresee what it would mean, failed to plan for the growing tide of veterans who would be in urgent need of medical and disability care. The result is that as the Iraq war approaches its fourth anniversary, the Department of Veterans Affairs is buckling under a growing volume of disability claims and rising demand for medical attention.

So far, more than 200,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated at VA medical facilities – three times what the VA projected, according to a Government Accountability Office analysis. More than one-third of them have been diagnosed with mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, acute depression and substance abuse. Thousands more have crippling disabilities such as brain or spinal injuries. In each of the last two years, the VA has underestimated the number of veterans who would seek help and the cost of treating them – forcing it to go cap in hand to Congress for billions of dollars in emergency funding.

The VA system has a reputation for high-quality care, but waiting lists to see a doctor at some facilities now run as long as several months. Shortages are particularly acute in mental health care. Dr. Frances Murphy, the VA’s deputy undersecretary for health, recently wrote that some VA clinics do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do, “waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible.”

The VA also runs Vet Centers – 207 walk-in neighborhood help centers that provide counseling to veterans and their families. These popular, low-cost centers have already treated 144,000 new veterans. But they are so understaffed that nearly half are sending veterans who need individual therapy into group sessions or placing them on waiting lists, according to a recent report by the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

At the same time, wounded veterans trying to obtain disability checks are being tied up in a bureaucratic nightmare. The Veterans Benefits Administration has a backlog of 400,000 pending claims – and rising. Veterans must wait from six months to two years to begin receiving the money that is due to them while the agency plods through paperwork. The staff eventually helps veterans secure 88% of the benefits they ask for – but in the interim, thousands of veterans with disabilities are left to fend for themselves.

The situation is about to go from bad to worse. Of the 1.4 million service members involved in the war effort from the beginning, 900,000 are still deployed on active duty. Once they are discharged, the demands for medical care and counseling will skyrocket, as will the number of benefit claims. The Veterans for America organization projects that VA medical centers may need to treat up to 750,000 more returning Iraq and Afghan war veterans and that half a million veterans may visit the Vet Centers.

And then there is the cost. After the Persian Gulf War in 1991, half of all veterans sought VA medical care, and 44% filed disability claims. Assuming that this pattern is repeated, the lifetime cost of providing disability payments and healthcare to Iraq and Afghan war veterans will likely cost U.S. taxpayers between $300 billion and $600 billion, depending on how long the war lasts.

President Bush is now talking about spending more money on recruiting in order to boost the size of the Army and deploy more troops to Iraq. But what about taking care of those soldiers when they return home? The VA’s solution is to hire an additional 1,000 claims adjudicators to cut the backlog.

A better idea would be to stop examining each application and instead automatically accept all disability claims, then audit a sample (like the IRS does for tax filings) to weed out fraud. Or at a minimum, simple claims should be fast-tracked and settled within 60 days. We should also place more counselors and more claims experts in the Vet Centers and harmonize recordkeeping so veterans can move seamlessly from the Army’s payroll into VA hospitals and outpatient care.

One of the first votes facing the new Democratic-controlled Congress will be another “supplemental” budget request for $100 billion-plus to keep the war going. The last Congress approved a dozen such requests with barely a peep, afraid of “not supporting our troops.” If the new Congress really wants to support our troops, it should start by spending a few more pennies on the ones who have already fought and come home.

Like I said, I don't know the issue. Why are both choices substandard? What about them is, not emotional ad hoc arguments, I really want to know.

The substandard part of the private care is obvious.

How many private care doctors have the specialization to work with the very unique problems and injuries that men returning home from a war have?
Most of them work for the VA. They devote their lives to dealing with the problems these men have. Now, you are saying "Tough luck kid, maybe Dr. Nick can see you after his 2:30 appointment and Ms. Johansonn's Gastric Bypass consultation."

Doctor =/= Doctor.

This is like if you suffered a massive head trauma but the wait to see a brain surgeon was too long, so they sent you to see the heart surgeon.

Well never mind, I obviously can't get a straight answer either. I'm not trying to be confrontational; I'm not aware of the situation. Again all I'm getting for an answer is emotional argumentative answers instead of actually answering the question I'm asking.

The answer can't be obvious to me if I'm not aware of the situation. I'm asking for some education from both sides, and can't get a proper answer. How are you going to convince someone that has a different opinion if you can't even state an unemotional opinion to someone who doesn't have a side to the issue?

Well never mind, I obviously can't get a straight answer either. I'm not trying to be confrontational; I'm not aware of the situation. Again all I'm getting for an answer is emotional argumentative answers instead of actually answering the question I'm asking.

The answer can't be obvious to me if I'm not aware of the situation. I'm asking for some education from both sides, and can't get a proper answer. How are you going to convince someone that has a different opinion if you can't even state an unemotional opinion to someone who doesn't have a side to the issue?

Taleran, it is not simply about choosing ones doctor. If it was that simple who could disagree?

My point has been, and perhaps L2 has spelled it out better than I, that the VA system is not that bad, that "choice" is simply a code word for privatization, that privatization is not currently working, that turning things over to insurance companies is not in the best interest of the patient, that insurance companies are in it for profit and that gives them incentive to give less care when more is necessary, that insurance companies don't really give you choice they give you the doctors you can choose from and that isn't really choice it's mitigated choice.

The choice argument is ridiculious, it wrongly simplifies complex issues. Have not the past eight years of that way of thinking taught us lessons?

The wait issue is bullshit, sometimes things happen, sometimes people are forced to wait when they shouldnt. That happens in privatized health facilities as well as military and VA facilities. The point of the article is that poor planning and looking at things in a simpleton way does not necessarily equate to success.

The straight answer on is choice a good thing?

In general choice is a good thing yes. In this situation, it is not where the real argument is.

So what is that real argument then? Again I don't know and double speak trying to focus on choice isn't helping me understand anything. If it's not about choice, tell me what it's about then. You say it's not about choice, then you go on a rant about why choice is bad. It's one or the other.

If it's telling a patient they have to choose one of two doctors, than yes I see the problem. That's not really a choice, that's how I make my daughter think she has the choice, but I am actually still controlling the situation.

I am for socialized medicine. I think it's a farce that so many people in this country don't have access to medical attention. I also think it's good that if someone wants to pay for better service in a socialized system, they should have that option too.

If we had a socialized system, you think things still wouldn't be done on the cheap to a point though too? Don't you think it will be regulated more so then even more than it is now? I have no delusions that it will be substantially better for everyone even under a socialized system, but it will be better for more than the current system. As long as a person can pay for better care, I see no issue with it. If people can't pay more for better care (lower wait times, more risky, optional procedures, etc.) than you fail to attract any talent to the country and don't encourage the better doctors to be any better than the schlub that barely got licensed.

Vets deserve good health care, what needs to be done for it to get better than it is right now? How do we get there?

Here it is...

Mccains plan is to make veterans with non combat related injuries go to their own doctor with a insurance card. The soldiers with combat related injuries still go through the va system.

The problem is that an injury from an ied attack for instance is considered a non combat injury. The governent gets to decide who they treat and tells the rest to take care of it on their own time.

Veteran's from what I understand can only get VA care for thier specific disability they still need to see other doctors for regular care unless they have a high enough % or are below a monetary threshold. So Allowing a person to go to thier regular doctor for little or no extra money I see no problem with that.

Veteran's from what I understand can only get VA care for thier specific disability they still need to see other doctors for regular care unless they have a high enough % or are below a monetary threshold. So Allowing a person to go to thier regular doctor for little or no extra money I see no problem with that.

Who is better equipped to handle injuries resulting from an IED attack?

Answer that, and you answer why its better for them to go to a VA doctor, rather then the local doc on the corner.

Thier injury is already handled at that point usually it is recovery and rehab which any doc could do just fine.

Thier injury is already handled at that point usually it is recovery and rehab which any doc could do just fine.

Perhaps we should ask a Doctor.

I just cant imagine a private company(Insurance) who is all about profit doing all it can do for our soldiers. It's all about money.

How long before the problems the soldier faces in relation to the injury are not covered because the Insurance company doesn't believe that "they resulted form the original injury"?

I dunno why don't you ask me? I have a non-combat related injury and am blind in my right eye. But I am just speaking out my ass. Although I don't deal with the VA(anymore) as I am medically retired now and I use Tricare(retiree healthcare). Which is as good of coverage as what my work offers but for 1/8 of the price and sometimes it is better coverage.

Jedd correct me if I'm wrong...

But neither you nor anyone in your family has ever served in the U.S Armed services and therefore have ZERO experience with the V.A hospital system?

We have one here in SLC, a goodly 40 to 60 min commute away that you have to attend to first. If you are lucky you can be seen 2 or so weeks after you call for an appointment.

In most cases the injury from an IED is taken care of by the military docs. Any follow on care is just rest and recovery, the military docs don't hold a patent on dealing with that type of care. Triage, yes I'll grant you the military docs, most of which are civilian docs on the outside, hold the nod in dealing with.

Korlis and Rover, and to smaller extent myself have had to deal with the VA. I'd much rather see a private doc over dealing with the red tape and time sink that is the VA here in SLC.

Give me a choice anyday, thanks !!

heh... my doctor has a 3 week full schedule at all times... Guess its just cause I live in Los Angeles.

Give me a choice anyday, thanks !!

It's not a choice by the way... It is VA for combat injuries and your own doc for non combat related. Unless I misunderstood.

heh... my doctor has a 3 week full schedule at all times... Guess its just cause I live in Los Angeles.

heh well I imagine there are a few more folks out there.

I'm just giving my own time frame. I had a buddy, err have, who had to get appointments for months ahead of time. Agent Orange did a number on his leg and he ended up losing it 35 years after serving in Vietnam.

I don't understand though why the problem is fixed by privatizing the system rather then just improving the current one. More money, More Doctors, more facilities... And then there would be no need.

I don't understand though why the problem is fixed by privatizing the system rather then just improving the current one. More money, More Doctors, more facilities... And then there would be no need.

Rarely if ever is anything in the Govt fixed by throwing more money at it.

Rarely if ever is anything in the Govt fixed by throwing more money at it.

Well that's cause we have had inept leaders.

Our system is a bit inept and lends to poor leadership is my retorte'.

It's not Bush's fault the system has been wonky for an entire generation at the very least.

I think if a leader is determined enough, they can make it happen. Money, is not the only cure. It takes dedication to make it happen.

Nasa got money, but also support and that's how we landed on the moon.

why choice is bad

I didn't say choice is bad, I said simplifying the situation by saying it is just about choice is bad. Saying it is about choice is just a way to turn it into a rhetorical issue while ignoring the real issue. It's the same bullshit argument used back in the '90s by the republicans to push through the current healthcare system.

Here's an example, I cannot get medical insurance, I have zero coverage. It is not due to it being affordable it is due to a pre existing condition as it is put. I see both government and private doctors, my wait for the private physicians is far longer than the government version. When I go to the private doctors I get a 40% discount because I pay on my own, the 40% represents the cut the insurance company gets for the visit also in many cases the percentage is more. When I told my doctor that I have no insurance he said I was lucky because he could treat me as he felt necessary.

Why are there insurance companies inolved in healthcare? They simply drive up the cost and they continually cut the care given. In both cases I get full complete unfettered care because there is no incentive to make a profit, there is only the incentive to provide the best care possible. This proposal by McCain is nothing more than his way of driving business to the insurance companies for his and their profit. It is far from a choice issue.

Halliburton Example: Almost everyone deployed to Iraq will say the food in the mess halls is excellent, I assure you it was pretty damn good back in the late '70s and 80's but now it costs the taxpayer $56.00 per plate served which is about six times as much to feed a soldier than it should.

Got some links to back that up?
The figure I heard bandied around was $45/meal during the first few years of the war (when it was dangerous), but got rebid down to $23-27ish/meal after 2006. But then I also heard that a "meal" included 1-3 actual trips during the day (i.e. one meal or three squares, uncle sam got charged for a days worth of food). Where it got squirlly was the takeout plates.

And this would be more of a KBR example, actually...(sure it's just a different division of Halliburton, but sinse you distinguished between em...)

Got some links to back that up?



I'm quoting officers of the Marine reserve serving in Iraq who I spoke to. But a good link is http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new2.cfm?doc_name=inv2

Ill say one thing about Bush, I've not cared for him as a president, but as a veteran he has made me happy.

Why are there insurance companies inolved in healthcare? They simply drive up the cost and they continually cut the care given.

Is this a serious question? We could start a new thread if you'd like.

By all means feel free to post your answer here.

Tell me what has been the advantage to Patients and Doctors.

I think alot of the insurance companies and the logic behind them has turned into piracy...

By all means feel free to post your answer here.

Tell me what has been the advantage to Patients and Doctors.

Your question is, "Why are insurance companies involved in health care?"

I would think that the answer is rather obvious. The current cost of health care makes it inaccessible to a large number of people. Insurance lowers the cost of health care by distributing the risk between a large number of people. The less risk, the less the cost is for that group of people. In fact, if everyone in this country paid a premium (subsidized or not) for their health coverage, the cost of coverage for everyone would go down.

Now, I'm not suggesting all the problems with health care can be solved with such a simple suggestion. There are a myriad of issues facing health care. But to suggest that removing insurance from the equation will somehow make the problem better seems a little misguided to me. Insurance is not the problem, it is a mechanism for paying for service that an individual would otherwise not be able to afford.

I would think that the answer is rather obvious. The current cost of health care makes it inaccessible to a large number of people. Insurance lowers the cost of health care by distributing the risk between a large number of people.

You ARE joking...aren't you?

Grifter, the high cost of health care is in large part due to the insurance companies. That doesn't mean insurance is inherently bad, but the way it's being run right now is.

Insurance is not the cause of high health care costs. If you truly believe this there is nothing I can say to dissuade you. Do you really think that it is insurance companies that drive up the cost of procedures and services? Truly? I don't even know where to begin. Entitlement, tort reform, Governement oversight agencies, administrative waste, ENTITLEMENT, fraud and abuse, the UNINSURED, end-of-life coverage, unhealthy behaviors, ENTITLEMENT, over utilization, inexplicable inability to embrace technology, and that is putting in about 20 seconds thinking about it.

Good lord, if Insurance is the problem then we need to be fighting against State Farm, AllState, Prudential, and all the other bastards out there.

Just out of curiosity, is your answer a socialized, government run health care system?

Grifter, the high cost of health care is in large part due to the insurance companies. That doesn't mean insurance is inherently bad, but the way it's being run right now is.

Agreed, but you have to dig further and ask yourself why is it being run that way?

Insurance is not the cause of high health care costs. If you truly believe this there is nothing I can say to dissuade you. Do you really think that it is insurance companies that drive up the cost of procedures and services? Truly? I don't even know where to begin. Entitlement, tort reform, Governement oversight agencies, administrative waste, ENTITLEMENT, fraud and abuse, the UNINSURED, end-of-life coverage, unhealthy behaviors, ENTITLEMENT, over utilization, inexplicable inability to embrace technology, and that is putting in about 20 seconds thinking about it.

Good lord, if Insurance is the problem then we need to be fighting against State Farm, AllState, Prudential, and all the other bastards out there.

Just out of curiosity, is your answer a socialized, government run health care system?

Well on one hand, insurance is part of the reason. I have $1000 deductible on my insurance, so I don't use it very often. When I go to the hospital or a doctor's office, it costs me roughly 50% less than the insurance company will shell out for people who do use insurance as I'm getting a "self pay discount". Because they know insurance companies can pay out twice as much as someone uninsured or under-insured. And if you look at the costs of chiropractic care (which isn't covered by any insurance) to other physical therapy, the chiropractic costs are dramatically less. And of course, anywhere there are people making a profit (and a large one at that), that profit obviously is equated into the cost. When we pay our insurance, we pay for our health costs PLUS our insurance agent's salary PLUS that of all of the insurance personnel and their inverters and bankers.

I dunno about you but on my statements the charged costs from the doctor or hospital is always 2-4x more then what my insurance company will pay out. My copay is 12 dollars and I have never had to pay extra. Even when my son's bills totaled almost 90k dollars the insurance company paid 30k or so and I only paid $177 due to the hospital stay.

And if my costs(co-pays and deductibles) go above the 1500max/yr my insurance company starts paying me back.

Not to mention my perscription fees ar $6/9 and I definately would not of been able to afford some of the meds I take, he took, or my wife takes.

If I was paying on my own I would be screwed.

That's a perfect example Kelraz (chiropractic care). The heart of the matter becomes, why is a covered benefit more expensive than a non-covered benefit? Is it simply because it is a covered benefit?

Non-covered benefits are affected by market forces, covered benefits are not. Why? Is it because of the mechanism for payment (insurance)? Or is it because health care is the one thing everyone feels they deserve and is their god-given right? The fact of the matter is, health care is a privilege that is continually treated as a right. The basic laws of economics simply do not apply to an health care which is largely an entitlement program.

I'm rambling. My point is, I understand insurance companies are messed up but insurance itself is not inherently bad. Other health care drivers force the hands of insurers more than people realize and it is those drivers that need our attention.

The fact of the matter is, health care is a privilege that is continually treated as a right.
In Canada health care is a human right which we are privileged to receive.

I just have to cover dental, eyes, ears and perscriptions which are partially covered by my wife's employer.

Wait times are longer up here, but at least I don't have to re-mortgage my house if they have to take out a kidney.

And before you harp on how I probably pay more taxes to the federal government to have socialized healthcare I think you will find most Canadians happy to fork over those extra percentages instead of being on the hook for thousands of dollars depending on the ailment.

Cheers,

If Healthcare is a privilege then we no longer believe in "LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"???

I wonder if those same people that believe that healthcare is a privilege are also pro life... Weird!

Not a good example Jedd.

Not a good example Jedd.

Isn't the purpose of healthcare to keep you healthy and "ALIVE"?

The government does not have a duty to keep you alive. The LIFE part alludes to the fact that some rights can never be taken away and are natural to all people. Not that its the governments responsiblity, it just cant take it away from you arbitrarily.

Besides, the Declaration isnt a legal document.

I went a year without insurance. I am diabetic, so I have an apt. every three months for blood tests, etc. Same stuff done every time. When I didn't have insurance, I self-paid. I paid 80.00 a visit. They gave me a discount for paying at the time of the visit. My last visit, I gave them my new insurance card. I was charged 125.00. (We have a huge deductible and a HSA) For the same visit!

Next time I go in, I am going to go back to the no insurance deal =P

So the government has no obligation to protect me? Hmm... Doesn't sound very American to me.

If the govt's job was to keep us from death, it's doing a pretty shitty job of it.

So the government has no obligation to protect me? Hmm... Doesn't sound very American to me.

That's not what L2 said Jedd...

This is not a nanny state, nor will it ever be so.

No Jedd. You have a right not to be deprived of your life by another party. Be it the government or another individual. The governments responsibility is to ensure that your rights are not violated, by them or others.

Get it?

Insurance is not the cause of high health care costs. If you truly believe this there is nothing I can say to dissuade you. Do you really think that it is insurance companies that drive up the cost of procedures and services? Truly? I don't even know where to begin. Entitlement, tort reform, Governement oversight agencies, administrative waste, ENTITLEMENT, fraud and abuse, the UNINSURED, end-of-life coverage, unhealthy behaviors, ENTITLEMENT, over utilization, inexplicable inability to embrace technology, and that is putting in about 20 seconds thinking about it.

Good lord, if Insurance is the problem then we need to be fighting against State Farm, AllState, Prudential, and all the other bastards out there.

Just out of curiosity, is your answer a socialized, government run health care system?


Wow you just pretty much wrote out exactly what insurance companies say. Let me guess you work for one or someone close to you does.

Agent Orange did a number on his leg and he ended up losing it 35 years after serving in Vietnam.


We are still suffering casualties from that war, even after all this time. :(


And, while I am 40% disabled from my tour in Nam, blind in the left eye, I have not been to the VA Medical center here since the first year of my discharge ('71). I suppose I may have to some day if there is anything related to my Nam injuries, but so far I have stuck to my Group Health (Health Partners now) plan doctors for the past 23 years with the Postal Service, and the same pretty much when I worked at the state prison.

I call around 7:30 in the morning and have an appointment for that day.


But, the gist of the thread, which I agree with, is that McCain is something of a hypocrite, just like Bush is, when it comes to looking out for the best interests of veterans. So, what else is new? Just because he was a POW and considered by many to be a war hero (for getting shot down, captured and tortured, but showing his character by not accepting special treatment), does not automatically guarantee he will be an advocate for our troops.

My girlfriend is a Nurse, and she is against socialized health care. Her reasoning is that health care is broken due to insurance companies being involved. She basically thinks its pointless to get everyone what is already flawed for those that have it.

Try getting a CT scan as a person under the age of 21. Insurance companies being involved with health care destroy the benefit. Just because an insurance company thinks your "too young" to have cancer, they will not pay for the scan.

What kind of BS system is that?

Insurance companies, like many lawyers, have no souls....

You almost get more out of burying your money in the back yard; at least you'd know where it is, and can get at it.

Yea.

I think the insurance/health care balance is way out of whack as well.

You CANNOT have people concerned with their bottom line profit making decisions on OUR medical care.
Thats just flat out wrong. While there should be SOME ability for an insurance company to audit expenses and prevent abuse, for most part when good doctors make sound determinations, and we agree, about what is in our best medical interests, insurance companies need to shut the fuck up and pay.

Wow you just pretty much wrote out exactly what insurance companies say. Let me guess you work for one or someone close to you does.

Wow, solid retort. Let me guess, you have no clue how to respond.

Wow, solid retort. Let me guess, you have no clue how to respond.

Your logic is confounding, how at all possible could adding a third party into the equation, that is a party interested only in making a profit, not cause costs to rise? The only possible way they can hold down costs is to cut service.

Now, will you answer the question?

Perhaps we are looking at this from different perspectives. I've been arguing that Insurance provides accessibility to care for those that could not otherwise afford coverage. I understand what you are saying and again, I am not suggesting all is right with the world when it comes to insurance. I just believe they are vilified more than they deserve.

Yes, I work for a health plan but one whose structure would be totally foreign to most people. We are county run and only provide coverage to people who cannot afford health insurance. We are funded by Medicaid (and to a lesser degree Medicare), collect no premiums, and are truly a non-profit. We have a board of providers who look at our surplus every year and decide how it should be spent. 90% of the time it is for higher reimbursement (we base payment on state levels which are notoriously low), other times it goes to Grants that fund needed services in under served communities.

You ask that question as if it somehow validates your argument. I would hope that you would prefer to look at my point of view as another way of looking at things that may (or may not) better your understanding of all sides of the disagreement.

Perhaps we are looking at this from different perspectives. I've been arguing that Insurance provides accessibility to care for those that could not otherwise afford coverage. I understand what you are saying and again, I am not suggesting all is right with the world when it comes to insurance. I just believe they are vilified more than they deserve.

Yes, I work for a health plan but one whose structure would be totally foreign to most people. We are county run and only provide coverage to people who cannot afford health insurance. We are funded by Medicaid (and to a lesser degree Medicare), collect no premiums, and are truly a non-profit. We have a board of providers who look at our surplus every year and decide how it should be spent. 90% of the time it is for higher reimbursement (we base payment on state levels which are notoriously low), other times it goes to Grants that fund needed services in under served communities.

You ask that question as if it somehow validates your argument. I would hope that you would prefer to look at my point of view as another way of looking at things that may (or may not) better your understanding of all sides of the disagreement.

In the case of who you work for it is that you provide healthcare to those who would otherwise not have it, that is a good thing and as you stated it is a non-profit and far from where my sights are set. Yours is the case that I am in favor of.

In the case of the large insurance providers it is blatantly obvious that they provide neither good healthcare plans nor affordable insurance.

I think you can privatize almost anything and have it operate better than a government run counterpart. The key is in setting stringent standards, the correct goals, and awarding the contracts without corruption.

Unfortunately, between the incompetence and flagrant fraud that we complacently accept in return for our tax dollars, those things are not likely to happen anytime soon. Private vs. public really isn't the problem. It's the way that we are content to let our government go about its business.

The Chinese have an interesting idea with their competing monopoly system.

Maybe 3 different health care organizations, with completely independent structure, and working for profit, but with the CEO and executive staff subject to performance based dismissal by the government every year.