Just Like Canada!

[homersapien 12,172]

OK, you are right. Apparently if you stare into the weasel long enough, the weasel stares back.

I just don't see what's so poisonous about admitting something you presumably agree with:

Yes, it's right and appropriate for the U.S. Government to pay for the medical care for veterans.

What's the big deal that causes such prevarication?

Paying for it is only the beginning. Actually delivering the care is where the disconnect is. Just goes to show..the budgeting process of allocating $150 billion to the VA w/o oversight isn't enough. Even with the VA being the 2nd highest funded federal agency behind only the DOD the fail here is epic. This admin is great at confiscatory tax policy designed to fund their pet projects then fail miserably administering the services the funds were provided for.. This is what single payer will look like if our system ever devolves to that. Gaming the system for personal gain netting poor delivery to those in need. 40+ veterans died waiting for service in Phoenix.

First, the scenario under discussion here is for the services to be provided by the private sector, not by the government.

Secondly, your response has nothing to do with my post to TM.

You guys are so focused on trashing the government you can't keep on topic.

Currently very few services are provided to veterans via the private sector. If barry would use the pen he brags about so much he could change that in an instant. The thread title "Just like canada" which I took to be a comparison to single payer and the VA.

I do not believe single payer in America would ever be even near as good as Canada. Moreover as good as the Canadian system is continuously pawnwd off as being in here, I've seen interivews with Canadian citizens who complain they can get an appointment for their pet to get a cat scan faster than they can get one for themselves.

One thing being overlooked in this debate is the part of the problem that govt unions represent. Nobody can get fired, get their shift changed or their job description changed because of the union contract wont allow it. It would almost lead one to believe the VA is set up for them and not the veterans it is supposed to serve.

If the US ever goes single payer, essentially everyone in the medical services industry will become govt employees. Excuse me if I'm a bit cynical about how well that arrangement would work out for patients. My money would be on it devolving to the same kind of deceit, misrepresentation and ultimately comparably terrible patient services as the veterans are experiencing now. JMO.

So, do you support "single payer" for VA medical benefits? Yes or No?

[Grumps 3,706]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

[homersapien 12,172]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Well, assuming you support the government providing benefits to veterans, I will take that as a "yes".

But still, why the prevarication?

[autigeremt 7,134]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Well, assuming you support the government providing benefits to veterans, I will take that as a "yes".

But still, why the prevarication?

Stop trying to lump veterans into this. Apples and oranges. But you know that.

[homersapien 12,172]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Well, assuming you support the government providing benefits to veterans, I will take that as a "yes".

But still, why the prevarication?

Stop trying to lump veterans into this. Apples and oranges. But you know that.

Well, I know that this thread is supposed to be about veteran care. Right?

[TheBlueVue 177]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Paying for it isn't the issue here. The issue is actually DELIVERING the medical services which is NOT happening satisfactorily. it seems to me, too much emphasis is being directed toward the wrong issue. I am 100% for the veterans receiving the benefits they've earned with their blood.

[autigeremt 7,134]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Well, assuming you support the government providing benefits to veterans, I will take that as a "yes".

But still, why the prevarication?

Stop trying to lump veterans into this. Apples and oranges. But you know that. :)/>

Well, I know that this thread is supposed to be about veteran care. Right? :dunno:/>

Just like Canada....and single payer interrelationships to the VA beyond its original intent, yes. But not about veterans and the care they should be receiving. But you know that at as well.

[homersapien 12,172]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Well, assuming you support the government providing benefits to veterans, I will take that as a "yes".

But still, why the prevarication?

Stop trying to lump veterans into this. Apples and oranges. But you know that. :)/>

Well, I know that this thread is supposed to be about veteran care. Right? :dunno:/>

Just like Canada....and single payer interrelationships to the VA beyond its original intent, yes. But not about veterans and the care they should be receiving. But you know that at as well.

Sorry I don't understand your point. This thread is about the government contracting services with private providers as needed or required. How is that not about the care they should be receiving?

[TheBlueVue 177]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Well, assuming you support the government providing benefits to veterans, I will take that as a "yes".

But still, why the prevarication?

Stop trying to lump veterans into this. Apples and oranges. But you know that. :)/>

Well, I know that this thread is supposed to be about veteran care. Right? :dunno:/>

Just like Canada....and single payer interrelationships to the VA beyond its original intent, yes. But not about veterans and the care they should be receiving. But you know that at as well.

Sorry I don't understand your point. This thread is about the government contracting services with privet providers as needed or required. How is that not about the care they should be receiving?

To answer your question, I am totally against a single payer system because that is what the VA has now. If veterans dying waiting to see a Dr. with a $150 billion budget is not an indictment of the single payer format I don't know what else it could more reasonably be called. It will never work especially as long as nobody in the VA can be fired for ANY reason, their job description cannot be changed meaning they cannot be demoted and they are eligible to be paid bonuses....WHAT? The govt employee union's power has vastly transcended anything useful or functional for its existence and is counterproductive more than anything else because it gives the appearance that the VA is for THEM and not those who have sacrificed life and limb defending our freedoms.

[homersapien 12,172]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Well, assuming you support the government providing benefits to veterans, I will take that as a "yes".

But still, why the prevarication?

Stop trying to lump veterans into this. Apples and oranges. But you know that. :)/>

Well, I know that this thread is supposed to be about veteran care. Right? :dunno:/>

Just like Canada....and single payer interrelationships to the VA beyond its original intent, yes. But not about veterans and the care they should be receiving. But you know that at as well.

Sorry I don't understand your point. This thread is about the government contracting services with privet providers as needed or required. How is that not about the care they should be receiving?

To answer your question, I am totally against a single payer system because that is what the VA has now. If veterans dying waiting to see a Dr. with a $150 billion budget is not an indictment of the single payer format I don't know what else it could more reasonably be called. It will never work especially as long as nobody in the VA can be fired for ANY reason, their job description cannot be changed meaning they cannot be demoted and they are eligible to be paid bonuses....WHAT? The govt employee union's power has vastly transcended anything useful or functional for its existence and is counterproductive more than anything else because it gives the appearance that the VA is for THEM and not those who have sacrificed life and limb defending our freedoms.

If you don't want the federal government to pay for VA care, then who should pay for it? The various states?

[homersapien 12,172]

And I am totally open to abolishing the VA hospital system if that is the solution. But from what I have heard, the problem is not the standard or quality of care the system provides, but access. In fact, I expect that a dedicated hospital system would - or at least could - be more effective in dealing with particular problems such as PTSD than would private hospitals. But we should be open to alternative proposals.

So, if the solution is to contract all medical services with private hospitals (which I submit will likely have it's own set of problems considering the needs of injured veterans) then let's do it.

Either way, this has nothing to do with the term or concept of "single payer". The government (as the single payer) will cover the cost regardless of whether or not they operate the care delivery systems or contract for them. That is, unless you don't want the government to be responsible for the costs. If so, I'd like to hear how that would work.

You guys are like attack dogs who have been trained to instinctively react to a specific verbal command. There's no thought or logic behind your rants against a "single payer" system - at least in the context of veteran's care.

[TheBlueVue 177]

To answer homer, if a person's medical benefits come from the government, then I support the government being the payer for those benefits. How do you like that answer?

Well, assuming you support the government providing benefits to veterans, I will take that as a "yes".

But still, why the prevarication?

Stop trying to lump veterans into this. Apples and oranges. But you know that. :)/>

Well, I know that this thread is supposed to be about veteran care. Right? :dunno:/>

Just like Canada....and single payer interrelationships to the VA beyond its original intent, yes. But not about veterans and the care they should be receiving. But you know that at as well.

Sorry I don't understand your point. This thread is about the government contracting services with privet providers as needed or required. How is that not about the care they should be receiving?

To answer your question, I am totally against a single payer system because that is what the VA has now. If veterans dying waiting to see a Dr. with a $150 billion budget is not an indictment of the single payer format I don't know what else it could more reasonably be called. It will never work especially as long as nobody in the VA can be fired for ANY reason, their job description cannot be changed meaning they cannot be demoted and they are eligible to be paid bonuses....WHAT? The govt employee union's power has vastly transcended anything useful or functional for its existence and is counterproductive more than anything else because it gives the appearance that the VA is for THEM and not those who have sacrificed life and limb defending our freedoms.

If you don't want the federal government to pay for VA care, then who should pay for it? The various states?

Delivering the care is what is most important. The govt can pay for it with vouchers for care in private hospitals. Single payer infers a lot more however than just payment for services rendered. It traditionally has come to mean govt provided and that is where the disconnect occurs. Therein is the context of my rant. Doing away with the VA would be an excellent beginning and of course there will be a new set of problems because nothing will ever be perfect but I dont think we should just sit by and watch guys die because the current system is so flawed. Let the govt pay for it and let private hospitals handle the delivery of services. That couldn't cost more than $150 billion a year.