How about the 3,000+ number of veterans to get AIDs due to equipment not being cleaned properly at one of the hospitals.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread448806/pg1

Everytime I go to the VA I leave pissed off due to the quality of care and service provided.

kim wrote:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread448806/pg1

Oh yeah, that looks totally legit

It's interesting (Or, mayhaps not) to note that one of the symptoms of Gulf War Illness is a condition a-kin to ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's Disease).

kim wrote:

Everytime I go to the VA I leave pissed off due to the quality of care and service provided.

I was the same way with the first nurse-practitioner that they assigned me.  The guy was a smug ass-hole who really didn't seem to take me seriously.  So, I re-fused to go to them for nearly a year.  When I finally did need to go back, they had re-assigned me to an-other nurse-practitioner whom I have been quite pleased with.  Seeing some of the comments about the inter-nets from other veterans, I am - A-Parently - quite fortunate.

orangeplus wrote:

Oh yeah, that looks totally legit

The Miami Herald?  As legitimate as any other local news-paper, I suppose.

Decadence wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

Oh yeah, that looks totally legit

The Miami Herald?  As legitimate as any other local news-paper, I suppose.

You mean Miami Herald 404 and [dum dum dum-daaaaa] Above Top Secret?

Ya, looks a little shady to me.

phreddy wrote:

kim wrote:

How about the 3,000+ number of veterans to get AIDs due to equipment not being cleaned properly at one of the hospitals.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread448806/pg1

Everytime I go to the VA I leave pissed off due to the quality of care and service provided.

And many veterans are aware enough to know when they are being fucked over.  Imagine the quality of care we will be receiving at the Barack Obama Geriatric Hospital when we get old.  I'm thinking a mouth full of snow and a bed out on the ice would be more humane.

Look Phreddy, it's really very simple - name one good thing done by the Health Insurance industry - just one.  Because this isn't about healthcare, that won't change one iota - this is about insurance.

Now the Auto Insurance industry pushed for and financed research to improve safety standards and testing for cars, it brought their costs down.

The Workers Comp Insurance industry pushed for and financed research to improve worker safety - it brought their costs down.

The US Government funds all of the health research through grants to universities and takes over paying for care when the Insurance company cuts off payment. 

So you are supporting a solution where a few companies are offering health insurance via the employer but when you get really sick and can't work they can (and quickly do) drop your coverage.  After that we the people will foot the bill.

Dude - that sound really un-American to me. 

See, we end up paying anyway - we already have single-payer health insurance - the involvement of United Healthcare and their ilk does virtually nothing more than provide a 30% margin for Hedge Funds.

Again, it's really very simple - name one good thing done by the Health Insurance industry - just one.

Last edited by Emmeran (2009-08-25 10:39:23)

Decadence wrote:

Orangina wrote:

You mean Miami Herald 404 and [dum dum dum-daaaaa] Above Top Secret?

Ah - My miss-take.  I didn't activate the Miami Herald hyper-link as I'd all-ready seen the story out of Florida all over other news sites these last couple of weeks.

So perhaps you might send one along, as I haven't seen a single one.

Wait - you want to open up competition by allowing interstate mergers (ala the banking system), so that they can merge and compete with less competitors while offering us an inferior product at elevated prices?

I would agree with you if we actually had anti-trust enforcement, but we don't.

And why not let them compete with a public option - that is competition correct?  If privatization is so preferable they shouldn't have a concern with a public option.

phreddy wrote:

What we don't need is the government running the system.  They will fuck it up and increase costs, guaranteed.

The model you are praising has done so well these last 20 years - lessee.... Enron, Lehman Bros., Countrywide, Alcoa, RBS.  The list goes on and on.


And finally - the Government is you, you are part of the government of the US of A.  Stop fucking up buddy.

Emmeran wrote:

Wait - you want to open up competition by allowing interstate mergers (ala the banking system), so that they can merge and compete with less competitors while offering us an inferior product at elevated prices?

I would agree with you if we actually had anti-trust enforcement, but we don't.

What we have now is worse than mergers.  We have government sponsored monopolies.  By not allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines we are restricting competition.  We have anti-trust laws on the books that would apply to prevent formation of monopolies through merger.

Em wrote:

And why not let them compete with a public option - that is competition correct?  If privatization is so preferable they shouldn't have a concern with a public option.

The public option would be subsidized to guarantee the cost to the public would lower than the product offered by insurance companies.  This is smoke and mirrors because we would still be paying.  In addition, we all know that Obama's ultimate goal is a single payer system, so the public option would merely be a tool to drive insurance companies out of business.  Then we have no options.

EM wrote:

The model you are praising has done so well these last 20 years - lessee.... Enron, Lehman Bros., Countrywide, Alcoa, RBS.  The list goes on and on.

You are conveniently naming a few high profile corporate failures.  The fact is most American corporations are effective and efficient, especially when compared to government programs.  With a little more competion and few targeted regulations our current system would work just fine.  I can't believe you would burn down the entire healthcare system as a social experiment just to see if some socialist plan would work better.  Just remember, you too will be old some day (if you're lucky).

phreddy wrote:

The fact is most American corporations are effective and efficient

I need to catch my breath after laughing so hard.

I just got a contract with a MAJOR corporation (hint: What can Brown do for you?) to ship vehicles around the country. This corporation recently merged with the company I used to do business with (a large company, but not nearly the size of the leviathan "Brown"). I wouldn't have gone after it myself, but we had to to keep some of our business going.

This morning, I had to talk to four people to deal with what I used to do in one transaction. They tried to cut our rates by 1/3 (we had to renegotiate to get the rates we already had). They suck donkey dicks in Hell. I wouldn't use them to ship a goddamn thing, knowing how they run things.

Huge corporations are ALWAYS a bullshit joke.

ALWAYS.

Last edited by sofaking (2009-08-25 14:15:34)

Dmtdust wrote:

Phweddski lives in a bubble.  He hasn't really done time in the troughs of the corporate gullet.  You think the Gov't sucks?  Heavens you haven't a clue about the half of it.

Well, what everyone is gonna have to wrap their minds around, is that it's going to be a clusterfuck either way. Anything that big is bound to be, whether it's a bureaucracy or a huge corporation.

It makes sense to do this, because it's better for the overall economy to take responsiblity for what will ultimately be the government's responsibility anyhow. When people are too disabled to pay their insurance premium, it reverts to the government anyhow. Underinsured people end up going bankrupt when catastrophic illness hits, which also drags on the economy. Healthier poor people can contribute better to the revenue stream, because chronically sick labor fucks up productivity in the workplace, too.

Last edited by sofaking (2009-08-25 14:17:36)

prove it

Jeebus is Lard!

Last edited by sofaking (2009-08-27 14:30:11)

phreddy wrote:

Maybe we should use the French system of healthcare.

Nice, linking an editorial where the author refers to other editorials or lobbyist's offhand comments as evidence.  Obviously your opinion of empirical evidence is very different than mine.

orangeplus wrote:

CIA World Factbook:

infant mortality rate:

Rank    Country           Birth    <5
12        France             4.2      5.2
33        United States    6.3      7.8

Life Expectancy:

Rank Country           All      Male   Female
7       France            80.98  77.79  84.33
35     United States   78.11  75.65  80.69

---------------------

I'd be OK to use the French system. A cursory look at the numbers should convince anyone not blinded by ideology.

It is quite a good system.  You must remember that Phreddy's wife (and therefore Phredd) is covered by California's incredibly good coverage for public employees.  It's positively socialist in all it's nuances, almost as good as what all those Republican/Democratic Lawmakers in DC get through their federal coverage.  Lets face the truth... Healthcare is okay, if it is just for those with the privileges, right Phwedd?

Last edited by Dmtdust (2009-08-27 14:03:46)

orangeplus wrote:

CIA World Factbook:

infant mortality rate:

Rank    Country           Birth    <5
12        France             4.2      5.2
33        United States    6.3      7.8

Life Expectancy:

Rank Country           All      Male   Female
7       France            80.98  77.79  84.33
35     United States   78.11  75.65  80.69

---------------------

I'd be OK to use the French system. A cursory look at the numbers should convince anyone not blinded by ideology.

Now, now - that isn't a viable source either; it's common knowledge that the CIA are all a bunch of liberal lefties.

Our present system is a mess and needs to be reformed.  Drug markups of as much as 570,000 percent are one of many problems with our present system.  Were it not for Medicare plus a supplemental policy paying for my Partner™’s medical treatments, we would be out on the street.  I didn’t have insurance at the time my retinas detached and we paid a small fortune out of pocket to save my sight.  I‘ve since met people who have lost their eyesight because they didn’t have my resources.  The taxpayers will pay more for their living expenses over the remainder of their lives than they would have paid for their eye care.  Partner™ has needed extensive care at times during the course of his illness, and I have been able to make the sacrifice in income to stay home and take care of him.  I don’t know how people who don’t have my advantages would manage in similar situations.  As it is, in the last few years I’ve gone from being very well off to middle class because of our combined health issues.  While I’m grateful for what the medical system has done in terms of prolonging his life and preserving the quality of mine, it should not have come at the cost of a severe lowering of my standard of living.  I shudder to think where I would be now had I been poor or lower middle class when all of this started.

Last edited by fnord (2009-08-27 18:18:36)

But Fnord, they want 1 trillion dollars!  How can you run 3 Trillion dollar wars based on false information if you provide healthcare?

Banjo wrote:

fnord wrote:

Banjo wrote:

Another example. Hmmm! Why hasn't this story gotten more press?

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Health/20 … sBadly.htm

Using the fact that the VA gets the bottom of the barrel doctors to work for them is hardly a good reason to deny reforming the system to provide better access to health care.

Why does the VA get the bottom of the barrel doctors (or anyone else)? Well, there is very little motivation to improve their skills. They usually work with shoddy outdated equipment. It's almost impossible to be fired or sued. There is no reason to build up a practice based on reputation and special training. You get the same paycheck whether you see five or five hundred patients, etc., etc, etc. It's the Wal-Mart of healthcare.

Private practice physicians are driven by the mighty dollar. Big surprise, huh? They compete for walk-in patients/physician referrals by offering unique skills, better equipment, improved services, less wait time, etc., etc., etc. than their VA brethren. As with any thing else, competition breeds excellence. That's where the VA fails. Unfortunately this competitive environment requires a lot of money for expansion, improved equipment, and a higher quality staff. Taking away private insurance and healthcare options will only create the VA experience everywhere.

You don't get out of the US much do you?







Edited by fnord to fix spelling error in my quoted statement.

Last edited by fnord (2009-08-27 16:03:12)

No.  I don't have TV, but I have lived extensively around the world (Europe specifically)

Healthcare is readily available throughout Europe, and there are no places in Western Europe no more than an hour or more from excellent medical facilities.

Banjo wrote:

fnord wrote:

Banjo wrote:

Another example. Hmmm! Why hasn't this story gotten more press?

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Health/20 … sBadly.htm

Using the fact that the VA gets the bottom of the barrel doctors to work for them is hardly a good reason to deny reforming the system to provide better access to health care.

Why does the VA get the bottom of the barrel doctors (or anyone else)? Well, there is very little motivation to improve their skills. They usually work with shoddy outdated equipment. It's almost impossible to be fired or sued. There is no reason to build up a practice based on reputation and special training. You get the same paycheck whether you see five or five hundred patients, etc., etc, etc. It's the Wal-Mart of healthcare.

Private practice physicians are driven by the mighty dollar. Big surprise, huh? They compete for walk-in patients/physician referrals by offering unique skills, better equipment, improved services, less wait time, etc., etc., etc. than their VA brethren. As with any thing else, competition breeds excellence. That's where the VA fails. Unfortunately this competitive environment requires a lot of money for expansion, improved equipment, and a higher quality staff. Taking away private insurance and healthcare options will only create the VA experience everywhere.

Edited to fix spelling error in my quoted statement.

Ummm, so?

The public option is the option of last resort and shouldn't be the best health care around.  We are a capitalistic society by nature; if you want better care than the public option gives you then you had better be readly to spend some money.  That's how the rest of the world works; come on do you really think Wayne Rooney is getting his sniffles treated by the NHS? 

Also keep in mind that the public option exists currently - everyone gets emergency treatment on the taxpayer dime, no one is turned away.  And if your illness lasts too long and you are out of a job, well unless you are wealthy and can afford Cobra you are going on medicare anyway.

It's really simple - the insurance companies exist to make a profit.  To make a profit they need to minimize payouts, they do this by denying coverage. They pay people to figure out how to deny you the care you need.

Medicare exists to help you survive, it may be less efficient occaisionally but the upside is they pay people to help you get the care that you need.

phreddy wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

CIA World Factbook:

infant mortality rate:

Rank    Country           Birth    <5
12        France             4.2      5.2
33        United States    6.3      7.8

Life Expectancy:

Rank Country           All      Male   Female
7       France            80.98  77.79  84.33
35     United States   78.11  75.65  80.69

---------------------

I'd be OK to use the French system. A cursory look at the numbers should convince anyone not blinded by ideology.

Apparently you didn't read article, or, if you did, you didn't understand it. (neither one surprises me)

Official World Health Organization statistics show the U.S. lagging behind France in infant mortality rates — 6.7 per 1,000 live births vs. 3.8 for France. Halderman notes that in the U.S., any infant born that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth. In France — in fact, in most of the European Union — any baby born before 26 weeks' gestation is not considered alive and therefore doesn't "count" in reported infant mortality rates.

You can't blame U.S. healthcare on the lower life expectency either, the U.S. has a higher life expectency than does France if you don't count deaths caused by violence.

fnord wrote:

Using the fact that the VA gets the bottom of the barrel doctors to work for them is hardly a good reason to deny reforming the system to provide better access to health care.

There are actually some rather good physicians in the VA medical system.  The "Fuck-Tard Equation" is much higher in active-duty military hospitals though (For the reasons previously stated - Why stay on active-duty as a physician when you can earn four times as much in the "private sector" {Yeah, I am Marxist; But, I'm all-so a realist}).

mindless follower of dogma wrote:

Official World Health Organization statistics show the U.S. lagging behind France in infant mortality rates — 6.7 per 1,000 live births vs. 3.8 for France. Halderman notes that in the U.S., any infant born that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth. In France — in fact, in most of the European Union — any baby born before 26 weeks' gestation is not considered alive and therefore doesn't "count" in reported infant mortality rates.

You lame moron, that's why I included the under 5s.

Last edited by orangeplus (2009-08-27 19:40:30)