And yet, data has a way of not agreeing with your anecdotes. Imagine.
Sorry, I will take my local hospital over the base hospital any day of the week. The VA is great if you have no job, insurance and chronic disease / illness. The folks who work there are some of the best. The resources that they are given, however, are far inferior to what I can get in the private market.
Cites requested.
Cite your source for the VA giving superior care to private hospitals, por favor.
For the anesthesia comment, I was going off of a debate from the practice at Walter Wonderful (Walter Reed) a few years ago. The VA system gives this:
*c. Level 3, deep sedation/analgesia and Level 4, anesthesia, will be administered only by an anesthesiologist holding appropriate clinical privileges, or a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) working in conjunction with an appropriately credentialed anesthesiologist. Note: Facilities without anesthesiologists will need to modify this section to reflect the local practice, such as CRNA in conjunction with a physician. You need to be aware of the State license held by your CRNA to be sure appropriate supervision is being offered.
*
Okey doke.
From here.
From here.
From here.
The VA also does less ill-advised medicating of the elderly (warning, pdf).
For the drug quip (again, personal knowledge now backed up with some quick Google-fu):
*veterans do not have access to several of the drugs available under the Medicare program through this protection—such as the anti-cancer drug Anastrozole and the anti-seizure drug Oxcarbazepine.
*
Thanks - great links, BTW.
The Washington Monthly piece, though, included this little interesting bit for the overall debate:
This is the arguement for a decent electronic medical record system that is portable. The risks being, again, lawsuits and privacy.
The VA has shown the value of owning the customer and having all of the data. This value is also shown in UHC systems of other nations. Improvement for the US could come from a better database, but privacy and legal issues would need to be resolved.
Right. We. On the whole. Collectively. We are in fact discussing American health care financing versus that of other countries.
Well, then, there is no problem with the health care system in America. Algher is doing okay.
Now now now, I did not say that.
I said that HC for ME was fine.
I said that HC in America will not change as long as the majority of people are, for the most part, happy with their care vs. their perception of government run care in America.
Heck, I don’t know why you bothered addressing this question in the first place; you ran away from the point altogether and simply changed the focus of what was asked. I have to say, looking at most of your posts on this thread it seems you’re mistakenly posting to Great Debates, as opposed to Great Soundbites. I don’t see much in the way of you trying making a case, just dropping bullet points.
Let’s try one more time: How is the current system better for business, to be required to provide health care than for most of the workers in America, than a system where they do not need to spend the time and money doing so?
Are you telling me that the tax investment made by the US government for education at all levels, for our roads, bridges, water systems, the interstate highway system, rural electrification did not contribute to creating wealth? That the Internet, created mostly through gov’t research hasn’t generated a dime of profit in America? Would you rather we hadn’t spent the tax money we have on courts that up hold contracts, regulate the stock market and trade so that business has a fair, stable platform to work from?
The government run and funded NASA spin-offs like:
*Miniaturized computer components and better software in the 60’s.
*MRI and CAT Scan technology.
*Weather and communication satellites, rockets for commercial satellites.
*The all-weather tire, the athletic shoe, freeze-dried coffee & foods, etc. etc.
These STILL return wealth on investments made 40 years ago once they were applied in the private sector. Likewise it’s quite possible that having a full service, full coverage payment system that looks out for everyone’ health care could wind up making a lot of money for us with that tax investment as well.
You are claiming that there is no value on our investment in our military, police forces? Ever hear of Haliburton, Lockhead, GE? Think any money was made there, any job creation?
You couldn’t do “your job” to survive without all of this infrastructure provided by the government. Including FEMA, unemployment insurance, disability and other services that might stop you cold without them. I doubt you’d turn them down if you needed them, then claiming them your right as a taxpayer and a citizen. If you do “your job” so well, the logic goes you should be able to become fabulously wealthy getting in on the ground floor in places like Mexico or Iraq where you don’t have a pesky government involved in redistributing so much of your wealth. Look at how well those countries do without their governments imposed upon their 'free markets’ and their every man for himself lifestyle. And I’ve gotta admit their taxes are low.
Yeah, part of what gov’t does is to redistribute wealth. And it’s redistributed a hell of a lot more of it into your pockets and economic environment than you’re willing to admit to yourself.
Hey Catsix, I don’t appreciate the insulting tone that suggests I’m supposed to be a commie pinko. I believe in capitalism. In fact, all the socialist nations you might have referred to on this thread are based more on the capitalist model than a communist one. They have markets very similar to ours that we trade with. Their companies sell stock. Neither capitalist nor socialist economies are interested in having a central government controlling everything. Why don’t conservatives and libertarians realize that the old 1970’s relic of a straw man has mostly fallen apart in the information age? Even China, with its authoritarian government, has basically become a capitalist economy and is more so every day. Centralized economies don’t exist on a mass scale much anymore, that’s why Marxism is basically an irrelevant model of the world that you’ve got your head wrapped around.
No one is talking about the gov’t running the health care system, simply finding a way of paying for it. I haven’t seen any suggestions put forth by its advocates that we remove free enterprise from those that provide health care.
Oh yeah, those who don’t want to work is at an epidemic proportion. What is it, about 2% of a population? Most of those not working wish they could. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, the weight is better distributed with your tax dollars far more towards the wealthy and the middle class than towards the poor.
Uh, the whole point of single payer or some kind of UHC is to provide better care than what you now get without needing to pay any insurance at all. Take away the outrageous overhead of private insurers and the pharmaceuticals which tend to spend more on marketing research than on drug research and the over cost of health care will come down. We will bring prices down when someone walks in with 300 million orders for health care and asks for a volume discount on medicines. Insure everyone so that everyone can get preventive care so that we aren’t liable to cover catastrophic care, sometimes with your higher tax dollars and again overall price costs will come down.
Well, you hit the nail on the head in that our government would certainly be more responsive if more people did vote. We certainly saw quite a change of the power structure in Washington a couple of months ago as we did in 1994. They pay attention when they are called on the carpet for non-performance. The wheels may turn slowly in govt. but the populous of democratic nations everywhere have a reasonable degree of control over their lives. Some say that the socialist model with its strong labor voice gives the commoner more of a voice than here in America. I’m not sure if that argument is valid, but it has some strong talking points in some cases. We do fine here, nor would I want to live elsewhere.
The VA has been re-tooling itself for the last 10 years, and despite a stingy congress has nevertheless made big improvements in many regions. Admittedly it’s not yet so all across the US but I know some vets in California who are very impressed with some of their modernized clinics. And I know many older people who are thankful for Medicare. Many of them receive as good or better care than their children on private plans again despite a stingy congress. Of course, YMMV but it’s better than many other places in the world.
Actually, while the reports they cited were from 1999, the data that they are based on is even older than that. It’s from 1997.
OK - breaking this sucker out again. One of my earlier posts regarding why not UHC was that I have no desire to be under a system that reminded me of my time dealing with the VA system.
Another poster did an excellent job of showing how well the VA does based on a legit survey.
However - now we have the fun back once again at Walter Wonderful…
Now - I will state that this is a nice tear-jerker article, as opposed to data regarding quality. However, I will also state that as long as news like this is out there, the American Likely Voter will vote AGAINST being forced to join this type of system.
At any rate, it appears the American people, rightly or wrongly, want universal health care. See this thread.
So, what, do the minority at least get a kiss before they get royally fucked? :dubious:
That very statement (and I believe it is quite valid) is what epitomizes what’s wrong with America (please don’t take that personally, all you americans!!) Where is the sentiment for the collective good? Your health care system works quite well for the majority of the population, but you’re letting a substatntial amount of people fall through the cracks. I can’t imagine the choices that some americans have to make, i.e do I spend more money than I can afford on some health insurance to insure that my family is safe and in turn jeopardize the ability to put food on the table or pay for rent?
I’ve got pretty good healthcare where I work. Even those of us doing OK remember when things were better.
But choices have been reduced to only one: Blue Cross/Blue Shield PPO. Years ago, we actually had a good HMO. But it couldn’t survive in the Texas economy–about the time Bush became Governor. Co-payments have increased hugely, as well.
A co-worker took early retirement because she & her husband had some health problems. Even with our “pretty good” insurance–she felt it was time to go home. Home to Canada. Because of the health care system.
And most of us think it’s ridiculous that some people depend on the ER for medical care. It would be more efficient if they could go elsewhere for checkups & routine problems. And more humane.
Some say that the Walter Reed scandal going on right now is a prime example of “why not universal health care.” Is this an apt comparison, or apples and oranges?
First of all, universal health care does not imply all or any hospitals are run by the government. Second, private hospitals often have problems also. Third, this demonstrates that incompetent administrations, without oversight, can screw anything up.
One thing that is relevant, I think, is that if we have universal healthcare we need to be ready to pay enough for decent healthcare. I can imagine a future with universal healthcare in which a conservative government cuts funding until the system is a mess, and then claims the idea is inherently flawed because it is a mess.
Furthermore, in the countries where they have government sponsored health care, what movements are actively trying to turn their systems towards a privatized system instead? For whatever complaints they might have I don’t believe that I’ve heard of any of these countries having groups sponsoring such a change to the point where it’s getting any news play. My understanding, correct me if I’m wrong on this, is that it’s not even being considered much less tried by any major political party in Canada or Great Britain.
Universal Healthcare certainly DOES imply government health care to the average American. This is especially true when people regularly state that America should have UHC just like the nations of Europe, who have their hospitals run by the government.
Now, it is not HAVE to equal that, but it certainly does IMPLY that.
Americans can look at the VA system to see what government run hospitals would be like.
Americans can look at Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare to see what a government run single payer system would be like.
Perhaps a decent UHC system in America could be different, but there is nothing wrong with looking at existing American Government run systems and extrapolating that to the nation as a whole.