(08-21-2017, 01:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I've used the VA in Orlando and in Daytona since I separated from the service.  I was not impressed at all, thankfully it was for routine issues I have to deal with rather than anything major.  I definately would not go to the VA for anything psychological like PTSD.  Maybe you found a decent apple in a barrel of bad ones.  It happens sometimes.

I would argue that Medicare for Everyone would not preclude the establishment of clinics and sundry providers.  Ideally we should have the actual provision of services private while the insurance aspects would be public.  This would bring us into line with counties like Germany which use the Bismarck Model.

(08-21-2017, 06:09 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 01:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I've used the VA in Orlando and in Daytona since I separated from the service.  I was not impressed at all, thankfully it was for routine issues I have to deal with rather than anything major.  I definately would not go to the VA for anything psychological like PTSD.  Maybe you found a decent apple in a barrel of bad ones.  It happens sometimes.

I would argue that Medicare for Everyone would not preclude the establishment of clinics and sundry providers.  Ideally we should have the actual provision of services private while the insurance aspects would be public.  This would bring us into line with counties like Germany which use the Bismarck Model.

Part of it is the notion that one should keep cutting domestic services.  There is only so much you can cut and still give the illusion of doing what one is supposed to be doing.  The VA wasn't always this bad.  There's nothing wrong with the model, but a lot wrong with the politicians that are crippling it.  Some folk have economic values, and saving a buck is just more important than helping people.

It's different if your not the person saving a buck, but the person who needs help.

(08-22-2017, 06:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well it appears that my original proposal of kicking healthcare to the states is gaining traction.  Rick Santorum is back on the Hill and has a plan to basically block grant funds to states to establish their own systems designed for their needs.  An idea that I kicked around here for more than a little bit.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/22/exclusive-rick-santorum-crafting-different-obamacare-repeal-plan-with-lawmakers-it-will-pass-through-the-house-and-the-senate/

(08-23-2017, 10:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 06:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well it appears that my original proposal of kicking healthcare to the states is gaining traction.  Rick Santorum is back on the Hill and has a plan to basically block grant funds to states to establish their own systems designed for their needs.  An idea that I kicked around here for more than a little bit.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/22/exclusive-rick-santorum-crafting-different-obamacare-repeal-plan-with-lawmakers-it-will-pass-through-the-house-and-the-senate/

Be careful what you wish for.  Considering who you have as a governor, living in Florida may be hazardous to you health.

(08-21-2017, 09:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for the VA, well, there are veterans in every generation in my family less the youngest one (they aren't old enough yet).  Our collective memory of the VA and its services are almost universally poor.  My grandfather (a WW2 vet, deceased now) said that he wouldn't put his dog in a VA hospital.  My uncles (both Vietnam Vets, one Army the other USMC) refused to use those services unless they absolutely had to.  My cousins (Gulf War I vets) were thoroughly unimpressed with the VA.  And of course you have my impressions of it.

Could a model like the VA be used?  Yes.  Can it even be good?  Yes, the UK's NHS is fairly decent.  But in order to make it workable it would have to be universalized so as poor service, and lack of funding comes on the backs of the political class, as is the case in the UK.  The VA is as bad as it is, I suspect because a fraction of a fraction of the population use it and thus there isn't a powerful voting bloc to rail for necessary improvements.

(08-24-2017, 10:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 09:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for the VA, well, there are veterans in every generation in my family less the youngest one (they aren't old enough yet).  Our collective memory of the VA and its services are almost universally poor.  My grandfather (a WW2 vet, deceased now) said that he wouldn't put his dog in a VA hospital.  My uncles (both Vietnam Vets, one Army the other USMC) refused to use those services unless they absolutely had to.  My cousins (Gulf War I vets) were thoroughly unimpressed with the VA.  And of course you have my impressions of it.

Could a model like the VA be used?  Yes.  Can it even be good?  Yes, the UK's NHS is fairly decent.  But in order to make it workable it would have to be universalized so as poor service, and lack of funding comes on the backs of the political class, as is the case in the UK.  The VA is as bad as it is, I suspect because a fraction of a fraction of the population use it and thus there isn't a powerful voting bloc to rail for necessary improvements.

I agree with your assessment of the VA.  However, I have some in laws in the UK, and the NHS is not any better.  It's just that most Brits have never known anything else, so they don't realize how bad it is.

It's simply not possible for mandatory monopolies to render good service.  Their internal incentive are wrong.

(08-24-2017, 10:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 09:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for the VA, well, there are veterans in every generation in my family less the youngest one (they aren't old enough yet).  Our collective memory of the VA and its services are almost universally poor.  My grandfather (a WW2 vet, deceased now) said that he wouldn't put his dog in a VA hospital.  My uncles (both Vietnam Vets, one Army the other USMC) refused to use those services unless they absolutely had to.  My cousins (Gulf War I vets) were thoroughly unimpressed with the VA.  And of course you have my impressions of it.

Could a model like the VA be used?  Yes.  Can it even be good?  Yes, the UK's NHS is fairly decent.  But in order to make it workable it would have to be universalized so as poor service, and lack of funding comes on the backs of the political class, as is the case in the UK.  The VA is as bad as it is, I suspect because a fraction of a fraction of the population use it and thus there isn't a powerful voting bloc to rail for necessary improvements.

I agree with your assessment of the VA.  However, I have some in laws in the UK, and the NHS is not any better.  It's just that most Brits have never known anything else, so they don't realize how bad it is.

It's simply not possible for mandatory monopolies to render good service.  Their internal incentive are wrong.

(08-25-2017, 11:41 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 10:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 09:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for the VA, well, there are veterans in every generation in my family less the youngest one (they aren't old enough yet).  Our collective memory of the VA and its services are almost universally poor.  My grandfather (a WW2 vet, deceased now) said that he wouldn't put his dog in a VA hospital.  My uncles (both Vietnam Vets, one Army the other USMC) refused to use those services unless they absolutely had to.  My cousins (Gulf War I vets) were thoroughly unimpressed with the VA.  And of course you have my impressions of it.

Could a model like the VA be used?  Yes.  Can it even be good?  Yes, the UK's NHS is fairly decent.  But in order to make it workable it would have to be universalized so as poor service, and lack of funding comes on the backs of the political class, as is the case in the UK.  The VA is as bad as it is, I suspect because a fraction of a fraction of the population use it and thus there isn't a powerful voting bloc to rail for necessary improvements.

I agree with your assessment of the VA.  However, I have some in laws in the UK, and the NHS is not any better.  It's just that most Brits have never known anything else, so they don't realize how bad it is.

It's simply not possible for mandatory monopolies to render good service.  Their internal incentive are wrong.

Sounds like a reason to keep provision of services private while making most of the insurance public.

(08-25-2017, 12:51 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 10:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-21-2017, 09:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for the VA, well, there are veterans in every generation in my family less the youngest one (they aren't old enough yet).  Our collective memory of the VA and its services are almost universally poor.  My grandfather (a WW2 vet, deceased now) said that he wouldn't put his dog in a VA hospital.  My uncles (both Vietnam Vets, one Army the other USMC) refused to use those services unless they absolutely had to.  My cousins (Gulf War I vets) were thoroughly unimpressed with the VA.  And of course you have my impressions of it.

Could a model like the VA be used?  Yes.  Can it even be good?  Yes, the UK's NHS is fairly decent.  But in order to make it workable it would have to be universalized so as poor service, and lack of funding comes on the backs of the political class, as is the case in the UK.  The VA is as bad as it is, I suspect because a fraction of a fraction of the population use it and thus there isn't a powerful voting bloc to rail for necessary improvements.

I agree with your assessment of the VA.  However, I have some in laws in the UK, and the NHS is not any better.  It's just that most Brits have never known anything else, so they don't realize how bad it is.

It's simply not possible for mandatory monopolies to render good service.  Their internal incentive are wrong.

H-m-m-m.  Apparently you have rich in-laws in the UK, because 90+% of Brits love the service.  And your comment on mandatory monopolies also applies to the police, fire services and, not coincidently, the military.

(08-18-2017, 07:23 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: If I were to suggest a model, I would suggest that it be as follows:

1.  Abolish medicaid, SCHIP, VA Hospitals (and yes I'm a "vet" too--I just served during a time of relative peace in a service unlikely to see action except in "big ones") and other sundry programs.
2.  Expand medicare to cover everyone and cover any procedures deemed by doctors to be medically necessary. 
3.  Allow private insurance to cover elective procedures
4.  Reduce total qualification age of medicare to birth.

Problem solved.  It will never be implemented of course because it makes too much sense.  Also this is the very ideas that have been pushed by Dennis Kuchinich since forever.

(08-26-2017, 06:11 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:23 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: If I were to suggest a model, I would suggest that it be as follows:

1.  Abolish medicaid, SCHIP, VA Hospitals (and yes I'm a "vet" too--I just served during a time of relative peace in a service unlikely to see action except in "big ones") and other sundry programs.
2.  Expand medicare to cover everyone and cover any procedures deemed by doctors to be medically necessary. 
3.  Allow private insurance to cover elective procedures
4.  Reduce total qualification age of medicare to birth.

Problem solved.  It will never be implemented of course because it makes too much sense.  Also this is the very ideas that have been pushed by Dennis Kuchinich since forever.

That's close to Canadian-style Medicare, which your side strenuously opposes and has opposed for 70 years.

(08-26-2017, 06:11 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:23 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: If I were to suggest a model, I would suggest that it be as follows:

1.  Abolish medicaid, SCHIP, VA Hospitals (and yes I'm a "vet" too--I just served during a time of relative peace in a service unlikely to see action except in "big ones") and other sundry programs.
2.  Expand medicare to cover everyone and cover any procedures deemed by doctors to be medically necessary. 
3.  Allow private insurance to cover elective procedures
4.  Reduce total qualification age of medicare to birth.

Problem solved.  It will never be implemented of course because it makes too much sense.  Also this is the very ideas that have been pushed by Dennis Kuchinich since forever.

That's close to Canadian-style Medicare, which your side strenuously opposes and has opposed for 70 years.

(08-26-2017, 06:23 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 06:11 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:23 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: If I were to suggest a model, I would suggest that it be as follows:

1.  Abolish medicaid, SCHIP, VA Hospitals (and yes I'm a "vet" too--I just served during a time of relative peace in a service unlikely to see action except in "big ones") and other sundry programs.
2.  Expand medicare to cover everyone and cover any procedures deemed by doctors to be medically necessary. 
3.  Allow private insurance to cover elective procedures
4.  Reduce total qualification age of medicare to birth.

Problem solved.  It will never be implemented of course because it makes too much sense.  Also this is the very ideas that have been pushed by Dennis Kuchinich since forever.

That's close to Canadian-style Medicare, which your side strenuously opposes and has opposed for 70 years.

It seems Kinser is favoring single payer on health care, is not toeing the Republican / Conservative line at all in health care.  I'm not sure why, but I'm not complaining.

(08-25-2017, 03:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-25-2017, 12:51 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-24-2017, 10:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I agree with your assessment of the VA.  However, I have some in laws in the UK, and the NHS is not any better.  It's just that most Brits have never known anything else, so they don't realize how bad it is.

It's simply not possible for mandatory monopolies to render good service.  Their internal incentive are wrong.

H-m-m-m.  Apparently you have rich in-laws in the UK, because 90+% of Brits love the service.  And your comment on mandatory monopolies also applies to the police, fire services and, not coincidently, the military.

I've bolded the part that already addresses your first point.

Let's see, what about the other monopolies you mention?  Police - disavow any duty to protect the citizenry; only go after criminals after the fact and leave many cases unsolved.  Fire services - some areas have private fire services and it seems to work.  The military - mistakenly invade entire countries based on false reports about stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.  Yes, looks like my comment applies.

(08-26-2017, 02:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I also support implementing a program to encourage people to write out living wills and DNR orders.  The most expense in health care comes from the end of life.  A lot of the time that is spending more and more money for less and less return.

(08-31-2017, 11:15 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I also support implementing a program to encourage people to write out living wills and DNR orders.  The most expense in health care comes from the end of life.  A lot of the time that is spending more and more money for less and less return.

Both my parents had living wills and DNR, as do I myself.  I'm not aggressively pushing it though to individuals, though.  Some decisions should be made personally or in family.

Dictionary Wrote:b :  to attempt to persuade :  urge they [i]encouraged him to go back to school[/i]

(08-26-2017, 02:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Mike, I seriously doubt you actually know what side I'm on.  I actually opposed Obamacare on the grounds of "It doesn't go far enough".

(09-01-2017, 11:31 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Mike, I seriously doubt you actually know what side I'm on.  I actually opposed Obamacare on the grounds of "It doesn't go far enough".

As for where you are ideologically I have no idea.  You might have been like David Horowitz, once on the extreme left and then shifted to the extreme right without spending anytime in the region in  between.  You may be an intelligent man with shit economic prospects with ideas of how things could be better who has a weakness for authoritarian figures. Or something else.  Whatever.

But that doesn't really matter. You have rhetorically embraced Trump in a way you used to embrace Stalin. By side you're on I meant the side you have chosen to embrace, that is, Trump's side. And Trump's side is 100% opposed to single payer health insurance.

(09-01-2017, 01:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-01-2017, 11:31 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(08-26-2017, 02:46 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Mike, I seriously doubt you actually know what side I'm on.  I actually opposed Obamacare on the grounds of "It doesn't go far enough".

As for where you are ideologically I have no idea.  You might have been like David Horowitz, once on the extreme left and then shifted to the extreme right without spending anytime in the region in  between.  You may be an intelligent man with shit economic prospects with ideas of how things could be better who has a weakness for authoritarian figures. Or something else.  Whatever.

But that doesn't really matter. You have rhetorically embraced Trump in a way you used to embrace Stalin. By side you're on I meant the side you have chosen to embrace, that is, Trump's side. And Trump's side is 100% opposed to single payer health insurance.

Duginism / National Boshevism / Eurasianism is a pathway for someone like Kinser79 to embrace Trumpism, or other related or emergent isms. It is also a pathway for Fascists, Nazis, and others of those nether regions. It is the Red-Brown Axis.