Originally posted by travlin'easy:
Bill,
I'm not going to argue with you about this--you have your views, and sincerely believe they are the salvation of medicine as we know it today. I have mine, which are diametrically opposed. You believe the VA healthcare system is popular--I know for a fact it is not.
Yes, I paid for my heart attack with my health insurance, which I pay for monthly. I earned the money, I shelled it out.
Today, I worked, just as I have been for most of my life. I know for a fact I didn't make enough to pay this week's taxes, let alone this month's taxes. Funny thing about the OMB claiming we all pay less taxes, the report I read only talked about income tax, which is the least amount we pay. They tend to forget about little matters such as gasoline tax, real-estate tax, personal property tax, and a massive number of other taxes that we pay on everything on the planet, all of which have increased dramatically over the past three decades.
Bottom's up guys and gals,
Gary
Hold up, Gary...
We're participating in a discussion, we're not arguing. I have not really elaborated as to how I think we should fix things other than a passing reference to a single-payer like medicare for all.
I have commented on what I understand the problems to be with our HC system and provided links, citations, etc.
You claim your thoughts on the VA are "fact." Well, maybe...maybe not. All I know is what my research tells me, not what a preconceived notion or an anecdote does.
From Wiki on the VA satisfaction:
"Patients routinely rank the veterans system above the alternatives, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index." In 2008, the VHA got a satisfaction rating of 85 for inpatient treatment, compared with 77 for private hospitals. In the same report the VHA outpatient care scored 3 points higher than for private hospitals. [3]
"As compared with the Medicare fee-for-service program, the VA performed significantly better on all 11 similar quality indicators for the period from 1997 through 1999. In 2000, the VA outperformed Medicare on 12 of 13 indicators." [4]
A study that compared VHA with commercial managed care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients found that in all seven measures of quality, the VHA provided better care. [5]
A RAND Corporation study in 2004 concluded that the VHA outperforms all other sectors of American health care in 294 measures of quality; Patients from the VHA scored significantly higher for adjusted overall quality, chronic disease care, and preventive care, but not for acute care. [6]
A 2009 Congressional Budget Office report on the VHA found that "the care provided to VHA patients compares favorably with that provided to non-VHA patients in terms of compliance with widely recognized clinical guidelines — particularly those that VHA has emphasized in its internal performance measurement system. Such research is complicated by the fact that most users of VHA’s services receive at least part of their care from outside providers." [2]
All Leftist, Socialist BS? C'mon...Look at the data. Tell me where they're findings are erroneous. Show me where their conclusions are biased. These are the big boys in the HC Industry world and they don't screw around making up demons.
Heaven forbid that a Socialist modeled HC system outperform a private one.
Congrats on the ability to pay out of pocket for your cardiac treatment in spite of being eligible for medicare. You say you paid for it, out of pocket, via your private health insurance. Which means other people helped pay for your bill. Just like you've helped pay countless other people's bills through the years as well. You're willfully participating in a socialist system. Yet the discussion of applying such a model on a national scale seems wrong to you. Further, you apparently passed up on taking advantage of some Medicare benefits you paid for and are entitled to. That's a little inconsistent...
I think we need to stop looking at the word Socialist like its a bad word. The current, capitalistic path we're on is unsustainable. Unless somebody comes up with something totally new, never before even though of, then we're going to have to make some big changes sooner or later. The ACA signed by Obama in late March is a timid approach to what we really need. yes, there are some good things in it, but it doesn't do anything of significance on reducing HC costs. At 16-17% of our GDP, we've two choices. Lowering HC costs, which means either covering less people or spending less (rationing) which can impact quality. If we want to address access and provide HC for all, then we have to have an adult conversation on how we could pay for it. (Taxes) Anyone who says they can cover everyone, improve quality and lower costs is lying. What a mess...
Like you said, bottoms up, buddy...
------------------
Bill in Dayton
[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 05-23-2010).]
Previous Topic
Index