Obama and the VA scandal

[Fly Rod]

Massachusetts has one of the best run VA's in the country...I wonder Y?...maybe it is because we have some of the best hospitals and specialist...a couple of my doctors at Brigham and Women's also spend time with vetrans.

Spence: As far as Obama, he promised to fix the VA under his watch as far back as 2007-2008 in his speeches running for the presidency... as all his other speeches he tells the people what they want to hear and does not follow through...after all he took up radicalism at harvard...he failed and as I stated every other president has basically failed....it is also assumed that he knew the books were cooked to permit rewards to staff as far back as 2008....and the senate just the other day refused to hear a bill that would make it easier to fire VA workers...we can blame the unions for that...the bottom line is they will just throw some dollars into it to satisfy a few and in a month or two it will be forgotten.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence: As far as Obama, he promised to fix the VA under his watch as far back as 2007-2008 in his speeches running for the presidency... as all his other speeches he tells the people what they want to hear and does not follow through...after all he took up radicalism at harvard...he failed and as I stated every other president has basically failed....it is also assumed that he knew the books were cooked to permit rewards to staff as far back as 2008....and the senate just the other day refused to hear a bill that would make it easier to fire VA workers...we can blame the unions for that...the bottom line is they will just throw some dollars into it to satisfy a few and in a month or two it will be forgotten.

Fix is a pretty vague term, even with the AZ issues -- which are pretty disturbing mind you -- a lot of the VA system does appear to work well and some things like funding and wait times Obama appears to have helped improve. Have Republicans helped or hurt the process?

I'm not sure why you think it's "assumed" that he knew of wrongdoing as far back as 2008. I've never heard any such accusation let alone evidence that would make it assumed. The only evidence available indicates Obama learned about it in September when CNN broke the story.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Fix is a pretty vague term, even with the AZ issues -- which are pretty disturbing mind you -- a lot of the VA system does appear to work well and some things like funding and wait times Obama appears to have helped improve.

-spence

I don't call waiting lists and deaths because of them appear that Obama "appears "to have helped improve is any kind of improvement.
As the shortage of Docs increase and the population gets older there can't
help but be priority lists with Obamacare too.

[Tagger]

Republican's talk out both sides of their mouths and hang everything on Obama .
Most challenging time to be president with 2 wars and a collapsed economy . Get rid of all these Bums or bring back " Hell No ,, We won't Go !! " .. flame on ..

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I don't call waiting lists and deaths because of them appear that Obama "appears "to have helped improve is any kind of improvement.

You're talking about one part of a large system.

As the shortage of Docs increase and the population gets older there can't help but be priority lists with Obamacare too.

There always have been priority lists and there always will be. Even with private insurance you don't think they have their own version of the "death panel" to modulate shareholder value?

As the population gets older people will be on medicare anyway and they'll consume the majority of the care. You're going to have capacity issues regardless.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're talking about one part of a large system.

That's the beauty of a large system. If someone dares to talk about one part of it, they can be dismissed without discussion since their concern is so minimal compared with the massive bureaucracy that comprises the system. Sort of like all encompassing centralized government.

There always have been priority lists and there always will be. Even with private insurance you don't think they have their own version of the "death panel" to modulate shareholder value?

I don't know if they do. But they have specific, spelled out, benefits and limitations. And they can be bullied or convicted by government aided by sharp lawyers into paying for things they might object to. It's kind of difficult to convince the government to bully or convict itself in such cases (unless votes are in the balance). And private insurers provide a plethora of "versions," and, until the ACA, were not forced to provide certain things in all "versions." You were more able to get what you paid for rather than being coerced to pay for what you were forced to get.

As the population gets older people will be on medicare anyway and they'll consume the majority of the care. You're going to have capacity issues regardless.

-spence

And . . . how, again, was the ACA going to make this better and "more affordable"? Oh yeah, that's right . . . it was going to force the subsidization of some, without choice, at the expense of others. Right . . . that's how large bureaucratic centralized socialistic systems work. In every respect. Except for some very "special" cases, like abortion, where choice is paramount.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's the beauty of a large system. If someone dares to talk about one part of it, they can be dismissed without discussion since their concern is so minimal compared with the massive bureaucracy that comprises the system. Sort of like all encompassing centralized government.

No, it just means the subject has to be looked at in a broader context. This myopic focus our political system seems to have makes any effort towards real policy impossible.

I don't know if they do. But they have specific, spelled out, benefits and limitations. And they can be bullied or convicted by government aided by sharp lawyers into paying for things they might object to. It's kind of difficult to convince the government to bully or convict itself in such cases (unless votes are in the balance). And private insurers provide a plethora of "versions," and, until the ACA, were not forced to provide certain things in all "versions." You were more able to get what you paid for rather than being coerced to pay for what you were forced to get.

Funny, for the benefits and limitations being so specific and spelled out I still have a terrible time trying to determine what's actually covered.

Are people really getting what they pay for if they don't even know what they're getting?

And . . . how, again, was the ACA going to make this better and "more affordable"? Oh yeah, that's right . . . it was going to force the subsidization of some, without choice, at the expense of others. Right . . . that's how large bureaucratic centralized socialistic systems work. In every respect. Except for some very "special" cases, like abortion, where choice is paramount.

I don't know if the ACA was intended to address VA issues.

Cost cutting comes from reforms more than just economies of scale. For instance one of the big changes the reform makes is place the emphasis on the value of care rather than the volume. Doing so has the potential to eliminate a tremendous amount of waste while improving quality.

I remember reading an article in HBR (by Porter?) some years ago stating exactly this.

-spence