Next up for the Obama admin: healthcare

Phillip Longman, author of Best Care Anywhere (Why VA Health Care Is Better Than Yours) has an interesting suggestion..

Why not use the VA model to integrate healthcare services offered to the uninsured? Longman argues this would be cheaper than what's currently being done and that the VA has the highest rate of patient satisfaction of any health care delivery system in the US. (he also points out Walter Reed is not part of the VA, btw)

If it works for the troops, why not for the uninsured? A healthcare system whose only goal is increasing the patient's health (which, it turns out, significantly reduces overall healthcare costs). Imagine that!

This could have several advantages over other proposals: politically, it would be far more palatable since it deals with the uninsured only and leaves the bulk of the current system alone; a single-payer system with guaranteed funding bails out the inner-city hospitals, who already provide the bulk of care to the uninsured anyway. This would just let them do it more efficiently; and did I mention it's cheaper? (switching a Medicare patient to the VA costs 1/3 less. That'd work out to $13 billion saved).

Bottom line: If universal coverage is the agreed upon goal, why force people w/o money into a for-profit system?

 

You are obviously not a vet or a paramedic, since you take the satisfaction at face value.

 

As a vet that uses the VA health care, in short IT SUCKS.

 

Wait a minute, didn't the liberals not even 2 years ago kick the shit out of Bush because of the inadequate care at VA hospitals? Didn't the Walter Reed thing show that Bush hated veterans? Now all of a sudden after 2 months in office it's the best model for Obama to use.



If VA care is what is pushed for the country then I want no part of it. I'm a veteran and don't use the VA hospitals.

I don't need to drive 90 miles so a Penis Machinist can tell me to take two Motrin.

 

Walter Reed isn't part of the VA. You aren't uninsured so this wouldn't apply to you. If you were uninsured the public hospital you go to now would not be moved any further away after implementing this proposal.

The article says most of the complaints about the VA are regarding problems accessing care, not poor quality of care that is actually delivered. Besides, the relevant comparison is between Medicare/Medicaid and the VA.

Again, what is the point of adding people with no money to a system that depends upon profits to function? To make less money? To cost more? Or to provide less care?

 

Have you ever had VA care? Have you ever been to a VA hospital?

I have and I'm not sure where they are getting their info on the complaints only being the access. That isn't the only problem. Yes it's the biggest problem but not the only problem.

If tax money is paying for it then it applies to me whether I use it or not.

 

Of course not. I have read stories about public hospitals not being very good. If VA care doesn't measure up to them, so be it. I am not defending what he wrote. It's an interesting article that made some very logical points is all.

 

If public hospitals in the US aren't very good (your words), Canada's must be horrible since my GF's grandfather, who lives in Canada, married to a Canadian, travels back to the US for medical care.

 

Hmm I have had care in civilian/private hospitals and I have had care at VA hospitals. I will gladly pay for private but due to existing conditions I am unable to get insurance at this time.

 

You simply will not be happy until the US is as screwed up as Canada will you?

 

That's unfair. There have been a variety of suggestions made for overhauling the US healthcare system and Obama is going to pick one of them in his first term. So I though this would be an interesting thread topic.

I tried to compare the VA to public hospitals, but all people are doing is comparing them to the private for-profit hospitals which they prefer.

I can ask the opposite: If it's not good enough for the uninsured, why is it good enough for the troops?

 

The theory of "cradle to grave" medical care is good, but trying to implement the VA system as a model is not the best one.

Private hospitals include for-profit and non-profit run hospitals. The only true public hospitals are government owned.

Insurance companies don't really have a strong interest in preventative care regardless of what they advertise. They are interested in the cost of service for short period of times only.... especially for younger patients that will typically change jobs, and thus healthcare providers, quite frequently.

 

Difference between VA healthcare, and healthcare when you are active duty. So stop saying troops as if they are still in the military, we as vets use the VA not active duty troops.

If I am just misunderstanding you then forgive me.

 

The access almost outweighs the benefit. 50 miles to the closest clinic makes just getting to the service lengthy.

Furthermore, veterans have all to often used up their bodies while earning this modest(at best) level of care.

What have the rest of the folks done to deserve the same/better care?

How about we implement an earned access? Oh yeah, not in this social climate.

 

For some things our system is prefectly adequate, for others there are problems and yah, some people do end up going to the states for medical care just because the wait lists up here can be ridiculous.

I've only ever been to the hospital a few times in my life. The most recent was to get my leg x-rayed after i lowsided off an offramp and slid into a post. I could still walk on it but it was sore, i wasn't planning on going to get it checked out by a friend said i should and convinced me to go. Anyhow, i was not an emergency but it took me about 3 hours to get in an out and it didn't cost me a dime.

For most other things i've been able to use the walk-in clinics that are around. Go in, show my healthcard, wait in line for 15-20 minutes, go see doc. I really don't think our system is as bad as y'all think it is. I do admit that it could be considered a "socialist" program so if thats something you hate then its probably not for you.

I wonder though, why are "socialist" schools, police departments and fire departments seemingly ok but hospitals are not?

The one thing that bothers me about our system is that because its "free", there are people who will go to the ER for everything! If they get a cold, go to the hospital. If it were possible to keep those people from wasting hospital resources it would help a lot.

 

Cliff Claven?

 

The VA is only for military duty related medical needs. When on active duty, you fall under the military healthcare system and Tri-Care, which is a health insurance type system. There are a couple of different versions of Tri-Care. All active duty members are in Tri-Care Prime, which is more or less like a nationwide HMO. Family members can be enrolled in Prime or Standard. We pay annual premiums and Co-pays for them. Standard is less restricitive as far as providers, but a bit more expensive. Then there is another program for members who not near a military installation, I'm not sure what that is called.

When you are discharged, you loose all medical benefits. However, anything attributed to military service will be taken care of by the VA. As a retiree, I recieve healthcare through Tri-Care for Life. Again, the choices are Prime or Standard but at higher premium rates and Co-Pays. The "Life" part is there until I am eligible for Medicare part B. Then it stops and we are under Medicare.

 

I've just been in the industry for 12 years.

 

Hmmm, the facts in that article seem mighty inconvenient...

The W Post is inconvenient too: VA Care Is Rated Superior to That in Private Hospitals

I think the problem may simply be a cognitive dissonance, between ideology and reality. If a gov't agency can deliver better care at lower cost than the private sector what will happen to all those people who believe the only answer is profit and the free market? Their heads will explode.

 

There in lies the problem... exploding heads are not covered.