RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals.

RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/24/2014 7:46:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Yet more proof that it's always a good idea for government to be in charge of health care. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? Perhaps we should have a private army and navy? Maybe for profit courts?

thishereboi -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/24/2014 7:48:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi I am not either. But government systems seem to excel at it. Perhaps a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could remove this mind numbing level of ignorance. Did you have anything intelligent to add or were you just sticking with personal attacks today? Not that I expect much more from you, bold letters and all. But maybe someday you will surprise us all.

thompsonx -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/24/2014 8:02:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi I am not either. But government systems seem to excel at it. Perhaps a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could remove this mind numbing level of ignorance. Did you have anything intelligent to add or were you just sticking with personal attacks today? Not that I expect much more from you, bold letters and all. But maybe someday you will surprise us all. Not a personal attack at all ...simply a request that you acquaint yourself with the level of korporate koruption that existed until government intervention stopped it before you embarrase yourself again with moronic statements like the one I responded to.

MercTech -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/24/2014 8:09:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Yet more proof that it's always a good idea for government to be in charge of health care. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? Perhaps we should have a private army and navy? Maybe for profit courts? Private army? These are the guys to call when you want one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi Private Navy? I haven't seen one for open ocean but if you need coastal defense or riverine patrol services, you can order those up easily. As to "for profit courts" have a look at the fine print in the "binding arbitration" clauses in contracts and EULA documents. With current rates for "court costs" and legal fees; the government courts are certainly profitable already.

TheHeretic -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/24/2014 9:37:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Yet more proof that it's always a good idea for government to be in charge of health care. The VA is the existing model of what government run healthcare looks like, Michael. Allow me to set aside the pathetic nature of the response your post drew (at great personal effort), and we'll take it as a straight answer. Joether said: quote: No, to allow Republican/Tea Party to control healthcare.... On top of all the other challenges, we get partisan bickering as a component of the system - seems like he's making still another argument against it, doesn't he? In principle, I actually like the idea of providing basic universal healthcare as a legitimate function of our government. (Not very Libertarian of me, is it?) There are a hell of a lot of catches and questions to pass on the way though, and as long as the blind supporters of such a notion respond to them with nothing besides the common idiocy displayed by Joether's post, it's an idea that is going to have to wait.

joether -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 5:32:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Yet more proof that it's always a good idea for government to be in charge of health care. The VA is the existing model of what government run healthcare looks like, Michael. Allow me to set aside the pathetic nature of the response your post drew (at great personal effort), and we'll take it as a straight answer. No its not! Its what the Republican/Tea Party would like government healthcare to operate and run. Since the dollars to run it come out of the Defense Budget. And who's 'sacred cow' is the Defense Budget? The Republican/Tea Party. Now if you want an example of a Democratic healthcare system, check out the one in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It runs better than any of the other states in the country. It might cost more than other states, but then, its more expensive to live here than in other states. If Democrats did not water down the ACA shortly before its vote to appease the Republican/Tea Party, it would have been a much better document. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Joether said: quote: No, to allow Republican/Tea Party to control healthcare.... On top of all the other challenges, we get partisan bickering as a component of the system - seems like he's making still another argument against it, doesn't he? Pot calling the Kettle, Black! quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic In principle, I actually like the idea of providing basic universal healthcare as a legitimate function of our government. (Not very Libertarian of me, is it?) There are a hell of a lot of catches and questions to pass on the way though, and as long as the blind supporters of such a notion respond to them with nothing besides the common idiocy displayed by Joether's post, it's an idea that is going to have to wait. Its amusing, all you can do is slam me over petty things. Not one word let alone a sentence towards advancing the subject matter itself. That's the problem with libertarians today: no decent ideas on what to do at the federal level to improve American and her citizen's lives. This thread started to express the outrage at how our veterans are treated from a healthcare point of view. And that it should be vastly improved upon from its current state. I would go so far as saying, if there was a way to replicate the nature of things in Massachusetts towards VA Hospitals would be a serious improvement overall. Oh, and I know a few of the posters on here, are both veterans and in some instances, go to the VA Hospitals. Curious how none of them support your viewpoint Heretic.....

Zonie63 -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 5:42:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Yet more proof that it's always a good idea for government to be in charge of health care. The VA is the existing model of what government run healthcare looks like, Michael. Allow me to set aside the pathetic nature of the response your post drew (at great personal effort), and we'll take it as a straight answer. There's nothing automatic about government corruption, though. The government told the VA that they're required to make appointments and see patients within a certain time frame, and the VA refused to follow that directive and tried to cover it up. All they had to do was what they were told, and they refused. The main problem seems to be a lack of any real supervision or centralized internal enforcement system within government to police itself. The fact that something like this has to be discovered and exposed by the media, rather than within the government itself, speaks volumes. People who worked at that VA hospital were afraid to speak up or go to higher ups for fear of losing their jobs. This, in and of itself, demonstrates a serious flaw within the system which will have to be checked. I don't think there's any rule of Nature that says that government must be corrupt, inefficient, wasteful, or incompetent. It's just that we as Americans seem to expect government to be that way, which is why there's a widespread lack of willingness to actually do anything about it.

DaddySatyr -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 5:44:04 AM)
I agree with your first sentence and I think it is incumbent upon us to redouble our efforts, when we're talking about people that have served this country. I also agree with the second sentence. Far too often I have seen people that identify as being on the left loudly proclaiming that it is not the government's business what happens between a lady and her doctor (and I tend to agree) but these same people then talk about government having a *right* to involve themselves with the process, if they're footing the bill. Consistency does not abound. I have a real problem with government having *any* entré into what goes on between any person and their doctor. It just sticks in my craw. Then we have the claim of "Death Panels". While that might be an overly colorful name, wouldn't bureaucrats, being involved in the "chain of command" for medical services essentially have the power of life and death over some situations? You bet your ass they would! I would be all for basic health services paid for by the government (pronounced: "our tax dollars") as long as writing the check was the *only* involvement of the government. Until that gets worked out, I stand opposed to what gets thrown around as "single payer" health services. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic In principle, I actually like the idea of providing basic universal healthcare as a legitimate function of our government. (Not very Libertarian of me, is it?) There are a hell of a lot of catches and questions to pass on the way though, and as long as the blind supporters of such a notion respond to them with nothing besides the common idiocy displayed by Xxxxxxx's post, it's an idea that is going to have to wait. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me

thishereboi -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 5:58:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi I am not either. But government systems seem to excel at it. Perhaps a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could remove this mind numbing level of ignorance. Did you have anything intelligent to add or were you just sticking with personal attacks today? Not that I expect much more from you, bold letters and all. But maybe someday you will surprise us all. Not a personal attack at all ...simply a request that you acquaint yourself with the level of korporate koruption that existed until government intervention stopped it before you embarrase yourself again with moronic statements like the one I responded to. Did I say the government never did anything good in the past? No I didn't think I did, but for some reason, maybe lack of reading skills, you seem to think I did. But that's ok TX, if you want to bury your nose up their ass and sing their praises, knock your little socks off. Personally I am not that gullible and my memory is not that short.

TheHeretic -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 6:03:46 AM)
Good points, Michael. I have an early meeting down in LA, followed by a beast of a day, and need to dash, but I'll try to get back to this. Have a good one!

thompsonx -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 7:05:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I agree with your first sentence and I think it is incumbent upon us to redouble our efforts, when we're talking about people that have served this country. I also agree with the second sentence. Far too often I have seen people that identify as being on the left loudly proclaiming that it is not the government's business what happens between a lady and her doctor (and I tend to agree) but these same people then talk about government having a *right* to involve themselves with the process, if they're footing the bill. Consistency does not abound. This is a false comparison. The insurer, whether it is a single payer govt or a for profit korporation, is required to be involved in the payment of fees for services rendered. It is not thier perview to involve themselves in the interpersonal relationship between doctor and patient. Consequently no consistancy problems except for those who wish to create them. I have a real problem with government having *any* entré into what goes on between any person and their doctor. It just sticks in my craw. Where have you seen the so called left disagreeing with this? Then we have the claim of "Death Panels". While that might be an overly colorful name, wouldn't bureaucrats, being involved in the "chain of command" for medical services essentially have the power of life and death over some situations? You bet your ass they would! How does that differ from what the insurance companies have now? No money no service I would be all for basic health services paid for by the government (pronounced: "our tax dollars") as long as writing the check was the *only* involvement of the government. Until that gets worked out, I stand opposed to what gets thrown around as "single payer" health services. That does not seem to be an unworkable solution.

thompsonx -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 7:48:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Not a personal attack at all ...simply a request that you acquaint yourself with the level of korporate koruption that existed until government intervention stopped it before you embarrase yourself again with moronic statements like the one I responded to. Did I say the government never did anything good in the past? You said that the government excelled at corruption. Now to those of us who speak english that means that the government is better at corruption than the private sector. Had you used a history book written for an adult for something other than a paperweight you would have known that your statement was less than accurate. No I didn't think That is abundantly clear. I did, but for some reason, maybe lack of reading skills, you seem to think I did. We were not discussing whether the govt had ever done anything good,That is simply an attempt on your part to weasel out of responsibility of the mindnumbingly stupid statement you made,we were discussing the abillity of the govt to limit korporate korruption. But that's ok TX, if you want to bury your nose up their ass and sing their praises, knock your little socks off. Pointing out your abysmal ignorance of u.s. economic history is in your opinion "burrying my nose up their ass and singing their praises"...how droll. Personally I am not that gullible and my memory is not that short. Obviously your memory is that short for you not to remember my many post pointing out the shortcommings of my government.

thompsonx -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 7:52:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Perhaps we should have a private army and navy? Maybe for profit courts? Private army? These are the guys to call when you want one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi Really???That pile of punkassmotherfuckers could not raise a fucking division let alone an army? Perhaps you might want to check what they charge vs. the u.s. army. Then of course there is the question of letting them have nukes. Private Navy? I haven't seen one for open ocean but if you need coastal defense or riverine patrol services, you can order those up easily. [8\|] As to "for profit courts" have a look at the fine print in the "binding arbitration" clauses in contracts and EULA documents. With current rates for "court costs" and legal fees; the government courts are certainly profitable already. How about a for profit court system run by microsoft or chase bank?

Musicmystery -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 8:12:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I agree with your first sentence and I think it is incumbent upon us to redouble our efforts, when we're talking about people that have served this country. I also agree with the second sentence. Far too often I have seen people that identify as being on the left loudly proclaiming that it is not the government's business what happens between a lady and her doctor (and I tend to agree) but these same people then talk about government having a *right* to involve themselves with the process, if they're footing the bill. Consistency does not abound. I have a real problem with government having *any* entré into what goes on between any person and their doctor. It just sticks in my craw. Then we have the claim of "Death Panels". While that might be an overly colorful name, wouldn't bureaucrats, being involved in the "chain of command" for medical services essentially have the power of life and death over some situations? You bet your ass they would! I would be all for basic health services paid for by the government (pronounced: "our tax dollars") as long as writing the check was the *only* involvement of the government. Until that gets worked out, I stand opposed to what gets thrown around as "single payer" health services. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic In principle, I actually like the idea of providing basic universal healthcare as a legitimate function of our government. (Not very Libertarian of me, is it?) There are a hell of a lot of catches and questions to pass on the way though, and as long as the blind supporters of such a notion respond to them with nothing besides the common idiocy displayed by Xxxxxxx's post, it's an idea that is going to have to wait. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me Michael, I'm not aware of anything in reality according to your second paragraph. Can you point me to specific instances and enlighten me? Thanks. There are already "death panels," and have been for quite some time. Hospitals have contingency plans. If there's an epidemic of the flu, and there aren't enough respirators, they have to decide who gets them and who toughs it out. Those plans are in place. For example, 35 year old mother with four kids is gonna get a respirator before a 65 year old man.

Phydeaux -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 8:35:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I agree with your first sentence and I think it is incumbent upon us to redouble our efforts, when we're talking about people that have served this country. I also agree with the second sentence. Far too often I have seen people that identify as being on the left loudly proclaiming that it is not the government's business what happens between a lady and her doctor (and I tend to agree) but these same people then talk about government having a *right* to involve themselves with the process, if they're footing the bill. Consistency does not abound. I have a real problem with government having *any* entré into what goes on between any person and their doctor. It just sticks in my craw. Then we have the claim of "Death Panels". While that might be an overly colorful name, wouldn't bureaucrats, being involved in the "chain of command" for medical services essentially have the power of life and death over some situations? You bet your ass they would! I would be all for basic health services paid for by the government (pronounced: "our tax dollars") as long as writing the check was the *only* involvement of the government. Until that gets worked out, I stand opposed to what gets thrown around as "single payer" health services. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic In principle, I actually like the idea of providing basic universal healthcare as a legitimate function of our government. (Not very Libertarian of me, is it?) There are a hell of a lot of catches and questions to pass on the way though, and as long as the blind supporters of such a notion respond to them with nothing besides the common idiocy displayed by Xxxxxxx's post, it's an idea that is going to have to wait. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me Michael, I'm not aware of anything in reality according to your second paragraph. Can you point me to specific instances and enlighten me? Thanks. There are already "death panels," and have been for quite some time. Hospitals have contingency plans. If there's an epidemic of the flu, and there aren't enough respirators, they have to decide who gets them and who toughs it out. Those plans are in place. For example, 35 year old mother with four kids is gonna get a respirator before a 65 year old man. Hardly the same thing, now is it. One is a government body prioritizing care in the case of a medical emergency. The other is the government prioritizing all (ACA) care, isn't it.

Musicmystery -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 8:40:26 AM)
In other words, both are government prioritizing health care in the instance of insufficient available care. That's the point, isn't it.

thompsonx -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 8:45:25 AM)
Hardly the same thing, now is it. It is exactly the same thing. One is a government body prioritizing care in the case of a medical emergency. The other is the government prioritizing all (ACA) care, isn't it. Do not the insurance companies prioritize all care in the u.s. on an economic bassis?

DaddySatyr -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 9:36:25 AM)
Actually, any decent search of these boards using keywords like "Health care" and "Patient Doctor" and "Government control Health care" would probably net you some decent results. I really don't do peoples' research for them, anymore. You know what names to plug into the search field, too. I will go find you one quote (this'll be easy). http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4071247 Clearly makes the case that NO ONE should "poke their nose" into what goes on between a doctor and patient. I'm almost positive that reading the same user's posts will show statements about supporting government "administering" or "regulating" what health providers will be able to and not be able to under a "single payer" system. I just refuse to waste my time, looking through them all when I know they exist. Have fun. quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I also agree with the second sentence. Far too often I have seen people that identify as being on the left loudly proclaiming that it is not the government's business what happens between a lady and her doctor (and I tend to agree) but these same people then talk about government having a *right* to involve themselves with the process, if they're footing the bill. Consistency does not abound. Michael, I'm not aware of anything in reality according to your second paragraph. Can you point me to specific instances and enlighten me? Thanks. There are already "death panels," and have been for quite some time. Hospitals have contingency plans. If there's an epidemic of the flu, and there aren't enough respirators, they have to decide who gets them and who toughs it out. Those plans are in place. For example, 35 year old mother with four kids is gonna get a respirator before a 65 year old man. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

thishereboi -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 12:22:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Not a personal attack at all ...simply a request that you acquaint yourself with the level of korporate koruption that existed until government intervention stopped it before you embarrase yourself again with moronic statements like the one I responded to. Did I say the government never did anything good in the past? You said that the government excelled at corruption. Now to those of us who speak english that means that the government is better at corruption than the private sector. Had you used a history book written for an adult for something other than a paperweight you would have known that your statement was less than accurate. No, actually it means exactly what it says...anything else that you read into it is coming from your own head. The private sector was never mentioned. Now what was that you were saying about reading comprehension again?

thompsonx -> RE: 'State of the Art Healthcare' in the VA Hospitals. (4/25/2014 12:51:15 PM)
The private sector was never mentioned. That was my point and clearly yours.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875