# Walter Reed conditions



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Huh. I would have thought he'd get one of those medals of freedom, like Paul Bremer.

Go figure.

https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070302/D8NK9L3O2.html


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Or Brownie. If anyone was doing a helluva a job, it was the head of Walter Reed.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

This administration can't win in your eyes, can it?

There was a problem, and people were held to account. What more do you want?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

To be fair, V.A. funding has always been an insult regardless of the administration. I remember the footdragging over Agent Orange, rats and cockroaches crawling out of rotting wallboards and piles of trash in hallways. Nothing has changed except the beatific smiles of a different fearless Leader in the main lobby entryway. As a personal note of outrage, a local well known political supporter in his mid 70s went to the V.A. and received a penile implant and viagra. He was really inconvenienced by the 2 hour wait. Meanwhile our veteran population continues to be a convenient, FREE resource for medical research. The pervasive atitude seems to be if they drag their feet long enough, put you through enough paperwork, lost files and waiting periods just to see understaffed departments you'll either simply give up or drop dead and reduce any eventual accountability for group maladies such as the above Agent Orange. I only wish I could get my burial benefit and flag ahead of time. I figure when I go, the National Guard will be entering their 12 year of service on the Rhine with Marcus Aerelianus,the various VFW and American Legion Posts defunct through attrition and my best bet for a military detail some survivalist group with CHICOM SKS rifles. But then my service hardly matches that of a fake Merchant mariner who got himself, temporarily at least into Arlington. No, my strategy is to take on some shlock job, defraud them with claiming injury and letting a wide eyed nurse at the local Doc in a Box ask what that metal is on the lousy Xrays- assuming I can fill out the forms in spanish.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Kav said:


> To be fair, V.A. funding has always been an insult regardless of the administration.


Except...under Clinton the VA system became the most efficient, best-ran medical system in the United States.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

SGladwell said:


> Except...under Clinton the VA system became the most efficient, best-ran medical system in the United States.


Oh come on.

Clinton finally signed a Republican congressional led budget increase and reform of the VA in 1996 only so he could short-circuit Bob Dole's campaign.

The VA was underfunded and run in the ground by a Democraticly controlled Congress for 30 years.

Perhaps you meant to say under Newt Gingrich? You might remember ... 1996 was the famous budget standoff when the Republicans shut the government down?

Nice revisionism though. A for effort. 

The Republican house approved a 27% increase in the VA vs. a 31% increase and the Democrats as usually claimed that was "A CUT" and attacked them for it ... with the Dis-Honorable Sen. John Kerry leading the way.

Could y'all please make up your mind if the President or the Congess controls funding for the VA?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> This administration can't win in your eyes, can it?
> 
> There was a problem, and people were held to account. What more do you want?


Obviously it's a good thing he's held to account. There's just not been much precedent for the Bush gang demonstrating this kind of responsibility, which makes this move noteworthy.

As for the sorry state of the VA, regardless of administration, well, that speaks volumes for the disposable nature of the poor grunts once they've performed their function while people like Cheney, who couldn't be bothered to step up and enlist, rebalance their portfolio.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

When I first got involved with horses, two very smart friends took me to the El Monte Horse and Mule Auction. This is 'Lands End' and the armpit of California horsemanship. Every potential recruit who steps into the AFEES building in L.A. should be bused to the WADSWORTH V.A. somewhere after the recruiting pitch and taking the final oath.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> As for the sorry state of the VA, regardless of administration, well, _that speaks volumes for the disposable nature of the poor grunts once they've performed their function while people like Cheney, who couldn't be bothered to step up and enlist, rebalance their portfolio_.


That's really unfair and I challenge your basis for such a comment. First, this problem, as your alluded to, has taken many years and has spread across many administrations. That's no excuse however. But to refer to wounded soldiers as disposable grunts is quite obscene!

The VA, like any other government agency, is a large bureaucracy and suffers from the same woes as any other. I'm heartened that the problem is being addressed and believe it or not I applaud the WP for bringing attention to it. However it seems that you are using this as an opportunity to paint the entire system with a broad brush. How about those who are receiving state of the art care? How are they so lucky to have escaped the fate of so many _poor grunts?_


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> That's really unfair and I challenge your basis for such a comment. First, this problem, as your alluded to, has taken many years and has spread across many administrations. That's no excuse however. *But to refer to wounded soldiers as disposable grunts is quite obscene! *
> 
> The VA, like any other government agency, is a large bureaucracy and suffers from the same woes as any other. I'm heartened that the problem is being addressed and believe it or not I applaud the WP for bringing attention to it. However it seems that you are using this as an opportunity to paint the entire system with a broad brush. How about those who are receiving state of the art care? How are they so lucky to have escaped the fate of so many _poor grunts?_


I believe Bertie was saying people like Cheney, _who couldn't be bothered to step up and enlist, _view our soldiers as disposable grunts.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I believe Bertie was saying people like Cheney, _who couldn't be bothered to step up and enlist, _view our soldiers as disposable grunts.


That's a creative interpretation to say the least!


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> That's a creative interpretation to say the least!


Of course that's what I meant. Lax has it exactly right. I would have thought it obvious. You might direct your bile to the people treating these soldiers /as disposable grunts/ rather than at me who happens to believe it's a crime to tacitly discard these people once they've been broken by their service to country.

Good grief, does it have to be spelled out?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Of course that's what I meant. Lax has it exactly right. I would have thought it obvious. You might direct your bile to the people treating these soldiers /as disposable grunts/ rather than at me who happens to believe it's a crime to tacitly discard these people once they've been broken by their service to country.
> 
> Good grief, does it have to be spelled out?


I'm comforted by the knowledge that if you said that to Dick Cheney's face he'd either A) punch you right out or B) shoot you in the face!

Speaking of bile ... Bertie, you have hit an all time low.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> Except...under Clinton the VA system became the most efficient, best-ran medical system in the United States.


LOL....can you give me even one first hand story that you yourself experienced to prove this or better yet, some research, preferrably QA indicators?


----------



## cgc (Jan 27, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I'm comforted by the knowledge that if you said that to Dick Cheney's face he'd either A) punch you right out or B) shoot you in the face! .


My dad can beat up your dad!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Perhaps Jan will recall my source, but I recall reading how the Roman Navy, having promised citizenship and all manner of goodies to crewmen from the reaches of the empire would boot veteran sailors off at some foriegn port when they came close to achieving the required years service. The crews of the english fleet that harried the Spanish Armada were left to starve to death on their ships in port waiting pay and supplies that were never delivered. Napolean didn't exactly stick around his defeated army after Moscow, but jumped in his carriage for the warm arms of Madam Napoleon. There are even accounts of a few leaders slipping out of Mosada.Our own armed forces always include a codical in that sacred contract of enlistment terms phrased as 'for the good of the service.' Those guys serving endless extended tours in Baghdad are the flip side of Riffed careermen.All this is nothing new. You can't even find a decent collection of green army soldiers on EBAY in good shape. Perhaps someday the UNIVERSAL SOLDIER of an old 60s Donovan song will collectively wake up worldwide and replicate the scene in Doctor Zhivago when the speech giving officer falls into the waterbarrel and receives a bullet.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'm comforted by the knowledge that if you said that to Dick Cheney's face he'd either A) punch you right out or B) shoot you in the face!
> 
> Speaking of bile ... Bertie, you have hit an all time low.


An all time low? Why, because Bertie and I feel it is wrong for soldiers to receive substandard care from VA hospitals and for them to be treated as disposable?

And yeah, I'd tell Cheney that to his face.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> An all time low? Why, because Bertie and I feel it is wrong for soldiers to receive substandard care from VA hospitals and for them to be treated as disposable?
> 
> And yeah, I'd tell Cheney that to his face.


Claiming Cheney feels soldiers are disposable is as offensive and uncalled for as soldiers receiving sub-standard medical care. More; it's totally unfounded.

Sure, you can tell Dick Cheney that to his face. Just, please go do it. What do you prove by slandering him here and boring the hell out of all of us?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

cgc said:


> My dad can beat up your dad!


Doubt it! 

Funny though. LOL


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

Gentlemen,

I saw this as well, and I agree with the General. I believe it was blown out of proportion.
I believe, they needed a quick fix, and this is what they got. I have worked at, and been to both places. Walter Reed and Bethesda.
They are fine institutions. I understand both situations as well, being a former soldier, and now disabled veteran, retired.
I agree with your comment KAV. Some VA hospitalls, are deplorable.
Some are very good. 
The VA, has to make accomodations, to complete its mission.
One, that I do not like, is its slacking on medical practice.
So they can fill medical positions.
I truly believe, they are caring.
On the other hand, have seen some sad medical practice.
With myself, and I addressed them accordingly.
This is on a personable level.
But, all and all, the VA system does a great job. In its use of the electronic record, and its running of a very large health care system, it does a good job.
Yes, I agree, there are some sad situations, and need to be addressed at those levels.
Where I am at, they are being addressed/
As a retired soldier, I think it is an ok situation.
Again, I can see this situation at Walter Reed developing, because of a need for quick rooms. I truly, do not think the medical people, meant harm to the given soldiers.
The surgeon general of the Army was fired, because of this.
Apparently he was not doing his job that well, so be it.
My friends, to the gym.
God Bless, have a nice day


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You don't have to like the fact that horribly wounded soldiers are being treated as disposable, but it's pretty contemptible to blame the messenger.

Take a listen to this story for more discussion of whether the underlying problems are truly being addressed:

https://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/03/02/01


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You don't have to like the fact that horribly wounded soldiers are being treated as disposable, but it's pretty contemptible to blame the messenger.
> 
> Take a listen to this story for more discussion of whether the underlying problems are truly being addressed:
> 
> https://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/03/02/01


#1 Bertie is the messenger? I think not. I think the messenger broke the story. 
Still, no one is arguing the facts of the problem at WR. It's a problem, clearly and being addressed.

#2 That has nothing to do with the leap Bertie made. Bertie is judging Cheney's motives and assigning him somehow this shows his true feelings about our soldiers. As said, just go do that to his face. There is no bravery and certainly no honor in maligning the man here. Cheney would be correct in putting him soundly on his butt for such a malicious accusation.

Jack, surely even you can take off your partisan glasses long enough to see the difference between the two things. Where are the facts tying the conditions at WR to Cheney? Perhaps your "mere messenger" added those himself?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't blame Cheney. I blame his boss.The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Anyone with a modicum of militry service knows an officer is fully responsible for his command. Ignorance, indifference, incompetence,indecision all start with I. There is an entire chain of command that didn't here.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Kav said:


> I don't blame Cheney. I blame his boss.The President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Anyone with a modicum of militry service knows an officer is fully responsible for his command. Ignorance, indifference, incompetence,indecision all satart with I.


That's true and I think somewhat fair. I also think W and Sec. Gates are taking responsibility and taking corrective action. Certainly, there was some kind of problem (incompetence, ignorance, etc.) with getting that word up the ladder appropriately and back down.

I would not think that is enough to state it shows W feels soldiers are disposable. I doubt even the Generals who got canned feel that way.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You don't have to like the fact that horribly wounded soldiers are being treated as disposable, but it's pretty contemptible to blame the messenger.


It is the height of arrogance to proclaim something and then insist on it being taken as fact by the rest. BertieW mentioned disposable so does that make it so?

I ask again, what about those soldiers who are receiving better than standard care? How is it that Fortune blessed them? You and those claiming that our soldiers are "grunts" and "disposable" have been watching too many Oliver Stone movies.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Excessive outrage produces results. Our most critically in need veterans will get the care they earned. I urge everyone regardless of political persuasion to review that care in 3 years time with a new administration in office.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*It's not just Walter Reed*


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Claiming Cheney feels soldiers are disposable is as offensive and uncalled for as soldiers receiving sub-standard medical care. More; it's totally unfounded.
> 
> Sure, you can tell Dick Cheney that to his face. Just, please go do it. What do you prove by slandering him here and boring the hell out of all of us?


That's right, I'm the problem here. lol.

By the way, if you look at what I said I never stated that any specific person in the administration holds any particular view about the soldiers. I referenced Cheney in passing. Clearly this is an institutional problem and there's likely plenty of blame to go around. But given that we're at war and soldiers are dying every day, it looks a little bad for a sitting president when stories like Walter Reed crop up in between the "support the troops" rhetoric coming out of the White House.

A little body armour and a clean bedpan don't seem beyond our capabilities.


----------



## AddisonBelmont (Feb 2, 2006)

*I am shocked--shocked!--to find these conditions here!*

That's the part that's weird about all this, how shocked & appalled those in charge are to 'discover' the terrible conditions that veterans have been griping about non-stop for years on end. I never served in the military--they don't want people like me--but I never miss a pancake-&-sausage dinner down at a local VFW hall, and all it takes is a single innocuous question about the VA to get hit with a steady barrage of complaints about the VA's level of care, the rundown facilities, the interminable waits, and the lack of resolution to problems that have dragged on for years, regardless of which party is in power.

Anyway, I have a real hard time believing that those in charge haven't been aware of this stuff all along, and only decided to do something about it after the charges hit the _Washington Post_ & made them look bad. Being forced to do good against one's will is bad, but the alternative--that these guys really _didn't_ know any of this--is even more damning.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I wonder if a solution would be to get rid of the VA healthcare system and instead allow private industry to compete for these patients, a kind of Medicare system for vets. 

I think one reason why conditions, wait times and overall quality of care is spotty at times is because there is no real competition for the VA. It is a large bureaucracy that obviously is not held to account for its funding the same way as private industry is. Allowing veterans to choose healthcare providers would, I think, go a long way in making sure that veterans get the same gold standard care that the rest of us are privilaged to.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Dealing With The Public 101; Your Executive Education

"I am shocked at what I am hearing! I want you to know this is the first time this information has been brought to my attention and I want to assure you, when I have more to add to the topic, I will be in contact with you to inform you of the results."

Do not be surprised at what they are saying, it is what everyone with half a brain that has line managers or more answering to them says. The simple facts of management are you have to accomplish things through people and people sometimes let you down; that is when what you do is more important than what has happened.

Glad to see others know what I know, this is not a Dubya problem, it was not "the glory days" under Clinton, the VA has had endemic problems for decades. It has done some good things, such as the nationwide VA medical records system, but all the less than stellar things have been going on forever.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Dealing With The Public 101; Your Executive Education
> 
> "I am shocked at what I am hearing! I want you to know this is the first time this information has been brought to my attention and I want to assure you, when I have more to add to the topic, I will be in contact with you to inform you of the results."
> 
> ...


Probably, has had a lot more to do with with how Democrats who controlled congress viewed Vietnam vets than anything else. Since the Republicans took congress, they have increased the VA budgets every year since 1994.

Even that chart says Clinton v. Bush. Sure presidents submit budgets, but come on.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

And would you care to enlighten us about how Democrats inside or outside of Congress view Vietnam veterans?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> And would you care to enlighten us about how Democrats inside or outside of Congress view Vietnam veterans?


Ask John Kerry! Add Tom Hayden to the list as well.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Ksinc seems to think he has some inside knowledge, so I was inviting him to share it. If you have some inside knowledge on this topic I would be glad to hear it.

As a Democrat who is not a member of Congress I can say that my view is that veterans who served our country honorably, even in an evil enterprise like Vietnam, are entitled to honor and respect, and to decent treatment for whatever harm they suffered.

Apparently my opinion is not shared by the Republicans who attacked John Kerry and Max Cleland in the last elections.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Apparently my opinion is not shared by the Republicans who attacked John Kerry and Max Cleland in the last elections.


As to Kerry, he invited the criticism by "reporting for duty." As for Cleland, I don't recall anyone attacking him on the basis of his Viet Nam service. As to the role of Viet Nam and politics, as alluded to in another thread, it does not buy one immunity from political attacks. Cleland was ousted by the electorate, fair and square. Yes politics can be dirty on both sides but I don't recall anyone attacking him based on his service in Viet Nam. With regard to Kerry, he made it the center piece of his candidacy. I think it is only fair to bring up his past public statements and the various flip flops on the issue of Iraq.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> As a Democrat who is not a member of Congress I can say that my view is that veterans who served our country honorably, even in an evil enterprise like Vietnam, are entitled to honor and respect, and to decent treatment for whatever harm they suffered.


It must pain you to think it was Dem presidents that got the US into the "evil enterprise". Glad to see you can criticize the party you have so much self-concept invested in, it shows some intellectual honesty.

Regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Ksinc seems to think he has some inside knowledge, so I was inviting him to share it. If you have some inside knowledge on this topic I would be glad to hear it.


What sounded like that? Clearly, I meant the public record.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> As to Kerry, he invited the criticism by "reporting for duty." As for Cleland, I don't recall anyone attacking him on the basis of his Viet Nam service. As to the role of Viet Nam and politics, as alluded to in another thread, it does not buy one immunity from political attacks. Cleland was ousted by the electorate, fair and square. Yes politics can be dirty on both sides but I don't recall anyone attacking him based on his service in Viet Nam. With regard to Kerry, he made it the center piece of his candidacy. I think it is only fair to bring up his past public statements and the various flip flops on the issue of Iraq.


Saxby Chambliss attacked him as lacking in courage for opposing Bush's position that Homeland Security personnel should not be covered by civil service. "Chambliss aired advertisements against Cleland that featured footage of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and attacked Cleland's record on national security."

Ann Coulter ridiculed him and how he got his injuries. "Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam," she demanded. Coulter went on to mock the grenade explosion that wounded Cleland so grievously as "an accident during a routine non-combat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends." With leaden sarcasm, she noted that Cleland "could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman." As she surely knows by now, he didn't drop a grenade at all. He picked up a grenade that he thought had fallen off his web gear. https://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2004/02/21/cleland/index.html


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Isn't the discussion of funding for the VA beside the point? Isn't Walter Reed run by the military, not the VA?


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

This should be a wake-up call to everyone advocating "universal" healthcare; you might as well be saying, "Every person in America has the 'right' to be subjected to conditions like this." But I'm sure the point is lost on most of them; to true believers in socialism, any time it becomes public that it's not working, it's because the wrong people are in charge or it doesn't have enough money. That's like saying that the right person can make dry water if he has enough will and enough money. 

A lot of politicians and high-level bureaucrats are expressing outrage. Regardless of whether it's feigned or sincere, the result will be the same: A lot of money will be spent to 'fix' the systemic, inherent problems, but little, if anything, will change.

Lew Rockwell summed it up well a couple of weeks ago:

"Officials are shocked, shocked. A DC military hospital is filthy and vermin-ridden, and the patients are treated like dirt. 

"Have any of these people ever visited a VA hospital? Any VA hospital? It's socialism, folks, and Congressmen and cabinet secretaries ordering a reform is like Brezhnev demanding that Soviet agriculture shape up."


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Saxby Chambliss attacked him as lacking in courage for opposing Bush's position that Homeland Security personnel should not be covered by civil service.


That's much different than attacking him on the basis for his Viet Nam experience. If Sen. Cleland had cast votes or taken policy/legislative positions that would bring his national security credentials into question then I don't see how that qualifies as an attack on his bravery. The Dems tried the same thing here in Chicago when they tried to get Tammy Duckworth, an Iraqi vet who had her legs amputated, to run for congress. She lost. I doubt she lost because she was painted as not being "brave" enough.



> Ann Coulter ridiculed him and how he got his injuries. "Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam," she demanded. Coulter went on to mock the grenade explosion that wounded Cleland so grievously as "an accident during a routine non-combat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends." With leaden sarcasm, she noted that Cleland "could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman." As she surely knows by now, he didn't drop a grenade at all. He picked up a grenade that he thought had fallen off his web gear.


Is Ann Coulter the best you can do? She's a loose cannon and very few people take her seriously. She's not an elected official nor does she speak for the GOP. I'll give you Ann Coulter if you give me Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Babs, Jane Fonda and 1/2 of Hollywood.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> That's much different than attacking him on the basis for his Viet Nam experience.
> 
> .


You're changing the subject. Here's what ksinc said:

"Probably, has had a lot more to do with with how Democrats who controlled congress viewed Vietnam vets than anything else."

This isn't limited to attacking people on the basis of their Vietnam experience. If you want to compare how Democrats and Republicans view Vietnam veterans, the treatment that Republicans like Saxby Chambliss and Ann Coulter (did you hear the applause she got at CPAC for her comments on Edwards? It's not that easy to disown your attack dog) is entirely relevant to this subject.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You're changing the subject. Here's what ksinc said:
> 
> "Probably, has had a lot more to do with with how Democrats who controlled congress viewed Vietnam vets than anything else."
> 
> This isn't limited to attacking people on the basis of their Vietnam experience. If you want to compare how Democrats and Republicans view Vietnam veterans, the treatment that Republicans like Saxby Chambliss and Ann Coulter (did you hear the applause she got at CPAC for her comments on Edwards? It's not that easy to disown your attack dog) is entirely relevant to this subject.


No, it's not. Those are other politicians. Kerry wasn't attacked because he was a veteran. He was attacked because he's a liar and put himself out there to be judged. Anyway, I'm talking about ACTIONS, not words. Look at the VA funding in the 70s,80s, and pre'96. Look at conditions of the VA in the 70s and 80s.

Ann Coulter made a comment about Veterans at CPAC??? Oh, look who's changing the subject now. What's your point? You disagree with what she said about Edwards? His own party calls him "Breck Girl" I hardly think she's out of line.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Ann Coulter has nothing to do with any of this. She was, is and will always be a self promoter who will say and do things that get her attention. That's how she makes a living. If people want to keep bringing up Ann Coulter then fine. We'll just say Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are official spokespersons of the DNC. 

As for Sen. Cleland I still challenge anyone to quote attack ads or any ELECTED republican or someone from the OFFICIAL GOP heirarchy who attacked his Viet Nam credentials. In fact, I don't recall anyone (except for Ann Coulter) making any reference to his Viet Nam record in attacking him.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Isn't the discussion of funding for the VA beside the point? Isn't Walter Reed run by the military, not the VA?


yeah, Walter Reed has nothing to do with the VA. Discussions about the VA screwing up in this whole thread is largely based on false understandings.

The VA success, I think, has less to do with the VA and a lot more to do with the sad state of private health-care insurance in the US. The VA has the incentive to make short-term expenses with long-term benefits for their patients, since their patients will usually be part of their system in the future.

Private health care doesn't have that incentive, because the benefits will reap to another insurer when the patient or his employer switches plans. Thus, private insurance and hospital systems don't have as much incentive to do things come up with effective records (very useful for future doctors) or better infection control systems.

This is why national health care systems in foreign countries generally outperform the U.S. system. The trade-off is for this overall superior performance is lack of individual flexibility.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

NoVaguy said:


> yeah, Walter Reed has nothing to do with the VA. Discussions about the VA screwing up in this whole thread is largely based on false understandings.
> 
> The VA success, I think, has less to do with the VA and a lot more to do with the sad state of private health-care insurance in the US. The VA has the incentive to make short-term expenses with long-term benefits for their patients, since their patients will usually be part of their system in the future.
> 
> ...


NoVa, I agree with some things you have said here but have to offer up reality for some other things, such as infection control. Please talk to the people that suffered through an epidemic of MRSA in Quebec in the last several years about national healthcare = better infection control. However, I totally agree with you about private insurance companies having a disincentive to make healthy investments as the typical US healthcare consumer will change insurers every two years or so.

Also, do we really want a national d-base for healthcare records? As both an executive and past-practitioner, yes, it would often make my life easier. However, as anyone that works in healthcare knows, data is guarded much to laxely, HIPPA or no HIPPA. I have literally watched bored nurses in a hospital pull up patient lists just to see if they could spot someone they know or a local celebrity so they could read the records. The concatenation of information has many costs, privacy and identify theft amongst them.

So I fall back to my two tier system, basic (BASIC) universal with private carriers ontop. Reap the benefits of both public goods and market incentives vs. the current US system that seems to capture the disadvantages of all systems.

Regards


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

AddisonBelmont said:


> That's the part that's weird about all this, how shocked & appalled those in charge are to 'discover' the terrible conditions that veterans have been griping about non-stop for years on end. I never served in the military--they don't want people like me--but I never miss a pancake-&-sausage dinner down at a local VFW hall, and all it takes is a single innocuous question about the VA to get hit with a steady barrage of complaints about the VA's level of care, the rundown facilities, the interminable waits, and the lack of resolution to problems that have dragged on for years, regardless of which party is in power.
> 
> Anyway, I have a real hard time believing that those in charge haven't been aware of this stuff all along, and only decided to do something about it after the charges hit the _Washington Post_ & made them look bad. Being forced to do good against one's will is bad, but the alternative--that these guys really _didn't_ know any of this--is even more damning.


I can't wait until the Democrats have foisted a system like this on all of us!


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Um, privatisation at Walter Reed hasn't worked so well once a former Halliburton executive got into the mix:

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17489352/

https://www.crooksandliars.com/2007...ivatization-at-walter-reed-put-troops-at-risk



pt4u67 said:


> I wonder if a solution would be to get rid of the VA healthcare system and instead allow private industry to compete for these patients, a kind of Medicare system for vets.
> 
> I think one reason why conditions, wait times and overall quality of care is spotty at times is because there is no real competition for the VA. It is a large bureaucracy that obviously is not held to account for its funding the same way as private industry is. Allowing veterans to choose healthcare providers would, I think, go a long way in making sure that veterans get the same gold standard care that the rest of us are privilaged to.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Um, privatisation at Walter Reed hasn't worked so well once a former Halliburton executive got into the mix:
> 
> https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17489352/
> 
> https://www.crooksandliars.com/2007...ivatization-at-walter-reed-put-troops-at-risk


Bertie, that's a nice job. Well done.

Assuming more than a coincidental link is proven to Cheney, I wouldn't have any argument against forcing him to resign over that.


----------

