Walter Reed / Universal Health Care

desandrews

I've always believed that the stated "liberal" goals are noble and worthy of striving towards but I completely disagree with the idea that the government must be the ones to enact laws, restrict liberty and forcefully transfer income to achieve those goals. One of the major reasons is because I believe humans will fuck just about anything up when they do not have the proper oversight, realize no costs associated with their efforts and suffer no consequences for their actions.

So, we're all outraged over the Walter Reed fiasco and the deplorable conditions that many of our nation's heros have been subject to, but let me ask you this, doesn't it basically remind you of the DMV or our public school system or anything else that the government has full control over? A complete fuck up...

Aren't you the least bit worried that if we enact "Universal Health Care" and turn everything over to the government that every hospital in America will eventually resemble Walter Reed? I know I am.

fragileblake

I think the idea that everything that government does must be corrupt and awful is bullshit. As usual it doesn't pay to speak in platitudes. There are many government programs that I view as being very successful. The pell grant program, head start (although this continues to get cut in the budget), earned income tax credit (not a "program" per say) and much of the money from Bush's "faith based initiatives" has gone to really deserving organizations, at least here in Oregon (if it were up to me that money would be awarded to secular organizations as well).

As for walter reed that has more to do with the repubs always underfunding the veterans administration. Acts like that are usually made to keep people like you from complaining about how high their taxes are.

desandrews

The first paragraph made me think you might actually have a point and I should consider your thoughts, then you go right into assuming you know everything about me from one post I made. You really did yourself a disservice with that one.

fragileblake

desandrews wrote:

The first paragraph made me think you might actually have a point and I should consider your thoughts, then you go right into assuming you know everything about me from one post I made. You really did yourself a disservice with that one.

Well you seem pretty libertarian. Most libertarians/libertarian republicans hate paying taxes. How could you not hate paying taxes if everything that the government touches is a complete fuckup?

jeffbr

I'm a libertarian. I hate paying taxes. I think Walter Reed is exactly what you get when you ask government to provide services. Imagine if every hospital in the country was a Walter Reed.

It has much more to do with mismanagement than underfunding.

desandrews

fragileblake wrote:

Well you seem pretty libertarian. Most libertarians/libertarian republicans hate paying taxes. How could you not hate paying taxes if everything that the government touches is a complete fuckup?

You seem more interested in talking about me personally rather than the issues within my post, I'm flattered but not interested.

Rushlimbo

jeffbr wrote:

I'm a libertarian. I hate paying taxes. I think Walter Reed is exactly what you get when you ask government to provide services. Imagine if every hospital in the country was a Walter Reed.

It has much more to do with mismanagement than underfunding.

I'm sick of people maoaning about paying taxes. If you dont like paying taxes then move overseas to that nation where you dont have to pay taxes. Someone help me with the name of that country. Bye bye.

jeffbr

Rushlimbo wrote:

I'm sick of people maoaning about paying taxes. If you dont like paying taxes then move overseas to that nation where you dont have to pay taxes. Someone help me with the name of that country. Bye bye.

Right. We should all stop complaining about things we don't like. No more anti-tax noise. No more anti-war noise. No more talk of this silly abuse of privacy and illegal wiretaps. No more talk of poor conditions at Walter Reed. If you don't like this stuff leave. Otherwise, do like Rushlimo and step in line.

hippiemom

In my work, I've had to deal with numerous government agencies and private businesses, and I'd rather have to deal with Social Security, the IRS, or even the DMV, than a private insurance company. They are the WORST ... worse than any government agency, worse than banks, worse than anyone. I'd be absolutely delighted if they all vanished off the face of the earth, the government couldn't possibly be any worse.

fragileblake

Alright, so I'll follow your argument and say that the VA is mismanaging funds. Meanwhile Veterans are suffering as we speak. If the VA had more funds they could provide a lower doctor to patient ratio in VA hospitals and other stuff. So do you continue to fund them at the same amount veterans suffer. So what would you do, cut their funding altogether to prove some point about their mismanagement? I'm sorry, even if the VA is mismanaging funds the thought of suffering veterans is enough for me to support more funding. I am for a fiscally responsible government, but not at such a human cost.

jeffbr wrote:

I'm a libertarian. I hate paying taxes. I think Walter Reed is exactly what you get when you ask government to provide services. Imagine if every hospital in the country was a Walter Reed.

It has much more to do with mismanagement than underfunding.

bootlegger10

fragileblake wrote:

I think the idea that everything that government does must be corrupt and awful is bullshit. As usual it doesn't pay to speak in platitudes. There are many government programs that I view as being very successful. The pell grant program, head start (although this continues to get cut in the budget), earned income tax credit (not a "program" per say) and much of the money from Bush's "faith based initiatives" has gone to really deserving organizations, at least here in Oregon (if it were up to me that money would be awarded to secular organizations as well).

As for walter reed that has more to do with the repubs always underfunding the veterans administration. Acts like that are usually made to keep people like you from complaining about how high their taxes are.

Yeah, this would never happen under a democratic regime. Right. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

fragileblake

bootlegger10 wrote:

Yeah, this would never happen under a democratic regime. Right. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

What does this even mean? I didn't say that every government program was totally devoid of waste I was just saying that making a blanket statement that every government program is fucked up isn't a great example of critical thinking. Neither is your post.

Abookamongstthemany

hippiemom wrote:

In my work, I've had to deal with numerous government agencies and private businesses, and I'd rather have to deal with Social Security, the IRS, or even the DMV, than a private insurance company. They are the WORST ... worse than any government agency, worse than banks, worse than anyone. I'd be absolutely delighted if they all vanished off the face of the earth, the government couldn't possibly be any worse.

+1

You pay them every month and then they still want to bill the shit out you when you have to actually use it.

flywallyfly

Gotta love government workers !

---

>

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/79e9ed64

desandrews

fragileblake wrote:

What does this even mean? I didn't say that every government program was totally devoid of waste I was just saying that making a blanket statement that every government program is fucked up isn't a great example of critical thinking. Neither is your post.

You claimed the problem stemmed solely from republican underfunding. The response was "Yeah, this would never happen under a democratic regime. Right. Keep drinking the kool-aid." How does that not make sense?

I never claimed that every government program is fucked up, you went ahead and lept to that conclusion on your own. I merely tried to provide some context first, about my views in general and second by adding examples of areas where the government has taken over and botched things up. I then asked if anyone was concerned that this may happen under Universal Health Care. I then stated that I was concerned, but I thought from there we'd discuss points of view (see Hippiemom's post). Yet once again you finish your post criticizing an individual while failing to even discuss any of the issues within scope.

desandrews

hippiemom wrote:

In my work, I've had to deal with numerous government agencies and private businesses, and I'd rather have to deal with Social Security, the IRS, or even the DMV, than a private insurance company. They are the WORST ... worse than any government agency, worse than banks, worse than anyone. I'd be absolutely delighted if they all vanished off the face of the earth, the government couldn't possibly be any worse.

I think a lot of the problems with private health insurance is that the government is already too involved. Granted, you make valid points here, but the insurance companies are between a rock and a hard space by being forced to offer "wear and tear" policies rather than "catastrophic care" policies. When government's force companies to offer drug and alcohol rehabilitation coverage, contraceptive coverage etc. that increases the cost of the policy. Don't get me wrong, those things should be offered but it should not be mandatory. That way people can chose the coverages they need and forgo the coverages they don't need. This would create much more competition and much lower prices. Plus, there's no reason why it has to be offered through the employer. Why not make it more like automobile or homeowner's coverage? I don't see nearly as many problems in that industry. There's much less government regulation (although there is still a lot) and the choice and competition is much greater providing savings to the consumers.

Claims handling may be an issue with the private insurers causing too many problems by fighting you but you have to recognize the continuum. There's significant risk that under the gov't there would be little to no push back on issues like that. That would cause the prices to skyrocket even further. I'm not saying the current private scenario is ideal, I'm saying, I don't think the gov't ideal would be better, there would need to be a happy medium and that could be obtained without turning everything over to the feds.

fragileblake

desandrews wrote:

I never claimed that every government program is fucked up

desandrews wrote:

doesn't it basically remind you of the DMV or our public school system or anything else that the government has full control over? A complete fuck up...

Yeah.......can't imagine where I got that idea.......

desandrews

fragileblake wrote:

Yeah.......can't imagine where I got that idea.......

Originally Posted by desandrews
I never claimed that every government program is fucked up

Quote:
Originally Posted by desandrews
doesn't it basically remind you of the DMV or our public school system or anything else that the government has full control over? A complete fuck up...

"every government program" encompasses many initiatives that the government does not have "full control over." Remember the things you mentioned in your first post like the Pell Grant initiative, that's a good partnership of using the gov'ts, I mean our money, through private institutions to provide a valuable service. See, there's a difference between the two.

SundaySilence

desandrews wrote:

I've always believed that the stated "liberal" goals are noble and worthy of striving towards but I completely disagree with the idea that the government must be the ones to enact laws, restrict liberty and forcefully transfer income to achieve those goals. One of the major reasons is because I believe humans will fuck just about anything up when they do not have the proper oversight, realize no costs associated with their efforts and suffer no consequences for their actions.

So, we're all outraged over the Walter Reed fiasco and the deplorable conditions that many of our nation's heros have been subject to, but let me ask you this, doesn't it basically remind you of the DMV or our public school system or anything else that the government has full control over? A complete fuck up...

Aren't you the least bit worried that if we enact "Universal Health Care" and turn everything over to the government that every hospital in America will eventually resemble Walter Reed? I know I am.

The management of Walter Reed was privatized.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/Weightmansubpoena/

jeffbr

SundaySilence wrote:

The management of Walter Reed was privatized.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/Weightmansubpoena/

Well, security, patient care and operations were "privatized" but it is still a Federal hospital filled with federal employees. It is a hybrid that obviously doesn't work. Privatization is like pregnancy. It either is or isn't. Walter Reed isn't.

RainDog

jeffbr wrote:

Well, security, patient care and operations were "privatized" but it is still a Federal hospital filled with federal employees. It is a hybrid that obviously doesn't work. Privatization is like pregnancy. It either is or isn't. Walter Reed isn't.

So, what? It's either communism or anarchy?

A few quotes from the article:
..."the Defense Department “systemically” tried to replace federal workers at Walter Reed with private companies for facilities management, patient care and guard duty..."

"They also found that more than 300 federal employees providing facilities management services at Walter Reed had drooped to fewer than 60 by Feb. 3, 2007, the day before IAP took over facilities management. IAP replaced the remaining 60 employees with only 50 private workers."

So, aside from the fact that a federal employee is the same as a private employee (it's the management that's the problem - and at Walter Reed, it was private), what federal employees are you talking about? Janitors?