Will Soldiers Have to Use Private Ins?

[lookout123]

Hmmm, I view the VA in the same way I see my dad's insurance plan. He retired from a company where he had a contract (UAW negotiated). Part of that contract was insurance for life paid for by the company he entered the contract with.

Military members have an enlistment contract that provides for medical care for life (with limitations) provided by the employers they entered into the contract with.

I don't see the socialized medicine angle.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Hmmm, I view the VA in the same way I see my dad's insurance plan. He retired from a company where he had a contract (UAW negotiated). Part of that contract was insurance for life paid for by the company he entered the contract with.

Another thing the Republicans love to attack - paying for retired workers? We have to renegotiate those contracts to save the car companies!

Military members have an enlistment contract that provides for medical care for life (with limitations) provided by the employers they entered into the contract with.

I don't see the socialized medicine angle.

Not only is it paid for by the government, it is also administrated by the government, and not run through private insurers. I don't know the specifics of your dad's UAW deal, but I would guess they paid premiums on your dad's behalf to a private insurer.

[Flint]

but but The thing what you said was wrong, BECAUSE!

[lookout123]

Another thing the Republicans love to attack - paying for retired workers? We have to renegotiate those contracts to save the car companies!

I'm not sure on your angle there. He worked for a farm implement company and they did renogiate their contracts repeatedly. The benefits were significantly less than what the original agreements allowed for but at least now they actually can expect to get what they've agreed upon indefinitely.

Not only is it paid for by the government, it is also administrated by the government, and not run through private insurers. I don't know the specifics of your dad's UAW deal, but I would guess they paid premiums on your dad's behalf to a private insurer.

Fair point but I don't really see the relevance. I've worked for companies that had large group plans that were serviced by a name brand insurance company even though the company self insured 100% of the payouts. How is that any different than this employer (military/government) deciding they can self insure for less than they would have to pay another organization?

All insurance by nature is a form of socialized medicine in that we pay a fee to a company to spread the risk over greater numbers so the obligation isn't too great for any one individual. I believe that is different than the single payer government run medical system some seem to want.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by lookout123

How is that any different than this employer (military/government) deciding
they can self insure for less than they would have to pay another organization?

Because SOCIALIZED MEDICINE is BAD!!! Didn't you hear? The government can't do anything right! lol

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'm not sure on your angle there. He worked for a farm implement company and they did renogiate their contracts repeatedly. The benefits were significantly less than what the original agreements allowed for but at least now they actually can expect to get what they've agreed upon indefinitely.

Or until the next of the repeated renegotiations. I was referencing the common thread of anti-union rhetoric complaining about the cost of retired workers.

Fair point but I don't really see the relevance. I've worked for companies that had large group plans that were serviced by a name brand insurance company even though the company self insured 100% of the payouts. How is that any different than this employer (military/government) deciding they can self insure for less than they would have to pay another organization?

They also run their own hospitals.

All insurance by nature is a form of socialized medicine in that we pay a fee to a company to spread the risk over greater numbers so the obligation isn't too great for any one individual. I believe that is different than the single payer government run medical system some seem to want.

Well, that description in particular is exactly what a single payer government run system would involve, minus the company, though there would be other differences.

But either way, my point is that there is, in the United States, a government funded, administered, and operated medical plan that is good enough and well enough run that a hue and cry is raised over the idea that veterans would have to instead use a private plan that they are already covered under.

Any arguments against the single payer plan will have to come from somewhere other than competence. There are any number of other arguments against it, but we do know that the government can do it.

[lookout123]

the idea that veterans would have to instead use a private plan that they are already covered under.

in all honesty I don't know too many vets who would go to the VA if they had any other option. BusterB's experiences are but a sliver of some of the stories to trickle out of the joint.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

But either way, my point is that there is, in the United States, a government funded, administered, and operated medical plan that is good enough and well enough run that a hue and cry is raised over the idea that veterans would have to instead use a private plan that they are already covered under.

That would be a change in the contract. Soldiers don't have to pay co-pays for care given in the service hospitals or VA's. Retired people pay for Tricare Prime if they want it, a one time fee of $450 for a family. Tricare Standard requires no payment but services are significantly reduced.

Movement to a civilian system of insurance would put them in a pool with everyone else unless the government would pay the fees and costs with no caps, unlikely, and it would subject them to someone who is often not trained to reject care they would otherwise be eligible for in the current system.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Movement to a civilian system of insurance would put them in a pool with everyone else unless the government would pay the fees and costs with no caps, unlikely, and it would subject them to someone who is often not trained to reject care they would otherwise be eligible for in the current system.

Worse than that- it would subject them to someone who is trained to reject care they would otherwise be eligible for in the current system.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Worse than that- it would subject them to someone who is trained to reject care they would otherwise be eligible for in the current system.

SO we agree to disagree. Those people lack the skills to reject care. They do it on a cost basis only.

[lookout123]

I know you're joking because... well you're Flint, but there are two very good points in your post.

1) socialized medicine is bad. It isn't bad. Good and bad are subjective labels thrown at things we either like or don't like. I don't like it because I don't believe it is consistent with the focus on the individual that our country was founded on. That's just my opinion. Socialized medicine has some excellent points and under different circumstances I would support it. It would have to operate in a vaccuum free from personal agendas and political maneuvering, and the other important part takes us into your second important point.

2) The government can't do anything right! While a truism it isn't really the truth. The government can't do anything efficiently - and sometimes that is right. When we are making international agreements I don't want a quick efficient process with too much opportunity for mistakes and misunderstandings. As frustrating as it is, the slow, seemingly unproductive nature of international interaction is useful in that each government has time to choose words and positions carefully with plenty of opportunities to clarify and reclarify until they reach a point where noone is really happy, but each can live with the agreement.
Things like the military, legal system, and currency are areas which ONLY a government can do right.

It is in every other area that the government falters. While intentions may be good the tendency to build up personal empires for the sake of personal power is what makes the government horribly inefficient at most tasks they take as their own. It isn't the idea but the execution that is flawed usually.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I know you're joking because... well you're Flint, but there are two very good points in your post.

1) socialized medicine is bad. It isn't bad. Good and bad are subjective labels thrown at things we either like or don't like. I don't like it because I don't believe it is consistent with the focus on the individual that our country was founded on. That's just my opinion. Socialized medicine has some excellent points and under different circumstances I would support it. It would have to operate in a vaccuum free from personal agendas and political maneuvering, and the other important part takes us into your second important point.

I would just like to make the point that many people pay for insurance, but when they get sick, they are denied coverage. So private insurance ain't all that either, sometimes. The thing that would actually be GOOD about socialized medicine, is that it wouldn't be about profit. That would reduce a TON of waste, and leave more for the actual practicing of medicine.

2) The government can't do anything right! While a truism it isn't really the truth. The government can't do anything efficiently - and sometimes that is right. When we are making international agreements I don't want a quick efficient process with too much opportunity for mistakes and misunderstandings. As frustrating as it is, the slow, seemingly unproductive nature of international interaction is useful in that each government has time to choose words and positions carefully with plenty of opportunities to clarify and reclarify until they reach a point where noone is really happy, but each can live with the agreement.
Things like the military, legal system, and currency are areas which ONLY a government can do right.

It is in every other area that the government falters. While intentions may be good the tendency to build up personal empires for the sake of personal power is what makes the government horribly inefficient at most tasks they take as their own. It isn't the idea but the execution that is flawed usually.

You may be right about international contracts, but as far as the government being inefficient, I don't completely agree with that. The Post Office works pretty damn well. Some state colleges are very good, better than private ones. Some public schools are very good, others, not so much. So the system needs to be revised, but it is not completely bad and inefficient. (and I realize you didn't say it was.)

Honestly, I don't know why people pick on the government so much. I wonder how things would run if we had NO government. I don't think privitization of everything is good, because there is always greed involved, and that is never good for the people as a whole. the whole problem with health care right now is beause of the greed and corruption of insurance companies.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

The thing that would actually be GOOD about socialized medicine, is that it wouldn't be about profit. That would reduce a TON of waste, and leave more for the actual practicing of medicine.

You are completely misinformed. Read some of this.

http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/nhs.htm

[lookout123]

Here's the rub, EVERYONE should get EQUAL care and benefits, IMO.

Why? If I can afford it and feel it is worth it, why shouldn't I be able to pay for better or more extensive care? I have had a catastrophic coverage plan for quite awhile because on the whole that is the best balance for my family. A guy I know has the full boat plan through the same company. He feels it is worth the extra expense. We each get what we pay for. I kind of like that.

in many cases paying MORE TAXES than rich people.

BS. People who work their asses off and still don't have healthcare are typically not earning enough to pay ANY taxes so you can take that myth off the plate.

Socialized health care is NOT FREE. It's paid for with taxes.

Nope, it isn't free. It would entail some pretty hefty taxes. Those taxes would have to be paid by someone, certainly not the lower income earners who we certainly don't want to raise taxes for. That means going back to the well of the people who already pay the majority of the taxes for yet another benefit that actually doesn't benefit them in any way. So while the program wouldn't be free, it would be free to the people who actually want it.

I would just like to make the point that many people pay for insurance, but when they get sick, they are denied coverage. So private insurance ain't all that either, sometimes.

Which is no different than any of the government run programs currently in place. That's life, aribitrary lines are drawn because they have to be drawn somewhere. That means someone will inevitably be just on the other side of the line and feel slighted.

The thing that would actually be GOOD about socialized medicine, is that it wouldn't be about profit. That would reduce a TON of waste, and leave more for the actual practicing of medicine.

While there is a lot of waste in the world of medicine, let me just ask this: which organization is more likely to run cost efficiently, one who has no concern over costs and profits or one who is trying to get the job done and turn a profit?

Corporations are to greedy and corrupt to be trusted. The only system left is the government. Sad as that is.

So you are assuming the government isn't motivated by greed?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lookout123

snip~ Nope, it isn't free. It would entail some pretty hefty taxes. Those taxes would have to be paid by someone, certainly not the lower income earners who we certainly don't want to raise taxes for. ~snip

But, but, with better health care these workers would work harder,
making more money for their employers,
who would in the spirit of appreciation would pay those workers more money,
so the government would collect more taxes,
making the health care costs moot.