Obama and the VA scandal

[Jim in CT]

Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that when these stories come out, time and time again, Obama claims that he didn't know about it until he heard about it in the media? Isn't he more closely connected to these things than we are? How disengaged is this giy? And even if it's true that he's so aloof he doesn't know anything until it's reported in th emedia, WHT ISN'T HE EMBARASSED TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD? Is he that disconnecxted, that his political handlers can't tell him and Carney to stop saying that, even if it's true.

God Almighty,

[buckman]

I'm appalled too but it's not worth getting the Spence and Paul show going .
Hopefully this one brings this clown to his knees
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Sorry, as much as I dislike this presidents policies there is enough blame to go back to all past presidents...it has been going on for years....it is a darn shame that private funds from the people have to support vetrans well being...the friggen government sucks....listeners from FOX NEWS have donated over 25 million bucks to the vetrans to buy wheel chairs and other things....we have the wounded warriors foundation....we vetrans have put our lives on the line and get this type of reward....adding more monies is not the only thing that will solve the problem ...there is responsibility needed. need to fire the top echelon, all of them and put responsible people in there.

[buckman]

True but Obama promised to fix this problem but his incompetence and disconnect made it much worse .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Yeah but he's outraged and is looking into it.
Where have I heard that before?

[BMEUPSCOTTY]

They should re-release "Article 99", broad release, in theaters... That should embarrass the hell out of all those responsible for this tragedy... That film was over twenty years ago...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

just think how terrible OBAMA CARE aka affordable health care is going to be...they can not run the VA how do U think they could run a national healthcare system...will be back logged as bad as Canada and Britain.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Sorry, as much as I dislike this presidents policies there is enough blame to go back to all past presidents...it has been going on for years....it is a darn shame that private funds from the people have to support vetrans well being...the friggen government sucks....listeners from FOX NEWS have donated over 25 million bucks to the vetrans to buy wheel chairs and other things....we have the wounded warriors foundation....we vetrans have put our lives on the line and get this type of reward....adding more monies is not the only thing that will solve the problem ...there is responsibility needed. need to fire the top echelon, all of them and put responsible people in there.

I agree that not all the blame lies with Obama. What I do find appalling, is that he claims that he's unaware of all these things until the media reports them. Shouldn't he be aware of SOME things before we see them on the news?

I mean, he says he's outraged, and I half expect him to say that he's going to complain to his congressman. Does Obama realize that he's in charge of things, and that he has the ability and responsibility to improve things for all Americans? Does he ever say "this is my fault, and I take responsibility"? I don't think he gets it...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree that not all the blame lies with Obama. What I do find appalling, is that he claims that he's unaware of all these things until the media reports them. Shouldn't he be aware of SOME things before we see them on the news?

I mean, he says he's outraged, and I half expect him to say that he's going to complain to his congressman. Does Obama realize that he's in charge of things, and that he has the ability and responsibility to improve things for all Americans? Does he ever say "this is my fault, and I take responsibility"? I don't think he gets it...

The Commander in Chief of the most powerful country in the world getting his news from a newspaper would be comical if it were not so serious.
It would make a funny Sargent Schultz episode with the two of them.
IMHO, in his mind his responsibility is to re-distribute the wealth and make
Obamacare a legacy for himself.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yeah but he's outraged and is looking into it.
Where have I heard that before?

Ya, he's outraged and will have a chat with some in the press and make sure the story goes away asap !

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

just think how terrible OBAMA CARE aka affordable health care is going to be...they can not run the VA how do U think they could run a national healthcare system...will be back logged as bad as Canada and Britain.

From what I've read the VA typically outperforms private healthcare pretty constantly.

The desire to have this bring Obama down is pretty petty. As Fly noted, it's a product of a much bigger system and one that's seen an influx of customers the past decade. Obama did promise to improve it but some funding to do so has been opposed.

As for Obama remarking he learned about it in the news, he's just saying he didn't have a lot of advance notice. I'm sure he was briefed as soon as it became public.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read the VA typically outperforms private healthcare pretty constantly.

I'm sure he was briefed as soon as it became public.

-spence

Well of course !!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Massachusetts has one of the best run VA's in the country...I wonder Y?...maybe it is because we have some of the best hospitals and specialist...a couple of my doctors at Brigham and Women's also spend time with vetrans.

Spence: As far as Obama, he promised to fix the VA under his watch as far back as 2007-2008 in his speeches running for the presidency... as all his other speeches he tells the people what they want to hear and does not follow through...after all he took up radicalism at harvard...he failed and as I stated every other president has basically failed....it is also assumed that he knew the books were cooked to permit rewards to staff as far back as 2008....and the senate just the other day refused to hear a bill that would make it easier to fire VA workers...we can blame the unions for that...the bottom line is they will just throw some dollars into it to satisfy a few and in a month or two it will be forgotten.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence: As far as Obama, he promised to fix the VA under his watch as far back as 2007-2008 in his speeches running for the presidency... as all his other speeches he tells the people what they want to hear and does not follow through...after all he took up radicalism at harvard...he failed and as I stated every other president has basically failed....it is also assumed that he knew the books were cooked to permit rewards to staff as far back as 2008....and the senate just the other day refused to hear a bill that would make it easier to fire VA workers...we can blame the unions for that...the bottom line is they will just throw some dollars into it to satisfy a few and in a month or two it will be forgotten.

Fix is a pretty vague term, even with the AZ issues -- which are pretty disturbing mind you -- a lot of the VA system does appear to work well and some things like funding and wait times Obama appears to have helped improve. Have Republicans helped or hurt the process?

I'm not sure why you think it's "assumed" that he knew of wrongdoing as far back as 2008. I've never heard any such accusation let alone evidence that would make it assumed. The only evidence available indicates Obama learned about it in September when CNN broke the story.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Fix is a pretty vague term, even with the AZ issues -- which are pretty disturbing mind you -- a lot of the VA system does appear to work well and some things like funding and wait times Obama appears to have helped improve.

-spence

I don't call waiting lists and deaths because of them appear that Obama "appears "to have helped improve is any kind of improvement.
As the shortage of Docs increase and the population gets older there can't
help but be priority lists with Obamacare too.

[Tagger]

Republican's talk out both sides of their mouths and hang everything on Obama .
Most challenging time to be president with 2 wars and a collapsed economy . Get rid of all these Bums or bring back " Hell No ,, We won't Go !! " .. flame on ..

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I don't call waiting lists and deaths because of them appear that Obama "appears "to have helped improve is any kind of improvement.

You're talking about one part of a large system.

As the shortage of Docs increase and the population gets older there can't help but be priority lists with Obamacare too.

There always have been priority lists and there always will be. Even with private insurance you don't think they have their own version of the "death panel" to modulate shareholder value?

As the population gets older people will be on medicare anyway and they'll consume the majority of the care. You're going to have capacity issues regardless.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're talking about one part of a large system.

That's the beauty of a large system. If someone dares to talk about one part of it, they can be dismissed without discussion since their concern is so minimal compared with the massive bureaucracy that comprises the system. Sort of like all encompassing centralized government.

There always have been priority lists and there always will be. Even with private insurance you don't think they have their own version of the "death panel" to modulate shareholder value?

I don't know if they do. But they have specific, spelled out, benefits and limitations. And they can be bullied or convicted by government aided by sharp lawyers into paying for things they might object to. It's kind of difficult to convince the government to bully or convict itself in such cases (unless votes are in the balance). And private insurers provide a plethora of "versions," and, until the ACA, were not forced to provide certain things in all "versions." You were more able to get what you paid for rather than being coerced to pay for what you were forced to get.

As the population gets older people will be on medicare anyway and they'll consume the majority of the care. You're going to have capacity issues regardless.

-spence

And . . . how, again, was the ACA going to make this better and "more affordable"? Oh yeah, that's right . . . it was going to force the subsidization of some, without choice, at the expense of others. Right . . . that's how large bureaucratic centralized socialistic systems work. In every respect. Except for some very "special" cases, like abortion, where choice is paramount.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read the VA typically outperforms private healthcare pretty constantly.


-spence

Spence, where did you ever read that? Have you ever been in a VA Hospital?
If not do yourself a favor and visit one, then come out and tell me they outperform private hospitals. Outrageous.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's the beauty of a large system. If someone dares to talk about one part of it, they can be dismissed without discussion since their concern is so minimal compared with the massive bureaucracy that comprises the system. Sort of like all encompassing centralized government.

No, it just means the subject has to be looked at in a broader context. This myopic focus our political system seems to have makes any effort towards real policy impossible.

I don't know if they do. But they have specific, spelled out, benefits and limitations. And they can be bullied or convicted by government aided by sharp lawyers into paying for things they might object to. It's kind of difficult to convince the government to bully or convict itself in such cases (unless votes are in the balance). And private insurers provide a plethora of "versions," and, until the ACA, were not forced to provide certain things in all "versions." You were more able to get what you paid for rather than being coerced to pay for what you were forced to get.

Funny, for the benefits and limitations being so specific and spelled out I still have a terrible time trying to determine what's actually covered.

Are people really getting what they pay for if they don't even know what they're getting?

And . . . how, again, was the ACA going to make this better and "more affordable"? Oh yeah, that's right . . . it was going to force the subsidization of some, without choice, at the expense of others. Right . . . that's how large bureaucratic centralized socialistic systems work. In every respect. Except for some very "special" cases, like abortion, where choice is paramount.

I don't know if the ACA was intended to address VA issues.

Cost cutting comes from reforms more than just economies of scale. For instance one of the big changes the reform makes is place the emphasis on the value of care rather than the volume. Doing so has the potential to eliminate a tremendous amount of waste while improving quality.

I remember reading an article in HBR (by Porter?) some years ago stating exactly this.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, where did you ever read that? Have you ever been in a VA Hospital?
If not do yourself a favor and visit one, then come out and tell me they outperform private hospitals. Outrageous.

No, but reports I've read on many metrics, satisfaction surveys they do quite well. Not saying everything is perfect. I'm sure there are good systems and bad ones.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Not saying everything is perfect. I'm sure there are good systems and bad ones.

-spence

One bad system, is one too many for our troops whose lives have been
changed forever fighting to keep us free.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

One bad system, is one too many for our troops whose lives have been
changed forever fighting to keep us free.

I'd certainly agree.

-spence

[Tagger]

I've always heard bad stuff about the VA ,, My father died in the VA 35 yrs. ago .. Before that he'd go there to dry out .. Is this really a big surprise ?? Or just keep throwing poop on the wall until it sticks ..

[buckman]

This issue has been put on the back burner due to this weeks scandal . Possibly deliberately
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

This issue has been put on the back burner due to this weeks scandal . Possibly deliberately
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps that's the entire strategy, keep the scandals rolling to distract from the real scandal...it's made of people.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps that's the entire strategy, keep the scandals rolling to distract from the real scandal...it's made of people.

-spence

Perhaps
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, it just means the subject has to be looked at in a broader context.

You're demonstrating what I said. Dismiss the smaller part by referring to "a broader context." "Context" may give "perspective" which can be trumped by an even broader context--the conflicting perspectives resulting from different points of view. Arguments about over-arching "contexts" can, and usually do, hide the "little" or "minor" issues. Broader "context" is a convenient method of dismissing specific problems that cast a bad light on administration.

On the other hand, it is the attention to the specific details, specific problems, which result in good administration and the smooth operation of the "broader context."

This myopic focus our political system seems to have makes any effort towards real policy impossible.

How are you differing "policy" from "real policy"? It seems that efforts toward policy, real or otherwise, are being made apace by this administration. Perhaps, you are in favor of unimpeded administration which mandates policy into reality by fiat? That might be how a corporation or small business can operate, and would work well if fiat policy accurately resulted in the desired success. If it was unsuccessful, the business would fail. Or bumble along waiting for another good "policy." In any case, one business in the myriad of businesses, appearing and disappearing, succeeding and failing, would just be a part of the "broader context" of the nation's economy. A healthy economy not only can withstand the singular failures, it requires the diverse and often risky experimentation in order to evolve and grow.

But the success of any single business depends on attention to details. And masking small failures by looking only at the broader context can be, and probably would be, fatal.

And a political system has some similar characteristics. If a political entity is not part of a larger system, a "broader context," but rather subsumes all political entities and becomes the sole context, fiat policy is not only tyrannical, it will, sooner or later eff-up, and the failure will be massive and corrosive to society as a whole.

So if by "real policy" you mean that which is dictated by a centralized all-powerful government unopposed by "myopic focus" on the system, perhaps you are too ambitious for our health and good. Focus on whether we should be dictated to by unopposed central bureaucrats, supposed experts, or whether we should have a "broader context" of governance comprised of many different units, as well as checks and balances, such as that "old-fashioned" constitutional federalism provides, would be paying attention to the details of good government. It would certainly allow for smaller failures as models to avoid as well as various successes to be emulated in the arena of the States and localities being the "laboratories of democracy"--just as businesses are in the "broader context" of economy.

The "myopic focus" on our political system is about freedom, growth, and evolution. This centralized Progressive administrative system which you seem to hanker for and which dislikes that "myopic focus" pretends to be about some egalitarian world of social justice ordered by fiat. One great difference between them is that the first is about individuals comprising the "broader context" of society, and the second is about the broader context of society subsuming and dismissing the importance of the individual. Another difference is that the first is a natural, corrective, process, and the second is a utopian contradiction. Fiat dictated by the few for the many is neither egalitarian, nor just.

Funny, for the benefits and limitations being so specific and spelled out I still have a terrible time trying to determine what's actually covered.

Well, that's an improvement over your trouble with the Constitution which you've read a few times and can't figure out at all. Perhaps, that's why you prefer fiat dictation. In that there is no need to understand, just obey.

Are people really getting what they pay for if they don't even know what they're getting?

So . . . then . . . you don't actually believe that ignorance is bliss?

I don't know if the ACA was intended to address VA issues.

Cost cutting comes from reforms more than just economies of scale. For instance one of the big changes the reform makes is place the emphasis on the value of care rather than the volume. Doing so has the potential to eliminate a tremendous amount of waste while improving quality.

I remember reading an article in HBR (by Porter?) some years ago stating exactly this.

-spence

Yeah, there's a lot of "potential" to eliminate all kinds of stuff via the ACA. It also has the distinct "potential" to eliminate itself. There is the "potential" that is what the Progressives really want, the collapse of the whole thing creating yet another crisis that leads to more "broader context" analysis and change--to single payer government national health system.