Is it really as appalling as they show in Seal Team?? I was shocked.
The man having TBI and not getting it diagnosed cos it costs too much. Having to wait hours and hours before you can see a shrink, and she doesn't have time either, all she does is prescribe meds whereas the soldier wants his injury -TBI- treated.
In the end he kills himself as his life has become living hell and he cannot get the help he needs, all they do is give meds that numb and don't cure.
Hooray for Big F*(king Pharma!
The doctor saying he's not authorized to give him an MRI as it costs thousands of dollars. An MRI? Thousands of dollars? The entire machine, yes, but a scan?
I seriously cannot believe it, dang near makes me cry to see that people get treated that way after they've given their all, their health, for their country.
Use 'em & drop 'em. Nice...

VA is run and managed by the fedral government, need I say more?

Well yeah, I'm not American, so... But I gather that means it's crap by default.

For any who think socialized medical coverage (Medicare for all) is such a wonderful solution, just look up the stats on veterans who suffer under this farce!

There isn't enough time or space to list the horrors and abuse under this type of system! They throw millions of dollars at it with little to no results because the system itself is broken at its core.

Put the government in charge of the worlds deserts and within 2 years there will be a shortage of sand!

I don't believe government is any less or more efficient than private, because both are only groups of people, and people suffer from greed and inefficiency in any group.

The difference is just in implied intent, whereas the bottom line for private is profit, damned the patient or customer's actual need or ability, and social implied intent is for the need and ability, damned the profit.


My son was talking with me just yesterday about the inefficiency at his company, which i wont name here, and he was saying how they dont know the basic TRIANGLE, which many people in private and public do not know.

it is described this way:
The triangle illustrates the relationship between three primary forces in a project. Time is the available time to deliver the project, cost represents the amount of money or resources available and quality represents the fit-to-purpose that the project must achieve to be a success.


I think private is defining 'success' with how much financial profit, and social is defining 'success' as how much social availability to a need.

Both are going to have flaws, because focusing on profit only leaves alot of people out of one's profits, and sometimes affects the quality when a good is too reliant on efficiency by cutting people out of jobs to earn income to contribute to profits.

And focusing on social availability may cause there to be more people on the receiving end than the number on the giving end can give quality service to.


As much as there is to point out about social medicine, the VA, et cetera, our privatized medicine is not fairing that much better if we look honestly at the state of healthcare in general in Western cultures.

Both Private and public could obviously be much better. Greed impairs one and inefficiency of being overworked impairs the other.

It can be.
There are all kinds of horror stories in medicine.
A while ago there was a study showing medical mistakes are the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S.


(insert biggest facepalm in history here)
Are you kidding with this?
Besides the affront to common sense, there are an astronomical number of legitimate studies, research, and anecdotal evidence regarding government inefficiency vs. the private sector.


When the VA gets sued for poor service to the point of bankruptcy, they get more government money (or moved).
When a private hospital/practice gets sued to the point of bankruptcy...they go out of business.
...Basic common sense...who will be more motivated to increase efficiency and reduce the number of mistakes?


"Profit" which is based (outside of the medical system since it's not really capitalistic as it's heavily regulated and manipulated by the government so it's pseudo socialistic as it is, where people are basically paying double via taxes and private funds) on a consensual relationship of choice between alternatives. If the consumer doesn't choose that product (because it sucks, dissatisfaction, lack of service, or fulfilling the need) then there's no "profit."


"Availability" does not equal quality or efficiency/affordability.


"Greed" also improves one.
If someone is "greedy" they want the profit.
Being sued, losing customers, kills their ability to fulfill their "greed."
That is motivation for greater efficiencies, new technologies/innovations, new ways of keeping the people choosing to come to them, rather than their competitors.

For example. Purely anecdotal. As medicare/medicaid expanded in the state I currently reside in, it became more and more difficult to find a primary care physician that a. took self pay patients. b. took new private insurance patients. Instead, they focused on maximizing their Medicare/medicaid patients to maximize the stable/standardized, guaranteed, income flow.

Guess what "greedy" people did? They started luring doctors and nurses and health care professionals towards those expanding urgent care clinics.
They offer a cheaper alternative to going to an emergency room, they offer availability and convenience when you can't get the filled up by medicare/medicaid patients doctors offices.
Those "greedy" people want to make money. They want to keep making money.
Just being "greedy" doesn't mean they lose all common sense, adopting disdain for their meal ticket in the pursuit of money, cutting off their noses to spite their own face. (not to say they don't exist, they just tend to gravitate towards the public sector and juicy government contracts with their guaranteed no matter what profit margins)

"Greed" can be a motivator for innovation, and efficiency.

"Government" or "social" tend to attract those "greedy" people that want to suck on the gov't teat of guaranteed incomes. You understand within those contracts is a guaranteed profit?

In order to get government money, you have to prove you're a victim.
The bigger victim you are, the more money you get (to fight whatever is making you a victim, even if it's your own inefficiencies). And the government pretty much guarantees you get customers.

In order to fulfill "greed" in the private sector, you have to continually convince customers they're getting value for their money and better than their competitors so they keep choosing to come back and give you what you're "greedy" for.

Jesus.
I can't believe I actually read "don't believe government is any less or more efficient than private" coming from an adult.

I deal with the VA healthcare system.
The bottom line is...
They don't freakin care.

My doctor explained to me that he is scheduled a certain number of patients daily. He MUST fill that quota or lose his job.
He looks at my labs and acts according to the data before him.
He CAN'T care about my quality of life, just that he acts on the evidence that is gathered.

The nurse that schedules appointments doesn't care if you think you need seen in 2 weeks. She cares about which available slots are available for the doctor assigned.

The larger the facility, the more people they see.
The smaller the facility the more time and energy they can dedicate to a single patient.

When I lived in PA, and the facility was smaller, they could dedicate more time and expense to me.
Now I live in an area surrounded by three major bases.
The VA is always packed with people.

Then you have the aspect of financial backing.
In a civilian hospital system, the insurance systems assure payment for the given fees.
In the VA system, the government is picking up most of or all of the tab (as they should be).
Healthcare is a 'benefit' for your personal service commitment to your nation. Most of the time, that benefit is justified due to the sacrifices you made willingly. You get that benefit, no matter whether your health issue is related to your duties as a service member or not. You are 'entitled' because you were a service member.
Some gave all but all gave some.

Being on federal disability, I pay for Medicare whether I can afford to use it or not.
I am 'thankful' the VA health system is there for me.
Without my 'benefit' I would be getting no health care at all because I can't afford medicare co-pays on my fixed income.

I still pay for my Rx but at a reduced cost to me.
I don't get charged for labs or dr visits and I have the option of emergency care without a bill (I have had to use that option).

My disability can be linked to my service. Since, when I was working, I needed no VA assistance because I made plenty of money to afford good health care I never tried to link my service to my disability.
I could if I really, really needed to.

So, without being officially service-connected, I am not eligible for some service connected benefits. Its just a matter of paper work because its all in my active duty med records.
Thing is, I don't need it but other veterans do.

Its really easy to think that a system sucks when the only viewpoint is a personal one. But, the reality of what is going on is far more complex.

Yes, you read it. I have not read any different fact, just different opinion, which is why the thread is here.

the fact people dont want to be sued does not necessarily have a THING to do with Greed, anymore than not wanting to be imprisoned is. Legal processes are incovenient and disruptive to one's life or business. Not wanting inconvenience and disruption are not tied to 'greed'.

The whole discussion is subjective without a specific definition of what one is meaning by 'efficent' which is tied to 'productivity', which also can have different parameters depending upon what one is hoping to produce.


My point was that comparing two separate systems, BOTH run by humans capable of laziness or greed, there is no clear better or worse, both will be fallible. and what is better or worse is dependent upon what quality the observer places priority on.

You are a wonderful conversationalist.
Would be wonderful to spend time in your company some night around a firepit.

Its obvious you have valid arguments about the fallibility of people.
People are insane but the person can be quite intelligent and wise.
It depends on the one you are dealing with.

Consider the inspiration for the thread.
SparklingCrystal a TV show "Seal Team".
All media is subject to some type of agenda.
There never is a completely neutral stance in a 'show', doesn't make any money.

You have some random anonymous proclamations from individuals that assess the situation they experience related to the OP topic but always with associative inflection. Their 'authority' is based on their own individual assessment of the experiences they had in the reality in which they exist.

If enough of these personal assessments are provided, one can find the common denominators minus the individual emotional tangent of the witness to actually arrive at a conclusion that might be accurate to the actual situation at hand.

Even if the 'show' was accurate as depicted for those individuals, it doesn't indicate that it is accurate to all possible situations.
To try to determine if a government sponsored program is 'better or worse' than a private program is inconsequential to the intent of the op based on the show that was referenced.

While a discussion on the merits and deficiencies between government and privately funded programs might be entertaining it is too broad of a subject base to gain any significance.

I appreciate the compliment. And yes, the subject is broader than a matter of which is subjectively better or worse.

You deserve a compliment because you DO provide views worthy of consideration most of the time.

What I find entertaining is the scope of the discussions found at a dating/social site.

Since I do frequent some philisophical sites, many of the discussions here are already being discussed elsewhere. I find it interesting that such concepts are found here at M2.

While many concets are interesting, I try to keep it in the scope of the site.
msharmony, I believe you would find great topics and discussion at sites geared to your interests.
I won't name any, but you can find them.
Do a search on a subject and include 'forums' or 'discussions' as your search query. Look for sites that are part of .edu or established research institutes.
Many are .org, .edu or .net.

One site I will give you as a premmer is
http://www.school-for-champions.com/default.htm
https://www.school-for-champions.com/default.htm

You can ask a question and they will either give you an answer or direct you to an authority on the subject.
I found Prof. Griest thru them that yielded some great discussion on the nature of Higgs-Bosons and Empty Space.
I was able to converse with Prof. Griest personally.
Very enlightening.

Google Scholar also gives you references on a wide range of subjects where you can actually talk with prople working in that field of study.
http://scholar.google.com/

"Knowledge is Half the Battle" - GI Joe

Thanks for the references. I will check them out.

For the most part, the medical profession tries to do what's best for the patient. Take your ailment to several doctors, you may get several different ways to treat your ailment.

This is what I found out. Many moons ago, I broke my leg. Two inches above the ankle, both bones. Very nasty. Also very slow to heal. My leg was in plaster from hip to toes for the first four months.

First orthopedist was very curt and nasty to me. He'd get me in for an exam, 8am. I'd lay in the cast room for 5-6 hours before he'd look at me. Then he'd spend 5 minutes with me, and out the door I went. He always X-rayed it. On the second visit, I finally got him to tell me what he was look for, in the healing of it.

On the third visit, x-ray, then left me sit. His x-ray tech put up my last two up on his viewer, there I sat. I was able to study it then. By what I felt and what I could see, it was healing. He didn't think so, and told me that. On the fifth visit, he put me in a cylinder cast from knee to ankle. But still insisted it wasn't healing. I knew it was, because the bones stopped shifting. To me, that's healing. And I started feeling lumps forming on the break area.

Last visit, he cut my cast off, and told me that he would put a bone graft on it. I told him I wanted a second opinion. He got mad that I did. Then I got mad and told him I was going to stick a crutch up his ***. I took my x-rays, and out I went.

From there, I went to six orthopods. All had different ways to treat me. Two said that it was healing. I chose the one that was closest to me, and we let it be for 8 weeks. In the meantime, I was told to get as much exercise as I could, to increase the circulation to promote healing. That's when the healing process really took off. On my last visit, I faked using my crutches, because I had been walking on that leg without support, like a cain. (Which I made) I'd used that for 2 months, instead of crutches. When he said I could start walking on that leg, I tucked the crutches under one arm and walked out. He asked me one last question as I was leaving- "How long had you been walking on that?" I said a month, he laughed, and chased me out.

The first orthopod sued me for the final bill, I wouldn't pay it. He couldn't look me in the face in small claims, because I was standing there. He was wrong, and he knew it. I wouldn't sit in the courtroom, because I was proving a point. The judge tossed out the suit, he got nothing for his effort. (Which wasn't much)

Moral- Doctors don't know everything. Never allow them to work on you without a second opinion. (Unless it's life or death, and you're gushing blood, or in severe pain) Most good ones will want you to get a second, only to verify that their diagnosis is correct. For their own piece of mind.

@ RedRider that is appalling! Glad it all worked out in the end and that you were aware enough to stop unnecessary treatment!

Healthcare is always a delicate issue isn't it.
If in the US I wouldn't trust any doctor, or not easily. I know from when my girl lived there they prescribed antibiotics for everything. Her in laws were both doctors and they were like that too. I was shocked. My girl got really strong antibiotics for a long time for acne. I managed to talk some sense in her at some point.

Over here you have to be aware too. Especially since they rely on their computer system to give red alerts for medication contradictions. I know from experience that system does NOT work. At the pharmacy it does, but not the doctor's one.
I've been prescribed anti-allergy stuff that I am not allowed to take with my meds. I was pretty certain, I have some medical knowledge myself, looked it up online, and I was right. While the doctor was adamant it was okay since no warning came up on his computer system.
Shocking... It means people can die because of that.

Doctors rely way too much on Big Pharma. In the past I've had a GP who was also a homeopath. Best doctor I've ever had in my life!
Dutch healthcare insurance also covers quite a lot alternative therapies, but it's getting worse fast. Big Pharma doesn't like that much while oftentimes it's far more productive in healing than regular healthcare.

Anywho I hope your healthcare system gets better organized and available to everyone. I was told Trump was busy with that? Now I don't follow politics at all, but I hope it's true and that he sorts it out.