Jindal administration defends outsourcing of veterans' health-care services Published: Monday, June 07, 2010, 4:56 PM Updated: Monday, June 07, 2010, 4:57 P
BATON ROUGE -- State Veterans Secretary Lane Carson fired back Monday at critics who say care in Louisiana's five war veterans' homes has suffered as a result of privatization efforts by Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration.
"The veterans are not losing out at all in the delivery of services," Carson told the Senate Finance Committee, referring to changes that are expected to save the state about $2 million a year by outsourcing pharmacy and physician services to private contractors.
i can't beleive that GOPs are even considering soemthing Obama was blasted for last year:
this guy too:
Ken Buck: Privatize the VA, except when I'm talking to Veterans by: SSG_Dan Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 08:06:16 AM MDT
( - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Ken Buck is clueless about Veterans issues.
In a state where we have 460,000 veterans, with 4 major military installations heavily involved in two major wars (including the Colorado National Guard) the GOP nominee has yet to put out a single substantive statement on where he stands on National Security and Veterans issues.
Buck STILL does not have any comprehensive National Security or Veterans issues posted on his website, or as a press release. It's not surprising, since he JUST formed a Veterans advisory committee (consisting of ONE Veteran) and is still casting about for support from the veterans community. His first "Meet and Greet" with Veterans was Monday. No announcement of policy was made at that event.
Well, let me clarify that - he did suck up to the Tea Party by stating that he would privatize the VA:
Buck: "Would a Veterans Administration hospital that is run by the private sector be better run then by the public sector? In my view, Yes."
"On the campaign trail, the Republican's presumptive nominee has talked of a new mission for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and argued that veterans with non-combat medical problems should be given vouchers to receive care at private, for-profit hospitals - in other words, an end to the kind of universal health care the government has guaranteed veterans for generations."
-------------------------------------------------
Not really the same thing as the Presidents plan from what i read.
Not the same price tag on these type of conditions in general. (Non Combat)
Plus he is talking about a voucher system, which is an intersting idea, but would depend on how much each voucher was worth and how they would determine that.
That's a huge question knowing the VA and the Gov. system of determining things for Vets.
I would be happy to give examples of how they determine things and i just gasp sometimes.
Personally i would not chose the VA for major surgeries if i had my choice, which i do.
I have private insurance and could use the VA if i chose to.
Not to say their bad, to me there are better places for major medical problems in most cases.
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Originally Posted By Glassman:
"On the campaign trail, the Republican's presumptive nominee has talked of a new mission for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and argued that veterans with non-combat medical problems should be given vouchers to receive care at private, for-profit hospitals - in other words, an end to the kind of universal health care the government has guaranteed veterans for generations."
-------------------------------------------------
Not really the same thing as the Presidents plan from what i read.
Not the same price tag on these type of conditions in general. (Non Combat)
Plus he is talking about a voucher system, which is an intersting idea, but would depend on how much each voucher was worth and how they would determine that.
That's a huge question knowing the VA and the Gov. system of determining things for Vets.
I would be happy to give examples of how they determine things and i just gasp sometimes.
Personally i would not chose the VA for major surgeries if i had my choice, which i do.
I have private insurance and could use the VA if i chose to.
Not to say their bad, to me there are better places for major medical problems in most cases.
-
Not really the same thing as the Presidents plan from what i read.
posted
The one at the very bottom of this page, some seem to call it that.
One seems to make some sense the other sucks, not a lot there from the different sources i have read.
They differ from what i read.
Or do you think he said none of this?
Kind of like Iraq and Afghanistan if you call them plans.
Sure seems like he is chasing his tail at the expense of our troops, very similiar to several past Presidents.
I sure do not like seeing all those dead and wounded soldiers that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let alone the financial burden it has placed on this country and continues to and in the end looks like Iraq is not going to be any different than when we first got involved.
If it changes it's not going to be from our past presence there, it will be up to them to do something.
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: The one at the very bottom of this page, some seem to call it that.
One seems to make some sense the other sucks, not a lot there from the different sources i have read.
They differ from what i read.
Or do you think he said none of this?
Kind of like Iraq and Afghanistan if you call them plans.
Sure seems like he is chasing his tail at the expense of our troops, very similiar to several past Presidents.
I sure do not like seeing all those dead and wounded soldiers that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let alone the financial burden it has placed on this country and continues to and in the end looks like Iraq is not going to be any different than when we first got involved.
If it changes it's not going to be from our past presence there, it will be up to them to do something.
Oh, I thought this had been settled. Apparently, *someone* in the Administration had an idea about shifting coverage, but once the idea got out the White House squashed it pretty quickly, within a coupla days. It was probably one of thousands of ideas floated during the whole run-up to the overall health care changes. If this is the same thing--if not, let me know. From what I've seen otherwise, it looks like they're trying to expand coverage/treatment for vets, especially for PTSD.
posted
i see your point Iwish, i shouldn't have said the same exact thing because i really meant that both sides are messing with a system that failed many Nam Era Vets and took years of hard work by alot of people to get better ( if not pretty good). Of course it can still be improved, but privatising it is no different from hiring Blackwater to fight and do security in N'Orleans... It's creepy IMO. I wasn't joking when i said i though the VA is better than Kaiser. Kaiser is a good name for some of those health fascists in that HMO I would strongly discourage anybody to join an HMO...(unless i don't like 'em )
the VA has a model system for purchasing meds. When Bush passede the drug care medicaid package? They specifically forbid Medicare from using teh VA bulk purchasing program, and Jindal is privatising that to save money? I'm not sure who he is serving, but i doubt it's Vets.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I thought this had been settled. Apparently, *someone* in the Administration had an idea about shifting coverage, but once the idea got out the White House squashed it pretty quickly, within a coupla days. It was probably one of thousands of ideas floated during the whole run-up to the overall health care changes. If this is the same thing--if not, let me know. From what I've seen otherwise, it looks like they're trying to expand coverage/treatment for vets, especially for PTSD.
Anyway, see if this answers your question:
_________________________________________________
Your link of what was said is another take of what i am talking about.
A little softer version, but the key point or points are there.
The use of the word advisors is a nice way to soften, although probably true.
It sounds like the way they state it would be no problem.
Vets can use there own insurance and the insurance companies will be forced to pay the burden no matter how high.
Wish it worked that way and nobody felt the burden!(not a good word for vets)
The problem i see with the recent wars, Iraq, Afgan. and what might come, is that the weapons are changing some.
I am guessing here a little, but i think we are seeing a lot more injuries of the tbi nature, (brain) which are very costly short and long term.
Not to say there are not others that are bad also.
These type of injuries mimic what parents have to deal with when kids that have major learning disabilites because of brain damage.
Approx. 12 years ago i had a good friend that had his son go down an elevator shaft a lot of stories and lived.
The cost in the first 5 months was well over 1 million and the costs keep going, not only for medical, but for nursing home also.
So if you shift this cost to the private sector without hugh premiums, who's wants them and how do you allow for them without the gov. paying anyhow.
I love the idea of Veterans having this option of going to private doctors, but there would have to be a voucher system or something similiar that the Gov. would pick up the tab either for the insurance or the bill.
Other wise as stated, employers are going to be very hesident to hire if paying their insurance.
My fear as stated before, is that they would under voucher the injuries and you would be back in the same boat anyway.
Doesn't seem like there is anyway to get the gov. out of the VA. and be fair to all sides, especially the Vet.
We know it isn't going to be free one way or the other.
Bottom line here for me is that we are trying to avoid the thing we shoud be talking more about.
The way to save this nation money is not to concentrate on how to spread these war medical costs.
But rather to first concentrate on how to get us out of the war and keep us out, unless they are entirely necessary.
Then move on to immigration and all the fraud that goes on in the disability and unemployment system related to this.
Then move on to imports etc.
We worry about the small stuff money wise, to differ from dealing with the bigger problems that would set this country on the right track.
I know that other Presidents help create the problems, but we need one that jumps in to change it.
I am tired of hearing who created the problems, i was hoping the next one would solve them.
posted
Well, I understand we more or less had to go to Afghanistan following 9/11. But once it was clear we missed Bin Laden, then why stay?
When a president inherits a war, that's tough. Not sure how you pull everybody out, safely, without leaving a bunch of gear for the enemy.
Myself I wouldn't insert ground troops anywhere unless absolutely necessary. If we wanted to help an oppressed group, we could provide air support and drop supplies. Wars are for fighting armies, controlling territory. Not endless skirmishes with guys without uniforms who can't be distinguished from civilians. Those are criminals, not enemy soldiers.
quote:Originally posted by T e x: Well, I understand we more or less had to go to Afghanistan following 9/11. But once it was clear we missed Bin Laden, then why stay?
When a president inherits a war, that's tough. Not sure how you pull everybody out, safely, without leaving a bunch of gear for the enemy.
Myself I wouldn't insert ground troops anywhere unless absolutely necessary. If we wanted to help an oppressed group, we could provide air support and drop supplies. Wars are for fighting armies, controlling territory. Not endless skirmishes with guys without uniforms who can't be distinguished from civilians. Those are criminals, not enemy soldiers.
Impressive Tex. That is one of the most cogent and succinct analysis of the Afghan conflict that I have read anywhere. And I agree completely with your analysis.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"wasn't joking when i said i though the VA is better than Kaiser. Kaiser is a good name for some of those health fascists in that HMO I would strongly discourage anybody to join an HMO...(unless i don't like 'em )"
_________________________________________________
I have never heard anything good about Kaiser from people i know, except they are cheaper.
There use to be many jokes out there about Kaiser care, don't know if they are still floating around.
Maybe they are better these days, not the jokes, Kaiser.
As far as the VA, i am not sure why there is a little bit of a lost link there.
They are a training hospital, as are many.
But there is definately a differance between lets say UCLA and the VA.
Maybe the ratios are different between how many doctors supervise the trainees.
When you go to the VA in the speciality departments, you usually get a trainee or i believe they call them interns.
Then if there is a problem, you might see the main doctor, but not usually.
Vets doctors visits are suppose to be overseen by the main doctor, but somehow you are passing information from a second to a third party which often losses a lot.
Plus the person writting the report and diagnosing the medical problem does not have the years of experiance to help make the best diagnosis, since he or she is still just training.
They are also involved in the surgeries, i don't know if the ratios and procedures are the same in surgery.
I guess vets are under so it would be hard to know. I have never had a surgery there so i don't really know, although i have heard some people talk about it.
quote:what's funny about this smear campaign? Do you inform your friends when these lies and half-truths are proven wrong?
What a short memory we have...this kind of thing NEVER happened while Bush was in office...did it Tex?
My laughter was directed toward the fact that this was OBVIOUS satire. No politician would even offer this as a viable plan.
hmmmmmmmm....I am sure I am setting myself up here but I honestly don't remember any outright lies about prominent republicans coming from democratic sources. There was the thing that got Dan Rather fired....but even that has not been confirmed was a lie. Could you jog my memory seek? What lies did the Dem's tell about Bush and the Republicans during his term in office?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Contrary to what the ad clearly implies, any weapon that can fire 300 rounds per minute remains illegal for civilians to own without specific clearance by the US Department of Justice.
LOL... that's hardly the way i'd put it..
you can own one if you apply for the proper papers and they cannot deny you the ownership of one without good reason. Those reasons are defined very clearly by law.
tell me SF, what's the differnce between Soros and the Annenberg Foundation? Annenberg is well-known to support many Liberal causes too...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a common misconception[3] that an individual must have a "Class 3 License" in order to own NFA firearms. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, heavily taxed and regulated, as follows:
All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[4]
NFA items may also be transferred to corporations (or other legal entities such as a trust). When the paperwork to request transfer of an NFA item is initiated by an officer of a corporation, a signature from local law enforcement is not required, and fingerprint cards and photographs do not need to be submitted with the transfer request. Therefore, an individual who lives in a location where the chief law enforcement officer will not sign a transfer form can still own an NFA item if he or she owns a corporation. This method has downsides, since it is the corporation (and not the principal) that owns the firearm. Thus, if the corporation ever dissolves, it must transfer its NFA firearms to the owners. This event would be considered a new transfer and would be subject to a new transfer tax. US National Firearms Act Stamp, affixed to transfer forms to indicate tax paid.
The tax for privately manufacturing any NFA firearm (other than machineguns, which are generally illegal to manufacture) is $200. Transferring requires a $200 tax for all NFA firearms except AOW's, for which the transfer tax is $5 (although the manufacturing tax remains $200).
Dealers who pay a special yearly occupational tax are exempt from these taxes for transfers to or from other special occupational taxpayers (SOT's). Only a Class 2 manufacturer can “make and register” a machine gun –– and that gun becomes a Post May-19th, 1986 Gun –– salable only to police, State, local, Federal-Government, and the military. Low volume Class 2 manufacturers (those with sales under $500,000.00) pay the $500.00 per year SOT tax, while high sales volume Class 2’s pay the full $1,000.00 SOT “ticket” price.
Transferable machine guns made or registered before May-19th 1986 are worth far more than their original, pre-1986 value. And items like registered “auto-sears,” “lightning-links,” trigger-packs, trunnions, and other “combination of parts” registered as machineguns before the aforementioned date are often worth nearly as much as a full registered machine gun. For instance, as of September 2008, a transferable M16 rifle costs approximately $11,000 to $18,000, while a transferable "lightning-link" for the AR-15 can sell for $8,000 to $10,000. New manufacture M-16s sell to law enforcement and the military for around $600 to $1000.
the fact that Dubya said he was willing to sign a new assault weapon ban (another one of those poltical timebombs) should have told it all to real Conservatives
so here we have tax cuts with a time delay fuse and unConstitutional Weapons bans... one from each party..
fire 'em all. these people are all crooks.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the paperwork to request transfer of an NFA item is initiated by an officer of a corporation, a signature from local law enforcement is not required, and fingerprint cards and photographs do not need to be submitted with the transfer request.
this sounds like real good test case idea to take to SCOTUS.
This seems to me to grant more rights to corps than to individuals.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Well, I understand we more or less had to go to Afghanistan following 9/11. But once it was clear we missed Bin Laden, then why stay?
When a president inherits a war, that's tough. Not sure how you pull everybody out, safely, without leaving a bunch of gear for the enemy.
Myself I wouldn't insert ground troops anywhere unless absolutely necessary. If we wanted to help an oppressed group, we could provide air support and drop supplies. Wars are for fighting armies, controlling territory. Not endless skirmishes with guys without uniforms who can't be distinguished from civilians. Those are criminals, not enemy soldiers." _________________________________________________
I am not really sure we were that heavily into Afghanistan to really feel like it was so large as to not pull out anytime.
Iraq a little different, but i felt we were there way to long before getting out major numbers of our troops.
I really wonder if the public had known where these wars were going under Obama if he would have been voted in.
Voters stayed away from McCain for fear he might do something similiar, me included.
Most of our recent Presidents and their advisors seem to be very slow learners, 60+ years doesn't seem to be enough time.
You don't increase troops as with Afganistan especially when it pretty obvious to most how we will be fighting there.
As far as how they fight, that doesn't appear like it's going to change in Afghanistan.
At times i feel these Presidents are looking for that prize deer and if they get it they will be remembered as the greatest President.
In recent years i guess the prize deer would be Bin Laden.
Not really sure it would make much difference though, what i am pretty sure of is that there is someone right behind him to take over.
Your analysis of war these days seems like it would be like the old gunfight in which two guys walk into the street then count to three and the best man wins.
Unfortunately in recent wars the bad guys shoot at two and if we shoot at one the government and many people are there to hang us, either way were dead.
posted
I always love the talks about tax cuts anyways. A shell game that people believe. Their is no tax cuts in the end and the last one cost the Americans a fortune. The government has bills and if you can't reduce the bills you can';t cut taxes. So the play a paper game with naive people. They tell you that they are cutting taxes. then they give the states less money. The States can't afford the lose so the cut money to the counties. So now the local government has to come up with new money for police, schools and stuff we really need. So property taxes increase or some other hidden tax. One of the best new hidden taxes is red light or speed cameras. Cities are raking in the money and they don't have to call it a tax.
The only thing that trickle down economics does is trickle the taxes to local government and they tend to screw you even worse
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but things like the death tax are going too far Ric. The federal estate tax will hit 55% on everything over 1 million dollars. Over half of your inheritance? What on earth justifies that?
It is defined by the Internal Revenue Service as “a tax on your right to transfer property at your death"
"I am from the government and I'm here to help."
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Yeah, but things like the death tax are going too far Ric. The federal estate tax will hit 55% on everything over 1 million dollars. Over half of your inheritance? What on earth justifies that?
It is defined by the Internal Revenue Service as “a tax on your right to transfer property at your death"
"I am from the government and I'm here to help."
and it's double taxation cash...
but i know a lot trust fund brats that got around it...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"The spirit of the Obama campaign hasn't carried over to the Obama presidency."
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Saw a quote today that hits the nail:
"The spirit of the Obama campaign hasn't carried over to the Obama presidency."
I can agree with that statement. I think Obama had some good ideas but he doesn't fight for them. I think he may be kin to Jimmy Carter. But I do know one thing, it would be a whole lot worse right now if McCain would have been President. That would have been like electing Bush to another term. The great Presidents not only knew what they wanted they seemed to get it even if there had to be some compromise.
-------------------- Invest with your brain not with your heart. Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I agree on the McCain issue, I just could not bring myself to vote for him in 2008.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I would strongly discourage anybody to join an HMO...(unless i don't like 'em ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
