USA: Gov't run health care out preforms private care.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aLIc5ABThjBk

Rick Tanner is one American who loves his government-run health care.

After serving in Vietnam and spending three decades in the U.S. Navy, Tanner retired in 1991 with a bad knee and high blood pressure. He enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration and now benefits from comprehensive treatment with few co-payments and an electronic records system more advanced than almost anywhere at private hospitals.

“The care is superb,” said Tanner, 66, a San Diego resident who visits the veterans medical center in La Jolla, California, and a clinic in nearby Mission Valley. The record- keeping, he said, is “state of the art.”

As Congress considers changing Americans’ access to health care, the veterans agency, whose projected budget this year is $45 billion, is evidence that the government can provide care favored by patients that may offer savings when compared with private insurers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html

Anyone else have an opinion on this compromise?

I personally really like it. There's a post of 538.com defending it as well.

Goods...I love that you posted this!  I saw an interview awhile back with Jon Stewart (and I can't for the life of me remember who he was interviewing).  Whoever he was interviewing was talking about how sub-par the government-run health care would be...then later in the interview he talked about how the US Military has access to the best healthcare in the world.  Jon Stewart promptly pointed out the contradiction in the two statements...how can government-run health care be sub-par but also the best in the world?  It really made me think (since I'm former military and had access to free governement health care).  I thought it was an intersting point to make in lieu of the healthcare debate. (Of course these are just people's personal opinions on healthcare...not necessarily documented facts.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/dems-discussing-public-op_n_313054.html

Anyone else have an opinion on this compromise?

I personally really like it. There's a post of 538.com defending it as well.

I've always thought the opt-out idea is perfect! 

But I reserve the right to change my mind if the opt-out provision morphs into "opt-out or modify" provision.

Opt out? They should call it kop out!

They have the Presidency and both houses....the Dems should be ramming through a public health care system. This will just allow them to say they got it through but don't blame us when individual states reject it.
I agree with Jon Stewart on the Daily show - The Dems are managing to lose from a winning position!

The problem is that not all Dems are actually liberals, and there are enough in the pockets of the insurance companies to prevent proper reform actually happening.

The problem is that not all Dems are actually liberals, and there are enough in the pockets of the insurance companies to prevent proper reform actually happening.

To take that a step further, some Dems are rather conservative and their conservative districts seem to be listening to the scare tactics the insurance companies are using.  Blah!

To take that a step further, some Dems are rather conservative and their conservative districts seem to be listening to the scare tactics the insurance companies are using.  Blah!

Actually, it probably is less that their districts are conservative but that their consituents are old. Those people oppose "Obamacare"  in greatest number of just about any group, which, of course, is a joke cause they are the biggest consumer of government healthcare in the US.

Do you know how many times I've heard "Keep the government out of Medicare." said completely earnestly?

"Gov't run health care out preforms private care."

Too bad the same thing can't be said about Gov't run Social Security or anything else Gov't run.   

"Gov't run health care out preforms private care."

Too bad the same thing can't be said about Gov't run Social Security or anything else Gov't run.   

Gov't run military outperforms private military. 

"Gov't run health care out preforms private care."

Too bad the same thing can't be said about Gov't run Social Security or anything else Gov't run.   

Actually Medicare is rather good as well, spends a lot less the private care and offers the same care.  Only problem is the lack of sustainable funding source. 

Gov't run military outperforms private military. 

Oh really?  Is that why private contractors are used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan?  And also are being used to militarize U.S. soil by DHS?

Actually Medicare is rather good as well, spends a lot less the private care and offers the same care.  Only problem is the lack of sustainable funding source. 

That's because anything the government touches tends to turn into a pyramid scam and eventually goes bust.  The government is incapable of running anything without screwing it up - I wish people would realize that.

Is that why private contractors are used extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Many moons ago, I was an ICBM launch officer, and I challenge any defense contractor to put a nuclear warhead closer to a target than I could.  As we used to joke, "Delivery in 30 minutes or your next one's free."   

With regard to your question, the extensive use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan allowed the Bush administration to claim a lower total number of troops, making the war more palatable to the public while simultaneously allowing Dick Cheney's pals at Halliburton to make tons of money.  Feel free to blame Mr. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for that.

Besides, with what's been making the news lately: the corruption, mismangement, homo-erotic hijinks during work hours, and kidnapping/rape, I wouldn't be starting this argument.

And how could we judge effectiveness of contractors even if we wanted to? "Oversight" is not a concept they've gotten up close and personal with.

With regard to your question, the extensive use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan allowed the Bush administration to claim a lower total number of troops, making the war more palatable to the public while simultaneously allowing Dick Cheney's pals at Halliburton to make tons of money.  Feel free to blame Mr. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for that.

Your two steps ahead of me Camoscato, I was just about to point that out ;-)

That's because anything the government touches tends to turn into a pyramid scam and eventually goes bust.  The government is incapable of running anything without screwing it up - I wish people would realize that.

No, that isn't the case for Medicare at all (perhaps you should read a few studies that analyze the system), the reason Medicare isn't financially sustainable isn't because of fraud or the government's inability to run the program (it is half as expensive as private insurance) but rather it is because of high medical costs coupled with the aging population.  The government can provide excellent health care but the public/voters need to be willing to allow both the system to be established and a proper sustainable funding stream.