KillingtonZone.com

steamboat1 wrote:

deadheadskier wrote:what's going on today is a Republican Congress underfunding the system during a time of escalated need because of war in the Middle East?

The numbers show the VA has hardly been strapped for cash. Funding for the VA has gone up 57 percent since 2008. And at facilities where the worst abuses occurred, such as Phoenix, funding was ample enough to finance lavish bonuses for the very officials who should have been held accountable for harming veterans. Across the country, the problem has not been a lack of funds but terrible misuses of taxpayer funds that were already directed to help veterans get the care they need.

Moreover, the problems at the VA are not understaffed and overburdened hospitals as much as poor management and a lack of accountability and oversight. While funding increased 57 percent since 2008 the number of patients treated at VA facilities went up only 13.8 percent. In other words, funding growth outpaced the growth in patient load by a more than four to one margin.

Also during this time period, the number of full-time physicians at the VA went up 40 percent – again, far more than the patient load. And these significant funding increases went through even though VA doctors, on average, see half as many patients as their private sector counterparts. Poor management is a problem more funding won’t solve.


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... lem_123447" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

deadheadskier wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

deadheadskier wrote:I'm glad someone brought up the VHA. As I pointed out, the quality of care compares favorably. Did you also know for that same quality the cost is vastly cheaper and the health system run more efficiently than civilian hospitals?

So I guess you know something the GAO doesn't about timeliness? I consider number of days it takes to see a doctor as pretty inefficient. Is that the type of care you want?

A friend of mines son had weakness on his right side one morning. They went to the doctor the same day, was rushed to the local hospital, and then to one of the best cancer centers all in a single day. That's the type off access I want for my friends and family. I can't imagine the impact of postponing a critical doctors visit weeks or months. Maybe you can.

A. Do you think the experience your friend had with his son is shared by all civilians?

B. You do realize that in such cases as your friends son, a Vet can go to the ED and bypass that appointment process. Also, you do realize that these issues weren't a problem at the VA in the 90s after Clinton overhauled the system and that what's going on today is a Republican Congress underfunding the system during a time of escalated need because of war in the Middle East?

deadheadskier wrote:The numbers show the VA has hardly been strapped for cash. Funding for the VA has gone up 57 percent since 2008. And at facilities where the worst abuses occurred, such as Phoenix, funding was ample enough to finance lavish bonuses for the very officials who should have been held accountable for harming veterans. Across the country, the problem has not been a lack of funds but terrible misuses of taxpayer funds that were already directed to help veterans get the care they need.

Moreover, the problems at the VA are not understaffed and overburdened hospitals as much as poor management and a lack of accountability and oversight. While funding increased 57 percent since 2008 the number of patients treated at VA facilities went up only 13.8 percent. In other words, funding growth outpaced the growth in patient load by a more than four to one margin.

Also during this time period, the number of full-time physicians at the VA went up 40 percent – again, far more than the patient load. And these significant funding increases went through even though VA doctors, on average, see half as many patients as their private sector counterparts. Poor management is a problem more funding won’t solve.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:As with most gov't programs, money is never the issue. Just look at any program relying on the gov't.

steamboat1 wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:As with most gov't programs, money is never the issue. Just look at any program relying on the gov't.

In case you haven't noticed the government is over $19 trillion in debt & has over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:

steamboat1 wrote:

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:As with most gov't programs, money is never the issue. Just look at any program relying on the gov't.

In case you haven't noticed the government is over $19 trillion in debt & has over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

.... you're right, because money is never an issue with their programs. They just go more into the red, no problem.

XtremeJibber2001 wrote:If only the US was more like Venezuela

During the Precious Metals Webinar, Tom Cloud discussed how one ounce of silver will now buy six months of food in Venezuela. This is a perfect example how precious metals become the best stores of wealth during a currency collapse and hyperinflation.

Precious Metals Expert Tom Cloud also shared three big upcoming events in the precious metals market and their impact on gold and silver.

Tom discusses how he has seen more Financial Advisors buying precious metals for the clients in the past six months than he has ever seen in his 40 years experience. He explains why many more Financial Advisors are now realizing the importance of precious metals ownership for their clients.