Free Health Care For All...

[carpedm9587]

Carpe, look at my "carpet bomb", how many times is it indicated that the problem is SYSTEMIC, and even the VA itself says the problems are SYSTEMIC. Shall I fetch you a definition for SYSTEMIC?

I did look at your "carpet bomb" CP. I also went through the timeline that was provided and chased down articles associated with about half of the events. I stand by my observations. Unless you have more, your "carpet bomb" may convince you, but it does not convince me of more than what I said in my posts. Even "systemic" problems suggest a need to look at how the system functions without impugning the members of that institution. Sorry, CP, but I'm calling it as a see it. If you have more, I'll look at it. If you want to take Sparko's position that I am "fence-sitting," then have at it. It isn't the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.

I go where the data takes me - no further. Even if I am called a "hypocrite" and "disingenuous" and all of the rest of the things that you folks seem to like to say.

[carpedm9587]

Here you go, again. Nobody ever said anything about "its people". It's typical government inefficiency, which is why it was listed as an example in the first place.

And my impression is that people too quickly haul out broadsides against institutions for partisan reasons. Yes, the government has inefficiencies - no question about it. And there are various areas in the government that need attention - some more and some less. The government is also a vast array of people, most of whom (in my experience) want to do the best thing. The institution needs some attention, no doubt about it. There are people with dubious motivations almost everywhere. In my experience, they are the exception, not the norm.

As with so many things, I find that when I treat people with respect, what I receive back is usually helpful and respectful. To be honest, the outstanding exception to that rule in the past few months has been this forum. It seems that no matter how politely I engage with people, I am regularly told how I am a hypocrite, lying, dishonest, and the list goes on. It's peculiar, given the "Christian" label on the door.

That being said, folks have to live with their own choices. I am content that I connect with and engage with people respectfully. People will have to assess their own behavior and see if they are satisfied with how they are engaging.

[Cow Poke]

And my impression is that people too quickly haul out broadsides against institutions for partisan reasons. Yes, the government has inefficiencies - no question about it. And there are various areas in the government that need attention - some more and some less. The government is also a vast array of people, most of whom (in my experience) want to do the best thing. The institution needs some attention, no doubt about it. There are people with dubious motivations almost everywhere. In my experience, they are the exception, not the norm.

You really don't get it. There is NO DOUBT that the majority - possibly even the VAST majority - of people who work for government agencies are "good people". That doesn't change the fact that government agencies tend to be run by political appointees who are not necessarily the most qualified to lead those organizations, there is a culture of protecting the institution at all costs, there is no incentive to run the organization "lean", because they don't report to shareholders or stakeholders.... there is no real reason for "efficiency" in government agencies.

In fact, there's the whole thing about "head count" and "budget" that needs to be ever increasing. Again, no real incentive at all to "run lean".

As with so many things, I find that when I treat people with respect, what I receive back is usually helpful and respectful. To be honest, the outstanding exception to that rule in the past few months has been this forum. It seems that no matter how politely I engage with people, I am regularly told how I am a hypocrite, lying, dishonest, and the list goes on. It's peculiar, given the "Christian" label on the door.

Have I not treated you with respect? Have I called you names (outside of when I'm clearly "gigging" you) or treated you poorly? Have I not been engaging with you politely?

That being said, folks have to live with their own choices. I am content that I connect with and engage with people respectfully. People will have to assess their own behavior and see if they are satisfied with how they are engaging.

Really, this kind of little rant makes me think I'm wasting my time trying to communicate with you.

[Cow Poke]

I go where the data takes me - no further. Even if I am called a "hypocrite" and "disingenuous" and all of the rest of the things that you folks seem to like to say.

"you folks"?

[One Bad Pig]

I go where the data takes me - no further.

My impression is that this is only true in those rare cases where you haven't actually looked at data yet. In every other case, you only ever see what you want to see, and handwave and/or redefine away anything contrary to that.

[JimL]

What? You don't even have a clue what Medicare is or what it pays, do you?

Yeah, actually I do ya dope, I'm on it!

[rogue06]

Yeah, actually I do ya dope, I'm on it!

Medicare isn't the same as Medicaid

[carpedm9587]

You really don't get it. There is NO DOUBT that the majority - possibly even the VAST majority - of people who work for government agencies are "good people". That doesn't change the fact that government agencies tend to be run by political appointees who are not necessarily the most qualified to lead those organizations, there is a culture of protecting the institution at all costs, there is no incentive to run the organization "lean", because they don't report to shareholders or stakeholders.... there is no real reason for "efficiency" in government agencies.

In fact, there's the whole thing about "head count" and "budget" that needs to be ever increasing. Again, no real incentive at all to "run lean".

As I said - a common meme. My sister was the Secretary of Transportation for the state of Vermont several years ago. As with many of the appointees in these various roles, she came from business, and she ran the agency like a business, insisting on efficiency, accountability, and running a "lean" organization so she could maximize the dollars to the agency projects (maintaining infrastructure). In those years, I had the opportunity to meet many of her colleagues and peers. Most of them, not all, were of the same ilk. Most of the people in their departments were of the same ilk. Their complaint was not with appointees and career government workers (though there was some of that). It was with elected officials pandering to their electorate and their donors - instead of making hard decisions on the basis of what needed to be done.

All of the attention goes to the bad apples. As with most things, the bad apples are comparatively rare. Their impact can be widespread, but they are far from the norm. The VA is a good example.

Have I not treated you with respect? Have I called you names (outside of when I'm clearly "gigging" you) or treated you poorly? Have I not been engaging with you politely?

I don't recall naming names. I spoke to a general trend. It happens a great deal. You are actually an exception, which is why I told you that I have a great deal of respect for you. I'm pretty sure the folks who engage in this manner can identify themselves. I have to wonder if they actually will, or will just assume I'm talking about someone else. My impression is they feel justified in their manner of posting. But that's a guess. I don't really know what they are feeling.

Really, this kind of little rant makes me think I'm wasting my time trying to communicate with you.

Rant? CP, I've "ranted" about twice, maybe three times on this forum (I think one or two of them were directed to you). I know inside when I'm ranting. My blood pressure climbs. My face gets red. My typing gets "poundy." I'm on a roll! That was about as far from a "rant" as I get. I was observing a dynamic on this site. If I had to describe my mood when writing it, it would probably be "wry resignation." I'm under no illusion that the folks in question are going to change their behavior because I posted something that points it out. People who think nothing of ridiculing other people (beyond the "gigging" we sometimes do in fun) online don't impress me as people who will ever truly examine that behavior. Indeed, most of them (in my experience) defend it. The anonymity of the net, and all that. It is what it is. It gets old - and now and again I call it out. When it gets old enough, I'll probably move on. But, in all honesty, "moving on" doesn't achieve much. If you're going to engage in any social networking, that dynamic basically comes with the territory - Christian site or otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

"you folks"?

On this I have to admit "my bad." This language definitely would have left the impression I was lumping you in with the rest. "So many folks here" would have been better. I truly do not think of you in those terms.

I think of you as a little old man with a beet-red neck, horse crap on his feet, and a tendency to drool...

...who has a dictionary, a thesaurus, and a copy of "The Blue Book of Grammar" in his saddle bags.

[carpedm9587]

My impression is that this is only true in those rare cases where you haven't actually looked at data yet. In every other case, you only ever see what you want to see, and handwave and/or redefine away anything contrary to that.

Yeah - you're not the only one who has expressed that sentiment. The reality is that I work fairly hard to research things I express an opinion about, and look carefully at the data that is presented, before forming an opinion. When the data tells me I'm wrong, I try to pay attention to it and acknowledge it. When the data doesn't support the claim, I say so - and have several times here. My impression is that people don't like it when I "explain away" their "data," or refuse to accept scattered anecdotes as "data."

A great example is the exchange with Bill the Cat about Ohio 12. He put out some data, arguing that there really wasn't much change in Ohio 12 from 2016 (Trump) to the special election last Tuesday. I showed him how his data was flawed. Instead of "oops - didn't see that," I basically got an insistence that he was right. I suspect (but don't know) he walked away feeling I was "hand waving." The fact is, the data was demonstrably incorrect and did not support the claim he was making. My experience is that the vast majority of times when I'm told I'm "handwaving" are similar exchanges.

Anyway - I've already spent too much time on this sidetrack. People will post what they want to post. What someone thinks of me doesn't change who I am...so moving on...

[Sparko]

some aspects of the VA need attention.

You have a gift for understatement. Or is that a curse?

You have minimized the scope of the problem with the VA to make it sound minor.

[Sparko]

I did look at your "carpet bomb" CP. I also went through the timeline that was provided and chased down articles associated with about half of the events. I stand by my observations. Unless you have more, your "carpet bomb" may convince you, but it does not convince me of more than what I said in my posts. Even "systemic" problems suggest a need to look at how the system functions without impugning the members of that institution. Sorry, CP, but I'm calling it as a see it. If you have more, I'll look at it. If you want to take Sparko's position that I am "fence-sitting," then have at it. It isn't the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.

I go where the data takes me - no further. Even if I am called a "hypocrite" and "disingenuous" and all of the rest of the things that you folks seem to like to say.

You have move past fence sitting to full on denial at this point.

Rather than admit the VA is poorly run and mismanaged you take the tact of nitpicking to say "well not all 300K employees are bad!" - which nobody claimed.

[Sparko]

Yeah, actually I do ya dope, I'm on it!

1. I thought you said you were independently wealthy? Why would you be on Medicare?

2. Tell me more about this 80% coverage you speak of. Part A has no copay, only Part B.

But my initial point stands. Medicare is such a complicated mess that if the Government ever tried to set something like that up as socialized medicine for everyone it would be a nightmare of inefficiency and red tape.

[JimL]

1. I thought you said you were independently wealthy? Why would you be on Medicare?

Because I'm eligible for it.

2. Tell me more about this 80% coverage you speak of. Part A has no copay, only Part B.

Here are some good explanations for you.
http://www.ehealthmedicare.com/origi...edicare-part-a
http://www.ehealthmedicare.com/original-medicare-articles/what-is-medicare-part-b/

But my initial point stands. Medicare is such a complicated mess that if the Government ever tried to set something like that up as socialized medicine for everyone it would be a nightmare of inefficiency and red tape.

Well single payer for one thing wouldn't necessarily include the for profit Insurance companies and the need to buy into their supplemental insurance plans which is where most of the complications and higher costs come in. I'm no expert, but common sense tells me that if you cut out the Insurance companies, who bilk as much out of the system as they can for profit, then it will become less complicated and less expensive. That's why medicare, government healthcare, exists for the elderly, it's much less expensive.

[Sparko]

Because I'm eligible for it.

so even though you are rich you opt for inferior health coverage? Right.

Here are some good explanations for you.
http://www.ehealthmedicare.com/original-medicare-articles/what is medicare-part-a/

http://www.ehealthmedicare.com/origi...dicare-part-b/

First your links don't work. Second, I already know what medicare covers and pays for, but you don't seem to. I was trying to determine if you merely mistyped something or if you are truly ignorant. Giving me a link doesn't answer that question. Which seems to me is your way of dodging the question. Therefore the only conclusion I can come to is you have no idea what medicare covers or costs

Well single payer for one thing wouldn't necessarily include the for profit Insurance companies and the need to buy into their supplemental insurance plans which is where most of the complications and higher costs come in. I'm no expert, but common sense tells me that if you cut out the Insurance companies, who bilk as much out of the system as they can for profit, then it will become less complicated and less expensive. That's why medicare, government healthcare, exists for the elderly, it's much less expensive.

But you know they wouldn't do that. Putting the insurance companies out of business would be an economic disaster. Millions of people would be out of work. The stock market would crash.