Soaps.com - MESSAGE BOARDS

A former student of mine (a Harvard graduate, class of 2003), lost his lower left leg in an attack in Iraq about 1 1/2 years ago. His other leg was mangled, and in really bad shape.
The VA hospital saved his mangled leg, and he has since been fitted with a prosthesis. He has received extensive rehabilitation and is doing really well. There was a "waiting list", because there are so many injuries of this type (sadly) but he was never neglected.
So, physically, he's doing fine...the emotional and mental stress is something he and his fellow veterans deal with every day.
After his experience, I have renewed respect for these hospitals and what they are doing.

ff

Here is a most recent link, which is from a pretty hostile source about the VA, so please don't associate my thinking with this site. It was just a factual article, so I chose it.
www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfmay09/nf051209-1.htm

Pretty sad. But I dont want ya'll thinking I blame the doctors/staff. I only blame the environment they are forced to work in. A hospital is only as good as its funding and allocation of those funds. And you're right, if we look at these as isolated incidents they can be seen as being handled efficiently, but they never should have happened in the first place, and they aren't isolated anymore. Over-worked and under-paid workers can only be stretched so far, especially when they are being enabled and coddled.
The system is just taking a dramatic downfall and I think we should fix that before anyone gives the gov any more healthcare responsibility. I'm really not trying to cause histeria, I just think people don't realize the way the gov is already sponsoring this other system. It used to be very good.

I've actually already thought about that, and I can only come to one conclusion. If one is so much better than the other, why do they not deem it mecessary to fix the bad? Why do they deem it necessary at all at this point to generate yet another system? My conclusion: more funding responsibility = more power. Why else would they not fix the bad before moving on? It's not because there are unhealthy/uninsured people out there, otherwise we'd fix the old before generating the new.

Regardless of our opinions, I really am curious where these funds are going to come from? Has Obama said? I haven't read that anywhere. Anyone know?

Well, I guess you're saying, too bad for the uninsured or uninsurable. That's pretty plain. It's nice you do have insurance you can keep!

Well, I did interpret our post to be saying that you somehow believed I was saying that. So since I'm wrong I'm sorry. I just don't want anyone to think that just because I'm opposed to using gov funds for a new system I am somehow against a new system, or that I am downgrading the people who can't afford the one we already have. On the contrary, I think these people simply deserve better care than what I believe they would get.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/08/biden-announces-deal-hospitals-help-fund-hea... />
Of the $155 billion in projected savings from hospitals, about $40 billion to $50 billion would come from reducing federal payments hospitals receive for providing care to uninsured and low-income patients, according to lobbyists. Those payments are now made through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Medicaid cuts would be apportioned by state, as 10 percent annual reductions beginning around 2015.
About $100 billion more would come from reductions in planned Medicare payments to hospitals. A small amount of savings would come from trimming the money hospitals get for preventing patients from being readmitted for additional care.

-Do I understand this right? They are going to hurt the uninsured and poor trying to get hospital aid, as well as hurting Medicare and Medicaid, to help the uninsured and poor? Yet it will somehow be easier to get admitted to these hospitals? I don't get it.