Which carries no weight in today's gubmint.

He needed 2 MRIs and lots of testing. He had no complaints except for all the probing and prodding. He is going in on Wed for the surgery to remove the cancer. And he has complete faith in his surgeons. Now thats how medicine should work. ....Oh yeah, absolutely 100% free. 100% government owned and operated health care in action. I'm impressed. But afraid.

And, assuming someone could actually get a bagger to answer it, I'd just love to hear that that answer.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Or so the very RW wife of a WW2 veteran told me ... with ALL of her husband's medications, doctor visits, hospital bed, walker, in-home nursing care, etc, etc, provided by the VA.

She certainly didn't refuse the very considerable benefits and care offered, but she continues to vocally abhor the mere mention of "socialized medicine," as she calls the ACA/Obamacare. At one point, she even said that the whole VA system (especially for more recent veterans) is "a colossal waste of money."

I tried to gently point out the differences between the systems and her contradictions in thinking, but all she'd say was, "That's different" with regard to her husband's care.

Or Medicare?

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]And she pays for a supplemental policy. She's not really rich by today's standards, but she's certainly got enough money to not have to worry about it, and vehemently and vocally resents anyone who didn't "earn" their benefits.

She grew up during the Great Depression and was kept fed as a child with government commodities, but believes "those who don't work shouldn't eat" and thinks most if not all public assistance programs should be abolished. Never mind that most recipients are children, disabled, or elderly; she thinks their families and churches should take care of them.

Her children went to quality, tax-supported public schools, but she now greatly resents that her taxes help support public schools in poorer parts of the county: "Let their parents pay for their schools!" ("they" being "those people" ... but she's not the least bit racist, of course).

We all know the type. She's hardly unique, but so hard core and "Foxified" that she's completely unreachable. And she's very old and though in incredible shape for her age, her mind seems to be slipping a bit at times, so there's really no way to reach her at this point.

handed down from the Calvinists...we have a moral obligation in life to work never hoping or expecting to change our lot in life.

Like many religions it tends to reinforce the social system in which it belongs, and this is a -great- system for church princes and princesses whose 'calling is telling the underclasses to work, and to work cheap, so that the blessings of god (i.e. Tammy-Fay's gold plated bathroom fixtures) can be made manifest for those "Elected by God".

The moral/religious obligation includes reinscribing the ethical system at every opportunity, even that means harassing mythical "slackers" presumed to be present. The emotional commitment to that practice is by and large irrational and thereby unassailable.

Curiously, it very often seems that there are always myriad ways they can justify their benefiting from the charitable blessings of their god who is working through social institutions like the Veteran's Affairs medical centers.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]She's very Catholic and she wasn't always this way: a social conservative, yes, but much, much more compassionate towards those who struggle through life.

As her family became more prosperous and she started rubbing elbows more regularly with a wealthier social class, she found she liked it. A lot. That's when her charitable feelings towards the less fortunate started to atrophy.

Then came Reaganism, the Bushes, the proliferation of haters during the Clinton years, and the rise of Fox News, etc, all of which reenforced her sense of moral and social superiority. That, along with the idea that the "lazy" were trying to take from her, withered any remaining charitable impulses she might have once had.

Now she's an O'Reilly/Beck-adoring teabagger, who thinks her tax burden is unfair and she's more entitled than others to what are supposed to be equal rights and benefits. (Hence, VA socialized medicine is perfectly fine for her husband, but otherwise should be abolished ,etc.)

I wish everyone who felt as she does were in her age group; unfortunately, they're not, but maybe they'll be fewer.

The sentiments of Calvinism pervade America.

We'd like to object on the grounds that Jefferson and others were theological questioners, but the sirens call of 'fairness' that spills out of that spring, poisons all the water in the basin.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Care for and service to the poor used to be a major part of being Catholic, i.e. the Catholic Worker movement, Catholic Charities, various dedicated religious orders, liberation theology, and the saints and other icons whose life work was service to the poor.

That just hasn't been the case in the decades since Reagan and this woman, while still embracing the conservative doctrines of the Church (per John Paul II and Benedict), has really lost her way in terms of its social mission.

If she ever reevaluates and changes at all while she still lives, it will be thanks to Pope Francis refocusing on care for "the least among us," nonjudgment, and economic justice. I no longer buy into the dogma and doctrine, but I still have deep respect and admiration for those who serve that social mission.

This still-Catholic lady uses her faith to reject that mission of justice and charity, and to blame and condemn the poor in what is, as you point out, a Calvinist tradition that is anything but Catholic.

Public goods for me but not for thee. Aid for CO flood victims, but not for NY and NJ Sandy victims. Good transportation infrastructure for my state, but not for yours. This is just who they are.

on my 54th birthday I was diagnosed with a DVT in my left leg. Spent a week in the hospital.
I spent my whole time since Vietnam, (1970,) believing everything bad about the VA health care until I had no choice. I finally check in and found that the care I received was second to none. It was superb, from the Doctors to the nursing staff. If I've said it once I've said it a million times I wish every one had the kind of health care us Vets get. Its mostly all done in house to add to the satisfaction. I go there in the morning, say, with a problem and by the time I leave I've had the necessary test etc and for the most part know what the problem is when I do leave later that day. Every one in America should have health care based on the VA model. No if, and or buts about it. IMO

In addition, you should be PROSECUTED FOR FRAUD if you can come up with the money yourself.

Sell everything you own and then and ONLY then when you hit rock bottom should you even CONSIDER getting aid from someone.

BUT GO TO YOUR CHURCH FIRST.

Because,....ya know,....they'll help ya out. Assuming you aren't a sinner. In which case,....fuck you and die.

They worship money and people who have it. Even if those rich bastards stole it, yet a poor person getting help is a thief. Really twisted.

crap so widespread, things can be pretty grim otherwise.

Especially when it comes to realizing they are STUPID.

They actually BELIEVED Colbert was one of their own to the point where the Bush Administration had him appear at the White House Correspondence Dinner,...where he raked them over the coals without them realizing it.

attacks stupidity in both parities as he sees it. Well, if that's true, he sees about a thousand times more stupidity in the Republican party!

I knew that some RWers missed the sarcasm and were clueless enough to think he was one of them (seriously, how clueless would you have to be???!!!), but I never connected his awesome appearance at that WHCD with that. I just figured whoever hired him was not connected to the White House or just hired Colbert because he had a very successful career.

In fact, I just looked this up and Wikipedia says,

affect the public.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I can only shake my head in amazement because we all know that when the tables are turned, they also cry for the help that they're not willing to give others.

One key point you miss is that VA care is not GIVEN, it is EARNED. Typically that is part of the return on the package: you give the service years of your life, give up personal freedoms, get moved to whatever world's armpit they send you, get paid poorly, have your body abused - and the contract is that in return you may (if you are in long enough) get a small retirement, free medical care, and a cheap burial. It's not socialism... it's a bought-and-paid-for service that costs the servicemember in sweat, worn out body parts, blood, and occasional missing limbs. Not a hell of a lot of people want to pay that! It's probably some of the most expensive medical care in the world... paid for in youthful lives and bodies.

There are many things the government runs fine.... many more they screw up. Government is a necessary evil - at times it's OK, at times it's not. Depends on the topic. The point is, VA is NOT socialized health care, even though it is run (fairly poorly) by a government agency.

All it means is that medical care is provided by a state agency and paid for with funds obtained by taxes. It has nothing whatsoever do with whether the recipient "earns" the care.

Veterans receive health care provided by the government and paid for by the America people. Therefore, it's socialized medicine.

...and the quality of care obtained via the VA is better than private-sector health plans.

The system is owned and operated by the federal government, just like the NHS in Britain.

The need for the VA may cease when we go to single-payor Canadian-style universal Medicare. Under such a system, you choose where u go...but then many may choose the VA hospitals (including non-veterans) and they may stay open.

I think you have it backwards: yes, the system is run by the government - so is the IRS - which is funded by taxes - BUT, as I may not have stated clearly enough, VA is essentially deferred compensation for the years spent serving. It is NOT a stand-alone "socialist benefits program" or some such... it is payment earned by those few of the population who choose to serve.

By the way, some may describe the treatment as better - considering VA is is literally years behind in claims processing, tends not to attract the best and the brightest doctors, and can take months to get specialist appointments - I'm not sure I would describe it in any more glowing terms than any other mediocre HMO.

And I'll say it again: socialized medicine is run by the government and paid for by taxes, regardless of who the beneficiaries are. You seem afraid to admit that veterans benefit from a socialized program. Why?

And why would I give more credence to your opinion that VA care is mediocre, when the recipients themselves give their care high marks?

Finally, do you have a link that supports your claim that the VA doesn't attract the best and brightest doctors? The VA in my area is largely staffed by physicians affiliated with the state's college of medicine - physicians who are not only the best and the brightest, but who also choose to share their expertise as academicians (as well as providers), rather than pursuing private practice.

Socialized medicine isn't scary, though you seem to think so.

FYI, the VA is paid for by all of us so that's the part that makes it socialism.
It doesn't matter how many or who or why they receive the benefit.
it's that money for it is paid for by all citizens.

Republicans included

The government has done just fine...not perfectly...but OK with Medicare and VA. Back in the 60s VA was not all that great...they have since funded it better. And private hospitals have their share of horror stories...to this day.

It could be rightly argued that both groups have "earned it", either by age, disability or military service to the US. The government doesn't DO healthcare, it just funds it, oversees it and runs the bureaucracy that supports the medical professionals who actually provide the care.

For the poor and underemployed, there is already a vast network of County government-administered Free Clinics and County Hospitals, that will likely merge into the ACA and be able to give better care.

Jobs. The bureaucracy has to get much larger ... taxpayer money/jobs. Same for health care institutions, offices, clinics, insurance companies and educational institutions...private money/profits/jobs. Hopefully employing many of those with degrees with student loans weighing them down, employing the underemployed, etc.

The deadbeat companies in the news, well, when they start losing people and their turnover rates and HR and training costs increase, they'll come along.

I would guess that those who stand to get the profits will also help the system move along. Maybe the insurance billing office/admissions departments in private hospitals will add an extra window or desk and clinics will assist in signing up folk as now paying patients, HHS is already on board at County Offices with extra help.

I'm just proud we had the leadership as well as the support of enough entities...including the voters...to join the rest of the civilized world....better late than never. Even Iran has government health care.

Healthcare, not bombs.

and if and only we cannot get it - settle for single-payer? No matter how one spins it - the British NHS and that of many other advanced democracies are in many ways superior to single-payer systems in terms of over all results. But single-payer is certainly superior to mandatory private insurance