Turn troll Rand Paul's snark on its head.

[halfulglas]

I'm not a veteran but for what it's worth, it was suggested I cross post this from General Discussion.

Rambling thoughts after watching senator with squirrel on his head make his nasty comments about why not claim asthma, etc. as service connected because of the number of vets who get asthma by a certain age, blah, blah.

It occurred to me --- YES, treat every veteran who has been honorably discharged in the VA system, whether it's for asthma or a broken foot or brain injury - whatever. Upon discharge he's immediately qualified to enter the VA system. The process right now of undergoing evaluation of whether something is a service related condition can be long, expensive, often frustrating and demeaning to the veteran, and can be an unnecessary expense to the VA system. Let's try a pilot program and see if it doesn't actually save the government money in the long run. One of my 3 brothers who are vets actually died of a service-related condition, so I know it can be expensive. Also we now know for sure that many conditions truly are service connected but do not show up immediately.

This would entail enlarging the VA and getting some more medical personnel but look at it from another perspective. Say the veteran eventually ended up with an ACA policy and that would cost the government something and money being fungible, it's just coming from a different bucket. The thing is, if a vet gets appropriate treatment from the time he is discharged, it is a good bet he would be healthier in the long run having a regular long-term doctor and ancillary personnel knowing if he needs treatment and he would get it. The result should be a better and longer life.

The other point is that the VA is the closest we have to universal health care for those who qualify. Enlarging this cohort who quality through a pilot program like this would give us a better idea of what the benefits of limited universal health care and what kind of changes would need to be made - what works and what doesn't. Since the percentage of people serving in the armed forces versus the population of the whole country is so limited, it would be easier to scale up the VA system for a health care trial versus starting a system from scratch. Considering the fact that in the US private sector the outcome per private health care dollar spent is abysmal this should be worth a trial. Also after a few years try adding their families to the system. This, too, would be complete care including OB-GYN and pediatric.

If that works out and Republicans don't have massive strokes, try starting it with civilians in a limited area, like a part of a state that has a stable population and see what the pros and cons are.

Yeah, I know. I'm just dreaming.

[Midnight Writer]

1. Rand Paul will get government paid healthcare the rest of his life for his "service".

Why does he think veterans who served their country deserve any less?

[pwb]

2. As a Veteran I enjoy being among fellow Veterans at the V.A.

I am against opening it to civilians. If that is your point here?

[halfulglas]

3. No, just that it should be open to all veterans whether care needed is for service related

or not. They don't have to prove years later that it is service related. Scaling it up as a model (not to open up the VA to non-veterans) for future separate civilian universal health care. But the VA is so much more efficient than civilian health care for profit or even HMOs. One of my neighbors who has among other things severe hearing loss deemed probably from Vietnam and he received years ago advanced hearing aid like the precursor to the ear buds (like he can control his TV or phone, etc. right from his ear) long before I even knew things like that were on the market.

And of course, I cannot help but wonder how this would help the homeless veteran problem by the fact that if a veteran had some place he could immediately turn to if he needed help, it might prevent him losing his job, being on the street, etc. Many many years ago I worked in an outpatient clinic (not VA but before insurance companies controlled all civilian health care) but if we had a walk-in who came in and said he needed help and needed to see a doctor, we were not allowed to let them go without making sure a doctor saw them and briefly evaluated if he needed professional help.

Of course Veterans could opt out of the system if they didn't want to be treated in it, but I think all veterans with an honorable discharge would be eligible.

[GP6971]

4. Thanks for cross posting this.

I like the concept, but I don't think the current environment (repukes and insurance companies) would ever go for it. I would add one caveat...make the time in service to six years...the same as congressional members to receive health care benefits.

I was one of those that my disability developed later in life. Thankfully my state has a very strong Veterans Affairs advocate program, but it still took 4 months to get into the VA Health Care system.

[halfulglas]

5. I agree the 6 year service requirement is good but vets definitely have real "skin in the game."

And yes, unfortunately in the current environment the insurance companies would howl about being cut out of so many paying customers. God, I hate health insurance companies and their bean counters in this country. When my daughter was a teenager her surgery was cancelled by the insurance company the day before it was scheduled because the bean counter on final evaluation before signing off on it decided the term "congenital" meant she was born with the condition and the surgery should be the responsibility of the previous health insurance company. It took a few weeks to straighten that out and reschedule the surgery. After all the years I had paid into that plan!! I think the only people who have glowing reports of their company's "great health plan" are those who have never needed it. Even some of the ones who have no "real" trouble have complaints because some payments got messed up and the time and angst needed to straighten things out.