Much criticism has been leveled at the "public option" portion of the healthcare reform legislation being considered by Congress. Critics say it is only a short step from that to single-payer, full-blown socialized medicine.

While driving by the new VA hospital being built in The Villages I thought, "Wait a minute. What is VA insurance if not socialized medicine?" The government decides how many facilities there will be and where. The doctors and surgeons work for a salary. The government negotiates for lower prices for drugs offered to it's insured vetrans. They also use their purchasing power to hold down the costs of other supplies and consumables. Yet seldom do we hear complaints from veterans over the skill or quality of care. I've heard no outraged demands to get rid of the government-run VA from those insured, politicians, or even the political pundits. Why?

Would those of you who have VA insurance exchange it for coverage from a private insurer? Would you trade your VA prescription drug coverage for a private policy? If not, why not?

Just wondering.

Nope

I worked at the VA Hospital in Milwaukee for over 20 years and I must say that the VA staff from grounds keepers to Chiefs of Services are all very dedicated and caring people. The wages do not compare with the private sector proprietary hospitals and yet the tender loving care for patients and families is evident in every department. Patient care and Patient's Rights are very important and are stressed in every possible way.

Let me answer the question backwards. If I could get VA coverage (despite 9 yrs in the Army and 2 years overseas I do not qualify) would I drop my private ins (which costs a fortune) and sign on for VA ins. An emphatic YES!
In order to have a small portion of my health care premium covered I must work 32 hrs a week. If it wasn't for that 1 isue, I'd be down to 24 hrs a week a year ago.

I have both - VA eligible (and use it) and BC/BS. Got to keep a family policy so my spouse is covered, as VA coverage doesn't include family members.

For quite a while the VA had a checkered reputation. In the last 15+ years it has done a complete 180 and has gotten much more patient-centric.

The type of care provided by VA is somewhat unique. While it does provide what could be considered "regular" care, the key thing is being able to handle the effects of combat-related injuries and illnesses - physical and psychological - long and short-term.

The VA has the advantage of nationwide monitoring of select health trends and checks folk out for things the average private sector health care provider rarely considers. As an example, no private physician had ever questioned whether I had past exposure to Agent Orange or other such military-unique toxins (which I have), but that was one of the first things I was asked whe I started with VA 10 years ago, and has been a continuing checklist item for health monitoring. They watch to see if I develop certain symptoms or maladies (such as Type 2 Diabetes) which may be the beginning of other Agent Orange related problems. I doubt that might even show up on another health care provider's radar. The latest crop of combat vets have comparable situations.

I don't consider the VA as a "national health care" entity in the HR 3200 mold. The VA provides care for a special population with radically different medical backgrounds than the other 99% of the nation. One visit to a VA hospital, and ten minutes in the front lobby, can explain it better than a thousand pages of text.

I don't personally use VA facilities so cannot directly answer question. There was anecdotal evidence from just last year on the news about the deplorable conditions at the flagship VA facility. The details evade me right now but I think I remember that a high ranking officer (official) being canned for ever letting the hospital get in the mess that it was.

As was said on this thread, you have to be qualified to use VA, spouses and family are not covered and most military personal that I've talked to use the VA system not for the care but for the cost. Maybe the days of warehousing injured soldiers is over but I'd rather have my current ability to go to any of the finest hospitals around, in Boston.

veteran and use the VA in Leesburg and Gainesville. I have been under their care for seven years, due to the effects of Agent Orange. I have never had to wait for an appointment, if I was to be there at 10:00, I was in the office at that time. As someone pointed out, this is not the care that is in the House bill. I have no compaints of my VA care

...our small sample of respondents has concluded that the government can and does do a pretty good job of running a healthcare operation, the VA. We know little more about the cost of VA care other than maybe the comment above that the staff is not paid as much as those doing similar jobs in the private sector. I guess we also know that the government uses it's purchasing power to hold down the costs of purchased goods and services. I suppose that it's also safe to conclude that, because the doctors all work for the VA, that the level of fraudulent charges is also pretty low.

The VA experience is an admitted reason why the drug companies, in particular, have lobbied so hard to make sure that laws written involving prescription drugs specifically prohibit government's involvement in negotiating prices from migrating into other publicly-funded insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, or even the new "competitive option" being discussed. As an aside, does it make you wonder why the drug lobbyists, who spent hundreds of millions in campaign contributions and advertising against President Obama in the 2008 campaign is now spending lots of money supporting "Obamacare" with it's Harry and Louise TV ads? Maybe they figure they've already got Congress in their pocket.

A legitimate open question would be whether the government could "scale up" an operation like the VA, which serves only a few million patients, to an operation that might be responsible for ten or twenty times that many. But it does appear, on a very small sample size of respondents to this post, that maybe "socialized medicine" isn't or at least doesn't have to be the bogeyman of which it is so often accused.

Thanks for the honest responses.

Originally Posted by gnu

...There was anecdotal evidence from just last year on the news about the deplorable conditions at the flagship VA facility....

I think that problem was at Walter Reed in Washington, wasn't it? Walter Reed is a military hospital, staffed with military doctors and managed by the Department of Defense. The problem reported wasn't in a VA hospital, I don't believe.

I utilize the VA soley because it is no cost to me and for the convenience. The physicians (4) that I've been assigned (no choice given) have been acceptable but not great. The VA does provide services such as blood lipid panels, MRIs, XRays, etc. which I do find useful, but I would not seek treatment through the VA for the treatment of a major health issue.

I recently had a double hernia repaired by a local private surgeon with a co-pay cost to me of about $1200.00. The VA would have done it at no cost, but I wanted to chose my own surgeon, someone that I had confidence in.

Trying to get an appointment with a specialist through the VA can also prove difficult. The last I checked, the wait to see a dermotologist was well over a year.

If I had to pay the "going rate" for the services provided by the VA, I would no longer use them. If ObamaCare were modeled on the VA system, I would seek an alternative.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

...our small sample of respondents has concluded that the government can and does do a pretty good job of running a healthcare operation, the VA. We know little more about the cost of VA care other than maybe the comment above that the staff is not paid as much as those doing similar jobs in the private sector. I guess we also know that the government uses it's purchasing power to hold down the costs of purchased goods and services. I suppose that it's also safe to conclude that, because the doctors all work for the VA, that the level of fraudulent charges is also pretty low.

The VA experience is an admitted reason why the drug companies, in particular, have lobbied so hard to make sure that laws written involving prescription drugs specifically prohibit government's involvement in negotiating prices from migrating into other publicly-funded insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, or even the new "competitive option" being discussed. As an aside, does it make you wonder why the drug lobbyists, who spent hundreds of millions in campaign contributions and advertising against President Obama in the 2008 campaign is now spending lots of money supporting "Obamacare" with it's Harry and Louise TV ads? Maybe they figure they've already got Congress in their pocket.

A legitimate open question would be whether the government could "scale up" an operation like the VA, which serves only a few million patients, to an operation that might be responsible for ten or twenty times that many. But it does appear, on a very small sample size of respondents to this post, that maybe "socialized medicine" isn't or at least doesn't have to be the bogeyman of which it is so often accused.

Thanks for the honest responses.

To "scale up" the VA is like "scaling up" Lamborghini to make 10 million cars a year. The VA is not "The Villages Hospital" or "Orlando Regional Medical Center." The VA deals with a clientele different than all other hospitals. VA patients do not include folk under 18, and those who are between 18 and 40 have suffered heinous trauma requiring considerable rehabilitative care and support. Almost all the over-40 group includes the 18-40 folk still alive and others whose health conditions have worsened due to experiences unique to military service, most often from combat.

It's not just "make more copies of the VA hospital system" and distribute it everywhere.

And again, we already have the U.S. Public Health Service, with exactly what the national health care folk want. It provides health care service womb-to-casket at various facilities across the nation to include Indian Reservations, DHS detention centers, and some unlikely sites within a ew cities.

I never understand why folk want to simply ignore that the U.S. Public Health Service exists. There's national health care being practiced.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I think that problem was at Walter Reed in Washington, wasn't it? Walter Reed is a military hospital, staffed with military doctors and managed by the Department of Defense. The problem reported wasn't in a VA hospital, I don't believe.

You very well could be right about it being military.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

To "scale up" the VA is like "scaling up" Lamborghini to make 10 million cars a year. The VA is not "The Villages Hospital" or "Orlando Regional Medical Center." The VA deals with a clientele different than all other hospitals. VA patients do not include folk under 18, and those who are between 18 and 40 have suffered heinous trauma requiring considerable rehabilitative care and support. Almost all the over-40 group includes the 18-40 folk still alive and others whose health conditions have worsened due to experiences unique to military service, most often from combat.

It's not just "make more copies of the VA hospital system" and distribute it everywhere.

And again, we already have the U.S. Public Health Service, with exactly what the national health care folk want. It provides health care service womb-to-casket at various facilities across the nation to include Indian Reservations, DHS detention centers, and some unlikely sites within a ew cities.

I never understand why folk want to simply ignore that the U.S. Public Health Service exists. There's national health care being practiced.

From the way that you describe it the VA comparison to private hospital care is apples and oranges with regards to the type of medical care. Maybe the government should just spend a few million on public service announcements to inform the populace of existing health care programs.