> You could even trial it via a (much needed) VA nursing home program for vets
I appreciate the gesture but this is not a good idea. The VA's funding, as well as programs administered by the VA, is subject to tit for tat battles in the House Appropriations Committee. That's to say, it will get gutted over time if you create it. When it is gutted the two sides will create competing narratives of which you will never be able to discover truths from. This has been happening for generations and the VA frankly isn't that old.
Example:
- https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-a...
- https://democrats-appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releas...
In Canada, at least, no-one wants to join the military because it's a shit job with shit pay, and what we end up with is a small contingent of volunteers who are either a) highly idealistic or b) excited to commit war crimes, and that is why the Canadian Airborne Regiment is no longer a thing.
You're advocating for the same government that has had the ability to regulate nursing homes for the last few decades, and failed to do so, instead be given full control over nursing homes?
You're suggesting that the politicians who had the power to fix the problem and did nothing instead be given more power?
That's such a self-obviously bad and self-contradictory idea.
Block grants federate and localize solutions, limit the damage of poor choices, and force answers to tough choices.
Federal programs with centralized oversight end up spending too much for too little results and will never be able to efficiently solve these problems.
Personally, I've come to the following conclusion after dealing with the American health care system far to much in the last three years and several encounters with corporate America throughout my adult life:
There is no difference in the potential for waste, inefficiency, fraud, corruption, laziness, and outright stupidity between government and private systems. There is a difference in (1) my (and my fellow citizens) ability to influence between that two and (2) not having to pay for profit and the costs to me resulting from necessary profit on top of the rest of the shit sundae.
Every other player is
- getting handouts from govt (hospital non-profit statuses from all taxes incl property taxes, payouts for invented"losses"; payor premium subsidies),
- protections from competition (PBM "discounts", Pharma IP evergreening rules, hospital requirements to approve new local competitors, payor lobbying for regs to prevent "lite" plans )
- and are very much flirting with antitrust action (payor & pharmacy vertical integration, cutting off contracts of any remaining independent doctor/vendor holdouts etc).
But notice that it’s driven by the n size. If you look across smaller systems, you’ll notice they are more diverse. Like startups. Smaller n means more variation. Occasionally a small variation or mutation will push evolution forward. Public systems are generally to large and risk averse for that sort of evolutionary adaptation. At least at present. Maybe we can make public sector more like startups by changing how tax dollars are spent, not necessarily changing the amount spent, but the way it’s spent? I don’t think we’re there yet.
> There is no difference in the potential for waste, inefficiency, fraud, corruption, laziness, and outright stupidity between government and private systems.
The inefficiency that I saw in the government was far greater than that of the private sector.
To some extent, it had to be - the government has to be extremely reliable and accessible (while most companies content themselves with 99.99% website uptime, or only serving people with a mailing address, or whatever - the government has to serve everyone and be available as much as possible), and that's a good thing.
But beyond that, factors such as extreme risk aversion (which generally grows with the size of an organization), gross incompetence, and outright corruption made the government far less efficient than what I experienced in industry - to the point where it was an old-and-not-funny-anymore running joke among my government colleagues.
Moreover, the government also holds massive influence over your life that corporations do not and cannot: taxes, monopoly on violence, control of the legal system, ability to enact and enforce regulation, and many more.
It should be pretty clear that separation of powers is a good thing, and only an idiot would decide that it's better to consolidate as many things as possible into a single central entity that also uniquely holds all of those powers.
> There is a difference in (1) my (and my fellow citizens) ability to influence between that two
Ability to influence? Yes, you have ability - but the amount of actual influence exerted on government in the US is minimal. Public opinion in the US has almost zero correlation on the law[1]. The political process is overwhelmingly dominated by a small amount of wealthy and powerful individuals and special interest groups.
It's absolute insanity to take this mess and put more things in control of it.
> (2) not having to pay for profit and the costs to me resulting from necessary profit on top of the rest of the shit sundae
Well, as we've already established, the government is significantly less efficient than industry - and even if it wasn't, the extra margin that you have to pay is a trivial price to the utterly insane alternative of the government controlling all private industry.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-...
Basically: instead of this being a “can’t do it because of X” how about “let’s do it, but make sure to fix systemic issue X from happening too!”
https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2022/12/2/1_617932...
In reality, people don’t really care much about very elderly people. Not even their own families most of the time.
In any case, the government could surely just regulate private nursing homes much more strictly making many of these parasitical companies' business models untenable.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/14/1181827077/va-hospitals-healt...
But there have been numerous studies comparing the VA to private hospitals that show the VA tends to be safer and more effective as well as having higher satisfaction scores.
>There’s a reason Obama passed legislation…
People are constantly complaining about other health systems like Kaiser and private insurance companies as well. The VA is the countries largest health network and veterans are a very symptomatic group.
My guess is that if you changed history so that Kaiser was in charge of veterans healthcare, with the same guidelines and standard of care they use today, you’d have seen a similar law passed.
Again, it's the process and bureaucracy. The standard of care, when you get it, is mostly adequate but navigating their system is absolute hell. I suspect they're narrowly defining these studies to standard of care.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5215146/
But I know plenty of people who say the exact same thing about Kaiser. I know plenty of people who say the exact same thing about medical care in the US in general.
I've used Kaiser before and the system is nothing like the VA system. Are you a VA member or are you just trying to normalize it against something you know?
Mostly around availability of specialists. Things like not being able to schedule an appointment with a Kaiser GI doctor for 6 months, but they wouldn't approve going to an outside doctor without going through some kind of byzantine appeals process.
As far as the studies go, I was originally posting them in response to the OP's claim that VA hospitals are "notorious horror shows", which implies things like botched surgeries.
In theory they do, since eligibility for getting paid by Medicare has requirements. Unfortunately, there are too many vested interests influencing the process in the "government oversight is pure evil/of course we can police ourselves" direction.