Posted by cslaurie on July 18, 2008 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about privatizing the service and firing the overpaid slugs?

Posted by unclneal on July 18, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

just another example of government inefficiency and unprofessionalism... they can't and won't do the job right
so why do so many Democrats want to give the government control over our healthcare? we will end up much worse than we are now!

Posted by cassandra2 on July 18, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Much of them are privatized--Scandal-ridden Halliburton taking over adjunctive military services with suspicious over billing, Blackwater contractors murdering civilians and costing substantially more than regular fighters, health insurance carriers leaching Medicare funds with administration costs many, many times greater than direct Medicare, private insurance administrators in Walter Reed denying legitimate services to our veterans. ANd so on.

Privatization is theft. And this administration is a kleptocracy.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jw1000 - Government was riddled with problems before Bush too. Government will be riddled with problems after Bush as well. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Casandra2 - please stay on topic. The article is about the VA and not about your personal opinions about unrelated topics.

Calling privatization "theft" is very extreme since the private sector is what has made our economy one of the strongest in the world since the mid 20th century and the private sector employees most Americans, and as Americans, we live good lives relative to the rest of the world. I am blessed to have the opportunities presented to me here in America.

Your opinions would be better received if they were not so extreme and off topic.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Given the tone and information in this article I find the prospect of government ran univeral healthcare frightening.

I am very angry at the way the government clerks (who are generally life-time employees that span several presidential administrations; therefore blaming one president is erroneous)have treated our wounded soldiers. If we, as a nation, cannot give proper treatment to our soldiers who have sacrificed for us than we are just useless "supporters" of our troops who do nothing but pay lipservice to those who sacrificed for us. Shame on us and shame on the government!

Posted by patrick.lawrence on July 18, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mystery caller

Are you talking to government paid employees? Exactly. You get what you pay for. Good luck!

- Patrick Lawrence, Tracy

Posted by cassandra2 on July 18, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why, yes, call me extreme but don't deal with the issues.

Privatization of public functions has led to enormous costs to the taxpayer and loss of services and abuses to the recipients. Like what about Halliburton? What about private insurances companies leeching funds from Medicare and getting what amounts to subsidies?

Some of the specific abuses at Walter Reed, for example, resulted from turning assessment functions to private agencies. I am not suggesting that all economic activities be turned over to governmental ones. Far from it. Only that public ones remain public and divorced from the profit motive.

Privatization of public functions is theft of the common wealth. Look at the results instead of blathering cliches about the wonderfulness of the private sector.

And yes, the veterans should have care not provided by incompetents NOR MEDIATED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES looking to make a buck.

And they may think our troops sacrificed for us, you may think so, but in this case Iraq--they sacrificed for Exxon-Mobile, Gulf, BP et al.

You would have more credibility with me if you would not be so obligingly a. led by the frameworks provided and b. spouting truisms that aren't true at all.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny, Patrick. While I have never had the bad situation of needing to call the VA, I have called the DMV and the IRS in the past - the experience was a test of my patience, robbed me of my time, and resulted in negligible information in which I did not have already. The goverment can do better (bascially, it can only go up from its present position)

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

cassandra2 -

a) I will work within the fameworks provided by Bruce McLean and the norms of being a courtesy poster.

b) My opinion, which is shared by many, are not "truisms that aren't true at all" and are not "blather". Yes, relatively speaking, your opinions are quite extreme; however I respect it and I expect you to respect my opinions as well.

The article is only about the VA, not Exxon, BP, Gulf, Haliburton, Blackwater, Medicare, etc. Also, "making a buck" does not make someone a bad character. Most of us work for a paycheck - because we are paid does that someone devalue are character or make our competencies at work lacking? Of course not.

Lastly, you post "And they may think our troops sacrificed for us, you may think so, but in this case Iraq--they sacrificed for Exxon-Mobile, Gulf, BP et al." --- I have yet to hear any soldier, whether in person, on the news, or in print make such a statement. Again I appreciate the sacrifice the soldiers have made for us, America, and whatever it takes should be accomplished in order to provide them with the best healthcare possible.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jw1000 - if that's true then that's terrible! Privatization is supposed to reduce costs, not increase them.

Do you have a neutral source on this info such as ABCnews, CNN, Fox, NBC, Smoking Gun, BBC, etc? I just don't want to see anything from MoveOn.org or any lesser known far left/right websites. If I could see this in the WSJ or Kiplinger it would really increase my dissatification level at Bush.

Posted by cassandra2 on July 18, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The buck such private entities make adds to the cost to the taxpayer and comes out of what is budgeted for the services--and is under this administration excessive and often corrupt. I'm not making this up; it is in the public domain.

A fair cost is fair. A health industry CEO with a 6 billion dollar compensation package is not fair and is destructive to the entire system in which he participates.

I don't want to engage in "gotcha" but you brought up the subject of how you feel about government run health care. You fear taking it out of the hands of the insurance companies. (The insurance companies which make huge profits, have huge administrative costs and deliver a substandard product. Substandard relative to other countries, some of which have great private sector involvement but are FORBIDDEN to make a profit, which is cool with me. I'm not against the private sector, only its abuses )

The editorials present a frame. I don't always choose to accept the frame of the writer and often will move it to more relevant perspective. And indeed I was responding not to the editorial but to another poster with an extreme Libertarian view i.e. government is bad.

Bad government is bad. Good government is necessary, for the private sector as well as everyone else.

Because you have never heard something said has more to do with your limits than reality. Nonetheless, you seem to be logical within your limits, which is refreshing. That I can respect, but I find it exasperating, kind of like talking to a Stepford wife.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks jw:

The article reads: "Condor Technology Solutions Inc. of Annapolis, Md. has secured a $4.1 million option to continue operating a nationwide call center for the Department of Veterans Affairs"

Not that this will happen, but I would like to see them get paid with stipulated thresholds. For example, so many errors/complaints and Condor will lose money. The pay scale could be in tiers of performance goals. If they do great and help the VA families then pay them - they are bad the don't get paid and go out of business. Now there is true capitalism! Unfortunetly, the CEO probably knows someone who works for a congressman or a cabinet member - you know how it goes and why many of us don't have faith in gov't.

Well, now at least you have any idea of why I might support the private sector over the gov't sector --- it is just too difficult to remove poorly ran gov't clerks.

Got to go, but first I must comment on Cassandra -

While your last post had some good points and we actually may agree on something, I found your last paragraph a back-handed compliment and down right condenscending. You can be "exasperated" if you choose - attitude is a choice, but just because I don't see life through your less than rosy glasses does not make me or anyone else a "stepford wife". Life experiences are relative and while I don't know what made you so negative, I bet you that no matter who gets elected that the sun will still rise tomorrow and our relatively chushy life compared to the rest of the world will go on.

Posted by cassandra2 on July 18, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How did I get to be so negative?

I grew up.

I stopped believing all the stuff I had been taught to believe when the evidence didn't support belief. You, Citizen, seem like a very well meaning and intelligent person. And either a very young one or a superannuated naif.

Replacing private entities with public ones does zilch to improve accountability; indeed voters, presumably the ultimate deciders, have less input with private ones because they are uh, private.

Now I am going to do a tangent off the topic, but you can't have it both ways, open the door on a related topic and then ding me for presenting the other side of it. Preferring private sector to public is an ideological position, involving commitment a priori to a direction without respect for context, faith based, one might say. It could be a good idea when the private structures already exist and the public ones not, as in health care. Preventing the dislocation involved in changing seems a good idea, a cost effective one. It depends, however, on how much control the consumer/citizens have over the process and how much it's going to cost them. But the reality is that health care currently is outrageously expensive and poor quality and cannot be touched for accountability.

Likewise privatizing prisons has led to terrible abuses and contract schools ditto. I'm not making this up. You may have missed it in the "mainstream media" but it's in the public domain and such stories surface regularly. Example: the Canadian kid who was imprisoned under truly gruesome conditions because his parents had a problem with the feds was held in a substandard, private Texas facility.

It isn't that private entities can't do the job. Rather it is that the overriding goal of profit takes over and leeches resources from real purpose of providing the service funded by the taxpayers. If the corporations management does not require this distortion for their own enrichment, the stockholders do.

It doesn't have to be this way, of course. But now it is.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Believe it or not, Cassandra, I used to be quite negative myself. My college years introduced me to several “causes”, in which student groups complained just about everything. Basically, how could anyone be happy with the world and the state of the country being so screwed up?

I guess, you can say I grew up again after college. I realized that there are things I can change in my direct sphere of influence. Most importantly, I can be a good citizen by being polite, unselfish, quick to lend a hand, and just making an effort to laugh. Of course, I vote too, and when it comes to politics rather when tell someone they are wrong I prefer to ask why someone believes a certain way, just to see if they really understand what they believe. I have learned not to expect too much from people and even less from elected officials. I have learned to trust myself and value the opinions of those I hold dear. Slowly but surely, I became more positive.

So, my political beliefs are influenced by who I trust. I trust myself and my family much, much more than the government. I like personal choice. I like keeping more of my hard earned money for my family and charity, rather than giving to the government for wasteful politicians who preach “change” or “stay the course”. I value the Bill of Rights and hold them higher than any government official who states I should give up some rights in order to be more safe from terrorists or criminals whether it by wire taping, limited speech, possession of guns or limited travel. Hurricane Katrina showed me government is inept, incompetent and confiscatory towards individual rights. The Iraq war showed me government is lost. 9/11 showed me how the people of the country kept it going and showed love and compassion for others, while the government looked lost.

No one values my health, life or family more than me and I will do what it takes to keep the choices within my sphere, whether it be voting no against socialistic healthcare or taking on an insurance company. I want individual rights preserved. I know individual rights are anathema to the liberal point of view; therefore, I am conservative – not Republican, but conservative in my views. I could easily support a Libertarian if he or she had a chance of winning. Lastly, I think hate speech is counterproductive and really turns me off.

Posted by cassandra2 on July 18, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Individual rights are CENTRAL to the liberal position. No liberal abrogated habeas corpus, for example.

Now that the speech is over, what about dealing with the issues involved, in this case how to reconcile corporate profit with public value, how to add a corporate bureaucracy to a governmental one and not increase administrative costs. It's not happening now.

BTW did you vote for Bush? Maybe your judgment isn't that terrific.

Posted by cassandra2 on July 18, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S The Bill of Rights is the part of the Constitution I most value as well. It is a liberal document.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cassandra,

You make some valid arguments, but I still believe that capitalism is a better alternative to government control. You see, capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. It is the system of political freedom.

Liberalism is far from individual rights. The court case of Columbia v. Heller should put to rest that liberals are NOT about individual rights. Also, in Kelo v. New London, the Court's liberal justices, joined by Justice Kennedy, held that the government may take an individual's property and turn it over to a private party for commercial use. The four conservative dissenters argued that such actions violate the Fifth Amendment's requirement that government takings be for "public use."

I could go on about conservatism vs liberalism. BTW, Bush is far from the poster boy for conservatism. Currently, I saw him the poster boy for Mad Magazine.

You know Cassandra, I try to be polite and open with you, and again you condescend “now that the speech is over”. Is that how you talk to others in person? Are you rude outside of this website forum as well? It’s like you trying to have a “gotcha” moment with me. I don’t have all the answers and not sure how to add a corporate bureaucracy to a governmental one and not increase administrative costs. When the time comes, though, I will make an informed decision when it comes time to vote.

And yes, I did vote for Bush in 2004. At the time I was okay with the prior 4 years, just like the majority of Americans were at that time. I stand by my judgment and make no apologies for it.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Bill of Rights is a conservative/libertarian document. It's author James Madison spent his career fighting to limit the power of the federal government. Liberals want to grow the federal government and raise taxes. Conservatives want a smaller government and lower taxes. Libertarians want only the basic of government.

James Madison would have been appauled by the powers Bush has taken for himself, how Bush as grown government, and he would be appauled at how liberals want government to take over more areas of the private sector.

Posted by cassandra2 on July 18, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But you do make speeches instead of dealing with the issues I raise; rather you confine yourself to the frame you are given, and the information coming easily from the corporate media, that is to say from about 6 or so different corporate entities that control them.

I'm not sure of the first case you quoted but the second was a wrong decision and I did not agree with the majority. But it was not central to liberalism.

If you would like to trade court cases, we could do that. Support of that all important first amendment has been a hallmark of liberalism since Jefferson's day. Moreover, the Bill of Rights was a sop to the anti-federalists to get them to agree to the union and the Constitution, which was essentially a counter revolutionary document.

Federalism vs. local power is a fluid. One needs to look at the value underlying the position and not get stuck with the surface. Once, the federal government served the interests of ordinary people and protected the rights of minorities in the states. Now the feds overreach and the rights of localities to make their own decisions on important matters, California for example, is trod upon.

There are two main pillars of liberalism--expanding economic and political power to the underclass and protecting individual freedom. A thoughtful person will see that the two values, freedom and equality have contradictions and require careful balancing. This administration threatens both. And that was predictable from the git go.

As for the national election of '04, it was a fraud, something you wouldn't know from seeing only the "mainstream media." However the numbers simply do not make sense. But that takes me further afield.

What you label hate speech is from my perspective appropriate rage for what this administration has done to my nation and for that matter to the world. Yes, i do let my exasperation show outside. How could I not?

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How was the 04 election fraudulent? It is a serious accusation and I would like some serious sources (ie not MoveOn.org or any other website with an agenda of all things anti-Bush).

If voter fraud occured I am shocked that the people were not made aware of it and shocked that international media such as the BBC has not broadcast it. This would be HUGE, the American Zimbabwe or the Belarus of America.

Please Cassandra, provide me with NEUTRAL websites that illustrate a fraudulent 2004 election.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Time to lighten up on politics

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

Posted by cassandra2 on July 18, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Given your bias, I am stumped to know what you would consider unbiased.

However, try the publication coming out of Sonoma State College on 25 most suppressed stories of the year--Peter Phillips and Project Censored, 7 stories Press. "Censored--2006"

Also try Rep. Conyers report called strangely enough the Conyers Report.

Also google the analyses floating around the Internet from statisticians disputing the possibility that the officials results could possibly be correct.

I'm told (no TV for the past couple years) Bev Harris and Howard Dean demonstrated on national television how to steal (easily) votes with Diebold voting machines. "The mother of all voting frauds" Bev called it.

Lastly I have lived a long time and been a news junky for many years. I can tell you only two decades ago the exit polls were so accurate that a winner could be predicted a few minutes after polls closed. Broadcasters stopped doing that when westerners complained that people didn't bother to vote once the big offices were decided and there were many smaller issues and candidates to consider out here in the west.

However, many countries today use the exit polls to determine winners and only get an official count later on. But of late, corporate newies go around trying to explain the unexplainable, trying to figure out what went wrong with the exit polls!!

Some UK sources did cover the allegations; Pallast was a US reporter talking about it on I believe the Independent or maybe the Guardian. It's been a while. Most Brits, I'm told just thought we were all stupid. And said so.

I'm old, tired and crotchety and I want my dinner. But it actually felt good talking to you. Sorry it wasn't mutually so.

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cassandra2 - no, I enjoyed our little chat, or I would not have done it. You come across quite negative at times, but I think you mean well. Just an observation, but what you put into your head helps shape who you are. All of this negative information (right or wrong) makes cassandra a negative woman. I am sure there is more to you than politics though and tomorrow should be a good beach day. Kudos to you for not having a TV! I could not do it - I would miss my History Channel and yes, I like to watch Charlie Gibson give me the highlights of the day. Yes, it's corporate news, but I find ABCnews the most objective, at Charlie seems like an stand up guy. The cable news channels just yell at each other in an attempt to get ratings. Good night from a true, old-fashion, conservative and beach loving "citizen".

Posted by HotModernMom on July 18, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh Cassandra, one more thing. Click on this link, its about "corporate news" ---- I think you will love it.

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/what_...

Posted by jeff93024 on July 18, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some more political humor. Check the date.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/...