Letters to the Editor
-
Don't Understand the Article...
What's the take-home message?
I certainly understand what private business is like when it comes to health-care, though. It would be difficult to imagine that there'd be much difference between the way the VA denies claims and the way an HMO denies claims.
It makes no sense to pay bonuses to people for doing a lousy job, but that is obviously the system we like here in 'murka. The evidence is everywhere--from the bonuses for MDs who DON'T order tests to the bonuses for CEOs who let criminal accountants bankrupt their companies.
But what's this article s'posed ta mean?
-
Another cadaverous looking and...
...very likely to be death dealing crony of the Boosh style of death dealing politics. Nosferatu is alive and well in the Republican Party. He can be added to the other guys, especially the ever cadeverous looking head of Homeland Security, another Boosh/Repub blood sucker.
These people are sucking the life out of our troops, the Iraqi people and the 241 million Americans who are not Bushies. Damn the Bush family and the Rethug party. Hell has come to earth.
-
Lost
Mr Swart,
----"But Bush plucked Peake directly from a private company that has raked in hundreds of millions of dollars from contracts with the VA -- and Peake himself helped develop proposals for the company to contract with the VA. That has raised questions about conflict of interest, potentially pitting veterans' care against corporate profits."
salty, are you stupid or did you just not bother to read the article?----
Yes, a bit stupid. Maybe your superior intellect can explain to dumb ol` me what word or phrase in the referenced paragraph so condemns Mr. Peake. Is it the fact he was "plucked"? No, that`s surely the author`s pejorative. (Most folks are "hired"). Perhaps it`s "private company" or "hundreds of millions". Everyone knows how evil corporations are. Or the fact that he developed proposals? Scary stuff.
See why I`m lost here? Please help this dummy think more like a "progressive".
-
salty3, ok you read the article
or at least the quote copied, and it went over your head.
conflict of interest?
appearance of a conflict of interest?
fox in charge of the henhouse?
Is no one else in USA qualified for this post besides the "chief operating officer from 2006 until now" of a "for-profit contractor" that is a recipient of VA funds for a key gatekeeping service?
does this help?
-
and don't put words in my mouth-you say
"Perhaps it`s "private company" or "hundreds of millions". Everyone knows how evil corporations are. Or the fact that he developed proposals? Scary stuff.
See why I`m lost here? Please help this dummy think more like a "progressive".
I didn't say any of this-nor is it the quote-you are projecting some simple minded stereotypes here.
-
Lost
--------- salty3, ok you read the article
or at least the quote copied, and it went over your head.
conflict of interest?
appearance of a conflict of interest?
fox in charge of the henhouse?
Is no one else in USA qualified for this post besides the "chief operating officer from 2006 until now" of a "for-profit contractor" that is a recipient of VA funds for a key gatekeeping service?
does this help?------------
Mr. Swart, I`m not young enough to know everything, but I do know that condescension and insult won`t carry the argument in intelligent company. As already stated, this article employs only innuendo and passive unattributed accusations to impugn Mr. Peake. If he`s all that bad, there must be some evidence of that lying around somewhere. As is, the article doesn`t rise to the level of high school journalism and should have been deleted by the editor, for it succeeds only in impugning Salon itself.
-
Peake not for Veterans
I have used this private company and in my opinion it steals from Veterans by offering services that the Local Veteran Affairs Hospital can do. It not only cost the taxpayers but put added cost on the veterans at times also.
I traveled to get an exam and the mileage was determined by them and not the veteran. It did not include any tolls.
Everyone should write their Congressman and ask how vets can get to the doctors on eleven cent per mile when it will not even pay for the gas used.
To put Peake in charge of Veterans Affairs is take away Veterans Rights and send the cost even higher and not befit any vet.
Bush and all Congressmen stand up tall on Veterans Day and phrase the Veterans while the News Media is there. My question is “why can’t they act and do something for Veterans”. Example: 11 cents a mile was in place twenty years ago and no one has done anything to change it. Getting a claim through Veteran Affairs is more about delaying it and getting the Veteran to go away with discuss or just plan die.
Why would you pay out Bonuses to people with a system so badly managed and Veterans dieing before getting their befits.
Everyone has heard of “post-traumatic stress disorder” from Veterans coming home. But what people haven’t heard of is the post-traumatic stress disorder caused by Veterans Affairs for just standing up and trying to get a claim through the system.
It’s a shame that all of the News Media will not stand up for veterans by keeping on congressman to do their job and until all veterans are treated fairly.
What did Veterans ever do to deserve this kind of treatment, just stood up for the rights of the American People to be free? Now the Veterans need your support to stop Veterans Affairs, Congress, and Bush from doing nothing. Peake is not the answer to help Veterans be treated fairly. What questions have been raised in the Presidential Debates, Senator or Congress debates concerns Veterans?
Just sounding off, due to no one hears, or cares about Veterans!
-
salty3,
you started by saying "The US Government hired a respected physician and military officer with experience in healthcare administration to run the VA and you libs find this to be a sign of incompetence and/or corruption?"
clearly you had not read the article carefully. Not a hire, a Bush nomination, and a throw-in "you libs" showing you wanted a fight, not dialogue.
you come back with sarcasm and implying I think in the same simple-minded way you do about progressives: "Maybe your superior intellect can explain to dumb ol` me what word or phrase in the referenced paragraph so condemns Mr. Peake. Is it the fact he was "plucked"? No, that`s surely the author`s pejorative. (Most folks are "hired"). Perhaps it`s "private company" or "hundreds of millions". Everyone knows how evil corporations are. Or the fact that he developed proposals? Scary stuff.
See why I`m lost here? Please help this dummy think more like a "progressive".
I respond, conflict of interest, bad nomination, lets stop chief corporate officers from running government agencies where they and their friends have a finacial stake in outcomes. Its bad public policy, period.
You adopt full passive-aggresive mode for your reply: "I`m not young enough to know everything, but I do know that condescension and insult won`t carry the argument in intelligent company. As already stated, this article employs only innuendo and passive unattributed accusations to impugn Mr. Peake." etc.
A, you still haven't read the article intelligently or commented on the 2 main points-privatization and conflict of interest. Instead, you read it as a republican text and assume its just a slur.
B, my job is not you. I don't really think you are going to learn anything here. But I did give you the benefit of the doubt, as far as reading the article or being stupid.
The larger context here is Bush-Cheney appointments and influence peddling over the last 7 years. Do you think lobbyists should write the laws to regulate their companies? If yes, this is, pro forma, just another example.
Use your common sense.