Curing Walter Reed Syndrome; A Proposal Even Anti-War Doves Should Embrace

[babylonsister]

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=031907A

Curing Walter Reed Syndrome; A Proposal Even Anti-War Doves Should Embrace
By Michael Cannon : 19 Mar 2007

snip//

Privatizing both the insurance and delivery components of veterans' health benefits could have a number of benefits.

First, it would let veterans control the money. That means the system would serve them, not the politicians or the bureaucracy.

Second, it would allow vets to choose where they receive medical care and could reduce waiting times for care. Would the scandalous neglect and mistreatment of patients at Walter Reed have occurred if those same vets had the choice to go elsewhere? Patrick Feges of Sugar Land, Texas, was injured in Ramadi by a mortar. He waited 17 months for his first disability check from the VHA. A private insurer with that kind of reputation would have a hard time attracting customers.

Third, the premiums that private insurers charge would give new personnel an independent assessment of the risk posed by different military jobs.

Fourth, those risk-based premiums would increase when conflict seems imminent, in effect front-loading those war-related costs. Harvard professor Linda Bilmes estimates that caring for an anticipated 700,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan will cost between $350 billion and $700 billion. Since Congress would have to increase pay enough for military personnel to insure against those costs up front, they would have an additional disincentive to start wars. The officials who make such decisions would have to plan for those costs themselves, rather than pass buck to their successors.

Some have argued that the VA should get out of medical care delivery by selling off its hospitals and giving veterans a voucher that they could use to purchase medical care wherever they like. That probably would increase the quality of care that veterans receive. But that would also leave VHA in the health and disability insurance business.

It seems to me that a better approach would be to give vouchers to all personnel currently in the system, but increase pay and let private carriers insure against service-related injuries for all new enlistments and commissions. Such a system could improve the quality of care for vets. It also would give Congress, the armed forces, and the public a lot of very useful information about the costs of foreign policy decisions.

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, and co-author of "Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It."

[BOSSHOG]

1. Wow, ya mean

if you plan on creating more patients it might be a good idea to plan on caring for them? That Cato Institute is on top of it. And if the cost of caring for patients might be too high we don't use the military for anything? This is rich. And when a hurricane wipes out the southern coasts of two states, private insurers will be there the next day with checks in hand for all. All hail privatization.

[BR_Parkway]

2. So the CATO institute comes out in favor of privatizing one more

government function? Why am I not surprised?

[ThoughtCriminal]

3. Privatizing Walter Reed worked so well

Yeah right.

[westerebus]

4. Halliburton part 2?

Despite all the problems the VA has in its administration most can be traced back to funding,more like lack of funding. Vouchers will not stop the deployment of troops to combat. Better to deploy congressmen and whitehouse dependents with combat units if you want to stop the recklessness.
Brain trauma and PTSD vets don't need vouchers. They need advocates and lawyers and the best care this country has to offer.
The VA needs to be split into three components, Nursing home care for the elderly vets, Medical/Psychological care for the disabled and wounded both in and out patient, and long term rehab and nursing home care for the wounded. It need funding for each part.

[IllLib]

5. How are you going to force private companies to provide insurance ...

to a high-risk group such as combat personnel?

This is an interesting idea and, in spite of it's title, by no means one a "Even Anti-War Doves Should Embrace".

The big fault in this argument, that I can see, is that private insurance companies are under no obligation to insure someone. Witness the rash of canceled insurance coverage for homes in hurricane and flood-prone areas of the coasts.

Can you imagine the insurance companies providing insurance for a combat infantryman going into war? I can't.

How about receiving a cancellation letter while sitting in a foxhole?

[OneBlueSky]

6. um . . . this anti-war dove says "put it where the sun don't shine" . . . n/t

.

[monarch]

7. Administration response to WaPo story--

According to Howard Kurtz on Imus this morning: The reporters who had worked very hard on the story for many months approached Walter Reed 6 days before publication to allow them to respond. What the administration did then was to call in other news outlets to spin the story, thereby, blowing the WaPo's exclusive before they had the chance to run it. Kurtz described that as unheard of or outrageous--I'm not sure what word he used but that was the message.