as usual you try to change the subject. Why don't you prove the nurses and doctors who were let go are not being replaced.
Trump Fires 548 VA Employees
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
The only facts in this thread are that 500some VA employees were fired for being bad employees and that they are hiring more than they fired. Your argument is 100% conjecture(as usual).
I'm aware that you were attempting sarcasm with that comment, but it was misguided at best.
Also, go ahead and call me a con or moron or whatever your word of the day is. All it does is show that you aren't capable of a real discussion.
Note what I said...they aren't 'always' qualified. This happens in smaller hospital systems, and, of course, the VA.
And same here, I work for one of the largest in the state of Ohio.
ha ha I thought EG said that. I would have given you the benefit of the doubt.Anyway I am with Ohio Health how bout you
Since you also have no clue about the military, let me school you with personal experience in this as well.
You would accomplish far more and potentially save a significant amount of lives going into battle with 25 motivated and loyal soldiers than 30 millennial "can I have my cell phone back now?" new age soldiers.
You libs think life works like it does in movies. That's why so many actors happen to be libtards, like you.
tOSU or, if you want to use the whole name, "The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center." Where if you have enough money, we'll plaster your name on the building.
Our Emergency Department is named the Abercrombie and Fitch Emergency Department. You get that? It's named after a trendy clothing store chain.
They're not being replaced unless you hire more than what you would have hired otherwise. Have you proven that's the case?
It is NOT a fact they were fired for being bad employees. They were fired because someone CLAIMED they were bad employees.
You're not schooling anyone. The only choice you were given is 30 inexperienced, lazy, entitled soldiers or 25 inexperienced, lazy, entitled soldiers. I didn't ask your "schooling" self whether you would add 30 or 25 to an existing unit, or if you had the choice, would you pick motivated soldiers over the ones I described. Are you and herdman going to stick with the 25?
There was probably something called "documentation" for poor performance. They also do annual performance appraisals in organizations which employ more than 3 including the nutjob master cabinet maker. Those were likely available for review as well.
The burden of proof is on you. There is nothing here to make anyone think those positions won't be filled or changed to a new role within the VA. Why don't you prove that the positions have been eliminated?
At least you've accepted that they're hiring more than they fired and your argument has no backing. That's progress.
"probably"? I thought you said it was a fact. But let's assume there was "documentation", would it be factual? Or would it be the result of accountability effort urged by cheetos and others to make themselves look like they're doing something about the VA? Could it be that because the ability to fire someone has been made easier due to the law
lowering the burden of proof needed to fire employees — from a "preponderance" to "substantial evidence," allowing a dismissal even if most evidence is in a worker's favor?
"According to what I've read, between 2013 and 2016, the Veterans healthcare system has added about 10,000 jobs per year. Each year the number of VA patients has increased by about 150,000. If you've got other figures let's see them, but at that rate the number of patients to employees (and they're not all doctors and nurses) is not improving."
Maybe you should accept that I never denied the VA was hiring. I stated there not hiring fast enough to make progress in the doctor/patient ratio. Here it is again:
"According to what I've read, between 2013 and 2016, the Veterans healthcare system has added about 10,000 jobs per year. Each year the number of VA patients has increased by about 150,000. If you've got other figures let's see them, but at that rate the number of patients to employees (and they're not all doctors and nurses) is not improving."
Extragreed lecturing the board about employment and the rights of employees is always good for a healthy laugh.
And I stated that your argument is conjecture.
Conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
You need 2013 totals for VA healthcare system employment and patients to have enough information to conclude "at that rate the number of patients to employees (and they're not all doctors and nurses) is not improving."
I can't believe that needs to be spelled out to you.
I CAN believe you can't figure out that if over a 3 year period the VA hires 10,000 people per year, and the number of patients increase by 150,000 per year that the ratio stays the same.
Ok extra, I'll do the work for you. Hiring 10,000 employees in the same period that 150,000 patients are added is a ratio of 15 new patients per hire.
As of March 2016 the Department of Veterans Affairs employed 368,109
Source: Fedscope.opm.gov
As of May 2016 the total enrollment of VA Healthcare Systems was 8,970,000.
Source: https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Quickfacts/Homepage_slideshow_06_04_16.pdf
That's a ratio of 24.37 patients per employee.
In conclusion, they are hiring at a rate that improves the ratio.
We'll get you learned one of these days.
Number of employees added per year:
As you can see that averages near 10,000 per year like I said. But it doesn't show '14, '15, '16. But we have your figure of 368,109 for 2016 and so we subtract the 2013 total of 341,000 to get a difference of 27,109 and then divide by 3 for the years missing from the graph and we get 9,036 per year. So, the average over the 13 years in the graph is precisely 9,384. This shows you that hiring per year average now is actually less than the average of the 13 years in the graph.
Anything else you'd like to learn me?
Im against poor doctors taking care of the veterans. EG this is one thread you are so wrong. Trump said he would weedout all the bad emoloyees. He does and you complain its a bad move. Quit being completely one sided blind to anything outside of the hillary eg. You think they should keep giving veterans half ass medical care.
3.5 hours for that? Why are you trying to use that google images graph with rounded numbers? I just linked you to an official dataset with quarterly employment figures for all federal agencies from 2010 to present and yearly figures for 1998 to present.Number of employees added per year:
As you can see that averages near 10,000 per year like I said. But it doesn't show '14, '15, '16. But we have your figure of 368,109 for 2016 and so we subtract the 2013 total of 341,000 to get a difference of 27,109 and then divide by 3 for the years missing from the graph and we get 9,036 per year. So, the average over the 13 years in the graph is precisely 9,384. This shows you that hiring per year average now is actually less than the average of the 13 years in the graph.
Anything else you'd like to learn me?
Also, if the subpar data choice and half baked attempt at projecting figures that are readily available weren't bad enough on their own, your "analysis" is joke. You aren't even showing "hiring per year average." You're attempting to calculate employment growth per year... Unless we are to assume that no one has retired in that timespan and only 548 VA employees have been fired since 2000.
Seriously, abandon thread. It's getting pathetic.
8 hours for that? The "google graph" is from Cato Institute and the "subpar data choice" is based on the same Office of Personnel Management site that you're using. If you want to assume that there's been an uptick in firing and retirement at the va, you go ahead and assume. In the mean time the increase in number of employees has remained pretty consistent and you're going to have to show me how in the last 3 months the va has been able to make up for the hiring freeze enacted at the first 3 months of this administration (at a time when the department had warned that it would need hiring surges to address a rapidly growing disability backlog) that has only been partially lifted.
Suppose you're sick and at the hospital, you want a poor doctor or no doctor? If cheetos said something, you can bank it's a lie. You think giving vetereans no care is better than "half a$$ care"?
No wonder extra hasn't been able to grow his "business". Half assed cabinets are better than no cabinets
Yes, extra, I was up all night working on that. Definitely didn't type it up while taking my morning dump. It's subpar because it's rounded and the real figures are available from the original source.
You somehow still haven't realized that they would have to add less than 6,200 employees per year to have the ratio of employees to patients get worse than the current 24.37/1(assuming the 150,000 yearly patient increase you read is accurate).
I'm not going to waste my time showing you anything else. Your level of critical thinking is too low to process it.
Well, that and the fact that his ass is always on here 24/7. I think his cabinet business is a cover for an underground sensual massage business.
I've heard tales about that place. The Mama~San is some old dude, dressed in drag who just puts on different wigs and pretends to be your masseuse. Now it's all coming together...
Yeah, about like it took me 3 1/2 hours to struggle to reply to your nonsense.
It's not sub par because it's rounded, and the original source is exactly the same.
You somehow haven't realized that if the employment increase stays the same and the patient increase stays the same, there will be no additional benefit to the veterans.
Thanks!!
You mean like when my "subpar" data and the "google graph" came from the same source you are using?
Weird how not a single one of you morons have answered the question:
You're sick, in a hospital, and you need help. You choose poor doctor or no doctor?
okay I'll take the bait. What is the problem? If I need a knee replacement you better believe I will wait on a good Doctor. Nothing worse than someone with a messed up knee cause they got a bad doc.If I have a sinus infection a CNP can handle that. If I am in the ER and in a Code Blue I will take what I can get. If I am having a triple bypass I will wait on a good Doc. Get it? Most Docs are good people and do a good job. Like any proffession some need to be held accountable. Okay lets play good cop bad cop EG. If you are pulled over late at night diving home do you want a bad cop to pull you over. I mean lets say he is on YouTube for beating a guy up for a traffic violation. Do you want a bad cop now? Your grandson is an alterboy. Do you want a bad priest or a good priest?
"You're sick, in a hospital, and you need help. You choose poor doctor or no doctor?"
Do you see anything in the above sentence that gives you a third choice of waiting for a good doctor? No. There are 2 choices offered, count them. Then answer the question if you want to be the first to do so.
I would pick no doctor and find me one somewhere. If i couldnt i would go to the ER. They will bill the va. St marys did my father in law's open heart surgery and billed the va for 33000. They paid it in full and he then got free medicine from the VA. Some va staff were fired for watching porn. They had to get rid of some really sorry people that let a veteran die.
I definitely wouldn't want no doctor working on me if he had a woodie...particularly if I was having a colonoscopy performed.
No, you weren't given a 3rd option. Poor doctor or no doctor are the only 2 choices given.
