NationStates Jolt Archive

So, after Eutrusca's recent post on new proposals to redefine veterans, I wrote to several government officials, including one of my senators. I was very specific in that I was referring to a specific proposal and I received the following (I'm guessing stock) reply:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Veterans' funding
in the President's Fiscal Year 2006 budget. It is good to hear from
you.

The President's Veterans' Affairs budget proposal for the
Fiscal Year 2006 represents a $780 million dollar funding increase
from the 2005 budget. The new budget will continue to provide
timely, high quality health care to the veterans who count on it the
most; veterans with service connected disabilities, lower incomes,
and special health care needs. The Department of Veterans'
Affairs will also maintain the 2005 improvements in continuing to
work to process claims in a timely manner.

Another important aspect included in the proposed budget
is a co-pay for prescription drugs. The budget proposes a $250
annual enrollment fee for priority 7 and 8's, or the highest income
brackets of veterans. The pharmacy co-pay would also be raised
for priority 7 and 8's from $7 to $15. As these increases take
place, it is important to understand that under no circumstances
will a veteran be expected to pay for treatment concerning direct
military disability. The VA also plans to drop all co-pays for
POWs and for hospice care. They have also agreed to pay the co-
pay for emergency care for enrolled veterans at private hospitals.
These changes will be reviewed as the Senate considers the
Department of Veterans' Affairs budget during the 109th Congress.
Please be sure that I will keep your views in mind during these
deliberations.

We must not neglect the needs of the men and women who
put their lives on the line to preserve our freedom and way of life.
I extend my extreme gratitude to all the men and women who have
served in our military. As a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, you can be sure that I will continue working to make
sure that veteran's issues are a high priority in the United States
Senate and that our veterans receive the benefits they earned.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this
important issue. If I may be of assistance to you in the future,
please do not hesitate to let me know. In the meantime, if you
would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest
congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up
via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov.

It *maybe* addressed my main concern of those who were not injured in combat being reassigned in the first paragraph. The rest seems to be politics-speak for "I don't want to offend you, but I'm not going to agree with you either."

Bleh.

So, after Eutrusca's recent post on new proposals to redefine veterans, I wrote to several government officials, including one of my senators. I was very specific in that I was referring to a specific proposal and I received the following (I'm guessing stock) reply:



It *maybe* addressed my main concern of those who were not injured in combat being reassigned in the first paragraph. The rest seems to be politics-speak for "I don't want to offend you, but I'm not going to agree with you either."

Bleh.
SIGH! That's one reason I try to phone their offices instead of, or in addition to writing/emailing. It's also the primary reason for concerted action. There's strength in numbers, particularly where politics is concerned.

So, after Eutrusca's recent post on new proposals to redefine veterans, I wrote to several government officials, including one of my senators. I was very specific in that I was referring to a specific proposal and I received the following (I'm guessing stock) reply:



It *maybe* addressed my main concern of those who were not injured in combat being reassigned in the first paragraph. The rest seems to be politics-speak for "I don't want to offend you, but I'm not going to agree with you either."

Bleh.


Welcome to politics.

Welcome to politics.

I guess I was spoiled. My first attempt at writing to politicians was last year, and I received two well-thought out responses (one which I adamantly disagreed with and one which I very much agreed wth), but responses to the actual issue at hand nonetheless.

IIRC, the treatment of vet's is actually far worse in Europe. They do however, have a far bigger social service net, so it is less of an issue per se. (In other words, they have far less homeless in general.)

I guess I was spoiled. My first attempt at writing to politicians was last year, and I received two well-thought out responses (one which I adamantly disagreed with and one which I very much agreed wth), but responses to the actual issue at hand nonetheless.
When I was a Democrat, yes I was once, the NRA sent the Dems letters. The Chairman asked me to sign all of the replies with his name because he didn't have time, it was an automated response.
You have to see the cynicism in politics in order to understand it.

Bump

When I was a Democrat, yes I was once, the NRA sent the Dems letters. The Chairman asked me to sign all of the replies with his name because he didn't have time, it was an automated response.
You have to see the cynicism in politics in order to understand it.

Yeah, I'm not really surprised. There are politicians out there who occasionally send real responses, but my guess was always that they were few and far between.

And, in truth, some of those "real responses" might, in fact, be form letters that just happen to be right on target. =)