NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: After all I've seen and done, few things really irritate me anymore. Those of you who have read my posts know what most of those things are. One of them, almost needless to say, is any neglect or abuse of US veterans. I just emailed this letter to my Congresswoman, Virginia Foxx, to protest what seems to be coming: a reduction in the number of veterans covered by health insurance.


May 23, 2005

[recipient address was inserted here]

Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

Representative Steve Buyer ( R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, sent out a press release on Friday, April 22, 2005, in
which he indicated that the VA's "core constituency" is "disabled and
indigent veterans."

This press release also states, "Provision of care for veterans not in
the "core constituency" was contingent on the VA having sufficient
resources for its high-priority enrollees."

The problem here is not "too many" veterans. The problem is lack of
adequate funding for healthcare for veterans.

It seems to me that, with military recuiters being so hard pressed to fill
their minimum quotas lately, this would be exactly the wrong message for
Congress to send.

As a retired/disabled veteran myself, I am part of Rep. Buyer's "core
constiuency," so shortfalls in funding probably would not affect me. It
would, however, affect many of my brothers and sisters who severed with
honor.

Please accept veterans in the 5th Congressional District of North Carolina
as members of YOUR "core constituency," and take whatever action is
necessary to insure that these honorable men and women are provided for.

Thank you, Representative Foxx.

Forrest Lee Horn, Sr.
CPT, INF, USA
( Retired/Disabled )
Vietnam, 1967-1969

NOTE: After all I've seen and done, few things really irritate me anymore. Those of you who have read my posts know what most of those things are. One of them, almost needless to say, is any neglect or abuse of US veterans. I just emailed this letter to my Congresswoman, Virginia Foxx, to protest what seems to be coming: a reduction in the number of veterans covered by health insurance.


May 23, 2005

[recipient address was inserted here]

Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

Representative Steve Buyer ( R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, sent out a press release on Friday, April 22, 2005, in
which he indicated that the VA's "core constituency" is "disabled and
indigent veterans."

This press release also states, "Provision of care for veterans not in
the "core constituency" was contingent on the VA having sufficient
resources for its high-priority enrollees."

The problem here is not "too many" veterans. The problem is lack of
adequate funding for healthcare for veterans.

It seems to me that, with military recuiters being so hard pressed to fill
their minimum quotas lately, this would be exactly the wrong message for
Congress to send.

As a retired/disabled veteran myself, I am part of Rep. Buyer's "core
constiuency," so shortfalls in funding probably would not affect me. It
would, however, affect many of my brothers and sisters who severed with
honor.

Please accept veterans in the 5th Congressional District of North Carolina
as members of YOUR "core constituency," and take whatever action is
necessary to insure that these honorable men and women are provided for.

Thank you, Representative Foxx.

Forrest Lee Horn, Sr.
CPT, INF, USA
( Retired/Disabled )
Vietnam, 1967-1969

And, this is why the government always wins.

They divide to conquer, and you play right into it.

It's not just Vets, you know.

And, this is why the government always wins.

They divide to conquer, and you play right into it.

It's not just Vets, you know.
I know. Where the Republican Party and I part ways is primarily in domestic policy. I tend to be a tad more liberal than most Republicans when it comes to both economic issues and social issues.

So how do I "play right into it?"

I know. Where the Republican Party and I part ways is primarily in domestic policy. I tend to be a tad more liberal than most Republicans when it comes to both economic issues and social issues.

So how do I "play right into it?"

You are 'playing right into it' because everyone is getting screwed on this issue. Municipalities all over the country are excising people from medical coverage, or drastically reducing what coverage they have. American industry and commerce are desperately divesting themselves of medical coverage policies when and where they can - look at United Airlines.

SOmething like a fourth of the population can currently no longer afford medical insurance, and that number is set to rise.

But, WHY can't Americans afford medical care? US drugs are priced artificially high, and the government has repeatedly refused to limit that practise. Thus, insurance is artificially expensive... but the insurance companies don't care - because they still get their premiums paid.

Why doesn't the government do anything about this? Probably, because they get kickbacks from the Chemical companies AND the Insurance Companies.

So - the other choice is division. Target United Airlines, because of the attempt to come back out of bankruptcy. Sure, the Airline staff will complain. Do it to a couple of Airlines, and one of the Unions complains... but keeping it in these little areas, makes it not-a-public issue.

Similarly - start messing around with the 'wording' of Veteran benefits. Argue that coverage is dependent on certain 'qualifications'. Set yourself up a 'core constituency' that will keep MOST of the Vets happy.

Thenm you can slowly erode who qualifies for 'core constituency' status until it is effectively gone.

And what they are doing, is getting a few people to argue here, a few more to petition there... nothing unified. They divide and conquer.

I know. Where the Republican Party and I part ways is primarily in domestic policy. I tend to be a tad more liberal than most Republicans when it comes to both economic issues and social issues.

So how do I "play right into it?"
This has nothing to do with your question. Just a suggestion. Keep up the writing, but whenever you can, address a specific bill -- HR or SB, whichever is most appropriate. That seems to get more than a "thanks for your concern" kind of reply.

At least with John Linder and Saxby Chambliss, it does. Max Cleland could never bring himself to address an issue I wrote him about.