NationStates Jolt Archive

Comment: This article is 3-pages, so I'll just post highlights, but I recommend the entire article. So much for "supporting the troops"

Caring for Veterans on the Cheap (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/caring_veterans_cheap.html)

...

Much has been written about how President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld waged war on the cheap, sending too few ill-equipped young soldiers -- 30% of them ill-trained Reservists and National Guardsmen -- into battle. But little has been reported about how shockingly on-the-cheap the homecomings of these soldiers have proved to be. The Bush administration awarded Blake Miller a medal, but it has fought for three long years to deny soldiers like him the care they need. While Miller and his men were being thrown into the fire in Falluja, the White House was proposing to cut the combat pay of soldiers like them. (Only an outburst of outrage across the political spectrum caused the administration to back off from that suggestion.)

The Veterans Administration, now run by a former Republican National Committeeman, has been subjected to the same radical hatcheting that the White House has tried to wield against the rest of America's safety net. Cutbacks, cooking the books, privatization schemes, even a proposal to close down the VA's operations have all been in evidence. The administration's inside-the-beltway supporters like the Heritage Foundation and famed anti-tax radical Grover Norquist like to equate VA care with welfare. Traditionally, however, most Americans have held that the VA's medical care and disability compensation was earned by those who served their country.

...While national deficits soar, thanks in part to skyrocketing war costs, veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are flooding into the increasingly underfunded VA system. The Pentagon says that 2,389 Americans have died and 17,648 have been wounded in combat in Iraq (and another 285 have died in Afghanistan). But these casualty figures seem to be significant undercounts. After all, 144,424 American veterans have sought treatment from the VA system since returning from those wars, not including soldiers actually hospitalized in military hospitals.

...Nonetheless, the VA has admitted -- and it's been confirmed by an Army study -- that a staggering 35% of veterans who served in Iraq have already sought treatment in the VA system for emotional problems from the war. Add this to the older veterans, especially from the Vietnam era, pouring into the VA system as their war wounds, both physical and emotional, deepen with age or as, on retirement, they find they can no longer afford private health insurance and realize that VA health care is -- or, at least in the past, was -- more generous than Medicare.

Just as the Pentagon failed, after its March 2003 invasion of Iraq, to plan for keeping the peace, guarding against looting, fighting a resilient insurgency, or handling a civil war, so has the Veterans Administration failed to plan for caring for casualties of the war. The VA admitted recently that 33,858 more vets showed up for treatment in just the first quarter of FY2006 than were expected for the entire year. Do the math yourself. Multiply times 4, assuming that the war goes on injuring Americans at current levels, and you get a possible underestimate of 135,000 casualties for the year.

Even more distressing, the San Diego Union (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20060319-9999-1n19mental.html)recently reported that mentally ill soldiers are being sent back to war armed only with antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs. The Union quotes Sydney Hickey of the National Military Family Association as saying that "more than 200,000 prescriptions for the most common antidepressants were written in the last 14 months for service members and their families." According to the Union, an Army study also found that 17% of combat-seasoned infantrymen suffer from major depression, anxiety, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after a single tour in Iraq. California Sen. Barbara Boxer has called for an investigation.

Are such chronic underestimates merely the result of incompetence? Not according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress's investigative arm. In a series of reports on the Veterans Administration over the last three years, the GAO found that the VA's top officials submitted budget requests based on cost limits demanded by the White House, not on realistic expectations of how many veterans would actually need medical care or disability support.

In repeated testimony before Congress, top VA political appointees have opposed demands by veterans' groups like the American Legion and the Disabled Veterans of America to increase significantly funds for medical care and disability payments for the new patients now flooding the system. ...

..."The GAO report confirms what everyone has known all along," American Legion National Commander Thomas L. Bock commented. "The VA's health-care budget has been built on false claims of 'efficiency' savings, false actuarial assumptions and an inability to collect third-party reimbursements -- money owed them. This budget model has turned our veterans into beggars, forced to beg for the medical care they earned and, by law, deserve. These deceptions are especially unconscionable when American men and women are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Some veterans are calling it fraud. Rep. Lane Evans (Dem.-Ill.) of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee calls it "Enron-styled accounting."

...Congress has fought the White House over its low VA budgets for several years. In the FY 2006 budget, all Congress could finally grant the VA was $990 million above the agency's already meager request -- an increase of just 3.6% over the previous year despite the rise in casualties to be treated. In fact, top VA officials now admit it would take a 14% increase in the present budget simply to keep up with the inflation in medical costs.

Rep. Evans estimates that there has been a $4 billion shortfall in VA funding in the years 2003-06. In 2005, the White House admitted (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usvets0320,0,5683718,print.story)that, for medical services alone, the VA was short $1 billion for the year -- and another estimated $2.6 billion in 2006.

...

Other White House ideas for cutting back the VA, including making vets pay insurance premiums, higher co-pays and doubling Vets' costs for prescription drugs, have also been beaten back by Congress. One VA response to its huge backlog of claims has been to limit enrollment for its services. In January 2003, the White House ordered the VA to create a new temporary cost-cutting category of "affluent" vets who would not be eligible to use the VA. But the new category seems headed for permanency. And it sets the cut-off level for eligibility for VA care so low -- around $30,000 for a so-called "affluent" family of four -- that many vets who have been cut off can't possibly afford health insurance and medical care on the private market.

In World War II, 12 million Americans fought on behalf of a nation of 130 million. Twenty-five percent of American men served in that war. They came back heroes to a country more than willing to give them the latest medical care, compensate them for their wounds, send them to college, and help them buy homes.

Fifty years later in Iraq -- an unpopular war -- only 1.3 million are fighting for a nation of 300 million. "Never have so few sacrificed so much for so many," one Desert Storm veteran said recently. Iraq may be the wrong cause for sacrifice. But Vietnam veterans taught us that once war starts we must be willing to take care of everyone who gets hurt in it.

Yeah, I used to work in medical, and I found that a number of vets were extremely upset about how the VA kept managing to screw them over.

Yep. And yet there's billions of dollars (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042601601_2.html) being "spent" in Iraq that the government can't account for.
Of the total war spending, the CRS analysis found $4 billion that could not be tracked. It did identify $2.5 billion diverted from other spending authorizations in 2001 and 2002 to prepare for the invasion.
Set aside for a moment the questionable legality of the diverted money--there's enough missing money to completely fund the VA. Whether or not you agree with the war, the government owes those men and women what they were promised, and the administration ought to be ashamed of themselves (and the Republican congress ought to be ashamed for not standing up to Bush on this).

Yep, typical government. Says once thing and does another. Just force Haliburton to hand over it's dividends to the VA so it can function as a charitable act eh?

"Never have so few sacrificed so much for so many," one Desert Storm veteran said recently.
Winston Churchill was a Desert Storm veteran? :eek:

This is terrible, I agree. But it's something I know nothing about. And I don't really have anything to constructive to add. So I'll just say that this line
Even more distressing, the San Diego Union recently reported that mentally ill soldiers are being sent back to war armed only with antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs.
reminds me of a moment from one of the later seasons of M*A*S*H, where Hawkeye says something alone the lines of "it goes against all my training as a surgeon to give a wounded man an aspirin and tell him to go back to the front to get killed".

As a retired military member who is also a disabled vet and uses the VA system, I have but one thing to say. This propaganda against a political party is disgusting.

As a retired military member who is also a disabled vet and uses the VA system, I have but one thing to say. This propaganda against a political party is disgusting.

The truth hurts, I guess.

BTW, are you accusing the American Legion of anti-Republican propoganda?

As a retired military member who is also a disabled vet and uses the VA system, I have but one thing to say. This propaganda against a political party is disgusting.
A whole organization (http://www.dav.org/news/news_20060208.html) of disabled vets disagree with you. If you're suggesting that this a fabrication solely to discredit the Republicans, I think you're wrong - I imagine there's a fair deal of Democrat complicity in this too.

As a retired military member who is also a disabled vet and uses the VA system, I have but one thing to say. This propaganda against a political party is disgusting.
Hmmm. The amount of anti-Democratic Party propaganda that comes out of your piehole on a daily basis disgusts me, so I guess we're fucking even.

Edit: Actually, I figure I'm still ahead, simply because the Democrats haven't been in power for so long it's impossible to blame these fuckups on them.

As a retired military member who is also a disabled vet and uses the VA system, I have but one thing to say. This propaganda against a political party is disgusting.

This isnt propaganda. Being active duty, I can assure you, sir, that I know veterans who are currently fighting the VA to get what care they need. What's absolutely horrific about the system is how the process is drawn out so long that most veterans lose everything while they're fighting to get what they deserve.

www.saluteheroes.org

:(

*bump*

I wish I could say I had hope that this would turn into a 15 page thread, but unfortunately, it's one of those issues that's utterly indenfensible from a Republican point of view and they, for the most part, know it, and so they're just letting it fall to the bottom of the page and beyond, hoping it will go away.

You know--sort of like the way they treat the mentally-ill and homeless veterans.

I was waiting for this thread to grow a bit before jumping in, and I have to say I'm annoyed that Cat-Tribe had to bump it. What's wrong with you people -- you Americans? Where's your sense of justice, of plain, old-fashioned fairness? For this alone, Bush, his entire cabinet, and both houses of Congress deserve to be tossed out on their asses and replaced. Their salaries should be garnished to pay for the care of men and women who have had their lives shattered for their self-serving political bullshit. To actually cut care to people who are suffering only because these criminal-minded bastards started a war of choice should be a crime all by itself, in my opinion. This needs to be a serious issue in the upcoming midterm elections and in 2008, dammit. But so few of you have anything to say about it? I'm disappointed.

*bump*

I only skimmed your article. But is sounds like breach of implied contract, &c.

Enough to pass 12b6, at any rate. You should start an action.

As a retired military member who is also a disabled vet and uses the VA system, I have but one thing to say. This propaganda against a political party is disgusting.

Celt? You may be lucky. Even in "wealthy" California I have been hearing vets get the great fuckover from the VA.

Even my wifes great uncles (wwII) on one side of the family are starting to bitch about the crap they go through now.

Why is this upsetting? Aren’t these the men and women we shouldn’t give a fuck about? They fought and were injured for nationalistic, patriotic, mercenary and sometimes even sociopath reasons.
They deserve nothing but contempt.
Now they are simply reaping the seeds that they have sown but upholding this current government.

Why is this upsetting? Aren’t these the men and women we shouldn’t give a fuck about? They fought and were injured for nationalistic, patriotic, mercenary and sometimes even sociopath reasons.
They deserve nothing but contempt.
Now they are simply reaping the seeds that they have sown but upholding this current government.
Fuck that. A deal's a deal, and whether or not I agreed with the war they fought, the deal was that if they served, they got medical care from the government. There was no "if we approved of the war" bullshit in the contract. They serve, they get the bennies.

Now the chickenhawks in Congress are willing to shit on that deal. No way.

Why is this upsetting? Aren’t these the men and women we shouldn’t give a fuck about? They fought and were injured for nationalistic, patriotic, mercenary and sometimes even sociopath reasons.
They deserve nothing but contempt.
Now they are simply reaping the seeds that they have sown but upholding this current government.

Our troll moment was brought to you by Trolls R Us. When you need hateful words always look to Trolls R Us.

Fuck that. A deal's a deal, and whether or not I agreed with the war they fought, the deal was that if they served, they got medical care from the government. There was no "if we approved of the war" bullshit in the contract. They serve, they get the bennies.
Sorry, but I never made a deal with those murderers. Why should I have to pay them anything?

As one politically minded resource denounces the VA and the VA Hospitals (TCT's San Francisco based self described Liberal source, Mother Jones), another one (self described anti-current political parties altogether) holds up the current condition of the VA Hospitals to show us how the rest of America is getting screwed over, saying we should all be so lucky as to have the VA in charge of our medical care because it’s about the best there is when compared to HMO’s...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html


Interesting.

Sorry, but I never made a deal with those murderers. Why should I have to pay them anything?
Because you are a selfish dirtbag. The IRS red-flags the tax returns of selfish dirtbags and charges them extra because they know it annoys you, and the IRS exists to annoy. The truth is, you are the only one paying for their care at all. If you weren't such a dirtbag about it, you'd see the difference in your refund.

As one politically minded resource denounces the VA and the VA Hospitals (TCT's San Francisco based self described Liberal source, Mother Jones), another one (self described anti-current political parties altogether) holds up the current condition of the VA Hospitals to show us how the rest of America is getting screwed over, saying we should all be so lucky as to have the VA in charge of our medical care because it’s about the best there is when compared to HMO’s...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html


Interesting.
Here was my grandfather's experience (WW2 vet): Nothing but hassles getting access to care, then outstanding care once you got an appointment, then more hassles about paying for the care. From this I concluded that the actual caregivers in the VA system are very good, but the bureaucracy and the politics that control it are shit. And since Bush started his little play-wars, it's become criminal, imo. What good are the best doctors in the world, if you can't get to them?

As for HMOs -- dying at home is better -- and cheaper.

Sorry, but I never made a deal with those murderers. Why should I have to pay them anything?

My best friend had his back broken while doing riot control with our guard unit a few years ago. He has been passed around the VA system for more than two years now, with everyone refusing to be responsible for more than giving him some asprin. He still has trouble lifting heavy things, and private doctors have said he needs extensive surgery.

I killed the man who hurt my friend.

The point? You agree to pay a man to do a job and he does it, you pay him. Me and my friend where hired to fight. He's owed the agreed wages. Politics don't come into it.

My best friend had his back broken while doing riot control with our guard unit a few years ago. He has been passed around the VA system for more than two years now, with everyone refusing to be responsible for more than giving him some asprin. He still has trouble lifting heavy things, and private doctors have said he needs extensive surgery.

I killed the man who hurt my friend.

The point? You agree to pay a man to do a job and he does it, you pay him. Me and my friend where hired to fight. He's owed the agreed wages. Politics don't come into it.
Selfish dirtbags like Undelia think everyone should work for free, especially for them (the selfish dirtbags). Ignore him.

This isnt propaganda. Being active duty, I can assure you, sir, that I know veterans who are currently fighting the VA to get what care they need. What's absolutely horrific about the system is how the process is drawn out so long that most veterans lose everything while they're fighting to get what they deserve.

www.saluteheroes.org
I would like to add that this is not a new problem. I have always been disappointed in the actions of nearly ever level within the system. I spent a lot of time working at a VA hospital on a computer system and the doctors were abusing the system at the expense of veteran's, the mainenance workers, the support staff, politicians. It went all the way up and down the line and it's been that way for so long no one even knows how to begin fixing it.

I would like to add that this is not a new problem. I have always been disappointed in the actions of nearly ever level within the system. I spent a lot of time working at a VA hospital on a computer system and the doctors were abusing the system at the expense of veteran's, the mainenance workers, the support staff, politicians. It went all the way up and down the line and it's been that way for so long no one even knows how to begin fixing it.
At the risk of using dirty words: A national health care system? Not a magic bullet, but a possible starting point...

At the risk of using dirty words: A national health care system? Not a magic bullet, but a possible starting point...

Or just more of the same. The problem isn't just a lack of funding. The system is corrupt. There are many people in the system abusing it (workers, not patients) and there is no mechanism for correcting such a thing. They need to figure out a way to correct the problems there before expanding the system to everyone.

Sorry, but I never made a deal with those murderers. Why should I have to pay them anything?
Because of the associated contract made to them in good faith ...

My best friend had his back broken while doing riot control with our guard unit a few years ago. He has been passed around the VA system for more than two years now, with everyone refusing to be responsible for more than giving him some asprin. He still has trouble lifting heavy things, and private doctors have said he needs extensive surgery.

I killed the man who hurt my friend.

The point? You agree to pay a man to do a job and he does it, you pay him. Me and my friend where hired to fight. He's owed the agreed wages. Politics don't come into it.
I see you missed the point. I am against this war and I wasn’t alive and/or old enough to agree or disagree to any of the others this last century (would have been against them all.)
Why should I have to pay your medical bills? Aren’t your mercenary salaries enough? Isn't it enough that you're already payed to kill those who are only trying to protect their homes and families?

Because of the associated contract made to them in good faith ...
Which I don’t think you’ll find my signature on. The money would be far better used in education or medical care for those who don’t kill for a living.

I see you missed the point. I am against this war and I wasn’t alive and/or old enough to agree or disagree to any of the others this last century (would have been against them all.)
Why should I have to pay your medical bills? Aren’t your mercenary salaries enough? Isn't it enough that you're already payed to kill those who are only trying to protect their homes and families?
Nope the salaries were not enough ... hence the extended contract that gave them wages AND medical care

Wether you agree to their use or not is beyond the point ... this is a simple act of contract law

Which the government is not upholding their part of it

Now if you dont think that should be part of the contract for solders by every means work to have it removed from the contract

That is different then not honoring a contract

Which I don’t think you’ll find my signature on. The money would be far better used in education or medical care for those who don’t kill for a living.
Its not your money ... once the government takes it it is THEIR money (which you still have SOME say over)

If you dislike how it is spent get thoes benifits removed from the contract by contacting your senitor or some such method

I see you missed the point. I am against this war and I wasn’t alive and/or old enough to agree or disagree to any of the others this last century (would have been against them all.)
Why should I have to pay your medical bills? Aren’t your mercenary salaries enough? Isn't it enough that you're already payed to kill those who are only trying to protect their homes and families?
Not all these soldiers are for the war either. However, we (I include myself as I sit at home in uniform on my lunch break) all signed the dotted line offering our services to protect your freedoms. We go where we're told - whether we agree or not. That's the way the military works. Regardless of whether you agree with our being there or not, we signed to protect your rights as a US Citizen. The least that can be done is for us to be taken care of when we are injured in that service.

Not all these soldiers are for the war either. However, we (I include myself as I sit at home in uniform on my lunch break) all signed the dotted line offering our services to protect your freedoms. We go where we're told - whether we agree or not. That's the way the military works. Regardless of whether you agree with our being there or not, we signed to protect your rights as a US Citizen. The least that can be done is for us to be taken care of when we are injured in that service.
Yup that is your side of said contract.... its all realy simple (well as simple as contract law can be)

Not all these soldiers are for the war either. However, we (I include myself as I sit at home in uniform on my lunch break) all signed the dotted line offering our services to protect your freedoms. We go where we're told - whether we agree or not. That's the way the military works. Regardless of whether you agree with our being there or not, we signed to protect your rights as a US Citizen. The least that can be done is for us to be taken care of when we are injured in that service.
Soldiers haven’t protected the rights of Americans since Little Rock, and only then minimal force was required. Thing is, we don’t need the vast majority of you, so you aren't fulfiling your end of the bargain.

As for changing the law, that will never happen, Americans are far to ignorant and jingoistic to see their bloated military budget for what it is, a dangerous parasite to our economy, an impediment to foreign relations and to the welfare of society (which I am a part of and thus have an interest in) as a whole.

Soldiers haven’t protected the rights of Americans since Little Rock, and only then minimal force was required. Thing is, we don’t need the vast majority of you, so you aren't fulfiling your end of the bargain.

As for changing the law, that will never happen, Americans are far to ignorant and jingoistic to see their bloated military budget for what it is, a dangerous parasite to our economy, an impediment to foreign relations and to the welfare of society (which I am a part of and thus have an interest in) as a whole.

So, the soldiers policing the streets of New Orleans, protecting civilians, werent serving the public good? Lets remember that next time there's a national emergency. Moving on...

You might not see a need for the military. However, a lack of a military tends to leave one's nation open for occupation. Whether the military was used properly or not is a different argument. The need for a military force has been proven through history time and again. The day when no evil minded people exist is the day there will be no need for a military. Until then, it is necessary to have a standing force to defend the rights of their nation's citizens.

You might not see a need for the military. However, a lack of a military tends to leave one's nation open for occupation. Whether the military was used properly or not is a different argument. The need for a military force has been proven through history time and again. The day when no evil minded people exist is the day there will be no need for a military. Until then, it is necessary to have a standing force to defend the rights of their nation's citizens.
Nobody is going to invade the United States or any other Western nation in this day and age as long as those nations maintain a small nominal force and nuclear capability. Stop being so naïve.

Ah, nothing like a President that funds a strong military, eh? :p

I see you missed the point. I am against this war and I wasn’t alive and/or old enough to agree or disagree to any of the others this last century (would have been against them all.)
Why should I have to pay your medical bills? Aren’t your mercenary salaries enough? Isn't it enough that you're already payed to kill those who are only trying to protect their homes and families?

A different line of argument then. You are, I assume, a resedent of some country with an army? And over the track of your life you've used goverment organizations like schools, police, and fireman, at least once in a while? Would you claim that a fireman doesn't deserve his paycheck, because you didn't start the fire?

Even in a time without war, a nation needs an army, if only to serve as a roadblock for other, more agressive nations. Part of the payment agreed apon for the American army is medical care for injurys sustained while working. Sadly, war is a high risk proffesion.

Soldiers haven’t protected the rights of Americans since Little Rock, and only then minimal force was required. Thing is, we don’t need the vast majority of you, so you aren't fulfiling your end of the bargain.

As for changing the law, that will never happen, Americans are far to ignorant and jingoistic to see their bloated military budget for what it is, a dangerous parasite to our economy, an impediment to foreign relations and to the welfare of society (which I am a part of and thus have an interest in) as a whole.

Then your problem is with the government not the soldiers. The fact is without soldiers who are willing to work for the government and protect your rights there would be no US. That's a fact whether you like or not. I know of no war any soldier started. Wars are started by politicians, take away their benefits.

Nobody is going to invade the United States or any other Western nation in this day and age as long as those nations maintain a small nominal force and nuclear capability. Stop being so naïve.

They would have. Things may be changing, but that's not the point. Again, wars are started by politicians. There are a few, but most soldiers never sit around wishing that they can fight in a war. Most soldiers would happily finish out their career with peace the entire time. Most soldiers would prefer it if we never had a single conflict. I wish I could same for most politicians.

Generally, our military has one of the best track records in the world for minimizing the loss of life while following orders. We have been used rather frequently for peacekeeping forces where we are not permitted to fire until we've already been fired upon. I have friends that have had to stay their hand while people threatened them with guns. The military, not the government, makes an effort to avoid violence when possible. We are trained to be precise to prevent civilian casualties.

Let's not pretend like everywhere the military goes is necessary, but there are places the military has gone that resulted in more people alive today, not less.

As one politically minded resource denounces the VA and the VA Hospitals (TCT's San Francisco based self described Liberal source, Mother Jones), another one (self described anti-current political parties altogether) holds up the current condition of the VA Hospitals to show us how the rest of America is getting screwed over, saying we should all be so lucky as to have the VA in charge of our medical care because it’s about the best there is when compared to HMO’s...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html


Interesting.

Um. Nice try. The two articles aren't contradictory at all.

Your article refers to the quality of care received by those who actually get care from the VA. The article expressly says that it isn't concerned with "grievances [] about access to the system," but only "about the quality of care received by those who get in."

My article documents that those that need it aren't getting treated due to deliberate underfunding of the VA system.

(But, since you raised the point, do you agree with your article that government health care is superior in quality to free-market health care or are you just being a hypocrite?)