Wanna guess how many new customers VA Hospitals expect to see?

Is it my imagination, or was this thread scrubbed like the Saudi chapter of the 9/11 report?

 

have any of those books actually been sold to someone other than your family members ?

should i look for them in the cut out bins at the buck a book ?

 

Yep. It was down to two replies for a while.

 

What I don't like, being a veteran by quirk myself, and having had need at one point to avail myself of various services at the VA, are the hoops that authentic veterans have to leap through for basic sh!t. The one thing that should be streamlined ON EARTH, before anything else, are the avenues by which combat and other veterans access services.

But if we cannot even get funding right for the most straightforward services, how can we expect that the wellness project needed to ensure that veterans, post-conflict, are getting all they need is even ENVISIONED, let alone conceptually on the books let alone on the way to being implemented?

A re-think is needed. Ground-up rethink.

 

Par for the course then, eh?

 

Am I still the protagonist? You need any pictures of me for the cover?

 

Well You can always look at the cuts to the VA that has gone on while Bushy-boy has taken office....Then again it may turn out as an attack...or a reason why Vets are getting the shaft by this administration.

~worm~

 

This thread has everything to do with veteran's benefits AND with attacking a president who submitted a budget cutting those benefits.

What is the problem?

You generally defend Bush, so here is your chance. There is a policy on the table. Defend it.

I would be attacking president Gore or president Kerry if they submitted the same budget, but I don't believe that would have happened.

 

Well take a LSD trip back to 1999 when the Clinton/Gore admin tried to cut VA spending....

~worm~

 

I had a feeling someone would bring this up.

I was critical of Clinton when he introduced budgets with cuts (or increases that didn't keep up with inflation) to veterans programs.

If I recall, he followed a political staple by cuts mid term and increases in election years. I think this is bad policy (see GW quote used by Obama earlier in the thread).

Of course, to cut benefits and add fees in the middle of a war is a whole different animal, wouldn't you agree?

 

Totally agree!

Also I would like to impose the current base closures in...seeing that alot of retired Military who use the Base hospitals as a source. Will be hit hard...Alot of retired vets live near bases for the benifets they provide. The Military base closings will not only effect the local $$$$, but the retired Vets that need them.



~worm~

 

Underfunding of VA has long been an issue. Why do you need to make things up to make your point?

The Bush Administration has not cut funding. In its first four years it increased funding more than the Clinton Admin did in eight years.

Does the Iraq war make even further increases urgently necessary? Yes. And if those increases don't come, maybe our man Plummer will have the non-partisan huevos to start a thread about it before you do. But he'll have to be scary quick to beat you.

 

If you don't take into account inflation adjustment, and when you consider that part of the increase in funding is by making veterans pay to use the services, then I guess you are correct. Say hello to my little friend (Barack):

But how do we meet that standard and serve our veterans when we have a budget that, when adjusted for inflation, has even less money for veterans than it did a year ago? When we have less for health care, for hospitals, and for disability pay?


This budget tells our veterans that if you want increased funding for the VA, you'll have to pay for it yourself. It's a budget that charges 2.2 million veterans a $250 enrollment fee just to enter into the health care program they were promised upon enlisting. A budget that more than doubles veterans' prescription drug co-payments. That will cut $351 million in funding for veterans' nursing homes, and will eliminate more than $100 million in state grants that are desperately needed by VA facilities across the country.


And this is a budget that tells all those veterans still waiting for help to keep waiting. There are roughly 480,000 compensation and pension claims still unprocessed, but this budget only calls for 113 new employees to help deal with this backlog ? not enough to make a dent. In Chicago, veterans are waiting an average of 138 days just to start the sometimes decade-long process of getting their disability claim processed. 138 days. How can we make our heroes wait this long?

This would be scandilous in peace time. It's criminal now.

Oh, and URwormfood, I agree. The funny thing is, there was a bill last month in the house to use a portion of the savings from base closings to increase veteran benefits, and it was shot down along party lines. Take a guess at which party did the shooting.

 

Take a guess what the income level is of those the VA is excluding or asking to pay more.

Bottom line: Bush has not cut VA funding. He has increased it more in four years than Clinton did in eight.

But, by all means, pile on to the partisan pile, and continue posting misleading and incomplete information. Here's some more for you: http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

 

Hey, as a member of the military, if you are happy with the benefits that await you, more power to you.

 

In my best Mel Brennan cut and paste

 

Well, isn't spending for the VA going to have to be considerably more since a whole lot more people are getting wounded and such?

 

K.I.S.S.

Oh, we're supposed to wait and see on that, b/c this Executive, in its transparency and commitment to democratic principles, has earned the benefit of the doubt with regard to funding. I mean, look as NCLB and the Office of Special Plans; if they aren't examples of the best traditions of the nation, I don't know what is!

 

This may be the oddest thread in the history of BS, and THAT is saying something.

There is ample evidence that the VA is not properly funded given the number of Iraq/Afghanistan vets coming back wounded. The new budget requires pay-ins from a large number of vets and doubles the prescription co-pay. Yet, we have people IN THE MILITARY who will be relying on these benefits arguing against those trying to increase their benefits simply so they don't come out on the wrong side of Dubya on ANY single argument.

For all of those who think Dubya is dumb, think again. He has inspired a ridiculous level of loyalty from some who apparently will argue against their own interest just to stay in lock step.

 

You know, I've learned, when I see your name at the top of a post, it's usually worth reading. Alas, everyone has a bad day once in a while....actually some have bad days everyday, but you're not one of them. Anyway....

a) There has been "ample evidence" the VA was poorly funded in every year since I learned what the VA was, regardless of what political party was in power.

b) It is irrefutably and patently false to claim Bush has cut funding, when in fact he's increased it. Is it enough? No. And the same could be said during any administration you want to talk about. It is pure partisanship to use such a claim to criticize Bush (there are so many honest reasons, I really don't get why people undermine their credibility by making crap up).

c) Read the article at factcheck.org and you will get a more-balanced picture of reality. Vets with financial means are being excluded or asked to pay more, so that still more of those without means can be helped. Funding still isn't what it should be, but it is much higher -- even accounting for inflation -- than it was before Bush. Saying or implying otherwise is either false assumption or partisan obsfucation.

d) I neither voted for Bush, nor supported the decision to invade Iraq, but I realize, if I had, it might be easier for you to dismiss my views.

 

I am going with the "I had a bad day" line. That's my story and I am sticking to it.

a) that is true, and I have been a critic regardless of the party in power.

b) it's not partizan if you criticize both parties. For this calendar year, there is an increase of 2% which is below the level of inflation which I have always considered a cut because there are less real dollars available, but I suppose that is semantics.

c) I did read it, and like all sources, there are numbers for debate in there as well. Regardless of ability to pay, I don't think it is too much to ask of our country to provide basic VA benefits without cost to those who serve -- even in peace time. I understand that the number that would have to pay the $250 is 2 million or more. Is that not right? I really don't know. Comparing Bush to others is not really valid unless you go back to Vietnam era as that is the last time we had significant casualties from an extended action. Intuitively, the budget should be increased substantially just to serve those soldiers injured since 2001.

d) the overall tone of my post was directed more at curious georgeplmr who is unabashedly a Bush supporter. Even still, the tone was probably too strong.

Read some of the Barack Obama links I posted. There are some astounding things in there like the amount of time needed to process a claim, and the disproportionate amount spent on vets in certain parts of the country.

 

I see you're having one of your usual good days again.