I am sick to my stomach.
I don’t care if you are a Democrat or a Republican, for the War or against it.
It doesn’t matter if this has been going on in Clinton’s administration, or Ike’s, or Johnson’s, or Bush’s.
It doesn’t matter if correcting this injustice means higher taxes for all or more deficit spending or less Congressional pork.
Our troops that return wounded, whether physically or mentally, deserve the best medical treatment available both when in uniform and after discharge.
The recent expose of conditions at Walter Reed for out patients is a disgrace and deserves national outrage.
On top of that I defy anyone to read the current issue of Newsweek without personal embarrassment of being an American and allowing our Country to treat our wounded as they do..
The Armed Services put their lives on the line 24/7 and deserve a lot better treatment when they come home with shattered bodies and minds than we presently give them. Damn the red tape, pay every claim immediately and audit out the very few bad apples later.
Write your Congressmen and Senators and get them on the ball.
This is not a partisan issue it is an American one.
“…and so it goes.” KV
Loading
112 views
AN OUTRAGE
I also have a problem reading Newsweek without getting sick to my stomach, PAPPY. I mean, that slick rag that doesn't even make a decent fishwrapper or birdcage liner actually calls itself an "impartial" journal. I used to subscribe
Amen, JD.
And I do not read Newsweek, either. And won't.
And the political cartoon of a GI with a bloody knife (labeled Congress) sticking out of his back can be found at
IBD.com/cartoon.
So true!
And I do not read Newsweek, either. And won't.
And the political cartoon of a GI with a bloody knife (labeled Congress) sticking out of his back can be found at
IBD.com/cartoon.
So true!
As I have stated many times I support our troops and members of the military as should everyone regardless of their feelings on the war. JD I am glad to read your posting about improved medical care, trauma situations are the times you need the best care possible.
I will say this though, I am as you know a health care worker, for years I have heard horror stories about VA's, and I know some one will call me on it and say - my brother Bob was in one and received the best care - or some such. And I'm sure he did, but there is still a problem, just like there is in nursing homes and our older vets and our older non-vets deserve better treatment.
I will say this though, I am as you know a health care worker, for years I have heard horror stories about VA's, and I know some one will call me on it and say - my brother Bob was in one and received the best care - or some such. And I'm sure he did, but there is still a problem, just like there is in nursing homes and our older vets and our older non-vets deserve better treatment.
I also have a problem reading Newsweek without getting sick to my stomach, PAPPY. I mean, that slick rag that doesn't even make a decent fishwrapper or birdcage liner actually calls itself an "impartial" journal. I used to subscribe
As I have stated many times I support our troops and members of the military as should everyone regardless of their feelings on the war. JD I am glad to read your posting about improved medical care, trauma situations are the times you need the best care possible.
I will say this though, I am as you know a health care worker, for years I have heard horror stories about VA's, and I know some one will call me on it and say - my brother Bob was in one and received the best care - or some such. And I'm sure he did, but there is still a problem, just like there is in nursing homes and our older vets and our older non-vets deserve better treatment.- blogger
Dear Blogger
Pappy: Please do go back and read mine and JDs post and see if we disagree that the veterans should get better care.
pappy, I am outraged as well as you, but I think and I'm sorry to say this I'm a little outraged at you. for believeing all of this crap about WR with out doing a little investigation of your own. WR is in the process of moving its facilities exactly because it is so old and needs so much work. In the meantime we have people that aren't even vets using the VA hospitals because it was a way to make things look good for a certain presidents legacy. Those people using the VA system are on welfare and the vets that do go to to the VA hospitals are vying for attention from doctors and medics that are so overworked it is not even funny. In addition to let newsweek make such outlandish insults against the va hospitals without a balance sheet is garbage.
My son is in combat. Several of his friends have suffered severe wounds in combat, and they are currently being treated at military facilities in various locations. From what I can tell, the care they are receiving is better than the treatment you or I would receive in private, not-for-profit facilities.
So, what's so bad about publicly run health care, again?
While some of the facilities at Walter Reed are substandard and are, quite frankly, a disgrace, as a whole, the military had done an amazing job of taking care of our wounded soldiers. NBC News (who shares the MSNBC website with Newsweek) has been running a series on how our military is taking care of the wounded and it is truly amazing what they are doing. National Geographic, which is very obviously opposed to the war in Iraq, did a story a couple months ago about what we've been doing for our wounded that was very complimentary.
The system is very good, and yes, much better than the private system most of us use. Now, what gets to me is how some people take legitimate criticisms as an attack on our troops. Even in wartime, the United States is a democracy. It is the job of the people to hold our leaders accountable and it is the job of the press to keep the people informed.
If someone's toes get stepped on, good. If something changes because of a story, all the better.
WOW JD ,those are some impressinve statistics.
Watch- I can make some up, too.
We are three times more likely to have an American die as a result of a terrorist attack now than any time before 9/11.
We spend BILLIONS of dollars a day in a war we can't win, because there is no WIN.
More Iraqis die every day, than in an entire year of Saddam's reign.
More soldiers die every month than in Vietnam.
We are fighting a war against an idea, and if you've ever tried to shoot an idea, you'll know it isn't easy.
etc.
Watch- I can make some up, too.
We are three times more likely to have an American die as a result of a terrorist attack now than any time before 9/11.
We spend BILLIONS of dollars a day in a war we can't win, because there is no WIN.
More Iraqis die every day, than in an entire year of Saddam's reign.
More soldiers die every month than in Vietnam.
We are fighting a war against an idea, and if you've ever tried to shoot an idea, you'll know it isn't easy.
etc.
WOW JD ,those are some impressinve statistics.
Watch- I can make some up, too.
We are three times more likely to have an American die as a result of a terrorist attack now than any time before 9/11.
We spend BILLIONS of dollars a day in a war we can't win, because there is no WIN.
More Iraqis die every day, than in an entire year of Saddam's reign.
More soldiers die every month than in Vietnam.
We are fighting a war against an idea, and if you've ever tried to shoot an idea, you'll know it isn't easy.
etc.
- Jack Ruby
Total American KIA/MIA, Vietnam, 1959-1975: 58,226.
Peak Years for KIA: 1967 - 5,376
As I have stated many times I support our troops and members of the military as should everyone regardless of their feelings on the war. JD I am glad to read your posting about improved medical care, trauma situations are the times you need the best care possible.
I will say this though, I am as you know a health care worker, for years I have heard horror stories about VA's, and I know some one will call me on it and say - my brother Bob was in one and received the best care - or some such. And I'm sure he did, but there is still a problem, just like there is in nursing homes and our older vets and our older non-vets deserve better treatment.- blogger
Dear Blogger
My issue with VA is service being removed. For example - my husband spent 10 years in the US Marines. Like all previous military, he was to get free medical care for life. Now, it is changed. His father, also former Marine, does not receive VA medical services. Nor does the hubby.
I find it horrible that our vets do not have the right to obtain medical care if they should choose to do so. Yes, the drive to the nearest VA clinic is a bit more than most around here would choose to use, especially if they have insurance. But it should be available to all of the vets.
I find it horrible that our vets do not have the right to obtain medical care if they should choose to do so. Yes, the drive to the nearest VA clinic is a bit more than most around here would choose to use, especially if they have insurance. But it should be available to all of the vets.
My issue with VA is service being removed. For example - my husband spent 10 years in the US Marines. Like all previous military, he was to get free medical care for life. Now, it is changed. His father, also former Marine, does not receive VA medical services. Nor does the hubby.
I find it horrible that our vets do not have the right to obtain medical care if they should choose to do so. Yes, the drive to the nearest VA clinic is a bit more than most around here would choose to use, especially if they have insurance. But it should be available to all of the vets.
- Julia Barnes
Julia: I never knew veterans were supposed to get free health care for life just for serving. Now the exceptions I know of: Service Connected Injuries incurred in the line of duty. Combat wounds, trauma, POW.
As for a Veteran getting a discharge with a clean bill of health, I thought treatment was given in later years on a means tested, space available basis but not a guarantee.
I will do some more research. But I know my older brother had no service connected illnesses upon discharge, but received excellent care on a space available, and means tested basis, for problems that developed after he was discharged. And I am satisfied the VA did all they could for him.
And your issue isn't really with the VA, is it, but rather the ones appropriating the money for the VA program?
And I agree with you about the care, especially for anyone that did 10 years in the Marines
Didn't any of you all see or did you just choose not to comment on an article in Feb. 13 AIM about cuts to Veteran benefits to balance the budget. This will affect all those who are serving so valiantly and their survivers. This was in the President's budget given to Congress. This was not an article on an isolated incident within the military hospital system that Newsweek chose to blow out of preportion. Outragious? yes. The miitary is reworking a plan to expedite these soldiers orders. (Able to return to duty or benefits due from their injuries on release)
Bet you didn't read the letter to the editor today that refered to this cut in bernefits.
Whether the war is right or wrong or how it compares to other conflicts is not the point. Support the troops by contacting your Congress person of this indignity to them their dependants and survivers.
Bet you didn't read the letter to the editor today that refered to this cut in bernefits.
Whether the war is right or wrong or how it compares to other conflicts is not the point. Support the troops by contacting your Congress person of this indignity to them their dependants and survivers.
Here's an article for reference from February 2006:
"WASHINGTON – Secretary of Veterans Affairs R. James Nicholson announced today that President Bush will seek a record $80.6 billion in the fiscal year 2007 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), with the overwhelming majority of these resources targeted for health care and disability compensation. The FY '07 proposal represents an increase of $8.8 billion, or 12.2 percent, above the budget for 2006.
"The FY ’07 budget proposal calls for $38.5 billion in discretionary funding -- mostly for health care. This budget contains the largest increase in discretionary funding for VA ever requested by a President. For health care alone, the President’s request is an increase of $3.5 billion (or more than 11 percent) over the FY ’06 level. The budget proposal also would provide $42.1 billion in mandatory funding, mostly for compensation, pension and other benefit programs."
Further down in the article is this:
"With this budget proposal, the President, working in partnership with Congress, will have increased health care funding for veterans by 69 percent since FY ’01."
This:
"The FY ’07 budget request calls for a total investment of almost $3.2 billion in mental health services, which is $339 million above this year’s level. This budget proposal ensures a full continuum of care for veterans with mental health issues, to include comprehensive treatment for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)."
And this:
"The President’s FY ’07 budget proposal requests $34.3 billion for VA’s health care program. This is an increase of $3.5 billion (or 11.3 percent) more than 2006 -- the largest increase in VA's medical care funding ever requested by a President. It is 69 percent more than the FY '01 enacted budget in place at the beginning of the administration."
That's the current year's budget - historical levels of funding for VA, 69 percent increase over FY 2001 budget (that was Clinton's last budget), major increases in health care for veterans across the board.
Now, I have no idea what the complaint about the latest budget is, but I do know how Washington works, and I do know how Washington politicians like to play with numbers for partisan advantage.
Washington, D.C. is the only place in the world where an "increase" becomes a "cut" because of political wordplay. Suppose an agency (and I'll use little numbers here, at least by Washington standards) received $600 million in funding last year and requests $1 billion in funding for the next year - a $400 million INCREASE.
Now, suppose Congress approves, instead of the $1 billion in funding requested, "only" $800 million in funding - a $200 million INCREASE from the previous year.
ONLY IN WASHINGTON would some elected official, with a totally straight face, claim that agency's budget had been CUT (decreased) by $200 million.
So, before anybody tries to throw out the "they cut our budget" argument around on VA or any other agency, here are three questions I would ask:
a. How much did that agency get last year?
b. How much will that agency get this time around?
c. If I subtract "a" from "b", will I get a positive or a negative number? Because if I get a POSITIVE number, THEIR BUDGET HAS NOT BEEN CUT.
Even this English major from Clemson University knows the difference between a cut and an increase in funding, which probably makes me overqualified to serve in Congress or to engage any further in this debate.
The recent stories coming out about some deficiencies in our veterans hospitals would have been nothing more than a small blip on the radar screen to the mainstream media EXCEPT for their hatred of George W. Bush. They care less about helping those veterans than they care about destroying morale and undermining the current war effort.
- JDTippett
JD, I agree - George W Bush is the single greatest factor that is undermining our current war effort. We need a real leader.
We have a real leader. What scares me is what we'll have in the White House come January 20, 2009.
And, Andrew, we don't agree on anything - at least, as far as the military and the War on Terror are concerned. Have you been taking your cue from that noted expert on military planning and tactics, Nancy Pelosi, or did you reach your (wrong) conclusions all by yourself?
