You think? Great. Now, why not find my statement to back up the above assertion.
Wonder what I would find if I looked to children and cancer? old people and nursing homes? AIDS and inner city slumsters? small towns and recuperative physical therapy? Yes, folks, all of these things and more are out there to prove that our medical system is underfunded and that government officials do not care. What shall we do about it? But to have MFGR striding the planks as a man who cares about vets. That is too much. Simply too much. Perhaps, we should visit just such a hospital together and let the vets decide who they would prefer to have “show concern” for their welfare. They may not know who “Chouteau” is but they would know instinctively what to do with the type: Crush it underfoot or drive it off back into its native environment: the gutter. You missed your calling MFGR. You should have been a union organizer in the 1950s along with Jimmy Hoffa. As it is, you are a lawyer… haha somehow not far off the mark, eh?[/quote]
Our country is engaged in a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq, and both of these have been produced thousands of wounded soldiers who need care. The good news is that the initial care is so great that we have many very severely wounded coming back who would have been KIA in earlier wars. The Bush administration has benefitted from this in that the death totals from the highly unpopular Iraq war would certainly have been much higher and, thus, made the war and their administration even less popular. Some of the people coming back with severe cranio-facial injuries are also coming back with severe brain damage or even in a vegetative state.
However, despite some good aspects of initial care, the GOP screwed the VA system when it counted the most, thus exacerbating the problems of our war wounded. These people need care, but the GOP doesn’t want to give it to them. Small wonder we’re seeing the hard-hearted nature of Republicans yet again – the Coulter rhetoric reflects precisely what goes on in their minds.
I doubt that this is GOP issue MFGR, at least as far as you think it is. The initial care they are receiving is quite good; the outpatient care sucks, and as I have said before, it always has.
Seems to me that Clinton was President when all the Desert War Syndrom stuff hit the VA.
I beg to differ. With there already being problems with caring for peacetime vets before, why in hell did the GOP (president, both branches of congress at the time) spend so much time pushing to cut or freeze the spending at a time when the number of war wounded was ramping up so much? There was that pathetic GOP congressman from Florida whom I already cited to who simply decided that avoiding visits to Walter Reed was the better route than to force the issue. Well, now it’s being forced – by Democrats. In the Iraq War alone, we have something like 23,000 wounded and another 18,700 with diseases serious enough that they had to be airlifted out and 6,700 or so with non-combat injuries. Our system before would not have been good enough, and it is either cruel or disgracefully negligent for the Bush administration to have fought the Dems so hard to cut and freeze the spending for these increased wounded.
Look at the 2006 elections and how many vets (Tammy Duckworth, Paul Hackett and others) have been running versus the lone Iraq vet who got whupped in Texas running for the Republicans. In Texas?! The GOP did a good job of communicating with the troops for a long time, but they’ve taken these people for granted and are now paying the price.
MFGR, how about the Clinton stuff though. I seem to recall 60 Minutes and many shows like it headlining with GWSyndrome and how it was being ignored by the VA and Clinton administration.
Like I said, problem IS the system, and it will never be “fixed.”
Pretty dangerous territory there seems to me. I imagine there are more than a few amputees and such sitting around wondering how they got suckered into fucking up their lives so completely in the first place. Who did the suckering, who did the profitering and such. What if those guys find out you “argued for” this war that almost everybody agrees now was one of the biggest mistakes in US history, bigger than Vietnam even, and we all know what a sacriledge that was… well, you can imagine. Likely you can run faster than an amputee still, but what if one sneaks up behind you? No, Fred, I’d avoid the VA hospital, just to be on the safe side. We like you here at forumosa and would hate to see you get brain damaged just trying to prove a losing point.
The “system” works like this - The poor kids who had no part in deciding whether or not there should be a war get suckered into fighting in it. They get horribly maimed and then the rich people don’t pay for their care because they don’t want to.
It’s only half a bingo though because it is “political” in so far as Republicans profit more from the system and so it works better when they are in charge. It works OK when they are not in charge too because actually the democrats of today are just the Republicans of yesterday. It’s a gradual but steady shift in perspective and policy that we see at work in many parts of the world, not just the US. This is a particularly poignant example of today’s ideals though it must be admitted.
GWSyndrome is still a hard thing to peg down – even to this date doctors are struggling with an array of symptoms and potential causes that are still given terms like “baffling” and “mysterious”. No human would ever expose themselves as a guinea pig to the possible sources of GWSyndrome to test any of the hypotheses, and we haven’t yet found a good way to get animals to describe the difficult symptoms of weariness, dizziness, etc.
The Gulf War was conducted by Bush I; Clinton’s presidency had 8 years of this being an unsolved mystery re: both cause and treatment; Bush II has had 6 years and it is still a mystery.
Simply put, GWSyndrome is a serious mystery even to this day, some 15 years after it started appearing. It’s worth taking seriously but note that 3 administrations and thousands of doctors have not figured out what to do. But I don’t see it setting a valid precedent to excuse present-day Republicans’ efforts to slash and freeze funding for the current wars’ wounded. There is no mystery as to the cause or treatment of an amputated leg or arm, no mystery as to how to treat serious burns. Given the fact that cranio-facial wounds from upwards-blasting IEDs are the signature wound of this war, it is a mystery to me why the GOP worked so hard to cut the budget in half for the only military research center dealing with cranio-facial wounds. Why? Because they f*cking don’t care. There is absolutely no excuse for that.
Those GWSyndrome vets were brushed aside by the VA during the Clinton administration, just as they were brushed aside during the Bush 1 administration (although to lesser degree,because the symptoms hadn’t materialised on a large scale during Bush1’s reign).
I’d hate to think you were giving me the runaround as a possible future dive buddy who may be floating above your air tank at 25m below.
The VA is screwed up. I STILL get disablity pay, abut 100 clams a month, and will get it for life, for the damage my knees sustained in a noncombat roll…training exercises. Yet never in the near 20 years since my release from the USMC have I been order BACK to the VA for an update on my piddly condition. If I were re-examined it is doubtful they would continue to pay me my 100 bones.
Now for me, that amounts to about 20,000 USD over 20 years. Multiply this by a few million vets with small disability (less than 20% disablity) checks that keep in coming, when in all actuallity, we don’t rate them anymore.
[quote=“jdsmith”]Are you avoiding my point MFGR? huffhuff
Those GWSyndrome vets were brushed aside by the VA during the Clinton administration, just as they were brushed aside during the Bush 1 administration (although to lesser degree,because the symptoms hadn’t materialised on a large scale during Bush1’s reign).[/quote]
And how did they fare under the Bush II? I’ve been reading up on this and see it as a 3-administration mess that amounts to inertia in the face of a true medical puzzle rather than any ideology.
[quote]The federal government will spend $13.2 million on new research to try to find the cause of mysterious illnesses reported by veterans of the Persian Gulf War, President Clinton announced Saturday.
The president also announced that Warren Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, will lead an advisory board that will monitor the government’s efforts to investigate what has come to known as Gulf War syndrome.
Clinton’s actions came in response to a new report from a presidential advisory panel on Gulf War syndrome, which was released Saturday morning.
The report called on the government “to reinforce and renew its commitment to Gulf War veterans in order to begin erasing the perception of government inattention to them.”
“The men and women of our armed forces put everything on the line for us. I am determined that we show the same resolve for them,” Clinton said in a statement released in conjunction with the report.
Clinton announced that he would also ask Congress for a new benefits system that would give veterans treatment for illnesses linked to service in the Gulf War, even if the direct cause of their ailments cannot be determined. [/quote]
Give you the runaround? Never! Comparing a government’s lame response to a mystery disease to the treatment of the rapidly mounting numbers of war wounds, I can use a diving analogy. Figuring out what to do with GWS and figuring out what to do with war wounds is like planning a cave dive that’s never been dived before versus a 9m no-brainer dive in zilch current.
Agreed that the VA is screwed up, but an existing state has been greatly exacerbated needlessly. I’ve been tracking efforts to cut and freeze spending with acute interest for the past couple of years and had only been kept at bay by reports that the VA staff had barely been holding things together and by updates of Dem efforts to fight the cuts and freezes. I have been writing about my concerns on this issue for a long time, and my interest, frustration and anger is genuine.
I’m sure you earned them in that your knee injury may have closed off certain options. The fact that in your present employ you don’t use your knee so much doesn’t matter – if you had wanted to do certain things (ballet dancing, hard manual labor, Olympic sprinting, NBA star), they were all closed off to you during your prime. Plus the game’s not over yet – your injured knee may come back as the far-more-painful one when you get to be a certain age.
This is not the 1st time VA funding was brought up. It was brought up as the war kicked-off in '03. We were told at that time that current funding was sufficient. If the war had gone per plan, it may have been.
[quote]Walter Reed, Who Expected More From A Goverment On The Take?
by Bob Higgins
Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:59:23 PM PST
Twice a week I have a physical therapy session at the Dayton VA Hospital. I had a heart attack last March 15, (beware the ides?) in October they referred me to cardio pulmonary therapy to build me up for whatever years may lie ahead. They have done an excellent job and I am pleased with my future prospects.
I have been treated at the Dayton VA several times over the years, have volunteered there performing Veteran’s memorial services as part of an honor guard, and three years ago said good bye to my father who died in the VA hospice at the age of 80.
My experiences with VA medical care have been almost entirely positive. The medical staff has been competent caring and willing to communicate with me. My physical therapist (Kinesiologist) whom I refer to as Ms Torquemada has enabled me to return to a relatively normal life and I love her for it. The hospice ward is amazing, they treated my Dad with the dignity and respect he deserved in his final days on this planet and were equally wonderful with my family. The people in the ER and Cardiac Intensive Care wards saved my life which fact may leave me with some bias on the issue at hand.
* Bob Higgins's diary :: ::
I have personally witnessed the operations of this facility during the current federal administration as well as during the Clinton years and I have seen a noticeable decline in the state of the physical plant and the attitudes of some employees during the Cheney/Bush era.
What once was a well funded and squeaky clean facility has deteriorated noticeably and budget cutting has caused serious staffing problems. I believe that this decline is due to the penny pinching policies of the knuckle heads who are passing themselves off as our government.
The blame for conditions at Walter Reed and other problems throughout the veterans health system must be placed firmly at the feet of those who set the policies. For the last six years those feet have belonged to George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. To lay the blame on anyone below the the level of policy maker and budget controllers would be wrong.[/quote] dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/7/19537/98007
I agree totally with the bolded part. However, I resist laying blame at the guys who are now in power until proof has been made available which shows that their policies and only their poilicies led to this decline. It is way too easy to lame blame on Bush/Cheney’s feet. Policy decisions sometimes take years to come to fruition. I have some time today and will scout out what I can find happened to VA funding in the past 10-20 years.
And really, it is clear that problems do exist and that a long drawn out fact finding commission won’t be necessary; so, get on with recommendations and fix what can be fixed. Hire more staff, fix the buildings up and let the experts within the system run it.
[quote]I have personally witnessed the operations of this facility during the current federal administration as well as during the Clinton years and I have seen a noticeable decline in the state of the physical plant and the attitudes of some employees during the Cheney/Bush era.
What once was a well funded and squeaky clean facility has deteriorated noticeably and budget cutting has caused serious staffing problems. I believe that this decline is due to the penny pinching policies of the knuckle heads who are passing themselves off as our government. [/quote]
As Bodo’s brother is a doctor at one of these places, it would be interesting if his perceptions match. Our obligation to our war wounded is a sacred one – you don’t break promises of this nature. In the midst of all the bullshit promises made to troops in the course of their service (from food to where they’ll be stationed), we don’t break this one without bringing down the outrage of the American society.
[quote]Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.
February 18, 2004
Modified: February 18, 2004
eMail eMail to a friend Print Printer Friendly Version
Summary
In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.”
It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.
Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush’s budgets. That’s hardly a cut.
Analysis[/quote]
From factcheck.org/article144.html
One comment here – Clinton wasn’t in a war in which tens of thousands of troops were coming back wounded, ill or injured. With the Soviet Union out of the game during the Bush I presidency, there were different expectations for what budget would be enough to cover the U.S. for injuries from training and wounds sustained in peacekeeping activities. The vets need what amounts to medical care by the firehose load, but the Bush administration has tried its damndest to keep it at a trickle – with predictable results. Kerry’s right about patriotism and keeping faith, and “increases” that don’t keep pace with the actual need are not real increases.
Again, looking back to the start of this thread – in 2004 the VA resources were strained and the Iraq War was already producing a flood of wounded. In 2007 we find out that matters have deteriorated. In the interim, the Republicans fought hard to freeze/cut funding, with the net result that the care for wounded vets is awful.
Now, there were some pretty horrible VA conditions at the time of the Vietnam War, but one way or another this didn’t get out during the Johnson or Nixon administrations. However, knowing what we know about the current state of wounded vet care, we are obliged to do something. Something more than sit on this thread and argue about it. I think we all know that there’s a problem, and I think there’s not much point arguing that the Republicans were not in charge of both houses and the presidency during the past war years. Now something is going to be done, and it’s going to be done by Democrats forcing the issue.
Well, I’m not arguing. I’m trying to learn about the problem.
I will look into what exactly was cut by Bush; was it funds across the board or programs? Because I think you’re right, looking at the money only is not going to be very useful as different times/different issues.
[quote]Bush plan would cut VA funding
Critics say fictitious cuts used to falsely balance budget.
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press
Article Launched: 02/12/2007 08:38:27 PM PST
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans’ health care two years from now - even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.
Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.
After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly, White House documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.
The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA trends - its medical budget has risen every year for two decades and 83 percent the last six years - sowing suspicion the White House is making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.
“Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care,” said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA’s budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."
A spokesman for Larry Craig, R-Idaho, of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, called the White House moves another step in a longtime “budgeting game.”
“No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None. Zero. Zip,” said Craig spokesman Jeff Schrade. [/quote] presstelegram.com/news/ci_5215075
