[quote=“mofangongren”]
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. [/quote]
Bullshit. One of the most famous exposes Life Magazine ever did was of the VA hospital in the Bronx. Date? May 22, 1970.
more of the same:
[quote] In fact, even the White House doesn’t seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don’t represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.
The [b]veterans' cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, "don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets[/b]."
The number of veterans coming into the VA health care system has been rising by about 5 percent a year as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keep rising. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans represent almost 5 percent of the VA's patient caseload, and many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care, such as traumatic brain injuries.
All told, the VA expects to treat about 5.8 million patients next year, including 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The White House budget office, however, assumes that the veterans' medical services budget - up 83 percent since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush's proposed 2008 budget - can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that.
"It's implausible," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said of the budget projections.
The White House made virtually identical assumptions last year - a big increase in the first year of the budget and cuts for every year thereafter to veterans medical care. Now, the White House estimate for 2008 is more than $4 billion higher than Bush figured last year.
And [b]the VA has been known to get short-term estimates wrong as well. Two years ago, Congress had to pass an emergency $1.5 billion infusion for veterans health programs for 2005 and added $2.7 billion to Bush's request for 2006. The VA underestimated the number of veterans, including those from Iraq and Afghanistan, who were seeking care, as well as the cost of treatment and long-term care[/b].
The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is funded for the current year at $35.6 billion, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. That's about 9 percent. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.
The cuts come even as the number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is expected to increase 26 percent next year.
I[b]n Bush's proposal to balance the budget by 2012, he's assuming that spending on domestic agency operating budgets will increase by about 1 percent each year[/b]. [/quote]
Seems this issue is about "balancing the budget and not uncutting the VA, eh?
truthout.org/docs_2006/021207T.shtml
[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“mofangongren”]
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. [/quote]
Bullshit. One of the most famous exposes Life Magazine ever did was of the VA hospital in the Bronx. Date? May 22, 1970.[/quote]
Well, then you must agree that it is shameful then and even more shameful now that the Bushies have repeated history. It wasn’t right then and it wasn’t right now.
You just got your ass handed to you. You just got owned and Big Time and THIS is all that you are capable of?
[quote]The budget-slashing is just an on-paper tiger. It may give the administration a chance to pose for holy pictures about a balanced budget five years from now, but that photo-op is based on faulty premises like the veterans’ health care cuts.
Next year the budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is projected to rise to $39.6 billion, a nine percent increase. But after that — under the Bush budget plan — it theoretically would be cut by 2 percent and then frozen at around $38.8 billion annually.
As an aide to the top Senate Republican on VA matters put it: “No one who is knowledgeable about VA budgeting issues anticipates any cuts to VA funding. None, Zero. Zip.”
That may give veterans room to breathe a little easier, but it leaves the rest of the country looking at something Bush’s father might call “voodoo budgeting.”
[b]When Bush put forth his budget last week he trumpeted it as being “realistic, it’s achievable.”
“We have proven, and I strongly believe Congress needs to listen to, a budget which has no tax increase, and a budget, because of fiscal discipline, that can be balanced in five years,” he said.
But as the VA budgeting shows, that “discipline” is built on premises that not even the White House Budget Office considers realistic.
That’s not cynicism, but it is politically disingenuous[/b].[/quote]
journaltimes.com/nucleus/ind … emid=10836
I will go along with that. Ever since Clinton “balanced” the budget, the whole issue has been a bunch a shit.
jdsmith – given how things have gone so far, my bet is that this is the same tactic that some conservatives have bragged about “starving” the federal government back down to size. I have no problem with reducing the size of the federal government through privatization provided that it’s done without cronyism and corruption and without a loss in service value. However, I don’t think that the fresh wounded coming back from Iraq ought to be pawns in this. The current administration has had quite a run of Orwellian-named laws that do the opposite of what their title indicates or which go unfunded – e.g., “No Child Left Behind,” “Clear Skies,” “Patriot Act” and so on. They sure as hell don’t have my trust on this – and the way Fred’s cackling over this issue gives me an idea of where their hearts lie.
Giving us percentages of a total number of patients isn’t quite accurate, though. Yes there are a zillion vets and there are quite a few in the system who live in VA facilities still from much older wars – quadriplegics whose bones have decalcified to the point where their extremities are like rubber and quite a few who are just there for bad backs and checkups of various kinds. (Word to the wise from a good friend with some elusive skin problems – don’t spend too much time doing that trick of holding a light bulb in front of certain antennas just to watch them light up…)
However, the guys going in now have a disproportionate number of very severe wounds – the Iraq War in particular has a large number of IED-caused cranio-facial injuries and amputations. At the beginning of the war, we had a disproportionate number of arms sheared off at the elbow when soldiers had their arms resting on the edge of the door window frames in humvees and trucks. A lot of brain injuries, including many vegetative cases and people with frontal-lobe injuries suffering in ways that require more than the usual amount of care and supervision. Just saying here that although it’s “only” 260,000 or so from your figure that these guys are not low-maintenance patients by any means.
I see that and I agree.
Yet we are saying that they will not receive good care because Bush is cutting VA funding, right?
Well, the cuts seem to be “cuts.”
This is just bullshit politics.
Army Times: Soldiers being told to shut up, being harrassed
[quote]In ordering a review of and corrective actions in this shameful chapter in the treatment of our war wounded, this administration is once again a day late and a dollar short.
This scandal, on top of so many other instances of lack of adequate protection for our troops in combat; the lack of care and recognition for our returning heroes and for their families; and the erosion of benefits for veterans should make Americans reflect on the true meaning of “supporting our troops.”[/quote]
[quote]Commanders ultimately are responsible for what happens on their watch, so Weightman would appear to be a reasonable target for the service’s wrath.
Then again, maybe the Army fired the wrong general.
The troubles at Walter Reed —substandard housing for injured troops and a dysfunctional medical evaluation system — did not start on Weightman’s watch.
Service members spoke about these problems in congressional hearings two years ago. The Government Accountability Office reported on the problems last March. And the Army inspector general has been investigating the problems for over a year.
The GAO report traces the problems back to the tenure of Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley, who commanded Walter Reed from June 2002 to September 2004.
Kiley is now the Army surgeon general. And he is, in fact, the man who fired Weightman.
But wait. It gets worse. Kiley is also now the acting commander of the hospital.[/quote]
wow, I can’t believe what Steve Jobs has come out with…As seen on US TV last night:
[quote=“Truant”]wow, I can’t believe what Steve Jobs has come out with…As seen on US TV last night:
youtube.com/watch?v=o-KWYYIY4jQ[/quote]
:bravo: 
Now Kiley is being shitcanned:
[quote]The ouster of General Kiley followed by a week and a half that of Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, the Walter Reed commander, who was fired on March 1 because, the service said then, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey “had lost trust and confidence” in his ability to make improvements in outpatient care at the hospital.
Only a day later, Mr. Harvey was let go by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who was described by aides as angry over Mr. Harvey’s choice of General Kiley to succeed General Weightman. General Kiley had earlier appeared to play down the problems at Walter Reed, where he was in command until 2004.[/quote]
Now, if this was the Rummy era, we would have had nothing other than an endless stream of rhetorical questions answered by himself.