Notice that these are not just cuts in areas that are no longer needed. The current one and several of the older cuts are accompanied by quotes of people involved in veterans benefits who believe that the cuts will result in serious inabilities to provide benefits.
For instance from that list page (sorry for the quoting of a quote that includes quotes):
quote:Joy Ilem, assistant national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, "questioned the need for closures and other cutbacks. 'Everyone is aware of the difficulty VA has meeting demand,' Ilem said. 'When we have hundreds of thousands of veterans on waiting lists (for medical appointments), we don't want to see facilities closed due to fiscal problems.'" There are currently 163 VA hospitals in the US. [Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03; Department of Veterans Affairs]
Given all the pork in Washington, I am dismayed that veteran's benefits are considered, as described by the Bush administration, something to "trim" from first (see the nytimes article). And while some of the other things on the list look slightly better for cutting than veteran's benefits, I KNOW there are much better things in washington to cut, to some quite considerable sums. Every time a big bill full of pork passes, McCain or another actual fiscal conservative (an unfortunately rare breed) publishes a list of pork, and there has been a lot of it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Patriots honor our soldiers, and see that they are well paid.
The Nationalists honor our flag, and see that it is well flown.
The snakes honor thier pocket books, and see that their friends, who sell stuff to our soldiers, are well paid and safe from harm.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with any such budget is clearly stated in the 1st paragraph of the Times story: "Facing a record budget deficit, Bush administration officials say they have drafted an election-year budget that will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies."
You know what? I don't care if the budget alienates politically influential constituencies. I really don't. That's because I think Bush's job is to run the country and run it well, and not to do what he needs to do to get re-elected. Note this is not an indictment of Bush personally; there are few politicians of any stripe who do not do the same, and I honor them for it, the poor one-term bastards.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I don't know. I know VA hospitals are free to veterens - which is right - but I also know my grandfather happily got lots of free plastic surgery in the last years of his life.
It isn't like there is NOTHING to cut there. Maybe just no more free face lifts?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I missed picking on the term "election-year budget."
So this budget would be different if this was not an election year? Even if the economic situation was exactly the same? The phrase is the reporter's and not the administration's, of course, but I suspect it's apt.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice on the list the cutting of the prescription benefits. Also, this was not a reformulation of what fell under free medical care, as would cutting out plastic surgery be, but a closing of seven hospitals completely when there are hundreds of thousands of veterans on the waiting list to use them.
Notice the statistics on the list page where it says:
quote:At least 230,000 veterans are being forced to wait over six months for their initial visit to a doctor at the VA medical facilities. In some parts of the country veterans are waiting nearly two years for those visits. Bush's VA Secretary Anthony Principi has acknowledged the danger in these delays, stating "I'm concerned [the delays are] causing quality to be degraded."
That's a lot of veterans, and that's with the current number of doctors. These aren't plastic surgery candidates, these are people just waiting for the first consultation.
This is a cut that will result in the quality of veterans care declining, not just their access to plastic surgery.
And that statement by the VA secretary was before these latest cuts were announced.
I don't see an excuse here.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying it IS warranted - it may or may not be.
But VA hospitals are not a sacred cow which is functioning at maximum efficiency and can never be touched or trimmed.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we are being asked to treat our soldiers as sacred cows. I find it hypocritical that Attorney General Ashcroft said, last year, that we should not question our Commander and Chief in this war on terrorism, since that would be un-patriotic, while cutting benefits to people who have risked their lives for this country, and continue to pay for that risk in medical problems, gets put on the chopping block as if it were just another unworthy spending project.
I have a good friend who works for the VA trying to fix the messes of paperwork that are required. He will argue there is plenty of room for budget cutting and trimming, but it doesn't come by closing hospitals and making retired veterans pay more for their medicines.
My father is a marine veteran who goes to the local VA hospital. There are very good people who work there. They care and try to help everyone they can.
It still means a visit to the hospital is an entire day affair waiting in one line after another.
It still means there are months long waits for braces, and other rehab equipment to be available once ordered.
I argue the patriotism of a country is not reflected in how shiny their soldiers boots are, or how well their soldiers march, or how well their weapons kill others, but in how well those soldiers are treated after they return home, injured of well.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
But is that what this cut is doing? I see a VA system that is already unable to meet the demand for medical care, as evidenced by the statistics. I don't see any changes in policy to avoid unwarranted expenses, I see an across the board cut, which is quite in character for this administrations existing stance on veteran's benefits -- for instance, the cuts in veteran's prescription drug benefits he tried to put through. Prescription drug costs aren't a frivolous expenditure, they're one of the biggest burdens on the elderly today, and it wasn't an attempt to cut overhead in the program, it was the addition of an enrollment fee and an increase in the co-pay. Democrats were the ones who got it changed to a reduction in administrative costs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I argue the patriotism of a country is not reflected in how shiny their soldiers boots are, or how well their soldiers march, or how well their weapons kill others, but in how well those soldiers are treated after they return home, injured of well.
That's what I mean about VA benefits being turned into a sacred cow. It's not a perfect system, and any attempts to tighten will into the flag-wavers.
If it helps, I have very few sacred cows, although college grants and loans are one of them.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think veteran's benefits can be turned into a sacred cow. I don't think the dems are doing it, and I'm certain I'm not doing it. Notice, for instance, they directly admit to putting through a cut themselves, to replace the aforementioned attempt to increase prescription costs.
I'd like to take this opportunity to chastise them for that, though, instead of reducing their excess-pork spending (as opposed to their location-pork spending, which doesn't cost the budget anything directly). There's so much of it, and Congress should remove it. Certainly there is stuff to cut in many areas such as the VA -- I don't doubt it. But its much harder to make those cuts without harming benefits than it is to when cutting pork.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I am trying my best to turn VA benefits into a Sacred Cow.
Why not?
Its definitely more worthy than other things not on the budget cutting block.
Such as yet another Halliburton No-Bid Contract to supply overpriced gasoline to Iraq, even while they are being investigated for price gouging on their last deal.
posted
My grandfather, who will be 80 this year, just began receiving treatment through the VA this past summer. After a huge amount of rather difficult paperwork (and my step-grandmother is a practicing tax accountant) and a long wait, he finally did receive some prescription benefits and a consultation.
Of course, they really wanted him to have an MRI to determine the status of his back. Of course, they had to be reminded that he still has numerous pieces of shrapnel over his heart that couldn't be removed back in 1944. Luckily, my sister is an MRI tech and was able to call them and explain the danger of putting a man with jagged pieces of cheap steel in his chest through a very powerful magnetic coil... What did they think he got the Purple Heart medals for, paper cuts???
So now they are going to cut back on his benefits? What paltry few there already are? A man who started off as a Ranger, was wounded, recovered and returned as an MP, was wounded yet again, sent to England to recover and then, instead of being returned home, was shipped back to Europe and made to drive a supply truck until the end of the war?
Terrible way to treat our veterans and our veterans to be. Personally, I'd put Veteran's benefits above college loans on the priorities list... but there are so many things on the list that SHOULD be below those two items...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
