posted                   

quote:

---

When I was in the Air Force – a long, long time ago – I was told there were only three acceptable answers when the commander called you on the carpet: "yes, sir," "no, sir," and "no excuse, sir."

Nowhere is "no excuse, sir" more appropriate than in response to the disgraceful treatment we now know that many of our wounded soldiers have been getting.

"No excuse, sir," across the board: from an administration that forgot "support the troops" is more than a bumper sticker; to a military that tried to blame it all on low ranking sergeants.

To a Veterans Administration whose leaders tried to play down the number of serious injuries, yet were so unfamiliar with their own system that too many times, the injured were sent to facilities unequipped to treat their particular injuries.

And, yes, to a Congress and news media that should have uncovered this long ago.

Only three people rise above this mess: Washington Post Reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull and the remarkable Bob Woodruff of ABC News.

The Posties did what the rest of us should have. When they heard the rumors, they took the time to check them out. Not rocket science, just the first obligation of journalism.

Then there is Woodruff, who went to Iraq to get one story, was badly wounded and after months of treatment recovered to find another: the unacceptable way that many who suffered the kind of serious brain injury he suffered were lost in a nightmare of red tape and going without the treatment they needed.

The rest of us should have paid more attention. We can only be grateful to three who did.

---

quote:

---

The outrage misses a deeper structural problem with how health care is delivered in the U.S. Outpatients from the Iraq and Afghan wars needing long-term rehabilitation now outnumber patients at Walter Reed by a factor of 17 to 1 and have overwhelmed the facility as they wait for therapies that have yet to be devised. This is a telltale sign of the deeply entrenched and unsustainable flaws in the U.S. healthcare system that the military is now experiencing in multi-billion dollar microcosm.

---

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by sndrake:
And, like Hockenberry says, it's not limited to the military and VA - it's kind of a cultural thing with us to get all excited about "cures" but when it comes to the long haul and what people need in the long term -- not so much.

---

I imagine that the limitations of this particular system in this particular aspect are a real issue for people in your field, sndrake. So much difference can be made in a strong and hearty initial investment for dealing effectively with a disability (up-to-date equipment, for example), but it isn't sexy. No "golden hour" heroism in making sure someone can easily get in and out of a bathtub.

---

My experience in training at a VA was that there were some phenomenal physicians there, but they were often working against too little staffing and by persons who were entrenched in the system (seniority), regardless of whether they were effective.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

But following brain-injured Army Sgt. Michael Boothby from Bethesda back to the soldier's hometown of Comfort, Texas, Woodruff watches Boothby's condition quickly deteriorate as he awaits the arrival of the paperwork that would allow him to continue his treatment.

While the U.S. Department of Defense says that there have been about 23,000 nonfatal battlefield casualties in Iraq, Woodruff discovers -- through an internal VA report -- that more than 200,000 veterans have sought medical care for various ailments, including more than 73,000 diagnoses for mental disorders.

Nicholson plays down those figures, telling Woodruff, "A lot of them come in for dental problems. … We're providing their health care."

Woodruff reports that even these numbers may not tell the whole story: According to unreleased data from the Department of Defense, at least 10 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may have sustained a brain injury during their service.

The ABC News anchor reports: "That could mean that of the 1.5 million who have served or are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 150,000 people could have a brain injury that may be undiagnosed and unrecognized by the casualty numbers from the Department of Defense."

While everyone with symptoms of a brain injury may not need extensive treatment, Woodruff learns that the Department of Defense is not screening all returning soldiers, despite recommendations from the Defense Department's own Defense and Veteran's Brain Injury Center.

---

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by sndrake:
CT,

The issue with the VA right now isn't whether the services they give wounded vets is sufficient - it's the red tape and other barriers preventing them from getting any help at all:

Bob Woodruff: Turning Personal Injury Into Public Inquiry

---

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by pooka:
I don't know, seems like everyone used to complain about the impact privatization had on the hospital system. Welcome to socialized medicine, America.

---

quote:

---

He had acute aortic sthenosis and even today it is uncommon for children to live even a year when it is detected early. The standard of care remains abortion.

---

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

ROBACH: Let‘s call in Greg Mitchell, editor of the publication “Editor and Publisher.”

Good evening, Greg.

GREG MITCHELL, EDITOR, “EDITOR AND PUBLISHER”: Hello, Amy.

ROBACH: NPR‘s Maria Liason actually responded to Brit Hume‘s comments yesterday by telling him to say it looks bad, it also is bad. Is that what so many people are taking issue with here, that Mr. Hume spoke only about the political scope of this scandal instead of referencing an acknowledging the human aspect of it?

MITCHELL: Well, it follows the performance among, let‘s say, the more conservative media in the last two weeks or so, which have downplayed the Walter Reed scandal, probably hoping it would go away or it would be limited to the one building at Walter Reed.

A check of Fox News and “The Washington Times” and conservative magazines and Web sites has found very little coverage. Some of the coverage has even pooh-poohed the problem. I made a check today of the Fox News Web site, and as of today, since this scandal broke, they have had exactly one video on Walter Reed, and 55 videos on Anna Nicole Smith during that period. (emphasis added)

So I think maybe the priorities are a little bit askew over there.

ROBACH: So if the right is downplaying this scandal, politically speaking, is that a smart move?

MITCHELL: No, I think it‘s a disaster for them. I mean, it‘s a bigger disaster for the troops.

ROBACH: The people like (UNINTELLIGIBLE) out on it, right?

MITCHELL: Well, I mean, the problem is that this scandal is not going to go away. I mean, we saw today, “The Washington Post,” again, the same reporters, Anne Hall and Dana Priest, now making it more of a national story, bringing out the problems around the country, which is no surprise.

I mean, what the real scandal in this is that media—some of the media, even little “Editor and Publisher,” have had a number of stories in the last two or three years about the treatment of veterans. The guaranteed problem there it was going to happen when there was so many, as you mentioned, coming home with bad injuries, as in the war itself, lack of planning for this, incompetence, sweeping the problem under the rug, hoping for the breast—for the best, praying for he best, but not preparing for the worst.

And I think that‘s what we‘re seeing now. There have been some warnings about it. And, you know, thank God “The Washington Post” report has finally turned some heads.

ROBACH: Yes, Greg, because if an outlet like Fox News, with the audience that it clearly has, wouldn‘t it have brought them or bought them lots of credibility if they had gone with the story, helped expose the story, or at least started to cover it the way a lot of other news outlets have?

MITCHELL: Well, the problem is the rank hypocrisy of the same outlets that have not only backed the war, but are forever using the troops. We‘re for the troops, the people who are against the war are against the troop. And yet, the very outlets that use this excuse, that throw that epithet at the antiwar people, are the ones who traditionally, not just in the past couple weeks, have given very, very little coverage to the vets‘ problems, because it is bad politically, as Brit Hume unfortunately, for him, let sort of a truth come out in discussing this.

And it is, it‘s a very bad problem for them, because it‘s the absolute worst kind of scandal for them, where it‘s—the line that they‘ve been given for so long is collapsing, because of the poor treatment of the troops that they allegedly are for.

ROBACH: You mentioned Dana Priest, one of the authors of this expose that clearly just brought to light the injustices and the deplorable conditions that these soldiers and Marines are returning home to at Walter Reed and other facilities across the country. She actually was attacked, verbally attacked, at least, for her reporting on the CIA black sites. Is she facing any type of verbal threat or attacks based on her reporting now? Or are there is a lot of, I guess, people just being silent, not saying anything here with this one?

MITCHELL: Oh, I don‘t think she‘s a in legal problem here as she is in the—with the black sites thing. But again, it brings out the irony. The supporters of the war and the alleged supporters of the troops have attacked people like Dana Priest, suggested that they may even be traitors. And yet it is—the news pages of “The Washington Post,” “The New York Times,” and some other so-called liberal outlets, which have been exposing the problems for the troops more than any of the pro-war or conservative media outlets.

ROBACH: Now, Dana, I think, certainly felt at least justified when she—we talked to her today, and she had—was watching the hearings as they were taking place at Walter Reed. It had to be a pretty incredible moment for her, given the criticism she‘s faced in the past.

Greg Mitchell, thank you.

---

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Mar. 6--On Friday, Robert Gates barely contained his fury. The grim-faced secretary of defense expressed dismay with the way the Army had responded to the appalling conditions at the Walter Reed Medical Center, wounded service members housed as outpatients in a former hotel with moldy walls, stained carpets and infestations of cockroaches and rats. He explained: "I am disappointed that some in the Army have not adequately appreciated the seriousness of the situation."

What Gates specifically had in mind was the appointment of Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley to replace the ousted Maj. Gen. George Weightman as the commander at Walter Reed. Weightman served in the post for a few months. His predecessor? Kiley. Thus, the Army had tapped the man who had been in charge when the shabby and slow treatment developed. More, Kiley had hardly shown sensitivity, not too long ago touting the pool tables and plasma screen televisions at the outpatient building.

The target of Gates' simmering anger? Francis Harvey, the Army secretary, the man who asked Kiley to return. Gates demanded Harvey's resignation, and, in doing so, conveyed a refreshing sense of accountability. His action reflected a Washington just beginning to grasp the deepening outrage.

---

Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged |