| 0 |
Subject: Walter Reed Hospital
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [4117289] Wed, Feb 28, 2007, 11:53
Many have seen the many problems of care at the Walter Reed Hospital. I'm going to try to avoid the easy reach to slam the Administration for holding Dems accountable for "troop morale" while letting soldiers be (mis)treated this way right here in the States.
The Army, however, has a quick solution. Problem solved! Just stop talking to the media |
| 1 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 08:37
|
The way I see our troops being treated in this country (by both sides of the aisle) is nothing short of disgraceful. From Walter Reed to the pathetic war plan set forth by Rumsfeld to the fact that families get saddled with phone bills in the four figures just because they want to talk to their loved ones who are fighting for us as I type this note, this country should be ashamed of itself.
I understand that in war nothing goes perfectly and bad things are going to happen. We have a duty though to get right the things we can get right. How could Walter Reed get deteriorated so badly? Why should military families have to pay dollar one to speak to their loved ones overseas in combat?
Let's try and build another f#cking bridge to nowhere in Alaska while thousands of military families get stuck with four figure phone bills and then if their loved one gets injured they get to go to a recovery room that isn't even close to sanitary. What a way to thank our troops for sacrificing so much while we sacrifice so little in comparison. Our so called leaders should be ashamed of themselves.
|
| 2 | Tree
ID: 024037
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 08:45
|
Box - most of the things you mentioned above - from the war plan to the bridge to nowhere - fall directly at the feet of Republicans.
i'd be interested to know where your "both sides of the aisle" come from, other than a bit of face-saving on your part.
|
| 3 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 08:52
|
When members of both sides of the aisle say that the troops lives were wasted and when Dick Durbin uses the word Nazis in the same breath as our troops, I think you'll that your hands aren't so clean after all Pontius Pilate.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 4722937
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 09:15
|
McCain and Obama were both right--lives were certainly wasted. But this war is Bush's war.
|
| 5 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4144179
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 09:21
|
Well some issues are more obscure than others. And hopefully you'll acknowledge a difference between policy and rhetoric. But what, exactly, did Dick Durbin say?
And honestly, this PC (and thats exactly what it is) idea that anything that can be construed (or misconstrued) as saying something bad about our armed forces is grounds for villification is way over the top. Isn't the right supposed to be our self-annointed anti-PC police? Unless they see a cheap and easy way to peg a liberal as being anti-military, huh Box?
Its a typical smear aparatus (one perfected by the left, as far as I know) that forces politicians to walk on eggshells rather than say what they mean.
The fact of the matter is that on one level or another, if the war effort fails, our boys and girls died in vain.
When you sacrifice something for a failed effort, that sacrifice is wasted. Sure, there are individual circumstances of heroics everywhere you look. But if this war had never been started or if it had been properly planned or if it had been competantly executed we would have a goal successfully to hang those deaths on. But that liklihood semms to slip further away as time goes on.
The rhetorical game of making that simple realization taboo, in this case to force a way to share blame for military mistreatment with the right, is a far more disgracefull exploitation of our military casualties than simply trying to address the truth about them.
Why should politicians be forced to tiptoe around such a real subject. Why should one of the most important aspects influencing some of their opinions of the endeavor be a topic not fit for discussion, or one that requires a rhetorical trapeeze act to get a fair point across?
|
| 6 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 4144179
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 09:24
|
"...we would have a goal successfully met to hang those deaths on.
|
| 8 | bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 13:21
|
It would seem that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has done an admirable job of taking the bull by the horns.
A couple days ago Army Secretary Francis Harvey fired Maj. General George Weightman, who had been in charge at Walter Reed for the past six months, and replaced him with Lt. General Kevin Kiley.
From what I understand, Kiley had been in command at the hospital prior to Weightman, for quite some time. Riley has long denied that there was anything wrong at the hospital whatsoever, and criticized the Washington Post for making such claims. There is plenty of evidence that people had at least attempted to make Riley aware of ongoing problems.
So Harvey apparently figured that Riley was the guy to fix things?
In steps Gates, who apparently has enough common sense to see how absurd Harvey's decision was. Gates fires both Harvey, and replaces Riley after he was back on the job just one day.
It would seem that Gates desreves some praise here. How would Rumsfeld have handled the situation? My guess is that he would have taken the tact that those reporting these events were merely anti-administration muckrakers, and left it at that.
|
| 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 14:50
|
the simple truth is; VA has seen cutbacks and reductions in its effective budget for many years. Those had to catch up at some time, and it appears as though they have.
|
| 10 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 15:43
|
Folks,
Everybody is missing the real answer here.
It's called BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure)
During the last go around, the Committee and Congress added Walter Reed to the list of commands going away.
So, no funding at all to do any upgrades or anything else other than run the place.
And that funding is being reduced by approximately 30% each year.
Now, that said, the blame still has to fall directly on senior leadership for not screaming loud enough and ensuring everybody understood the issue and funding requirements.
Just a retired Sailors opinion.
Cliff
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 17216314
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 16:28
|
GL, my understanding was that BRAC wasn't going to start affecting WR until late 2007, with the actual closing not to occur until September 2007.
Do you think upkeep has been scaled back already? That would indicate some forethought not often seen anomg the pencil pushers...
|
| 12 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Sat, Mar 03, 2007, 17:20
|
When you hit the BRAC list, the first thing that happens is all funding for improvements etc is shut off. That is part of the numbers game that they play with BRAC.
If they were ready to start a $20 Million improvement, it is shut off if the contract hasn't been cut or, if they can get out of it.
And with everything now going on, I'm not so sure some of the things that are supposed to happen this year won't end up getting delayed.
Key to remember is that we are already almost halfway through Fiscal Year 07.
Gotta remember because of the funding line and how it is set up, that everything occurs based on Fiscal Year and not Calendar Year.
Cliff
|
| 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 2025358
Mon, Mar 05, 2007, 10:15
|
It might not stop at Walter Reed
|
| 14 | J-Bar
ID: 44002622
Mon, Mar 05, 2007, 21:48
|
Government run health care works so well I think we should go national.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 2025358
Mon, Mar 05, 2007, 22:57
|
Privately-run health care isn't much better. At least in the government system there is nominal oversight when problems are found out.
|
| 16 | walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 12:57
|
March 6, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Casualties of the Budget Wars
By PAUL D. EATON
Fox Island, Wash.
IN his 1997 book “Dereliction of Duty,” Col. H. R. McMaster wrote that “the ‘five silent men’ on the Joint Chiefs made possible the way the United States went to war in Vietnam.” So it is today with the war in Iraq. Regrettably, the silence of our top officers has had a huge impact not just on the battlefield but also on how we have brought our injured warriors home from it. These planning failures led to the situation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center recently reported by The Washington Post, which resulted in the firings of the hospital’s commander and the secretary of the Army.
The sad truth is that The Post’s reports weren’t entirely new: Mark Benjamin, of United Press International and the Web magazine Salon, and Steve Robinson, the director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, have been reporting on the disgraceful treatment of our war wounded since 2003. More important, the Walter Reed scandal is simply the tip of the iceberg: President Bush, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Congress all pointedly failed to provide the money and resources for our returned troops wherever they are, both the obviously wounded and those who may seem healthy but are suffering mentally and physically from their service.
Soldiers have long joked: “If you are really sick or injured, Army medical care is O.K. But if you are hurting only a little, especially if it isn’t visible, you’re in big trouble.” The American soldier still receives the best trauma care in the world, especially at Walter Reed. The problem there has been with deplorable outpatient care management. The military health system is seriously undermanned and underfinanced for the number of casualties coming home. Also, there has been little preparation for identifying and treating post-traumatic stress injuries.
Last year, because of spending in Iraq, the Army had a $530 million shortfall in its budget for posts at home and abroad. This forced the Army’s vice chief of staff, Richard Cody, to tighten belts that were already at the last notch.
Hospitals have taken a big part of the financial hit. General Cody has warned Congress that failure to shore up the tottering military health care system could become a “retention issue.” David Chu, the Pentagon’s under secretary for personnel and readiness, told The Wall Street Journal that veterans’ costs “are taking away from the nation’s ability to defend itself.”
The result is that Walter Reed and every other domestic Army post have struggled to house soldiers properly after their release from the hospital. For the lucky ones, family members pick up the slack, making sure that follow-up care is provided, that prescription drug regimens are followed, that therapists show up for rehabilitation sessions. Those without family help tend to slip between the cracks.
Walter Reed, in particular, has another problem. The Base Realignment and Closure Commission decided in 2005 to shutter this critical hospital. I won’t debate that decision now — what’s done is done — but when the commission decides you will close within a few years, money dries up real fast. It is no wonder that buildings fell into disrepair and recovering soldiers slipped off the radar screen.
This was the fiscal environment that Maj. Gen. George Weightman stepped into last August when he took command of Walter Reed. I have known George since he was a plebe at West Point. He is bright, honorable and energetic — and always capable. But as another of his admirers told me, “He was the captain of that ship.” And now he has gone down with his ship — the victim of Mr. Rumsfeld’s wrongheaded cost-cutting and the joint chiefs’ failure to stand up to the civilian leadership.
So, what can we do to ensure that good men like General Weightman aren’t put in impossible situations and, more important, that our fighting men and women get the care they need? A good first step has been taken: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates fired the secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey, who was a true Rumsfeld man and viewed by many as more loyal to his boss than to the Army. But some other prescriptions seem obvious:
•
I would encourage every member of Congress, ever senior Pentagon official and every White House staff member to read the articles Mark Benjamin has written on soldier care, beginning with the 2003 report he did on Fort Stewart in Georgia. The train in this wreck left the station a long time ago.
•
The Pentagon must do something it has, amazingly, never tried: develop an official doctrine on how to “redeploy” a soldier from the combat zone to the peaceful zone. This means hiring mental health experts to thoroughly analyze the psychology of the returning soldier, and making a commitment to building a health care network that can meet the needs of a growing population of injured soldiers.
•
Congress must increase financing for research into traumatic brain injuries, the signature malady of this war. Unbelievably, in its Pentagon appropriations bill for 2007, Congress cut in half the financing for the Army’s main research and treatment program on brain injury (which, no surprise, is at Walter Reed).
•
The government should also expand grants to the Fisher House program, a public-private partnership that has “comfort homes” at every major military medical center. These provide families of wounded troops with housing, kitchens, laundry rooms and other support services. The program serves more than 8,500 families a year, but will struggle to keep pace with the growing number of returning wounded.
•
Like so many government departments, the military has a medical computer system that is made up of a hodgepodge of antiquated machines with outdated software that often can’t communicate with one another. This needs to be replaced with a user-friendly system that can efficiently track the wounded as they make their way through the system.
•
The Pentagon must revamp the Medical Evaluation Board process, the system under which a soldier suffering from injury is screened to see if he should be given a discharge and a disability pension. Cases now are handled in a haphazard way and can drag out indefinitely; each should be held to a disciplined timeline.
•
The general effort by Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Harvey to privatize services at Army bases needs to be reined in. Some of the problems at Walter Reed seem to have been caused by the contracting out of maintenance services and other support jobs.
•
While we address the needs of uniformed men and women, we need to assess our civilian employees as well; most are excellent, but some are entrenched and in need of firing.
•
The money to care for our soon-to-be-veteran soldiers should not come from the Defense Department budget. The immense costs of medical care are simply too attractive to Pentagon budget-cutters, creating a conflict of interest between the war effort and the health of our troops.
•
And, of course, we must move the outpatient soldiers out of Walter Reed immediately. It is a small, old installation with few recreational outlets in a neighborhood of Washington that is unwelcoming to patients’ families. Fort Lewis in Washington State, for example, is a large, well-equipped installation in a beautiful area with a good program for recovering soldiers. And the big goal should be to get our wounded troops off bases entirely and back their own homes, with adequate medical care and insurance.
The other day I had a phone conversation with Mr. Robinson, a former Army Ranger whose group aids Persian Gulf war veterans suffering with health disorders. “The problem with Walter Reed and the nation’s defense health program is much more than money, mold and mice,” he said. “It is about leadership.” He’s right. And with Secretary Gates, I expect the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be able to resume their rightful role in our nation’s defense
Paul D. Eaton is a retired Army major general.
|
| 17 | katietx
ID: 3810431417
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 13:59
|
Government run health care works so well I think we should go national.
That's what Hillary wants, so elect her and you'll get your wish.
|
| 18 | biliruben
ID: 52014814
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 14:08
|
I wish she wanted that, Katie. Unfortunately she hasn't proposed anything of the sort.
If we could use the VA as a model, we would be in substantially better shape than we are now.
|
| 19 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 14:24
|
It is sadly telling of the political mindset of our country that the only actual policy that so many Hillary haters can think of to oppose is the failed attempt at government health from 14 years ago when she weilded no official political power, whatsoever, and that she hasn't revisited since.
She infuriates you guys like nobody's business and probably 90% of you have absolutely no tangible reason for it.
|
| 20 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 15:22
|
Walk,
Great article.
Thanks
Cliff
|
| 21 | katietx
ID: 3810431417
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 15:26
|
MITH - She doesn't infuriate me...she scares me.
And true, it was 13 or so years ago that she proposed national health care. However, since the "Hillary haters" are bringing this to forefront, perhaps it would behove her to expound on the issue and if she has changed her mind, to state such.
And, btw, I'm not a "guy" so I suppose I'm exempt from your last statement? ;-)
bili - when was the last time you visited a VA hospital? Or had to go to one for treatment? I shudder at the thought that my only course of treatment would be at a VA hospital. I've had extensive dealings with both regular military hospitals and VA's. Neither are anything to be overly proud of.
|
| 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 392269
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 15:32
|
katie, with all due respect, when you go talking about an untruth it really isn't up to us to do more than simply point that out.
Also, it should be noted that, even if you believed that Clinton's health care proposal was something she still believed in, and was passed, today, exactly as originally proposed, the government would not be running the hospitals. They never would have been running the hospitals. They would have allowed people to buy into a system of paying for health care access through a form of government-sponsored insurance.
This analogy is false on so many levels it isn't even funny.
|
| 23 | katietx
ID: 3810431417
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 15:57
|
katie, with all due respect, when you go talking about an untruth it really isn't up to us to do more than simply point that out.
Which "untruth" PD? I certainly hope you aren't talking about the military hospitals and/or the VA. As I said, I have had personal knowledge of both...and it ain't pretty.
Yes, I know there are probably folks here who have had good experiences at one or both. I can only go by my experiences (myself and family).
As far as Hillary is concerned, why do I have to like her? You don't like Bush, Cheney, Gulianai, etc, etc. and I'm not calling you out for that.
I still don't understand the penchant for some of the liberals here to immediately jump on anyone who posts something negative (in their opinion) regarding Hillary.
Just for further enlightenment, if I could vote today...I would likely vote for Obama.
|
| 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 392269
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 16:00
|
I didn't say you "had to like her." All I'm saying is that you should stop saying things that aren't true about her. Again (to be clear): I don't care about your opinion of her. Just whether the facts you state about her are true.
I'd vote for Obama, too, BTW.
|
| 25 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 16:17
|
I still don't understand the penchant for some of the liberals here to immediately jump on anyone who posts something negative (in their opinion) regarding Hillary.
Post something true and tangible and I won't jump. She's not my favorite candidate at the moment, either - I can't even be sure that I'd vote for her before McCain.
I'm just sick and tired of of these nonsensical reasons people give for their hatred of her. Things like, "she'll say absolutely anything to be elected." By all means, compare the consistancy of her record and statements to whoever you like and discuss it. (tho I suggest you don't invest too much in that argument if your guy is named Romney or Giuliani)
Its so easy to tell when people criticize her despite not having paid the slightest bit of attention to her actual record in public service. Its no wonder we'll have had 8 years of GWB when a major portion of the electorate bases more of their vote on their belief that they can read a candidate's mind than an investment in time spent researching his/her positions and record.
|
| 26 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 16:35
|
Re the proposed "Clinton Health PLan" of 1 1/2 decades ago, IIRC...werent they primarily offering the public, the opportunity to buy into the same health plan as is bought into by Congress and othersd at the Federal level? (or am I confusing their base proposal with another that has been mentioned since?)
In either event, what I find saddest about all of this VA/Walter Reed debacle (other than the obvious maltreatment of our war inuured), is that other than GLs post of a few days ago and the post from walk above....nowhere have I on the news seen/heard of the BRACC as having any impact/influence. Obviously, it HAS to have had.
|
| 27 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 16:45
|
Sarge,
And you won't hear it.
Because, if you did, then Congress would have to step up and share the fact that they ultimately have to share some of the responsibility.
And I think we can all feel relatively comfortable in understanding that isn't going to happen.
Cliff
|
| 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 392269
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 16:48
|
I think you're right, GL. Congress has been acting irresponsibly on matters of the budget for a long, long time.
|
| 29 | biliruben
ID: 52014814
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 16:54
|
There is a distinction between military hospitals (like Walter Reed) and the VA.
Military hospitals are generally considered to be underfunded and horrific.
VAs used to be that way. Bill Clinton revamped VA system, and though I have no personal experience, I hear generally they get high marks, and their costs are less than private hospitals. They have maintained their quality even as Bush has tried to destroy them through mismanagement and under-funding. He has yet to succeed; at least so far.
No Sarge, you are misinformed.
|
| 30 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 20:22
|
Both of my brothers are very pleased with the VA hospital experiences and VA medical care, FWIW.
|
| 31 | Razor
ID: 191342413
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 21:25
|
VA healthcare is healthcare on a budget. It's not world class and instead of choosing from three drugs, you might just get stuck with one because they are forced to buy in bulk, but it is very good for what it is. A+ for minimizing the effects of pharmaceutical reps. As far as the masses are concerned, American healthcare would be much better off if it were more like the VA.
|
| 32 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Mar 06, 2007, 22:38
|
I disagree on military hospitals.
Balboa Navy Hospital is just as good if not better than all of the civilian hospitals I have been in, and I sure have been in my share.
Now, that said, they are not all that way.
Also, most VA hospital have improved quite a bit in the last 20 years.
JMHO
Cliff
|
| 33 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 06:56
|
Concur with the positive VA experiences. My dad frequently goes there for various ailments and it's really come a long way in the last 20 years.
|
| 34 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 12:42
|
In 1980, Silas B Hayes Army Hospital at (now defunct) Ft Ord, "lost" my wife after I took her in when she went into labor. It took them some 8 hrs (and my phone call to the base IG) to "locate" her.
Back in 1986 or so, I went in for outpatient surgery at the Des Moines VA. I was to be there by 8 am, and have a driver with me since I owuldnt be able to drive post procedure. At 4 pm, they administered anasthetic and at about 7pm, we left the hospital post 'recovery room'. It was great fun, spending the day in a hospital gown on a gurney, waiting for some 10 hrs before I was "next". (No doubt, my "ride" also appreciated the day sitting in a waiting room accomplishing a little less than nothing.)
Left Active Duty with a partial disability rating. Approx 5 years later, when I had suffered no further injury to my knees, VA revoked my disability status. (True, I hadnt had further torubles. Of course, thats because I adjusted my lifestye, no playing racquetball, softball, jogging, PT in the Reserves, etc etc. Isnt that the very definition of a disabilty? Something that requires a change in life in order to remain injury free?)
VA, like DMV etc etc, appears to this veteran, to be staffed primarily by people more concerned with keeping their jobs via not making a wrong decision, than by people who give a flying f**k about the GI.
|
| 35 | Boxman
ID: 251142612
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 13:04
|
Sarge: VA, like DMV etc etc, appears to this veteran, to be staffed primarily by people more concerned with keeping their jobs via not making a wrong decision, than by people who give a flying f**k about the GI.
I'm rather ignorant about the inner workings of the VA so I've got a dumb question for you.
If the federal government ceased to run the VA and allowed the private sector to handle it and then in turn bill the government, do you think the quality of health care for our troops would go up?
|
| 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 14:44
|
Would the quality rise?
Probably, but only because ineptitude at all but the highest levels, means loss of employment in the private sector. (Highest levels of course being relative to the size of the organization.)
Would this be better?
Thats an entirely different question, and one which I dont know the real answer to. Cost would almost certainly rise. (As to the cost borne by the servicemember.)
ON a tangent, Neil Bortz (sp?), was on MOnday, ranting about how Walter Reed represented what would happen if we went to "socialized medicine" in this country. He also went on to rail about how the spoiled little left-wingers, expect someone else to pay for their health care, and being unwilling to spend more than $500 annually for health insurance, but being perfectly willing to spend $100/m for their cell phones. He then made it a point to state how MRIs and th elike, can be had in this country within a couple days of the Dr deciding its needed, while in some parts of Canada for ex, it may take upto 20 weeks.
Now, I wont disagree re the cell phones, but the $500 figure is purely fabrication IMHO. I for ex, would be perfectly willing to insure katie and I, if we could do so for $450/m or less. BUt at now monthly premiums of $750 (yep, rate increase), I am NOT paying $9,000 annually for insurance, for 2 people. Thats absolute insanity. Re the availability in this country of testing and Bortz comments re MRIs...yes, they can be had in a couple days....IF you have a couple grand laying around or have been paying all too close to a grand/m for insurance.
|
| 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 3221379
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 15:13
|
quality of health care for our troops would go up
This is only half the question. You also need to ask if the cost would go up.
More to sarge's point, polls are now indicating that more and more people are willing to pay for universal health care. I saw a poll recently which put it at over 50%.
|
| 38 | bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 17:39
|
Box - It is my understanding that part of the problem at Walter Reed may be that they have already begun to look at the private sector. Maintenance and operations were outsourced to IAP Worldwide Services Inc., a Florida firm run by a former Halliburton official who reduced staff from 300 to 100.
|
| 39 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 18:54
|
Sarge: Cost would almost certainly rise. (As to the cost borne by the servicemember.)
Come again? Cost borne by the servicemember. Again, I'm ignorant on how VA's work, but are you telling me that the wounding combat troops at Walter Reed have to pay for their care? I just want to make sure just so I don't go on a swearing rant for no reason.
Perm Dude: This is only half the question. You also need to ask if the cost would go up.
While you bring up a good point, in this case, does it matter? I understand that costs have to be within reason, yet when I see the conditions they deal with now, improvements must be made.
biba: Maintenance and operations were outsourced to IAP Worldwide Services Inc., a Florida firm run by a former Halliburton official who reduced staff from 300 to 100.
OK, I'll clarify, what if it was run by a good private sector company? ;)
|
| 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 3221379
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 19:29
|
A lot of speculation, Boxman. "What if...." anything, indeed. Might as well say "What if it were run by a good public sector division."
|
| 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Mar 07, 2007, 19:36
|
I'm saying Box, that a "for profit" running of VA, would create certain cost-sharing where the GI would most likely have to cough up some dough.
Its purely speculation, but I do not see a for profit entity running the VA, and not charging the patients for some of the care.
|
| 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 352381210
Mon, Mar 12, 2007, 14:32
|
Army Surgeon General falls on his sword
|
| 43 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Mar 12, 2007, 21:53
|
Hmph, looks like he was pushed to me.
Guys, this is an honest question. Are things now really worse than they were during any period in our history? I realize that shabby treatment of wounded veterans is unequivocally reprehensible. But is this issue gaining more attention simply because the Post threw it up on the front page? They have their spotlight and they used it. I'm glad they did, because it's seriously disappointing to see these men and women treated this way. Is the treatment so much worse today than it was during Vietnam, Desert Storm, or the Clinton era conflicts in the Balkans?
|
| 44 | Perm Dude
ID: 352381210
Mon, Mar 12, 2007, 22:47
|
This was first brought up in 2003, as I recall. But I dunno--some worthy news stories need to be around for awhile until they get traction. Apartheid. Darfur. Congressional spending.
|
| 45 | Motley Crue
Dude
ID: 439372011
Mon, Mar 12, 2007, 23:39
|
I'm still looking for traction on Darfur. That's a wheel-spinner if ever there was one.
Maybe the military should look at having a rotating chair policy for the DOD medical services. I mean, the Army is chest deep in sh!t right now, pretty much everywhere you look. I'd think that one of the other service branches could handle the essentially administrative effort posed by running the VA hospitals, and especially the 'flagship'. The Air Force is very good at administration.
How is it that the Army is responsible for all of these facilities in the first place? Is it just tradition?
|
| 46 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 16, 2008, 10:30
|
A psychologist who helps lead the post-traumatic stress disorder program at a medical facility for veterans in Texas told staff members to refrain from diagnosing PTSD because so many veterans were seeking government disability payments for the condition.
|
| 47 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, May 16, 2008, 10:51
|
cost containment at its finest.
|
| 48 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 28, 2008, 09:17
|
This is the closest tthing we have to any kind of veterans benefits thread so I'll post here in response to Jag's request for a discussion on the two bills recently proposed in Congress.
Brief history of the GI Bill
Jag wrote: "The McCain bill, IMO, is far superior, not only does it help keep our recruits in the military, which we need in a volunteer military, but it also allows family members to take advantage of the GI Bill."
The purpose of the GI Bill is to provide the veteran with an education. The last adjustment to GI Bill benefits came in 1984. Webb's bill seeks to increase tuition benefits by 70%. I do believe that's less than the increase in the average cost of college tuition over the past 25 years. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
The retention issue does sound like a real problem for the military. But giving vets benefits that try to keep up with the last 25 years of college tuition inflation is not the culprit. The culprit is a hapless Commander in Chief who's foreign policy has done more to sabatoge military morale with a fraudulant and mismanaged war and substandard care for pur returning injured vets than any benefits package will persuade against reenlistment.
By refusing to update tuition assistance benefits in favor throwing vets a bone by allowing them to transfer the currently outdated benefits to spouses or children, McCain's bill attempts to address a problematic symptom while he vows to continue to support the root cause of the problem: Bush's foreign policy.
|
| 49 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Wed, May 28, 2008, 14:08
|
mith- last adj 1984
2001 --- Monthly payments for veterans attending school full-time under the Montgomery GI Bill significantly increased from $650 (to $800 in 2002, $900 in 2003, and $985 in 2004). Part time rates and rates for survivors’ and dependents’ educational assistance also increased.
Montgomery GI Bill benefits extended to include certain private technology skills certifiers in the definition of educational institutions. Accelerated payment to these certifiers was also permitted for education leading to employment in high technology industries.
Basic Monthly Rates
The following rates are effective October 1, 2007:
Monthly GI Bill Rate for Institutional Training Training Time Monthly Rate
Full time $1101.00
¾ time $825.75
½ time $550.50
less than ½ time more than ¼ time $550.50**
¼ time or less $275.25**
so please take off those "jaded glasses" and at least formulate an opinion based on fact
|
| 50 | Perm Dude
ID: 244362812
Wed, May 28, 2008, 14:36
|
Jaded glasses? I think you are mixing up your metaphors in your haste to throw out an insult.
BTW, you neglected to link to your source for your third paragraph, which seems to refute a point MITH was not making.
Link to the source for the data
It isn't clear, however, if those numbers are a result of COLA or not. The website seems silent on the point.
|
| 51 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 28, 2008, 14:43
|
Error noted. It's still my opinion that fully covering the cost of more expensive in-state public schools is not too generous for our veterans.
|
| 52 | Jag
ID: 28457122
Wed, May 28, 2008, 15:12
|
Mith, your opinion can only be based on your support for the Left. Many GIs don't want or need college, age is one factor, but almost all would like to have that benefit for their children or spouse.
This is not about us. I believe the soliers should decide which bill they prefer and all the ones I have talked to support McCain's.
I wonder if Sarge can give a non-partisan answer on which bill he prefers?
The Left has and always will do more damage to the morale of the troops then the Right. All the troops want is credit for making a difference and that is robbed from them by Liberals trying further their political agenda.
|
| 53 | Perm Dude
ID: 244362812
Wed, May 28, 2008, 15:25
|
As far as I know, McCain (did didn't bother to show up to vote on Webb's bill) has not put forth a bill of his own on the matter.
Hard to quantify your hatred of the Left, Jag. But on the facts you haven't shown yourself to be altogether reality based.
It is also important to note that, like the original GI Bill, the update will reflect benefits for soldiers returning from war. Many vets hail the measure. Given that we have increased benefits for war veterans nearly every time we go to war, this current bill has the added benefit of being historically consistent.
All the troops want is credit for making a difference
Most troops want much more than that. In fact, this whole thread is about more than just credit.
|
| 54 | Perm Dude
ID: 244362812
Wed, May 28, 2008, 16:01
|
One soldier's thoughts
|
| 55 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 28, 2008, 16:15
|
your opinion can only be based on your support for the Left.
I think the rest of the forum is all too familiar with the success rate of your assumptions about me. This latest one is no different. Webb's proposal has 10 Republican cosponsors (plus both independants) and was suppoerted by more half the Republicans in the Senate when it passed last week. In contrast, The Graham-Burr-McCain bill is sponsored exclusively by Republicans. Pretty strange how supporting the bipartisan measure instead of an explicitly partisan one makes me a partisan in your book.
I believe the soliers should decide which bill they prefer
Well I certainly agree that their opinions are more relevant than mine or yours. The sponsors of S-22 claim the following endoresements: Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
The American Legion
The Military Officers' Association of America (MOAA)
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)
AMVETS
The Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA)
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS)
The Student Veterans of America (SVA)
The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
The Partnership for Veterans' Education
The American Council on Education (ACE)
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) I don't know of any veterans' organizations that support the Graham-Burr-McCain bill although I ddn't check with the SwiftVets.
|
| 56 | Jag
ID: 28457122
Wed, May 28, 2008, 16:19
|
Your post has all the honesty of an Obama speech.
McCain's reation
He says it best..
"I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did," McCain said in a statement. "Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election."
The bill, which President Bush has threatened to veto, would pay tuition and other expenses at a four-year public university for anyone who has served at least three years since the 2001 terrorist attacks. McCain is a cosponsor of a different version of the bill that would require soldiers to have more time in the service to get full benefits and to encourage them to stay in the military as a career.
Why show up for a bill, that will be vetoed? You and Obama are playing propaganda games and maligning the facts. You both know why he didn't show, you both know he supports another bill, yet you both make disingenuous remarks about a hero, that cared so much about his troops he stayed in a POW camp, so others could be released. I sincerely hope you and Obama keep up this type of rhetoric, it shows America your true colors.
Here is a quote from Bill Kristol "Senator Reid, the majority leader, did not allow a vote on the Republican Bill. He used various parliamentary maneuvers to get the up and down vote only on the Jim Webb Bill."
The democrats don't want s debate on the subject, they rather play political games, after all this in not about the troops, but scoring political points. McCain needs to realize this and he should of been at Washington blasting Reid for not allowing the a vote on BOTH bills.
|
| 57 | Perm Dude
ID: 244362812
Wed, May 28, 2008, 17:02
|
Why show up for a bill, that will be vetoed?
That's called leadership. Nothing can be gained by refusing to show up and make the case against the bill on the floor of the Senate. Instead, McCain decided to make the case by trying to score political points on the campaign trail.
McCain's Distortions on the Webb Bill
Now, if you want to make the case that the McCain bill is better, by all means go ahead. You haven't done so on this forum yet, only calling upon others to say why Webb's is better. We've done so. Now it is time to put down your cards.
|
| 58 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Wed, May 28, 2008, 20:05
|
let me see if i get this right, you state that the gi bill has not been adj. since 1984 and that is so wrong for the vets. I prove to you that your statement is blatantly false and you go on a diatribe about Webb's bill which i did not address at all. hilarious
|
| 59 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Wed, May 28, 2008, 20:07
|
oh by the way, just because the benefactors of the benefits support it does not make it good policy.
|
| 60 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 28, 2008, 20:33
|
Are posts 58 and 59 directed at me?
|
| 61 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:10
|
mith - let me apoligize i missed your post and confused pd's post so please disregard 58
59 was in reference to pd's laundry list of supporters
|
| 62 | J-Bar
ID: 144352617
Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:16
|
damn if i could read i might be dangerous
59 was in reference to your 55
|
| 63 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Wed, May 28, 2008, 21:37
|
I still have no idea who post 58 is directed at. If it refers to my post 55 (and isn't now moot) look again. I shouldn't have to point out that post responds to specific arguments made by Jag in post 52. I was courteous enough to paste and italicize the specific quotes I referred to before each response.
59 was in reference to your 55
Post 59: oh by the way, just because the benefactors of the benefits support it does not make it good policy.
I listed vets' groups that support the bill in response to a specific argument made by Jag, which was that the benefactirs should be the ones who decide on their benefits.
If you disagree with that particular point, it would make more sense for you to take it up with Jag, since he's the one who made it. All I did was point out that by his preferred standard, the Webb proposal is the superior bill.
|
| 64 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Fri, Apr 10, 2009, 13:08
|
NYT President Obama announced plans on Thursday to computerize the medical records of veterans into a unified system, a move that is expected to ease the now-cumbersome process that results in confusion, lost records and bureaucratic delays.
Medical information will flow directly from the military to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ health care system. At present, veterans must hand carry their medical records to Veterans Affairs’ facilities once they leave active-duty service. The Veterans Affairs system has a backlog of 800,000 disability claims, which means that veterans typically wait six months for decisions on their cases.
The task of creating a unified system will be handled by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The undertaking has repeatedly confounded the two agencies in the past, and it remains unclear how long the project will take and how much it will cost.
Both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki joined Mr. Obama for the announcement, but provided no details.
“We have a sacred trust with those who wear the uniform of the United States of America, a commitment that begins with enlistment and must never end,” Mr. Obama said. “But we know that for too long we’ve fallen short of meeting that commitment. Too many wounded warriors go without the care that they need.”
The announcements are part of a larger effort to improve services for veterans. Mr. Obama’s budget for 2010 increases spending for veterans by $25 billion and funnels more money into programs for those who suffer mental health problems and traumatic brain injury.
Veterans’ advocacy groups called Thursday’s announcement an important step in smoothing the tangle of bureaucracy that frequently overburdens the veterans’ health care system.
Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said that modernizing medical records and allowing the two systems — military and veterans affairs — to talk to each other would have a dramatic effect on care.
Recently, Mr. Rieckhoff said, a Veterans Affairs doctor told him he had encountered a soldier with a brain injury, an amputation and a septic leg. The doctor had no idea how the man had been hurt because he did not have a complete file, he said.
“If you are a wounded service member, you have no continuity through the system,” Mr. Rieckhoff said on Thursday.
In creating a unified electronic system and pushing for more predictability in financing, Mr. Obama is trying to address two chronic stumbling blocks for improving care for veterans.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|