Bush: "I love free speech."

[normalnoises]

President Bush has expressed repeated support for protestors' rights to express themselves, exclaiming to the Australian parliament in October, "I love free speech." But federal law enforcement is showing up at political demonstrations, routinely monitoring such protests for the first time since the 1970's.

Read the full Mis-Lead -->

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1254394&l=9801

FBI Keeps Eye on Anti-War Protesters for Violence

Sun Nov 23, 1:09 PM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI (news - web sites) has collected information about tactics and training used by anti-war protesters in an effort to blunt potential violence by extremist elements, a federal law enforcement official said on Sunday.

The FBI warned of tactics used by such groups in a weekly bulletin circulated to 15,000 law enforcement agencies around the country last month before large demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco to protest the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

The bulletin discussed tactics, training and organization of groups, some of which have Web sites that refer to training camps to teach activities like disrupting traffic and law enforcement during large public events, the official said.

It described activist strategies like videotaping arrests to intimidate police and using the Internet to recruit and raise funds.

More...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1896&u=/nm/security_fbi_dc&printer=1

[xpyrate]

Oh yea ... he loves free speech alright ... so he can order his thought police against all those who oppose his views.

[jamiroguy1]

FBI is monitoring anti-war protesters!! This is bullshit!!! In effect he's made the protesters the terrorists. Bush has got to go!!

[youarehot99]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

FBI is monitoring anti-war protesters!! This is bullshit!!! In effect he's made the protesters the terrorists. Bush has got to go!!

Fuckin' anti-war protesters. Even if you disagree with the war, these hippies could use all their energy they use to protest it and Bush to support the troops. Instead of going out of your way to protest your own country's leaders, use that energy and time to show your support for the people giving their lives up over seas. 95% of the people over there literally get disgusted when they see people protesting the war. Put yourself in their situation. Every minute that goes by over there could be their last...they are doing that for these people who show are going out of their way to disrespect their countries leaders. Pretty sad...

[marksimons]

welcome you are hot.

hope you're open minded. there's so much about your country you need to know about

do you mean we should support the troops like bush does... like this?

"As American troops complete their assault on Bhagdad, President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress are launching their own attack on war veterans' medical benefits.

"According to Mary Ellen McCarthy, a staffer for ranking House Veteran' Affairs Committee member Lane Evans, D-Ill., a GOP-controlled Congress is readying to slice $14.6 billion from veterans benefits over the next 10 years.

"McCarthy said that Congress is mulling over a budget that takes $449 million of vets medical benefits from next year's budget alone. The cuts will cover projected revenue shortfalls caused by Bush's tax cut proposal.

"The money will come from funding for treatment of service-connected injuries and pensions for low income vets.

"Vincent DeStefano, a disabled veteran of WWII, said he is a staunch Bush supporter despite being a Democrat, but that these cuts are a "sad, bad mistake."

""I'm sorry to hear that our efforts in WWII are now being negated by this decrease in our pensions and disabilities," said DeStefano. "These youngsters don't know what's going to happen to them. I didn't know what was going to happen to me. Unfortunately, I was wounded.""

http://www.townonline.com/allston/news/local_regional/ab_covabvets04112003.htm

[youarehot99]

I know what ya mean and understand, but what I'm trying to say is support the troops by letting them know you're there for them, regardless if you like Bush or are for the war or not. Instead of going out of their way for anti-war or anti-Bush protests, use that time and energy to write a letter to a soldier and thank them for fighting for you, or letting them know you care about their well being. Things like that....

A very close family friend is in Iraq and writes to us often telling us how every day could be his last. He also writes about how much it means to hear from friends and family back home, or receive messages from school kids, or even complete strangers, thanking him and letting him know he's not alone. He also tells us how it sickens him and his fellow troops to see that people actually go out of their way like they do to be anti-war, instead of "showing the love" to the troops. I know a lot of people are anti-war simply because of the costs and the effects on the economy...but there are people who are anti-war because they care about the troops. Well if you care about the troops so much, spend your time showing them that, instead of rallying against Bush. Know what I mean??

[marksimons]

erm.

by rallying against bush, and things like his tax cuts, which result in benefit cuts etc etc then surely we are supporting the troops.

I'm of the view that the iraq war was the wrong war fought at the wrong time in the wrong way.

saddam could have been deposed without taking over the country.

I understand that you have friends over there in iraq, but it's not unpatriotic, or not supporting the troops to protest against bush.

actually, surely we are supporting the troops by actually using our rights of freedom of speech, freedom to demonstrate, showing them that we are making use of the values they are fighting for.

I would also say that some of these demonstrators are being rather brave in going out into some rather intimidating conditions.

there are also people who do have friends and family in iraq who are against the war:

""George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld care about the troops in the same way that Tyson Foods cares about chickens," said Stan Goff, a retired Army master sergeant who served in the Rangers and Special Forces counter-terrorist units. His son, Jessie, is also in the Army and recently deployed to Iraq."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0814-01.htm

and with regards to the people serving in iraq, even if there were hundreds of thousands of americans cheering them on, it wouldn't make them any more safer...

[seximofo2k]

Originally posted by youarehot99

Fuckin' anti-war protesters. Even if you disagree with the war, these hippies could use all their energy they use to protest it and Bush to support the troops. Instead of going out of your way to protest your own country's leaders, use that energy and time to show your support for the people giving their lives up over seas. 95% of the people over there literally get disgusted when they see people protesting the war. Put yourself in their situation. Every minute that goes by over there could be their last...they are doing that for these people who show are going out of their way to disrespect their countries leaders. Pretty sad...

Free speech is as american as you can get. It's really interesting how all the conservatives love to use the argument how we are trying to spread democracy and free speech around the world and yet when the free speech is against what their beliefs are then it is wrong and should not be practiced. How is anti war protests not supporting the troops? I live with 2 marines who just got back from Iraq and they really dont give 2 shits about what people are protesting in the country. The whole idea of the supporting the troops has turned into a political pawn for people. You talk about supporting the troops tell Bush to spend his time going to dead soldiers funerals instead of campaign fundraising dinners which he seems to have plenty of time to attend. No one hates somebody who does their job for their country, give up on it already find another way to attack the left please.

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by seximofo2k

How is anti war protests not supporting the troops?

i have read about several protests that unfairly criticized US troops (as well as desecrating 9/11 memorials). unfortunately, this anti-war movement was hijacked by nutjobs like the folks at International Answer, adding fuel to the conservatives criticism of the dissenters.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

welcome you are hot.

hope you're open minded. there's so much about your country you need to know about

do you mean we should support the troops like bush does... like this?

"As American troops complete their assault on Bhagdad, President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress are launching their own attack on war veterans' medical benefits.

"According to Mary Ellen McCarthy, a staffer for ranking House Veteran' Affairs Committee member Lane Evans, D-Ill., a GOP-controlled Congress is readying to slice $14.6 billion from veterans benefits over the next 10 years.

"McCarthy said that Congress is mulling over a budget that takes $449 million of vets medical benefits from next year's budget alone. The cuts will cover projected revenue shortfalls caused by Bush's tax cut proposal.

"The money will come from funding for treatment of service-connected injuries and pensions for low income vets.

"Vincent DeStefano, a disabled veteran of WWII, said he is a staunch Bush supporter despite being a Democrat, but that these cuts are a "sad, bad mistake."

""I'm sorry to hear that our efforts in WWII are now being negated by this decrease in our pensions and disabilities," said DeStefano. "These youngsters don't know what's going to happen to them. I didn't know what was going to happen to me. Unfortunately, I was wounded.""

http://www.townonline.com/allston/news/local_regional/ab_covabvets04112003.htm

Isn't there a pay increase in the works for the troops in the new defense bill? The VA association is inefficient mechanism that needs a major overhaul. I beleive they are going to fix the system not increase funding and to blame the tax cuts is lunacy. The country was in a recesion and the tax cuts are what returned us to record expansion (8.2%) those benefits can not be paid for unless revenue from economic activity is received. If you want to look at a cash strapped country because of high taxes?France is a perfect example with it's high unemployment, stagnant GDP and sky high taxes. Now that we have returned to an expansion cycle and with the latest developments in medicare, don't be surprised that the VA benefits will be better then before in the near future because the american public won't stand for anything less!

[seximofo2k]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

i have read about several protests that unfairly criticized US troops (as well as desecrating 9/11 memorials). unfortunately, this anti-war movement was hijacked by nutjobs like the folks at International Answer, adding fuel to the conservatives criticism of the dissenters.

Your right some people are just out of control. Theirs a big difference between these people who just blame the govt cause they got picked on growing up or some bullshit and people with legitimate concerns.

[marksimons]

because a group of dumbasses trashed a 9/11 memorial

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31473

doesn't mean you should have a gut reaction against all anti-war, anti-bush protestors. that's just illogical...

I could only find the one case of a memorial being trashed.

the increase in pay for service people is different from medical benefits for injured vets...

looking down at the economic thing, interesting, you get economic 'recovery' but with income levels for poor and middleclass households falling or not increasing...

impressive.

lies. damn lies and statistics.

what has france got to do with it mr mahas, no-one cited them as an example of a perfectly run country. they've got good and bad points about their economy, but I wouldn't say their taxes are sky high, at least not in comparison to Scandanavian countries - which incidentally are the oldest democracies in the world...

french unemployment seems to have more to do with working hour legislation apparnetly. but also remember that france has one of the best healthcare systems in europe, and compared to the american model...

The action was taken to increase jobs. France has long had an unemployment rate far higher than the U.S. It is now 9.6 percent there versus 6.1 percent here. The socialists figured that there was only so much work to do, so if people were only allowed to work 35 hours per week, rather that 40 hours, then this meant that 8 workers would be needed to do the work that 7 workers did previously.

Economists call this the "lump of labor" fallacy. It is wrong because work is not homogeneous, either geographically or in terms of skills. Nor is the demand for labor fixed. Most importantly, it is a function of the price. If unions raise the wage rate above the market-clearing level, then unemployment is going to rise. Similarly, if government mandates a rise in wage rates, as France did by reducing hours at the same weekly wage, then you are also going to see higher unemployment.

http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2003/bb100803.html

Furthermore, economic forecasts for 2004 suggest the jobless recovery is expected to persist (e.g., the Congressional Budget Office predicts that unemployment will be 6.2% next year). Thus, the U.S. economy appears to be stuck in another weak recovery that is yielding few benefits for middle- and low-income households. Forecasts for where the economy is headed suggest a continued gap between overall growth and the living standards of working families.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income

Additionally, critics claim that this bill will be the next harrowing step in the Bush administration's belief in the efficiency of private markets, despite evidence that private markets often fail in services that only the government should provide.

The new defense bill also maintains funding for several of the Pentagon's most costly weapons programs. These include $3.5 billion for 22 F/A-22 Raptor jets, $4.4 billion for the research into a Joint Strike Fighter, $6.6 billion for building ships and $9.1 billion for the ballistic missile defense system.

Conservatives counter these spending and power increases by merely stating that the bill will increase soldiers pay by an average of 4.15 percent and will include raises in family separation and combat pay.

However, liberals realize that despite the new increase, pay is remarkably inadequate and that the bill ignores the wage scale's structural problems altogether. In fact, a recent Department of Defense report stated that 40 percent of lower rank soldiers experience financial difficulties.

Doubtless, the new increases will not be enough to alleviate the burden experienced by U.S. soldiers.

Liberals point to the fact that the bill does reverse one inequality. The bill reverses a stipulation that reduces disabled veterans' retirement benefits by $1 for every dollar the veterans receive in disability pay.

The plan will cost $22 billion and will be phased in over the next 10 years.

The defense bill is the fifth bill out of 13 spending bills Congress will pass.

http://www.vanderbiltorbis.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/11/19/3fbae02306634

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

looking down at the economic thing, interesting, you get economic 'recovery' but with income levels for poor and middleclass households falling or not increasing...

impressive.

lies. damn lies and statistics.

what has france got to do with it mr mahas, no-one cited them as an example of a perfectly run country. they've got good and bad points about their economy, but I wouldn't say their taxes are sky high, at least not in comparison to Scandanavian countries - which incidentally are the oldest democracies in the world...

french unemployment seems to have more to do with working hour legislation apparnetly. but also remember that france has one of the best healthcare systems in europe, and compared to the american model...

Furthermore, economic forecasts for 2004 suggest the jobless recovery is expected to persist (e.g., the Congressional Budget Office predicts that unemployment will be 6.2% next year). Thus, the U.S. economy appears to be stuck in another weak recovery that is yielding few benefits for middle- and low-income households. Forecasts for where the economy is headed suggest a continued gap between overall growth and the living standards of working families.

The new defense bill also maintains funding for several of the Pentagon's most costly weapons programs. These include $3.5 billion for 22 F/A-22 Raptor jets, $4.4 billion for the research into a Joint Strike Fighter, $6.6 billion for building ships and $9.1 billion for the ballistic missile defense system.

]

*****October personal income rose 0.4 percent as expected. September personal income was unrevised -- up 0.3 percent. Wages and salaries inched up 0.2 on the month. Disposable personal income or the money left over after taxes also up 0.4 percent after sinking 1.0 percent in September.

Looks like wages are increasing to me bud and thats not even counting cash transactions which are un-traceable

1) Unemployement is ALWAYS a lagging indicator and 6.1% is not that bad in a country with 300 million people here is a report put out on thursday...

Here is a closely watched INITIAL jobless claims...

***New jobless claims fell 15,000 in the week ended November 15 to a level of 355,000. This week did include a holiday and therefore the sharp drop was not totally a surprise. Lately, economists and market players are talking about the problem the Labor Department has with a consistent bias in jobless claims. It seems that claims have been revised up just about every week over the past year. Given that this series is so timely, economists would rather have the data early, with a known bias, than later with more accuracy. This way, financial market players will expect a slight upward revision to the figures in the following week. Nevertheless, claims have been consistently below 400,000 for seven straight weeks now...

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/econodayframe.asp?page=http://www.nasdaq.com/econoday/index.html

Now to the claim frances healthcare system...

france has one of the best healthcare systems in europe, and compared to the american model...

I think the 10k (3x more then 911) senior citizens who died in France this past summer from HEAT says something about their WHOLE system. If I remember correctley even Chirac said "Our health system failed us" and with their negative GDP output I think it safe to say the only thing that was lucrative to the French were selling nuclear secrets to Sadam in the 70's lol...

Now the increase to defense spending is essential for our protection especially in a post 911 world. Nothing against you at all but being in Europe you really wouldn't understand the urgency in our govt to protect ourselves from another terrorist attack. The most important part of that defense spending increase is the missile defense system, vital against rogue nation's who decided to lob a nuke into LA, NY & Chicago..

[marksimons]

europe not knowing terroists.

perhaps.

but I'm in the UK.

three letters:

I

R

A

we've had irish terroism for decades... did we send missiles to ireland?

nope...

anyways, need to shop, will continue later...

[normalnoises]

Last September I marched alongside parents of soldiers who are currently fighting and parents of soldiers who died for a President who is conducting this war for his own personal gain and the interest of rich oil tycoons in his circle. There were also parents of soldiers who fought in the first gulf war marching alongside their sons and daughters who were involved in that theatre as well as veterans of past wars. Nobody is going to tell them and me that we don't support the troops considering numbers like that.

Let me demonstrate to you how much Bushie "supports our troops" with a good arsenal of weapons to back what I been trying to say here:

President Bush often emphasizes his commitment to veterans, saying in 2001, "My administration understands America's obligations not only go to those who wear the uniform today, but to those who wore the uniform in the past: to our veterans."1

But the 200,000 veterans waiting six months or more for their first appointment at a VA facility would be denied access to VA health care under Bush's plan. Others would be charged $250 annual enrollment fees, doubled prescription costs and increased co-payments.2

The same day the President met with wounded soldiers and said that America "should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way,"3 the Veterans' Administration explained that it could solve the backlog problem by limiting enrollment. "VA would avoid very significant additional medical benefits costs and begin to bring demand in line with capacity, which will reduce the number of veterans on wait lists."4

The administration would also reduce costs by denying access to "better-off"5 veterans - those who do not have service-related disabilities and with incomes as low as $21,050.6

Estimates suggest this would likely more than triple the number of veterans denied health care by FY 2005 to more than half a million7, and the VA anticipates that 55%8 of veterans who already participate in the VA health care plan, numbering 1.25 million, may be unable to continue participation due to the enrollment fee.9

Congress has called for $1.8 billion beyond what the administration requested for FY 2004 funding beyond the White House request.10

While funding for VA 2004 remains unresolved, Congress sought to include $1.3 billion in veterans' health care and extending reservists benefits who have been called up in the $87 billion emergency funding bill. The administration "strongly opposed" the provisions, articulated in a letter from White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten, which were later stripped.11

Sources:

Presidential Speech to the VFW, 8/20/01; Presidential Speech to the American Legion, 8/29/01.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/va.html

President Bush Meets with Wounded Soldiers at Medical Center, 1/17/03.

Department of Veterans Affairs, 38 CFR Part 17 Enrollment-Provision of Hospital and Outpatient Care to Veterans Subpriorities of Priority Categories 7 and 8 and Annual Enrollment Level Decision; Final Rule, 1/17/03.

VA Seeks Record Budget, Shuts Health Care to Priority 8 Vets, American Forces Press Service, 1/24/03.

http://www.house.gov/strickland/vetsreport.htm

Department of Veterans Affairs, 38 CFR Part 17 Enrollment-Provision of Hospital and Outpatient Care to Veterans Subpriorities of Priority Categories 7 and 8 and Annual Enrollment Level Decision; Final Rule, 1/17/03.

http://www.house.gov/larson/pr_030523.htm

Etheridge: Budget Cuts Veterans, Rocky Mount Telegram, 4/1/03.

Action Alert, American Legion.

"House vote backs loans as Iraq bill confronts new woes," GovExec.com, 10/22/03.

Oh, I musn't forget how the Pentagon tried to cut combat pay to the troops who are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Troops in Iraq face pay cut

Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, August 14, 2003

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL

Washington -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL

Apparently, Bush is with the terrorists because obviously he's not with us and the troops.

Way to support our troops Bushie.

[crosspatrick]

Originally posted by marksimons

europe not knowing terroists.

perhaps.

but I'm in the UK.

three letters:

I

R

A

we've had irish terroism for decades... did we send missiles to ireland?

nope...

anyways, need to shop, will continue later...

Ye might not have fired missles but ye certainly done everything else in your power to try and crush the catholics living in the north, from joing up with loyalist murder squads so they could pick up innocent catholics and murder them, to shooting innocent protestors ie bloody sunday also sending innocent people to jail for things they never done.

The list goes on and on.

[xpyrate]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

i have read about several protests that unfairly criticized US troops (as well as desecrating 9/11 memorials). unfortunately, this anti-war movement was hijacked by nutjobs like the folks at International Answer, adding fuel to the conservatives criticism of the dissenters.

I remember at one protest I wuz at somebody started screaming on a bullhorn "We're not here because we love our country , we're here because we hate our country" .... ppl turned and looked at him as the total asshole he is. I think the anti-war movement could really do without these jackasses. Fuckin pinkos.

[youarehot99]

Originally posted by normalnoises

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL

Apparently, Bush is with the terrorists because obviously he's not with us and the troops.

This is the single most ignorant comment I've ever heard....

You say Bush is against the terrorists? What did he do after 9/11? Oh yeah he had Afghanistan blown off the face of the Earth. But you're prolly one of those typical democrats who was crying for blood after 9-11, then was bitching about the cost of the bombings as retaliation...and would have been bitching just as much if we didnt do anything. What is he doing now? Trying to get rid of a dictator/terrorist, aka Hussein. Once again, you're prolly the typical democrat who will whine and say "he's only doing it for the oil" bla bla bla. Even if he was (which i probably wont argue against) he still got rid of Hussein, a terrorist, right? newbie

[xpyrate]

Originally posted by youarehot99

You say Bush is against the terrorists?

umm...

[normalnoises]

Retard alert.

Originally posted by youarehot99

You say Bush is against the terrorists?

UH... DOY!

I said...

originally posted by normalnoises

Apparently, Bush is with the terrorists because obviously he's not with us and the troops.

Where did I say Bush is against the terrorists? Pay attention next time. Perhaps you should open the links I posted and you see why the idiot son of an asshole Bush is not with us and only for himself and his oil rich buddies.

newbie

normalnioses 1369

youarehot99....31

Who is the newbie here??

[youarehot99]

Originally posted by normalnoises

normalnioses 1369

youarehot99....31

Who is the newbie here??

Wow good for you nerd...you've spent more time on the internet and wasted more of your life in front of the computer than me! Congrats....

I wasnt talking about the number of posts on some message board, fuck-stick. I was talking about politics. You obviously are an ignorant moron if you think our president is one the side of the terrorists. But keep trying...maybe some day you'll grow up.

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by youarehot99

Wow good for you nerd...you've spent more time on the internet and wasted more of your life in front of the computer than me! Congrats....

I wasnt talking about the number of posts on some message board, fuck-stick. I was talking about politics. You obviously are an ignorant moron if you think our president is one the side of the terrorists. But keep trying...maybe some day you'll grow up.

^Spoken like a true nationalist pig.

Congratulations, you just redefined the word moron.

This is how your idiot son of an asshole from Texas supports our troops, idiot:

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

The President’s Proposal:

Is the largest annual increase ever requested by a President;

Refocuses medical care resources on treating veterans with military disabilities, low-income or special needs;

Fulfills commitments to the nation's veterans by:

Guaranteeing that veterans’ disability claims are processed accurately and quickly; and

Improving health care delivery by coordinating the medical care systems of the

Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs; and

Funds a major expansion in cemeteries to prepare for increased burial demands, due to the aging of veterans.

The Department's Major Challenge:

Managing the large increase in demand for health care services.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates the largest direct health care delivery system in the country. VA also supports medical research; administers veterans’ benefits including monthly disability payments, education assistance, life insurance, home loans, and vocational rehabilitation and employment services to veterans. In addition, VA runs veterans' cemeteries across the country. The President’s 2004 request for VA represents more than a 30-percent increase over the 2001 level and is the largest annual increase ever requested by a President.

Overview

Today, there are 26 million veterans, but in the next 20 years this number will fall by one-third, to 17 million. Although all veterans are eligible for VA services, fewer than six million veterans participate in its programs. A declining population eventually will mean that fewer veterans will seek medical care, monthly disability benefits, and burials at VA cemeteries. On the immediate horizon, however, veterans healthcare and other costs have continued to rise.

Refocusing Medical Care’s Core Mission

In 1996, a law was passed allowing VA to treat all veterans in the most practical settings. This law permitted VA to deliver care similar to the private sector. As a result, most VA care is now provided in clinics and homes instead of hospitals. Patients have also benefited from new innovative safety and quality systems. Today, VA is recognized as a world leader in quality medical care, as described by an Institute of Medicine October 2002 report.

The VA Company Store

Congress created the Veterans Canteen Service in 1946 to furnish merchandise and services for the comfort of veterans in VA hospitals and nursing homes. In 57 years the Canteens have evolved from a collection of soda fountains and closet-sized hospital gift shops into a nationwide system of 148 commercial food courts and/or retail outlets—where one can even buy computers, large-screen televisions, tires, and refrigerators. The 3,000 employees that work in this “VA Company Store†provide services commonly found in local markets. Taxpayers pay since VA provides below-market rental space to more than half of the Canteens, and because purchases from the Canteen are tax-free. The Canteen Service should be open to private competition—on an equal basis with other bidders—to ensure the best use of taxpayer funds.

VA is working to ensure its facilities are located where most veterans live to support this new way of delivering services. Many veterans have moved to the South and Southwest resulting in increased waiting times for appointments. At the same time, VA maintains many underused hospitals throughout the North and East. VA needs to increase services where veterans with military disabilities or low-incomes live and convert many of its massive hospitals to more efficient clinics, where needed. To do this, in June 2001, the Department completed a review process in the first of 21 regions, the Chicago region, and is now implementing the recommendations. Work has begun in the remaining 20 regions, and a nationwide plan for change is expected this fall. The budget provides $225 million of needed construction funding.

The 1996 law also required VA to assign veterans receiving medical care to one of seven priority levels. An eighth priority level was later added. These levels are designed to prioritize the need for care among veterans, thus giving greatest preference to those with the most severe health problems and the least financial resources. Veterans with military disabilities, low incomes or special needs are given higher priority levels in line with VA’s core mission. Veterans without these characteristics fall into the lowest levels (Priority Levels 7 and 8). Based on the level of funding provided by the Congress, the VA Secretary announces annually which priority levels of veterans are eligible to receive care. Each year since 1998, VA has announced that all veterans are eligible to receive care. Eligible veterans, regardless of income or the nature of their illness or injury, are entitled to receive the full basic benefits package of services. Prior to the 1996 law, veterans in the lowest two priority levels were only treated if space was available, and they were restricted as to the kind of care they could receive and where they could receive it. However, since the law passed, these veterans have grown from two percent to over 31 percent of VA enrollees in 2002. The rapidly escalating numbers of these veterans will require a growing portion of VA resources, reducing the resources available for veterans with disabilities or low incomes. As a result, 236,000 veterans now must wait six months or longer for an appointment.

The President’s Budget includes a number of changes that refocus attention on VA’s core medical care mission of providing needed services to veterans with military disabilities or low incomes as well as those with special needs. It assumes that, in early 2003, Priority Level 8 veterans will not be able to enroll if they are not yet using VA medical care. However, Priority Level 8 veterans currently enrolled will not lose that status. Priority Level 7 and Priority Level 8 veterans will pay an annual enrollment fee, and increased drug co-payments. Institutional long-term care will only be available to veterans with disability ratings of 70 percent or greater. No veterans currently receiving care will be displaced.

Increasing Coordination between VA and the Department of Defense (DoD)

Over 700,000 veterans each year use both VA and DoD for medical care services. However, neither Department can access the other's computerized enrollment information or patient records. This causes an increased burden on veterans, an inability to manage a patient's care safely, and duplication of effort and cost. In addition, there are scores of VA and DoD facilities in the same geographic areas that would benefit from sharing services and space.

In the past year, top leadership at DoD and VA created a joint Executive Council that began to implement changes in five key areas:

Information Technology: VA has agreed to use DoD’s eligibility and enrollment system—providing veterans with seamless services as they leave the military and apply for benefits at VA. The Departments also are working on computerized patient medical records that will allow instant exchange of patient information by the end of 2005. Both joint efforts will reduce costs, increase efficiency, and escalate the pace of coordination.

Common Medical Business Practices: The Departments recently agreed upon the costs of sharing specific services. In the future they will address common business processes for medical coding, billing and collection, financial management, and budget development.

Shared Hospitals and Equipment: Despite administering a combined 240 hospitals, DoD and VA operate only seven joint ventures. These existing ventures include a hospital that shares services and staff as well as sites where DoD and VA hospitals are co-located. This year, VA and DoD will test sharing arrangements that use the same business practices and medical supplies and drugs.

Coordinated Human Resources: Currently, staff coordination is limited to a few locations. The Departments have recently initiated coordinated staff training programs. As a first step, the Army is sending four cardiac surgeons to work in VA hospitals on a three-year training assignment for increasing skills, reducing costs, and providing VA with additional support.

Other Cooperation: High-level DoD and VA officials have made medical care coordination a high priority. It is also one of the 14 priorities in the President’s Management Agenda. In the past year, the Departments increased VA’s use of DoD’s patient air transport system. Early results have generated savings for VA while providing DoD with more training opportunities. The two Departments have increased joint procurement activities for medical supplies, equipment, and pharmaceuticals, and are testing whether DoD should use VA’s mail order pharmacy system.

Readying Veterans’ Disability Compensation for the Future

Monthly veterans’ disability compensation checks are a benefit to veterans who have a disability connected to their military service. It is the workers’ compensation program for the armed forces. Like other federal and state workers’ compensation programs, VA’s benefits complement retired pay and disability annuities provided by DoD. Currently, 2.3 million veterans are receiving these tax-free benefits from VA. The amount awarded to a veteran depends on the s*****ty or degree of the disability. For 2003, the basic monthly benefit, set in law, ranges from $104 for a 10 percent disability rating to $2,193 for a 100 percent disability rating. Many veterans receive additional amounts for having dependents, severe disabilities, or being housebound—as much as 70 percent above the basic benefit. As the accompanying chart indicates, 65 percent of veterans receiving compensation are rated at 30 percent disabled or less—with diseases such as arthritis, diabetes, and high blood pressure.

Improving the quality of life of veterans with disabilities is a national responsibility. To this end, veterans’ disability claims should be quickly processed. The processing of disability claims has been especially challenging for VA, not only because of the sheer scope and size of the program, but also because new legislation and regulation further expanded benefits and, therefore, the number of claims needing review. As such, much of VA’s focus in 2002 was on reducing the backlog of claims from 644,000 to 501,000.

Is Yesterday’s Disability Today’s?

Disabled veterans are assumed to earn less after military service than non-disabled veterans. Yet no study to measure the income loss associated with each specific disability has been conducted since 1945. Over the years, new types of disabilities have been added continually, but old ones are rarely removed. Many of the covered disabilities are not commonly associated with a loss of earnings today—such as acne scars, hemorrhoids, arthritis and ulcers. As such, benefit payments are unlikely to reflect actual income loss; in fact, they may be too low or too high.

VA’s aggressive management and hiring of new claims examiners accounts for the reduction in the backlog. Both claims examiners and their supervisors have been subject to increased accountability and held to performance standards with real consequences. Performing offices get more resources and more work. Non-performing offices are continually monitored and challenged to improve—risking the loss of resources, work, and ultimately, their top management. VA has both timeliness and accuracy performance measures to ensure that its efforts are balanced. As a result of VA’s focus, the number of days to process a claim will drop from 209 in 2002 to 100 in 2004. During this same timeframe accuracy will increase from 80 percent to 90 percent.

Having dealt effectively with a tidal wave of work, VA anticipates that both its workforce and workload will stabilize in 2004, and VA is poised to lay the groundwork for future challenges. For example, some automation has occurred at VA. The current process for reviewing claims looks very much the way it did in the 1940s, with voluminous paper files and examiners heavily dependent on retrieving records from far-flung warehouses. Since veterans tend to apply for increased benefits decades after separation from the military, the location and quality of these records are often difficult to establish.

VA now has the opportunity to accelerate the development of a system where information is viewed on computers, thereby allowing people to work on a claim at the same time in different places around the country. This involves accepting all new claims electronically, making electronic copies of existing files, and sharing medical exams with DoD. In 2004, VA will conduct an evaluation of the disability compensation program, in part, to examine whether the program improves the quality of life of veterans with disabilities while truly replacing lost income. The evaluation will compare the income of veterans who are and those who are not receiving disability compensation payments.

Expanding the Cemetery System for Increased Burial Demands

In 2003, almost 110,000 veterans, service members, and eligible family members will be buried in 120 VA national cemeteries and 54 VA-funded state veteran’s cemeteries. The veteran population continues to decline as veteran’s mortality increases. VA’s major challenge is determining the appropriate number, location, and mix of national and state cemeteries to address the increased need. VA seeks to ensure accessible and compassionate service, and it is succeeding. Over 90 percent of family members and funeral directors who have recently received services from a national cemetery rate the quality as excellent. For example, VA orders almost all headstones electronically to shorten the waiting times for families. And kiosks are placed in cemeteries to assist visitors in locating gravesites. VA will open four cemeteries in 2004.

The Burial Benefits program has earned a high rating using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), due to the program’s clear mission and effective management. Improvement, however, can be made in strategic planning. VA made great progress recently when it released an ultimate configuration of the cemetery system, which prioritized future construction efforts and defined the minimum number of veterans that national cemeteries should serve before construction is justified. Furthermore, to enhance the appearance of cemeteries to those befitting national shrines, VA has received $25 million in additional funds over the last three years. However, it lacks a way to define needs and performance measures. The Department is addressing this weakness.

Common Measures

Health Care

The federal government is developing a set of common measures for five functions performed in different departments. Such measures will allow comparisons regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of similar programs. The 2004 Budget takes the first step toward assessing the performance of federal health care systems by displaying newly developed access, quality, and efficiency common measures for VA's and DoD's health systems, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services’ Community Health Centers and Indian Health Service.

When looking at the results of common measures, it is important to understand key differences in programs for a proper context. The cost and efficiency measures below have not been adjusted for differences between VA and other agencies— including risk/health status, socioeconomic status, age, gender, and benefit package differences. For example, VA’s benefits package includes services such as spinal cord and traumatic brain injury care, long-term care, and care to the seriously mentally ill, which are not prevalent in all other programs and which impact resource needs.

Overview of the Veteran's Affairs Health Care System

...................................................................2004 estimate

Number of individual patients....................4,836,298

Annual appropriations request

(in millions of dollars)...............................27,547,424

Medical workers..............................................19,318

Average age of individual patients.....................60.3

Male and female individual patients (percent) 91% (Male)

..........................................................................9% (Female)

Cost directed to in-house services, excluding contract services ...........................................................(percent) 95%

Health Care Common Measures

2001 and 2002

Cost—Average cost per unique patient (total federal and other obligations) Under Development $5,019 $4,928

Efficiency—Annual number of outpatient visits per medical worker Under Development 2,487 2,719

Quality—The percentage of diabetic patients taking the HbA1c blood test in the past year Under Development 93% 93%

Note: Research funding is excluded. Medical workers include the equivalent number of full time physicians, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurse mid-wife providers, but exclude appointments by off-site contractors medical residents/interns and trainees. However, patient visit numbers include visits to medical residents, contracted employees, and trainees. Cost information includes all direct costs of military health care in the DoD budget and in the trust funds.

Job Training Common Measures

The job training measures, which will be applied to VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program, gauge program results in four areas: entered employment, retention in employment, earnings increase, and efficiency. VA has begun collecting information on these measures and will begin reporting results in 2005.

Performance Evaluation of Select Programs

The following table rates the performance effectiveness of some of VA’s most important programs. Sometimes these factors fall outside a department’s control, but in most instances the burden for delivering results appropriately rests on an agency’s management. For further details on these programs, please see the VA chapter in the Performance and Management Assessments volume.

Disability Compensation Results Not Demonstrated The program provides financial benefits for income loss due to service-related disabilities. The PART revealed that VA currently provides benefits for disabilities that are not considered a barrier to productive employment, as it is based on 1945 standards. The 2004 scheduled program evaluation should examine if the program reflects medical technology and changes in workplace conditions since 1945, if benefit amounts reflect income loss experienced by disabled veterans, and how it complements or conflicts with other programs.

Medical Care Results Not Demonstrated The VA provides health care to an estimated 4.4 million veterans. While the quality of care for those veterans in the system is exceptional, results cannot be demonstrated because there is no clear consensus among Congress, the Administration, and the public on who should be offered care. While all veterans are currently offered care, waiting lists are growing and VA can not easily focus on poor and disabled veterans. VA’s medical care mission, its goals, and how to achieve them need to be clarified. VA should continue to realign the infrastructure crucial to caring for veterans’ needs. Services and resources should be re-focused on veterans with service-connected disabilities, those with low incomes, and those with special needs.

Burial Benefits Moderately Effective This program provides high quality, courteous, and responsive service to veterans and their families. Of surveyed respondents, 92 percent rate the services as excellent. However, strategic planning improvements can be made. Areas for improvement identified in the PART are: additional performance measures for the National Shrine Commitment and monetary benefit; a management accountability system; and a cost accounting system. VA is working on these items.

Update on the President’s Management Agenda

VA has made significant progress in these areas. The Department will compete 52,000 jobs over the next five years (such as laundry, food and sanitation services), with an estimated cost savings of approximately $3 billion. VA initiated the first phase of its new electronic financial management system and is resolving most material weaknesses reported in its audit. The Department developed an overarching Enterprise Architecture for all its Information Technology (IT), successfully justified IT projects in the budget, and expanded its participation in E-Gov initiatives. VA not only submitted its 2004 budget on time, but also completed a comprehensive budget restructuring.

Department of Veterans Affairs

(In millions of dollars)

Read the graph at the very bottom of this link:

^^http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/va.html

United States House of Representatives

Committee on Government Reform, Minority Staff

Special Investigations Division

April 2003

Proposed Restrictions on Access to VA Health Care in Ohio

Prepared for Rep. Ted Strickland

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Background

President Bush’s VA Budget Proposals

Findings

Thousands of Ohio Veterans Will Be Forced Out of VA Health Care

Ohio Veterans Who Continue to Receive VA Care Will Pay Hundreds of Dollars Annually in Increased Costs

Conclusion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In February 2003, President Bush released his budget proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2004. The budget would halt enrollment in VA health care for many veterans, denying them access to any VA care. In addition, the budget would charge other veterans who are currently in the VA system a $250 annual enrollment fee and increase co-payments for doctor’s visits and prescription drugs.

At the request of Rep. Ted Strickland, who represents Ohio’s 6th Congressional District, this report analyzes the impact of these changes on veterans in Ohio.

The report finds that the proposed changes would cause an estimated 45,000 Ohio veterans to be denied VA health care or to drop out of the VA system, while increasing costs for tens of thousands more. Specifically:

• The budget proposals would deny care to thousands of Ohio veterans. The President’s budget proposal would freeze VA enrollment for “Priority 8†veterans, preventing an estimated 4,000 veterans in Ohio from receiving care.

• Increased fees would force thousands of Ohio veterans to drop out of the VA health care system. Over 41,000 Ohio veterans, including an estimated 14,000 Ohio veterans receiving active VA care, are unlikely to be able to afford the increased costs for VA health care proposed in the budget, causing them to drop their enrollment in the VA system.

• Many Ohio veterans would pay an additional $350 or more each year for VA care. Other Ohio veterans would remain in the VA system but be forced to pay more for their health care. Veterans who receive prescription drugs from VA and who fill a typical number of prescriptions each year could face new fees of almost $600.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department of Veterans Affairs runs the nation’s largest health care system, providing care to over four million veterans through a nationwide network of hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient clinics. The VA serves as a critical health care resource for tens of thousands of veterans in Ohio. In 2003, the VA will provide care for an estimated 266,000 veterans in the state at major medical centers in Chillicothe, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Dayton, and at 24 community clinics located throughout the state.[1]

The Department of Veterans Affairs has had long-standing problems providing care for eligible veterans. Nationwide, there were almost 300,000 veterans in 2002 who were either placed on waiting lists or forced to wait for over six months in order to receive an appointment for necessary care.[2] These problems providing care can be traced to the failure to provide adequate funding for the VA. In 1996, Congress passed the Veterans Health Care Reform Act, which expanded eligibility for VA care to all veterans. Since the legislation was passed, enrollment in VA health care facilities has increased by over 200%, from 2.9 million in 1996 to an estimated 7.0 million in 2003.[3] Funding for the VA, however, increased by less than 60% during this period,[4] leading to shortages of capacity and long waiting times for many veterans.

Under the 1996 legislation, the VA was required to establish several categories for enrollment, with the highest priority given to veterans who have service-related disabilities and low incomes. The lowest priority is given to veterans who do not have service-connected disabilities and have higher incomes.

The two veterans groups with the lowest priority are known as Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans. Priority 8 veterans are veterans who do not have service-related disabilities and who have incomes that exceed the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s cutoff level for eligibility for public housing programs. This is a geographically-based income level, set at 80% of the median income level for a given community. In Ohio, for a single veteran, this annual income level varies by county, from a low of $21,050 to a high of $38,100 (for a veteran with a single dependent, this income level varies from $24,050 to $43,500). Priority 7 veterans are those who do not have service-related disabilities and who have incomes that are below the HUD cutoff level, but above a VA-established threshold of $24,644 for a single veteran ($29,576 for a veteran with a single dependent).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush’s VA Proposals

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush’s VA budget contains several provisions that would either restrict access to care for veterans or increase the cost of VA care for Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans.[5] These provisions were also included in FY 2004 budget legislation that narrowly passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2003.[6] The first provision would halt enrollment of new Priority 8 veterans, denying them access to any VA care. Under this proposal, all Priority 8 veterans who had enrolled in the VA system prior to January 17, 2003, would continue to receive care. But no new enrollments from Priority 8 veterans would be allowed.

The second provision would charge all Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans who are in the VA system a $250 annual enrollment fee in order to receive care. This would represent a new policy for VA, which to this date has never charged veterans an enrollment fee for care. Finally, a third set of provisions would increase co-payments for Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans who are receiving VA care. The co-payments for primary care payments would increase by 33%, from $15 per visit to $20 per visit. The co-payments for prescription drugs would more than double, increasing from $7 to $15 per 30-day prescription.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Findings

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thousands of Ohio Veterans Will Be Forced Out of VA Health Care

President Bush’s proposal to increase the cost of VA care and restrict access will impact thousands of Ohio veterans. First, it will mean that veterans who otherwise would have received care will no longer be able to enroll in the VA system. According to data from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the suspension of enrollment of Priority 8 veterans will deny care to 173,000 veterans nationwide.[7] Of these 173,000 veterans who will be denied care, an estimated 4,000 reside in Ohio.[8]

In addition, many more veterans will lose access to care because of the new requirement that they pay an additional annual enrollment fee of $250. The VA estimates that the new fee will force an estimated 55% of enrolled Priority 7 and 8 veterans — over half — to drop out of the VA system.[9] Overall, VA estimates that 1.25 million enrolled veterans in the United States, including 425,000 active patients, will be forced out of the VA health care system because of the increased costs.[10]

Thousands of these veterans will be Ohio residents. Presently, there are an estimated 42,124 Priority 7 and an estimated 32,882 Priority 8 veterans enrolled in the VA health care system in Ohio.[11] If 55% of these veterans are forced to drop out of the VA system, it will mean that over 41,000 additional Ohio veterans will no longer have access to VA care. This includes an estimated total of over 14,000 veterans who are active patients.

Overall, including veterans who are excluded from signing up for VA care and veterans who will be forced to drop out of the VA system because of the increased fees, an estimated 45,000 Ohio veterans will lose access to VA health care under the President’s proposal.

Ohio Veterans Who Continue to Receive VA Care Will Pay Hundreds of Dollars Annually in Increased Costs

For many Ohio veterans who do stay enrolled in the VA program, there will be significant new costs. Not only will Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans be forced to pay the annual $250 enrollment fee, but they will also have to pay increased copays for physician visits and prescription drug fees. The increased fees are anticipated to cost veterans in the program an average of $97 annually.[12] Overall, between the increased copays and the $250 annual enrollment fee, Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans who remain in the VA health care program will pay a total average increase of $347 annually.

Many veterans will pay even more. A recent report by the General Accounting Office found that among Priority 7 veterans who use VA outpatient prescription drug services, the average veteran uses 38 monthly prescriptions per year.[13]

A Priority 7 veteran that fills this many prescriptions will pay an additional $304 annually just for prescription drugs, plus the increased fees for doctors visits, plus the $250 annual enrollment fee. Total increased costs for these veterans would be almost $600 annually.

If the President’s proposal does go into effect, an estimated 33,000 Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans in Ohio are likely to remain in the VA health care system in the state. These veterans will pay an estimated $11.7 million annually in increased costs for VA care.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSIONS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This report analyzes the impact of President Bush’s proposed budget on VA health care in Ohio. The budget proposes restricting access to care for many veterans and increasing the cost of care for others. These proposals would deny care to an estimated 4,000 veterans in the state and force an additional 41,000 enrolled Ohio veterans, including 14,000 active patients, to drop out of the VA health care system. The proposals would also increase the cost of health care for many veterans who remain in the program by an average of $350 annually and would cost many veterans as much as $600 or more annually.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Department of Veterans Affairs, Ohio and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (May 2002). Department of Veterans Affairs, FY 2003 End of Year Enrollment Projection (Mar. 2003).

[2] Memorandum from Department of Veterans Affairs to Chairs and Ranking Members of Senate and House Veterans’ Committees and VA-HUD Appropriations Sub-Committees (July 2002).

[3] Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Health Care: Systemwide Workload, FY 1996-2001 (2002) (online at http://www.va.gov/vetdata/ProgramStatics/index.htm). FY 2003 End of Year Enrollment Projection, supra note 1.

[4] Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Health Care: Systemwide Obligations, FY 1996-2001 (2002) (online at http://www.va.gov/vetdata/ProgramStatics/index.htm). Department of Veterans Affairs, FY 2004 Budget Submission (Feb. 2003).

[5] Overall, the administration proposed a total of $27.5 billion for VA health care, an increase of 7.7%, or $1.9 billion, compared to FY2003 funding levels. These increases would pay for decreasing pharmacy co-pays for some low-income veterans (those with incomes between $9,690 and $16,169) and for reducing the backlog for care. Despite this increase, most experts have indicated that the budget would still fall short of the funding needed to provide care for all veterans. According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “the administration’s VA budget is at least $2 billion short of what is needed to fully meet the demand for quality health care.†Veterans of Foreign Wars, VFW Looks to Congress to Build on President’s VA Budget (Feb. 4, 2003).

[6] H. Con. Res. 95, 108th Cong. (2003). The budget resolution passed by 3 votes, 215 to 212, with 214 Republicans supporting the resolution and 199 Democrats opposing it.

[7] Department of Veterans Affairs, Impact of Suspending Enrollment of Priority 8 Veterans by State for FY 2003 (2003).

[8] Id.

[9] FY 2004 Budget Submission, supra note 4.

[10] At any given time, not all enrolled veterans are actively receiving care from VA. VA estimates that approximately half of all enrolled Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans are active patients. VA estimates that 34% of all Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans who drop out of the VA healthcare system will be veterans that are actively receiving care. Id.

[11] FY 2003 End of Year Enrollment Projection, supra note 1.

[12] Based on VA estimates that the increased copays will impact approximately 750,000 veterans and will cost veterans a total of $73 million. FY 2003 End of Year Enrollment Projection, supra note 1.

[13] General Accounting Office, VA Health Care: Expanded Eligibility Has Increased Outpatient Pharmacy Use and Expenditures (Nov. 2002).

^http://www.house.gov/strickland/vetsreport.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 23, 2003

VETERANS TO RECEIVE MEMORIAL DAY SURPRISE: CUTS IN HEALTH CARE FUNDING; NEW FEES

Larson Releases Accompanying Study Showing Negative Impact VA Cuts and Fees Will Have on Thousands of State Veterans

WASHINGTON, D.C.- U.S. Congressman John B. Larson (CT-01) today released the findings of a study he requested showing what effect proposed cuts for the Veterans Administration budget and increased fees for veterans in the VA healthcare system will have on veterans in Connecticut. The study found that the new and increased fees proposed by the Bush Administration and endorsed by the GOP-controlled Congress would cause over 21,000 Connecticut veterans, including about 8,000 in the Hartford area, to be denied VA health care or to drop out of the VA system entirely, while remaining veterans will see the cost of their VA healthcare increase. Larson requested that the Special Investigations Division of the House Committee on Government Reform's Minority Staff conduct the study.

The budget resolution passed by Congress endorses the President's plan to increase fees and co-pays for over two million veterans who fall into "Priority 7" and "Priority 8" designations, meaning they are veterans who do not have service-related disabilities and do not meet certain income guidelines. The President's proposal includes a new $250 enrollment fee for these veterans, and the Senate amendment assumes the enactment of legislation that would double the insurance and prescription drug co-payments, to $15 for Priority 7 and $20 for Priority 8 veterans, and the co-pay for a primary care visit would increase by 33% to $20. According to the Bush Administration's own estimates, the increase in fees will "reduce enrollment by 1.25 million, and patients by over 425,000" nationally. Those who remain will be forced to pay hundreds of additional dollars a year for VA care.

The findings for Connecticut and the Hartford Area:

The President's budget resolution will freeze enrollment for Priority 8 veterans in the VA healthcare system, preventing an estimated 1,800 veterans in Connecticut from enrolling to receive care. This includes 670 veterans in the Hartford area who could have enrolled in VA healthcare.

Increased fees will likely cause over 19,000 Connecticut veterans, including 6,500 veterans receiving active VA healthcare, to drop out of the VA health system entirely because they cannot afford to remain enrolled. In the Hartford area, 7,200 veterans, including 2,500 active patients, would likely be forced to drop out of the VA system because of the increased fees.

Those who do not drop out of the VA healthcare system will be forced to pay hundreds more for their healthcare. Veterans who receive prescription drugs from the VA and who fill a typical number of prescriptions a year could face new fees amounting to nearly $600.

Larson stated: "When Americans serve their nation in the military, whether it is the Second World War or the recent war in Iraq, their government makes the promise of a lifetime of guaranteed healthcare. Now, in this recent budget, the Bush Administration and GOP leadership seeks to renege on that promise as they attempt to drive more than a million veterans out of the VA healthcare system, and place significant new costs on the veterans who can afford to remain. This study shows that thousands of veterans in Connecticut who utilize or would utilize VA healthcare system will not escape the pain of these cuts or the burdensome new fees that the President and the GOP leadership seeks to implement on the backs of veterans.

"The VA has never charged a fee for our veterans to enroll and the fact that the Bush Administration seeks to begin this policy now, as our troops come home from war, is an outrage. It must be pointed out that the savings that will be gained from increasing fees for our veterans in the VA healthcare system will amount to about $1.1 billion annually, which is equal to less than two percent of the annual cost of the massive tax cuts passed by the Administration and the Republican Congressional Leadership. We hear so much talk about the need to support our troops, but when the time comes to use actions instead of words to support those who have worn the uniform, America's veterans are being left out to dry. Our veterans have put their lives on the line for their nation and have served bravely, and are owed adequate healthcare from the nation they served, instead of a barrage of new fees and plans to drive them out of their healthcare system," said Larson.

Nationally, according to the same study, the VA estimates that the new fee will force an estimated 55% of enrolled Priority 7 and 8 veterans - more than half - to drop out of the system. Currently, there are an estimated 21,508 Priority 7 and an estimated 13,720 Priority 8 veterans enrolled in the VA healthcare system in Connecticut. The average veteran uses 38 monthly prescriptions per year. A Priority 7 veteran that fills this many prescriptions will pay an additional $304 annually just for prescription drugs, plus the increased fees for doctor visits, plus the $250 annual enrollment fee. This adds up to nearly $600 annually. In 2003, the VA will provide care for an estimated 126,000 veterans in Connecticut.

The House and Senate passed the conference report on the budget resolution on April 11, 2003. It passed the House by only five votes, 216 to 211, with 216 Republicans supporting the budget and 204 Democrats opposing it. The Senate passed the conference 50 to 51, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote in favor of the plan. The budget passed by Congress provides $1 billion less than the President's request for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. While there is an increase in the VA budget for the next fiscal year, overall, the VA budget for the next decade cuts $6 billion in funding that the Congressional Budget Office estimates is necessary to meet obligations under current law.

###

Congressman Larson Serves on the House Armed Services Committee

For a Copy of the Full Report - including citations -- visit:

http://www.house.gov/larson/vets.htm

^http://www.house.gov/larson/pr_030523.htm

Troops in Iraq face pay cut

Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster

Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, August 14, 2003

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL

Washington -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.

Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."

The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.

Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation.

Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.

Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months.

WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE

A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report.

Military families have started hearing about the looming pay reductions, and many aren't happy.

They say duty in Iraq is dangerous -- 60 Americans have died in combat- related incidents since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1. Another 69 have been killed by disease, the heat or in accidents.

"Every person they see is a threat. They have no idea who is an enemy or who is a friend," said Larry Syverson, 54, of Richmond, Va., whose two sons, Brandon, 31, and Bryce, 25, are serving in Iraq. Syverson appeared with other military families at a Washington, D.C., news conference to publicize efforts to bring the troops home.

"You can get shot in the head when you go to buy a Coke," added Syverson, referring to an incident at a Baghdad University cafeteria on July 6 when an Army sergeant was shot and killed after buying a soda.

AFRAID FOR HER SON

Susan Schuman of Shelburne Falls, Mass., said her son, Army National Guard Sgt. Justin Schuman, had told her "it's really scary" serving in Samarra, a town about 20 miles from Saddam Hussein's ancestral hometown of Tikrit.

Schuman, who like Syverson has become active in a group of military families that want service personnel pulled out of Iraq, said the pay cut possibility didn't surprise her.

"It's all part of the lie of the Bush administration, that they say they support our troops," she said.

It's rare for the independent Army Times, which is distributed widely among Army personnel, to blast the Pentagon, the White House and the Congress. But in this instance, the paper has said in recent editorials that Congress was wrong to make the pay raises temporary, and the Pentagon is wrong to call for a rollback.

"The bottom line: If the Bush administration felt in April that conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted increases in danger pay and family separation allowances, it cannot plausibly argue that the higher rates are not still warranted today," the paper said in an editorial in its current edition.

On Capitol Hill, members say the issue will be taken up quickly after the summer recess when a conference committee meets to negotiate conflicting versions of the $369 billion defense appropriations bill.

"You can't put a price tag on their service and sacrifice, but one of the priorities of this bill has got to be ensuring our servicemen and women in imminent danger are compensated for it," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

"Since President Bush declared 'mission accomplished' on May 1, 126 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and we are losing more every day," Tauscher said. "If that's not imminent danger, I don't know what is."

The Senate bill calls for making permanent the increases in combat pay -- the first in more than a decade -- for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House wants to pay more for service in those two countries than for such duties as peacekeeping in the Balkans. With the money saved, the House wants to increase the size of the active military by 6,200 troops.

What won't be clear until Congress returns is whether the Pentagon will lobby against keeping the increase.

The Pentagon reiterated Wednesday that its goal was for service personnel to rotate out of Iraq after a maximum of a year in that country. Units of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which played a major role in last March's invasion, have already come home.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the numbers

U.S. troops in Iraq: 148,000

U.S. troops in Afghanistan: 9,000

Imminent danger pay: $225 per month, but is scheduled to drop to $150 a month

Family separation allowances: $250 per month, but scheduled to drop to $100 per month

E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

Page A - 1

^http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/14/MN94780.DTL&type=printable

Pentagon keeps dead out of sight

Bush team doesn't want people to see human cost of war

Even body bags are now sanitized as `transfer tubes'

TIM HARPER

WASHINGTON BUREAU

Washington—Charles H. Buehring came home last week.

He arrived at the air force base in Dover, Del., in the middle of the night, in an aluminum shipping case draped in an American flag.

When the military truck drove his remains across the tarmac, workers paused and removed their hats.

He was met by a six-member honour guard acting as pallbearers, to allow a "dignified transfer" to the Charles C. Carson mortuary, where he became one of an estimated 60,000 American casualties of war that have been processed there over almost five decades.

"It reminds us we are at war," says Lt.-Col. Jon Anderson, who describes business at the Dover mortuary as "steady."

But America never saw Lt.-Col. Buehring's arrival, days after a rocket from a homemade launcher ended his life at age 40 in Baghdad's heavily fortified Rasheed Hotel last Monday.

Americans have never seen any of the other 359 bodies returning from Iraq. Nor do they see the wounded cramming the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington or soldiers who say they are being treated inhumanely awaiting medical treatment at Fort Stewart, Ga.

In order to continue to sell an increasingly unpopular Iraqi invasion to the American people, President George W. Bush's administration sweeps the messy parts of war — the grieving families, the flag-draped coffins, the soldiers who have lost limbs — into a far corner of the nation's attic.

No television cameras are allowed at Dover.

Bush does not attend the funerals of soldiers who gave their lives in his war on terrorism.

Buehring of Winter Springs, Fla., described as "a great American" by his commanding officer, had two sons, 12 and 9, was active in the Boy Scouts and his church and had served his country for 18 years.

No government official has said a word publicly about him.

If stories of wounded soldiers are told, they are told by hometown papers, but there is no national attention given to the recuperating veterans here in the nation's capital.

More than 1,700 Americans have been wounded in Iraq since the March invasion.

"You can call it news control or information control or flat-out propaganda," says Christopher Simpson, a communications professor at Washington's American University.

"Whatever you call it, this is the most extensive effort at spinning a war that the department of defence has ever undertaken in this country."

Simpson notes that photos of the dead returning to American soil have historically been part of the ceremony, part of the picture of conflict and part of the public closure for families — until now.

"This White House is the greatest user of propaganda in American history and if they had a shred of honesty, they would admit it. But they can't."

Lynn Cutler, a Democratic strategist and former official in Bill Clinton's White House, says this is the first time in history that bodies have been brought home under cover of secrecy.

"It feels like Vietnam when Lyndon Johnson was accused of hiding the body bags ....

"This is a big government and a big Pentagon and they could have someone there to meet these bodies as they come back to the country."

But today's military doesn't even use the words "body bags" — a term in common usage during the Vietnam War, when 58,000 Americans died.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon began calling them "human remains pouches" and it now refers to them as "transfer tubes."

One term that has crept into the U.S. military lexicon, however, is the "Dover test," shorthand for the American public's tolerance for wartime fatalities.

The policy of banning cameras at Dover dates back to the 1991 Gulf War, under Bush's father, Pentagon officials say.

But it has been unevenly applied: You can see photos of soldiers' bodies returning in coffins from Afghanistan at Ramstein airbase in Germany.

Clinton met returning coffins from Kosovo and, in an elaborate ceremony, was on hand for the arrival of the bodies of his former commerce secretary Ronald Brown 32 others killed in a 1996 plane crash.

Pictures were allowed of incoming caskets after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and President George H.W. Bush helped eulogize Americans killed in Panama and Lebanon.

But last March, a directive came down reaffirming the banning of cameras, likely in anticipation of the sheer volume of casualties being repatriated.

At Dover, Lt.-Col. Anderson says the policy is strictly in place to respect the privacy of the families, although he is well aware that there are those who think it was a political decision.

"The administration has clearly made an attempt to limit the attention that would build up if they were showing Dover every day," says Joseph Dawson, a military historian at Texas A & M University.

The White House policy works — to a point.

If there are no pictures of caskets being delivered to U.S. airbases, citizens don't think of them, analysts say.

Dawson says television pictures of the wounded at Walter Reed would be a jolt to Americans as they head out to dinner or are thinking of the week's NFL matchups.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now, he says, they likely equate war casualties with highway accidents: They know both kill and don't need to see graphic photos.

"The administration may have to come to grips with this in the months to come. This strategy depends on how long this war goes on. I have to wonder whether it might be a good idea to have a monthly remembrance to reflect on how this campaign is going."

The need for reflection in America is important, Dawson says, because the country seems to have lapsed back into a state of complacency.

"The country should be asking whether these men and women are putting their lives on the line for a justifiable purpose."

The Bush strategy, he says, is to divert focus from the dead and the wounded until — or if — his administration's policy can be judged a winner, then laud the men and women who gave their lives for freedom.

But it is really rooted in the perception in some quarters that the media cost the U.S. the Vietnam War.

There are parallels between Vietnam and Iraq in the words used by the president and in media coverage, even if there is so far no comparison in duration or casualties.

Whereas Lyndon Johnson and his top general, William Westmoreland, spoke of "steady and encouraging success" in Vietnam when they knew differently, Bush last week said the car bombing of the Red Cross showed the "progress" of the American campaign because insurgents were becoming more desperate.

Johnson called U.S. bombing missions "limited in scale" or "commensurate with need" and groused about news coverage. Bush also says the national media are not telling the truth and keeps implying the war in Iraq is needed to prevent another attack on U.S. soil.

Also like the Vietnam era, more attention is being given to U.S. victims the longer the conflict drags on.

The Associated Press last week ran the names and hometowns of all victims since the Iraq invasion began.

In 1969, Life magazine published a famous, black-covered edition consisting entirely of portraits of 250 young Americans who died in Vietnam in one routine week.

Dawson remembers, because his parents cancelled their subscription.

Television images of American soldiers in combat interrupted Americans' dinners nightly during the Vietnam War.

Clinton took his troops out of Somalia after a photo by the Toronto Star's Paul Watson, showing crowds cheering as a dead American soldier was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, was beamed around the world on news wires.

Increasing casualties in Iraq have had no such dramatic effect on Bush, but that could change if more attention is paid to the wounded coming home and the way they are being treated.

Walter Reed officials did not return calls seeking comment, but the crush of casualties in late summer was such that outpatients had to be referred to hotels in nearby Silver Spring, Md., because the hospital was full.

The Washington Times said the hospital had treated about 1,700 patients from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"Rarely have we seen so many young patients at one time," a spokesperson said.

Montana soldier Adam McLain, recovering from injuries when a military Humvee drove over his leg and head in Baghdad, told the newspaper from his hospital bed: "I didn't realize how many people were without limbs or without eyes. It's just depressing. I feel lucky. I have all my limbs."

The situation at Walter Reed and the administration's perceived indifference were highlighted last week by Cher, who visited troops there, then called an open-line show on C-SPAN, the U.S. network that broadcasts congressional debates and other political events.

She did not initially identify herself.

"Why are Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bremer, the president — why aren't they taking pictures with these guys?" she demanded, referring to Vice-President Dick Cheney, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer.

"I don't understand why these guys are so hidden, why there are no pictures of them."

Cher also criticized the media for ignoring the "devastatedly wounded."

"Don't hide them," she said. "Let's have some news coverage where people are sitting and talking to these guys and seeing their spirit."

For every Jessica Lynch, the wounded soldier who returned to a hero's welcome and a book and movie deal, there is a Shoshana Johnson.

Johnson, shot through both legs and held prisoner in Iraq for 22 days, will receive 30 per cent disability benefits, about $700 per month less than her colleague Lynch.

Johnson is black, Lynch is white and the Johnson family says that is the difference.

There is also an ongoing investigation into the condition of patients awaiting treatment at Fort Stewart, Ga., where hundreds of sick and wounded soldiers say they are languishing in dirty barracks waiting months for needed medical treatment.

They say they must hobble across sand to the use the bathroom, are housed 60 to a barracks and must pay for their own toilet paper.

Only recently did the Senate successfully demand the White House stop charging wounded soldiers $8.10 per day for their hospital meals.

Congress also had to step in to increase danger pay and separation pay for soldiers, as it appeared the Bush administration was set to let them expire on Sept. 30.

When Congress formally approved funding for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq, it carved Bush's request for $87 billion by about $2 billion.

Much of that money will instead be spent — over White House objections — on improved health-care benefits for those in the military reserve and National Guard who are serving in Iraq.

^http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=5a432094acaefd25&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1067728207768&call_pageid=971358637177

Invisible Bodies

Pentagon Imposes New Rules Restricting Coverage of Military Funerals

By Jake Tapper

ABCNEWS.com

Nov. 14— When Sgt. Maj. Cornell W. Gilmore was buried today at Arlington National Cemetery, it was with full military honors from the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry — including a bugler playing "Taps."

Gilmore, 45, was one of six U.S. soldiers killed when a Black Hawk helicopter went down last week in Tikrit, Iraq.

But media seeking to cover Gilmore's funeral found themselves limited by new Pentagon regulations that went into effect on Thursday. The new guidelines state that "reporters are no longer permitted to stand at the rear of the mourners during the service," and microphones "are not permitted … anywhere near the grave site."

The Pentagon says it is merely trying to protect the privacy of the families of the fallen soldiers. But the new rules have some reporters wondering whether it is just the latest move by the Bush administration to limit coverage of casualties of the war in Iraq.

Such a thing would not be unprecedented. As historian Michael Beschloss notes, "throughout history, presidents have been very sensitive to the effect of casualties in a war on support for that war."

‘It's Not the Right Thing to Do’

Even some of the president's staunchest supporters take issue with some of these moves. Harvey Appleman, a retired sergeant major who lives in Clarksville, Tenn., supports both the president and the war in Iraq, but he takes issue with the Pentagon's recent reinforced ban on media coverage at Dover Air Force base, where soldiers' coffins arrive from overseas.

"My views on keeping cameras out of any areas that shows the sacrifice that military personnel make is it's not the right thing to do," says Appleman, a registered Republican. "People ought to know what's going on. They ought to see the real thing. And the real thing is a very humble thing. The real thing is a casket draped with an American flag. It just does something to your heart. You know that person sacrificed for their country."

On the other side of the debate is Ruth Stonesifer of Kintnersville, Pa. Her son Kris, an Army Ranger, was killed in Pakistan in October 2001. She supports the media restrictions.

"A family who feels very strongly and is very proud of their son's service to his country takes a risk when the media portrays his homecoming in a very negative light as just a body count," she says.

The ‘Dover Test’

Images of soldiers' coffins impact the national psyche. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton refers to something he calls the "Dover test." This is how he described it in a 2000 speech at Harvard University: "Is the American public prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware?" If not, he cautioned, the war should probably not be fought.

Previous presidents have taken the risk, allowing cameras at bases and even attending ceremonies themselves to honor the fallen soldiers. But in 1989 networks showed a split-screen of the first President Bush while caskets arrived from Panama. This angered the White House and by the time of the first Gulf War in 1991, cameras were banned from Dover. President Clinton made some exceptions for soldiers killed by terrorists, but before military action in Iraq began this year, the Pentagon reinforced that 1991 ban.

The current White House says President Bush prefers to keep personal events private. But Appleman wants the public to see — and learn.

"These are veterans that are dying for us today, dying for our freedom," he says. "And freedom is not free."

^http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/iraq_funerals_031114.html

Hey Bush, if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.

BUSH DOES NOT SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

[normalnoises]

^Got nothing to say to that you're so hot?

[youarehot99]

Originally posted by normalnoises

^Got nothing to say to that you're so hot?

No, I had better things to do with my time than sit in front of my computer and wait for people to respond to something on some message board. But now that I do have time...

I did read the part about the pay cut of troops...I assume you're bitching about that right? Sure of course you are....But wait a second...you're the typical democrat who was bitching about the money we were putting into the war over there in the first place. Now we're taking away some of the money that was put into it, and you're bitching still. Hmmmmmmmm....gee we just cant seem to keep you democrats happy, can we?

Just like I had mentioned early about crying for blood after 9-11, but then bitching about the cost of bombing Afghanistan. Damned if ya do, damned if ya dont I guess....

I still think its embarrasing and sad to see an American truely believe that Bush is "with the terrorists." You can hate Bush all you want, thats your right as an American. But its truely sickening to think that there are people out there who believe our president is on the side of people like Bin Laden or Hussein. Because thats what you're saying with you're ignorant quote of "Hey Bush, if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."

Grow up already...

[normalnoises]

Originally posted by youarehot99

No, I had better things to do with my time than sit in front of my computer and wait for people to respond to something on some message board. But now that I do have time...

I did read the part about the pay cut of troops...I assume you're bitching about that right? Sure of course you are....But wait a second...you're the typical democrat who was bitching about the money we were putting into the war over there in the first place. Now we're taking away some of the money that was put into it, and you're bitching still. Hmmmmmmmm....gee we just cant seem to keep you democrats happy, can we?

Just like I had mentioned early about crying for blood after 9-11, but then bitching about the cost of bombing Afghanistan. Damned if ya do, damned if ya dont I guess....

I still think its embarrasing and sad to see an American truely believe that Bush is "with the terrorists." You can hate Bush all you want, thats your right as an American. But its truely sickening to think that there are people out there who believe our president is on the side of people like Bin Laden or Hussein. Because thats what you're saying with you're ignorant quote of "Hey Bush, if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."

Grow up already...

Ain't it obvious you fail to offer anything in rebuttal to what I laid in your face to disprove what your fuhrer has actually done to "support our troops" but instead you have to go on you little childish rants about democrats. Bush is taking their money alright so he can make more bombs and fund his oil rich assholes and please himself.

Bush IS with the terrorists.

Bush IS a terrorist.

and...

You are a moron.

Freedom of speech, Hitler's deciple.