crosspatrick Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 By cutting benefits and health care for those putting their lives on the line in Iraqby Kenneth NorrisStaff WriterJanuary 28, 2004Do you support our troops? If so, prepare to be outraged that our commander in chief does not.The Bush Administration's 2004 budget proposed gutting Veterans Administration (VA) services, including health care funding. Proposed cuts included: denying at least 360,000 veterans access to health care; $250 annual premiums; increased pharmacy co-payments; a 30 percent increased primary care co-payments; and increased waiting time for a first medical appointment. Because of budgetary shortfalls, the VA suspended the enrollment of veterans not injured in service earning between $24,450 and $38,100 annually. VFW officials estimated the administration's VA budget is at least $2 billion short of meeting the demand for quality health care.The FY 2004 budget approved by Congress calls for reducing VA funding over a 10-year period by $6.2 billion. Cuts are in the areas of veterans' health care and disability benefits.The cuts affect VA discretionary funding, which could mean discontinuation of burial benefits for veterans or delays in the cost-of-living adjustment for disability benefits.Some veterans must pay a new $250 annual enrollment fee to join the VA healthcare system. The VA believes 1.25 million veterans nationwide, already under the VA healthcare plan, may no longer be able to participate because of the new fee.Veterans who can remain under the VA health-care system will pay increased co-payments for physician benefits and prescription drug cost, amounting to an estimated increase in out-of-pocket expenses of $347 each year.The Bush Administration's budget proposal would have under-funded the VA by more than $2 billion. Bush's proposal would have cut the number of employees available to process disability claims, yet veterans already wait more than six months for a review of disability applications. The Bush plan for dealing with the waiting lists at VA clinics and hospitals is to reduce the number of veterans treated by the VA.Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, disputed the credibility of Bush's budget proposal. He doubted reducing VA medical staff could meet the expanding needs at the Veterans Health Administration.Rep. Bob Stump(R-AZ) noted the VA budget "identifies hundreds of millions of dollars needed for existing fixed costs, new advanced treatments and new initiatives to provide greater care for veterans. Unfortunately, the Administration hasn't included any new funding to address those needs."Last March, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget that included a $28.8 billion 10-year reduction in funding for veterans. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans began a letter-writing campaign to protest the reduction, so a House-Senate conference committee reduced the cut to $6.2 billion. President Bush complained that Congress needed fiscal restraint.An army of veterans twice the size of that involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom has lost health insurance benefits since Bush took office. As many as half a million vets are homeless. Seven VA hospitals are being closed as part of an effort to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. Meanwhile, veterans of the Iraq campaign can fall in line with over 250,000 veterans who are already waiting at least six months to see a doctor.The General Accounting Office estimates that 20 percent of Army Reserve and National Guard personnel have no health insurance at all. Although Bush did not hesitate to send Reservists and National Guardsmen to face death in Iraq, he has consistently opposed any attempt to extend full benefits to them.Bush tried to cut monthly imminent-danger pay and family separation allowance, and he called a proposed increase in the sum given to families of soldiers who die on active duty "wasteful and unnec- essary."Additionally, Bush considered how much money the country would save (and how much more could be diverted to Bechtel and Halliburton contracts) if veterans could not even find out what their benefits are.Disabled American Veterans (DAV), an organization that since 1920 has helped U.S. combat casualties learn about the benefits they have earned and how to apply for them, has been obstructed in its efforts by Bush.The Pentagon has been severely limiting DAV access to wounded veterans on grounds of "security" and protecting "privacy." The Pentagon protects the veterans' privacy by not allowing them to speak with DAV representatives "unmonitored."DAV Washington Headquarters Executive Director David W. Gorman wrote to the Secretary of Defense, complaining the Pentagon has severely restricted DAV's efforts to visit with wounded patients. The Walter Reed Army Medical Center headquarters office selects the patients DAV may visit, and DAV's representatives are escorted at all times. The escort closely monitors all contact with patients.Gorman contended these broad restrictions on patient access inhibit the ability of DAV to help ensure that wounded service members have the necessary information to obtain the medical care and bene fits these veterans need.Gorman warned, "The American public would be outraged if these restrictions became public knowledge."So, are you "outraged?" Do you even care that Bush cynically pays lip service to "supporting our troops" while gutting programs created to help the troops who have made awesome sacrifices to protect America?Does it piss you off that Bush would deny our troops information about how to get the benefits they need and have earned?Wake up and see Bush for what he is. Bush is a liar who manipulated you into "supporting our troops" only insofar as it facilitated his agenda, but his actions prove he cares nothing about their welfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 Originally posted by crosspatrick Do you support our troops? If so, prepare to be outraged that our commander in chief does not. Usually I am pretty civil on these boards but because I am a little hungover and pissed I missed 25 large in a pool, I'm going to ram it down your throat...Below is something your half a fag author didn't research before writing this pile of dogshit of an article.... Now before your "Six pack and a potato" self comes on an American board to bash our govt do your research and think. Sit there and ponder why we have the best VOLUNTARY miltary? Why our economy is the richest? And why your continent keeps getting it's ass handed to them or even worst, bailed out of trouble!!!!!Here is a article picking apart Deans and the rest of you left wing dellusional idiots... enjoy Donkey...http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200312180910.aspHere's the background: For 80 years, the rule was that the VA would take care of veterans with medical problems related to their military service or veterans without the means to purchase their own health care. In the mid-1990s, Congress decided to open the VA health care to all veterans, prompting a flood of new entrants into the system. Today, the VA treats a million more patients than it did three years ago, for a total of about five million. This sure doesn't sound like cutting veterans off benefits, but maybe they reckon such things differently in Vermont. Dean's charge does have a wisp of a connection to reality. Because the VA system was overwhelmed by a flood of new patients — many of them relatively well-off — it established a new rule saying that veterans with no medical problems relating to their service and an income above a certain threshold are not eligible for VA care. The rule affects an estimated 164,000 people. These are Dean's 164,000 veterans "cut off" from benefits. But they can't be cut off from benefits, because they never received them. The VA grandfathered in everyone already receiving care to make sure no one would be cut off. The idea that the Bush administration is somehow stingy with the VA is simply absurd. The VA budget has increased by about a third, going from $48 billion a year to $64 billion a year. This year, the VA will provide educational assistance to more than 400,000 people, and guarantee home loans of another 300,000 people, with the total value of about $40 billion. If Dean thinks this is ungenerous, what would be his alternative — giving veterans lifetime everything-for-free cards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiroguy1 Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 Originally posted by mr mahs Usually I am pretty civil on these boards but because I am a little hungover and pissed I missed 25 large in a pool, I'm going to ram it down your throat...Below is something your half a fag author didn't research before writing this pile of dogshit of an article.... Now before your "Six pack and a potato" self comes on an American board to bash our govt do your research and think. Sit there and ponder why we have the best VOLUNTARY miltary? Why our economy is the richest? And why your continent keeps getting it's ass handed to them or even worst, bailed out of trouble!!!!!Here is a article picking apart Deans and the rest of you left wing dellusional idiots... enjoy Donkey...http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200312180910.aspHere's the background: For 80 years, the rule was that the VA would take care of veterans with medical problems related to their military service or veterans without the means to purchase their own health care. In the mid-1990s, Congress decided to open the VA health care to all veterans, prompting a flood of new entrants into the system. Today, the VA treats a million more patients than it did three years ago, for a total of about five million. This sure doesn't sound like cutting veterans off benefits, but maybe they reckon such things differently in Vermont. Dean's charge does have a wisp of a connection to reality. Because the VA system was overwhelmed by a flood of new patients — many of them relatively well-off — it established a new rule saying that veterans with no medical problems relating to their service and an income above a certain threshold are not eligible for VA care. The rule affects an estimated 164,000 people. These are Dean's 164,000 veterans "cut off" from benefits. But they can't be cut off from benefits, because they never received them. The VA grandfathered in everyone already receiving care to make sure no one would be cut off. The idea that the Bush administration is somehow stingy with the VA is simply absurd. The VA budget has increased by about a third, going from $48 billion a year to $64 billion a year. This year, the VA will provide educational assistance to more than 400,000 people, and guarantee home loans of another 300,000 people, with the total value of about $40 billion. If Dean thinks this is ungenerous, what would be his alternative — giving veterans lifetime everything-for-free cards? Wait... You almost won $25,000!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 Originally posted by jamiroguy1 Wait... You almost won $25,000!!! I know of a person who missed on a 150K pool... no joke.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 Originally posted by mr mahs Here is a article picking apart Deans and the rest of you left wing dellusional idiots... enjoy Donkey... and i quote from the article that Crosspatrick posted:"Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, disputed the credibility of Bush's budget proposal. He doubted reducing VA medical staff could meet the expanding needs at the Veterans Health Administration.Rep. Bob Stump(R-AZ) noted the VA budget "identifies hundreds of millions of dollars needed for existing fixed costs, new advanced treatments and new initiatives to provide greater care for veterans. Unfortunately, the Administration hasn't included any new funding to address those needs."so Republicans are left wing delusional idiots now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 what can really make a democrat happy??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 Originally posted by bigpoppanils and i quote from the article that Crosspatrick posted:"Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, disputed the credibility of Bush's budget proposal. He doubted reducing VA medical staff could meet the expanding needs at the Veterans Health Administration.Rep. Bob Stump(R-AZ) noted the VA budget "identifies hundreds of millions of dollars needed for existing fixed costs, new advanced treatments and new initiatives to provide greater care for veterans. Unfortunately, the Administration hasn't included any new funding to address those needs."so Republicans are left wing delusional idiots now? The bottomline is if you make enough money,covered by a company health plan and weren't hurt on the battle field then the Veteran Health coverge is cut. lets look at why we can't provide for every American before we blast the govt for not offering it.. The President is putting forth a Tort Reform initiative that will hopefully reduce punitive damage payouts and reduce health costs. Until then the one health care system is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattbateman Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 tort reform is needed badlythe only real winners are the lawyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crosspatrick Posted February 2 Author Report Share Posted February 2 The Bush Administration's 2004 budget proposed gutting Veterans Administration (VA) services, including health care funding. Proposed cuts included: denying at least 360,000 veterans access to health care; $250 annual premiums; increased pharmacy co-payments; a 30 percent increased primary care co-payments; and increased waiting time for a first medical appointment. Because of budgetary shortfalls, the VA suspended the enrollment of veterans not injured in service earning between $24,450 and $38,100 annually. VFW officials estimated the administration's VA budget is at least $2 billion short of meeting the demand for quality health care.The FY 2004 budget approved by Congress calls for reducing VA funding over a 10-year period by $6.2 billion. Cuts are in the areas of veterans' health care and disability benefits.The cuts affect VA discretionary funding, which could mean discontinuation of burial benefits for veterans or delays in the cost-of-living adjustment for disability benefits.Some veterans must pay a new $250 annual enrollment fee to join the VA healthcare system. The VA believes 1.25 million veterans nationwide, already under the VA healthcare plan, may no longer be able to participate because of the new fee.Veterans who can remain under the VA health-care system will pay increased co-payments for physician benefits and prescription drug cost, amounting to an estimated increase in out-of-pocket expenses of $347 each year.The Bush Administration's budget proposal would have under-funded the VA by more than $2 billion. Bush's proposal would have cut the number of employees available to process disability claims, yet veterans already wait more than six months for a review of disability applications. The Bush plan for dealing with the waiting lists at VA clinics and hospitals is to reduce the number of veterans treated by the VA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakbeatz2 Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Originally posted by pattbateman what can really make a democrat happy??? nothing!they are like palestinian terrorists. nothing can make them happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysterynyc Posted February 4 Report Share Posted February 4 Originally posted by breakbeatz2 nothing!they are like palestinian terrorists. nothing can make them happy. nah...at least the terrorists will be happy when Israel is no more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.