http://www.katu.com/news/national/10034346.html

It's too bad you chose to make this a political discussion instead of a discussion of how veterans are treated. Bashing the Right is just too much fun to talk about anything serious.

The fact of the matter is that we as a nation have treated our veterans shabbily for years. I'm specifically referring to those with injuries received in battle. Military personnel receive horrendous injuries and can no longer lead a normal life. Too my way of thinking, we owe them a living for the rest of their lives. We owe them the best medical care we can give them, forever. We owe them an income.

This shabby treatment has gone on through all administrations. The review you quote has gone on for 10 years. Congress has done nothing. Don't insult us by politicizing it. What I want to know is why is there no will to get it fixed, now.

I agree with Deane that this is non-partisan.

"The report found that even though the Army has touted creation of more personalized medical care units so that wounded veterans don't slip through the cracks, nearly half - or 46 percent - of returning service members who were eligible did not get the service due to staffing shortages.

The report said after 10 years of review, the Pentagon and VA still remain far away from having a comprehensive system for sharing medical records as injured veterans move from facility to facility.

And despite months of review by no less than eight congressional committees, a presidential task force, a presidential commission and the Pentagon and VA itself, the government has no apparent solution for reducing severe delays of 177 days, on average, in providing disability payments."

I blame the Right because the right-wing sent us to was in two countries without support on the battlefield or at home. Some of the billions being spent overseas could be used NOW! to take care of our vets. I agree that every administrations, Democrat and Republican has failed our vets, but this administration has only made it worse.

You who support these wars should demand better care for the troops.

I do oppose this war, and have from the start. One of my biggest reasons is that I know quite a few veterans, from previous conflicts, who were receiving this kind of runaround before "Mission Accomplished."

Yes, the shrub has only made it worse with massive cutbacks.

What cutbacks, the VA has received funding increases much larger than Carter or Clinton ever even proposed.

I agree with Radioblogman. The human cost of the Iraq occupation in particular is usually quoted in number of soldiers killed. But the cost is far higher than that, in terms of injuries, permanent disability, PTSD, divorces, domestic issues, etc. It's the Bush administration that so eagerly got us into this mess and continues create more and more injured veterans and broken homes. It's kind of silly to talk only about how we treat our veterans AFTER they are wounded...

Andrew

I think so much is being spent, good treatment is very difficult right now, no matter what the intention is.

So, since this is a political issue, it's better to just leave the soldiers twisting in the wind. When it turns political there is no way to win, so just leave it the way it is. You guys are too much.

Despite the funding increases by this administration and others, cutbacks on benefits have been implemented several times in the last six years or so. Veterans of this current conflict are returning home to indifference, massive red tape and sometimes end up homeless. Each and every veteran deserves the best care and treatment possible. We agree on that, don't we?

>>>"We agree on that, don't we?"

Yes we do. What we don't agree on is that it's limited to the Bush administration. It's been going on since Vietnam. Since it immediately turns political, it cant' be addressed in any sane manner.

By the way, isn't it Congress who decides where the money is spent? Oh Nancy, Harry!

Name one cutback in benefits. The only one I know of, is that for non service injuries, if you have a high income and have insurance, your have to use your insurance first.

It's better not to cavalierly create more NEED for VA care.

Deane writes:
So, since this is a political issue, it's better to just leave the soldiers twisting in the wind. When it turns political there is no way to win, so just leave it the way it is. You guys are too much.

Who said we should leave things as they are? Besides you?

Has it occurred to you that it's much harder to "fix" problems with veteran care when you keep creating more and more and more wounded and disabled veterans? This is a looming catastrophe that we will probably have to start dealing with in about 5-10 years, when Bush will be long gone. He hasn't had to account for the enormous back-end cost to our veterans in all his selling of the Iraq occupation.

Andrew

Hey, I didn't say leave it the way it is. I was actually thinking about giving the GOP some benefit of the doubt.

Silly me.

Let's fix it proper then:

Our veterans care is inexcusable. It needs to be fixed at any cost, as those veterans have already given plenty, that burden falls on us.

So, raise taxes, cut something else, print money if needed to get these guys taken care of! That's where I'm at. I really don't care how much it costs.

My greater point being, for a party working their ass off to some how pull it out on a war, supposedly being fought on credit, the idea of asking for EVEN MORE money ABOVE AND BEYOND the PILE OF IT, they've already chewed through, WITH NO SOLID RESULTS, is highly likely to not play well. Probably looks just impossible.

Given the strong party UNITY (as in blind, "I'll follow you over the cliff buddy, just you go first!) we see in the GOP, right now, those members, who would rather see our veterans treated better and with some dignity, really don't have any solid options at this point.

And that's why I wrote what I did. Good treatment is the right thing to do, but is very difficult for a lot of political reasons. Honestly, I think there is a significant fraction of the remaining GOP, who would address this issue in a minute, if they were able.

Vit sez: "It's better not to cavalierly create more NEED for VA care."

*BAM!* --Right in the sack.

Love it.

>>>"It's better not to cavalierly create more NEED for VA care."

It makes me sick every time I see or hear about one of these fine young people getting severely injured, but, we can't conduct our foreign policy effectively if we don't have the stomach to send our troops in because of fear they might become injured.

I am thankful that our military is spending a great deal of money developing weaponry that keeps our military out of harms way. The cruise missile was one of the best developments ever. Drones are right up there with them.

...thus the word, "cavalierly"!

It's not the fear of getting injured that's at issue. It's policy that does not accomplish anything.

The reason there can be no worthwhile discussion on this forum of things like veteran's treatment is that everything has to turn into Bush bashing.

That is because it is in Bush's hands now.

All he has to say is "Fund treatment of our vets now," and it would be done.

Exactly!

Not only is it his policy costing us an assload, but his leadership that would keep the pressure on to take care of the vets!

Commander in Chief really does apply in this case, does it not?

Deane, do you not believe in accountability for one's actions?

Let's just have the FBI shoot the sonofabitch so you can be happy.

That's not necessary. I prefer real justice rather than vigilante justice.

DJ said>>>
The reason there can be no worthwhile discussion on this forum of things like veteran's treatment is that everything has to turn into Bush bashing.

That's because DUHbya and Co. are in charge!!!!! ARE THEY NOT???? Just like everything was and still is Slick Willy's fault in YOUR eyes. It's his ship and HE is the LEADER of America. I would think that this would be HIS problem

When you consider the current President Bush's administration increased VA spending in his first 3 years more than Clinton did in 8, and started policies to streamline filing claims etc. There is always room for improvement, but President Bush has been very supportative of American servicemen and their families.

"President Bush has been very supportative of American servicemen and their families."

Yep, and he's so supportive he keeps sending more to get killed and maimed.

Nwokie: The debacle at Walter Reed started under Bush's watch.

The increases are a false positive. Demand has increased many times over the meager increases we've seen to date.

Vietnam vets are getting older and starting to require more care. Increases in the VA budget were not goodwill gestures on the part of a veteran-loving George W. Bush - they were REQUIRED just to maintain the current level of care. Some would say the increases have not been enough to keep up with the increased need.

In 30 years, a future president will need to increase VA funding to start caring for Iraq vets who will need more care as they age.

Andrew

>>>"Nwokie: The debacle at Walter Reed started under Bush's watch."

Must be a magic building that can stand there for years, then suddenly rapidly deteriorate when Bush get in.

It was just exposed under Bush's watch. The problem looks to have existed for some time.

The problem may have been there for years, but the building was not being used until too many injured vets came home and overcrowded the system.

I don't blame George Jr. for the bad building, just for creating the need to use it again. And I agree he was blindsided by the generals who covered up the problem.

Yet, now that he knows the problem, he should spend some the billions he is giving to Haliburton , and take care of all vets.

Darktemper writes:
It was just exposed under Bush's watch. The problem looks to have existed for some time.

Right, but until Bush there hadn't been many wounded soldiers needing care recently. Veterans are cared for by the VA hospital system, not the military hospital system of which Walter Reed is part. If you are going to go all King Kong and take America into all these military conflicts, beefing up the military hospital system should have been part of the plan. Apparently it wasn't. And yes, that *IS* Bush's fault, ultimately - he's supposedly the head of the executive branch and the military. Sorry the truth hurts.

Andrew

Actually, the VA system probably has more WWII and Korean veterans than Vietnam veterans,

You'd have thought Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower would have planned for that.

Nwokie, I think you are confused. I said Bush should have planned for beefing up the military hospital system while planning these conflicts in which a lot of American troops might need care. I also said he should have funded the VA more than he did to accommodate the projected increase of Vietnam vets entering the system as they age.

I did not say Bush should be planning for VA needs in 30 years when the Iraq vets will need care - I said a future president will have to deal with that.

As for Truman, he tried to get universal health care, which would have reduced or eliminated the need for a separate VA at all.

Andrew

The VA is what you get, when you have socialised medecine, or govt ran/controlled health care.

You get doctors that are willing to work for much lower salaries, because they lost their liability insurance, or have just been unable
tp perform well enough to stay in the private sector.