Conservowacko denies Bush Mistreating Veterans

[kaitykaity]

Can anybody here refute his claims? I know from Randi
Rhodes about the veterans at Ft. Benning who are living
in a training barracks who can't get to see a doctor.
I also know about the Defense Department directive not to
tell veterans about benefits they are eligible for.

Anything else would be helpful. I want to write a slammin'
LTTE.

http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1074171466196160.xml

David Reinhard,
15 January 2004

If you're in the George-Bush-as-Antichrist crowd, the charge must not only seem plausible, but also have a certain poetry about it. While U.S. soldiers are fighting and dying -- or being wounded and maimed -- in Iraq, President Bush is back here at home cutting veterans' benefits.

Not unrelatedly, the charge unites the far ends of today's Democratic Party. White House hopefuls from Howard Dean to Joe Lieberman regularly lambaste the Bush administration's hypocrisy when it comes to America's fighting men and women.

In fact, the allegation is repeated so often you start thinking it must be true, and the outrage builds. How could an administration that relies so heavily on today's soldiers and says all the right things about veterans violate the solemn duty set down in President Lincoln's second inaugural -- "To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and her orphan"? How?

But is the charge true?

Veterans' medical care funding will go from $23.9 billion in 2003 to $26.7 billion in 2004. That's a $2.8 billion or 12 percent increase, and it comes on the heels of a $2.6 billion increase -- another 12 percent boost -- in 2003. Overall veterans' funding would go up by $5.6 billion last year. That's a 10 percent increase in one year.

[Racenut20]

1. I am one

Ever since the VN war, all vets were committed one catastrophic illness treatment. ie, If I should have a heart attack or cancer it would be covered. As of January 16, 2003, if you were not already being treated for such illness, no new applications are being accepted. Thus that coverage is gone.

[papau]

2. Check Col. Hackworth's site

There are many sites that track the fact that Bush has both tried (in combat pay only to have Congress reject his idea) and succeeded - as in health care - in screwing Vets and folks in the military.

Hack's is one of the best.

[aquart]

3. No links, but questions.

The 2.8 billion increase.....the 12 percent. Adjusted for inflation?

Medical costs go up yearly because BushCo refuses to restrain them.

What does this percent mean in terms of wounded entering the vet care system? Is the system being expected to care for more or less than 12% more individuals? What kind of care is expected to be necessary? Will it cost more or less than this 12%?

If we are not at war, and veterans of old wars die daily, then this increase is nice indeed, helping the elderly with the extra problems of old age on top of their old wounds.

But is it enough for thousands of grievously wounded young men and women, for their prosthetics, care, rehabilitation, or permanent catastrophic care for those in a vegetative state? How much does it cost to care for a man who has lost one leg? One arm? Both legs? Become quadriplegic? Suffered a severe head injury necessitating permanent care, feeding, and diapers? How much does it cost for one? For seven thousand?

You might want to look for those figures.

[leftbend]

4. There are a lot of veteran's sites

As mentioned by an earlier poster try http:// hackworth.com. The DAV, VFW and TROA,(the retired officers association) also have information on their pages. Those are just a few , there are many more. In the same period the budget has increased the number of veterans entering the system has greatly increased plus inflation of medical and pharmacy cost in that time. The result is a greatly underfunded system. I am a disabled Vietnam veteran and I can tell you my personal experiences that this is the most hostile administration toward veterans that I have encountered.