the problem was the VA was never given the proper resources to do its job.
If congress authorizes the wars what difference does it make? Congress voted to authorize both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. How pray tell do the veterans get different treatment based on whether a war is authorized or declared? I suspect that your only motive is that you want to think that if it was merely authorized, you can blame Bush.
Baloney......Funding is not the issue. 2010 funding was around 112 billion dollars and it has increased by 25 billion every year since. The issue is administration.
The department says it is trying to fill 400 vacancies to add to its roster of primary care doctors, which last year numbered 5,100.
“The doctors are good but they are overworked, and they feel inadequate in the face of the inordinate demands made on them,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. “The exploding workload is suffocating them.” The inspector general’s report also pointed to another factor that may explain why hospital officials in Phoenix and elsewhere might have falsified wait-time data: pressures to excel in the annual performance reviews used to determine raises, bonuses, promotions and other benefits. Instituted widely 20 years ago to increase accountability for weak employees as well as reward strong ones, those reviews and their attendant benefits may have become perverse incentives for manipulating wait-time data, some lawmakers and experts say.
yet there is a shortage of doctors available in the VA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/us/doctor-shortages-cited-in-va-hospital-waits.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0
But the fact is, most were not Veterans of any kind!
In my experience, maybe 10% who claim to be Veterans really are Veterans. The rest are playing off of ignorance in the hopes to get money. Nothing more, and nothing less.
And you are nothing but a troll, who are now going to be treated as one as far as I am concerned.
If congress authorizes the wars what difference does it make? Congress voted to authorize both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. How pray tell do the veterans get different treatment based on whether a war is authorized or declared? I suspect that your only motive is that you want to think that if it was merely authorized, you can blame Bush.
yet there is a shortage of doctors available in the VA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/us/doctor-shortages-cited-in-va-hospital-waits.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0
That is definitely open to debate but how the military IN GENERAL, and the VA get treated, is not.
If it's not a Congressional declaration of war, they get to put everything on the credit card and pass it along to the NEXT ADMINISTRATION.
So did the son. It was not a spur of the moment decision to go to war in 2003. The administration actually took much longer to prepare then the senior Bush did. And it's hard to take you seriously when you call Rumsfeld a chickenhawk. He served in the Navy. He is a veteran.They also get to sidestep a ton of requirements that have everything to do with being prepared for war, and they get to leave the planning to chickenhawks like Rumsfeld who is famous for saying "You go to war with the Army you have" despite the fact that it was a planned war and not a defensive move.
When Daddy Bush invaded Iraq at least he took the time to get ready, he made sure the services had what they needed.
It might not have been an official declaration of war but Daddy Bush at least treated it as if it was.
You don't "go to war with the Army you have", you BUILD the Army you need.
Likewise with the VA, Congress gets to pretend that we're not really at war, thus they get to treat VA funding as a whim.
No matter what you're looking at with regard to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in the DoD, the armed services, the VA, the military hospitals, ANYTHING...the moment Congress officially declares WAR, no matter what the item or issue is, Congress GETS HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
When Congress officially declares war, you don't have wives and mothers holding bake sales to make sure the soldiers bulletproof vests and enough armor on their vehicles."
:lol: your response to having government described to you is to fall back on human nature? Dude - that makes my argument for me. Humans act differently with different incentive structures and knowledge bases. You are absolutely correct that there is too much about healthcare for anyone to know - that's why centralizing healthcare decision making inside of government is a really really dumb idea. You are absolutely correct that people are fallen - that's why trusting a system such as government which does not allow for negative incentives to push them to be as least fallible as possible guarantees increased failure. The people that screwed up the VA system and screwed over Vets didn't get fired. They got bonuses. Government employees have less accountability than private sector, not least because they can't be fired. Why do you think that before he resigned Shinseki advocated for Congress to pass a bill allowing the VA Secretary to fire bad performers? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE FIRED NOW. Limited resources isn't a concern? Why do you think they had the waiting lists in the first place? :lol:
So yeah dude. It's government. But cute strawman rant.
it may be a broken system, but it was allowed to become broken by the people supposed to oversee the system.
i refuse to accept the notion that this system is so beyond salvation that it should be scrapped and handed over to private enterprise.
So did the son. It was not a spur of the moment decision to go to war in 2003.
The administration actually took much longer
And it's hard to take you seriously when you call Rumsfeld a chickenhawk. He served in the Navy. He is a veteran.
This seems to be sinking into a partisan anti-war debate. The point remains, the VA scandal has to to with administration....not funding. To Obama and congress's credit, funding was significantly increased in 2010 and has increased by 25 billion every year since...however for all practical purposes, not a damn thing has been done administratively to improve the functioning of the VA.
Not an either-or argument at least not on my end. The funds that were spent were misappropriated and it's a management and administrative issue.
I GRANT YOU EVERYTHING in that regard.
But it is, has been and continues to be a political football, for the self interest of Congress and at the veteran's expense.
Which may not have happened or continued if EACH Congress member who voted to declare war knew that he or she would have his or her name and possibly their re-election directly connected to the action or inaction and its consequences.
Without the public debate that would have occurred under the consideration for a Congressional Declaration of War there was and is no real national sense of responsibility and sacrifice and no lasting public gratitude for vets. The only reason Congress is faux apoplectic over the recent VA issue is because of mid-term elections. Fact is the public was only briefly concerned about the VA and soon it will be off the national radar screen. One of the reasons for that is that John and Jane Q. Public by and large were never involved, never willingly sacrificed jack squat, and other than a yellow ribbon feel good moment don't give a rat's ass.
You got what you wanted:
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[2][7] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[8] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[9] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.Someone is uninformed and intends to stay that way.
United States House of Representatives
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
And that is what this thread is supposed to be all about. That's why I will not comment on the preceding comments which were laced with nothing but partisan vitriol.
Ofcourse it continues to be a political football. That is part of how our government works. Without the political football angle nothing would get done and nobody would be held accountable.
Nothing gets done when you play football.
I mean, something does get done...a few people make a lot of money, a lot of people get their lives, their security and their future messed with.
But nothing gets done in terms of Congress serving the people.
So no, I disagree that this is part of how our government is supposed to work.
It's part of how it works now, but it's wrong on a lot of levels.
The notion that caring for veterans is political is wrong.
I disagree. Politics does have it's good side. Many good things start with someone's misfortune leading to congress getting involved and in some cases changing or adding new laws. One example is "Megan's Law". The Obama administration did not seem to care about veterans. If it did, it would have worked hard to fix the issue that has now become a scandal. If not for whistleblowers bringing the issue to light, the problems would continue to exist in the VA healthcare system...it would be business as usual. In the long run...I really don't care what the motive is for the politicians to fix it as long as they do fix it.
Yes, that was a resolution to use force. It was not a declaration of war. A declaration of war is quiet different legally and opens Congress and the President to greater individual accountability and obligates the public at large to the very real possibility of tangible sacrifice.
No one can fix this. It is time to abolish the VA. Let each veteran be provided with a fixed amount of money each year in the form of a voucher.Anything not spent by the veteran becomes that veteran's property at the end of each year.You do know those waiting lists began in 2002 under Bush, right? You do know that his administration was informed of those waiting lists problems too, right?
This is not to say that the Obama administration is not responsible - he's got the helm right now, so he's responsible - that's the way it has to be. Y'all just need to bear in mind that this was never just an "Obama problem".
And Shinseki had to go - even if Obama wasn't personally aware, Shinseki had to be, and so had to be held accountable.
I disagree. Politics does have it's good side. Many good things start with someone's misfortune leading to congress getting involved and in some cases changing or adding new laws. One example is "Megan's Law". The Obama administration did not seem to care about veterans. If it did, it would have worked hard to fix the issue that has now become a scandal. If not for whistleblowers bringing the issue to light, the problems would continue to exist in the VA healthcare system...it would be business as usual. In the long run...I really don't care what the motive is for the politicians to fix it as long as they do fix it.
Since you have made the statement what do you mean that your version of a declaration opens the Congress and the President to greater individual accountability?Yes, that was a resolution to use force. It was not a declaration of war. A declaration of war is quiet different legally and opens Congress and the President to greater individual accountability and obligates the public at large to the very real possibility of tangible sacrifice.
It was a declaration of war. You are simply wrong.
No one can fix this. It is time to abolish the VA. Let each veteran be provided with a fixed amount of money each year in the form of a voucher.Anything not spent by the veteran becomes that veteran's property at the end of each year.
Since you have made the statement what do you mean that your version of a declaration opens the Congress and the President to greater individual accountability?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?