Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. koche005's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    58 Global Posts
       #1  
    I work at a VA hospital. We are currently receiving many wounded service personnel from Iraq (over 30,000 nation-wide). At this same time, our budget has been drastically cut, and more cuts are pending. Many of our older Vets from WWII and Korea have lost their eligibility (read: lost their health care) due to Mr. Bush's budget cuts. Many of our Vets can't work because of service-related injuries. They have had their copayments and prescription fees raised dramatically. I met a man the other day who has had to stop taking his meds because he can't afford it. He's only 50 years old and he will probably die from heart failure or stroke without this prescription. Mr Bush has also attempted to eliminate overtime pay for nurses and make routine overtime a requirement.

    We here at the VA support our troops with every thing we do, every day. Mr. Bush has shown that he's good at talking and flag waving, but kicks our guys and gals when they're down.
  2. #2  
    Interesting....... your post makes it sound as if all people have been cut from benifits. I wonder what the criteria is. My father has the same risk of stroke or hart failure do to high blood pressure and cholesterol (His is 56) and there has never been a problem with him getting meds from the VA. In fact that is one reason he will be sure to vote for Bush... To insure his benifits are not cut.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Interesting....... your post makes it sound as if all people have been cut from benifits. I wonder what the criteria is. My father has the same risk of stroke or hart failure do to high blood pressure and cholesterol (His is 56) and there has never been a problem with him getting meds from the VA. In fact that is one reason he will be sure to vote for Bush... To insure his benifits are not cut.
    Ditto for my Dad.
  4. koche005's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    58 Global Posts
       #4  
    I never said that all people have been cut (how the heck did you get that?). But it's very sad to see ANY people who are in need and don't have alternatives lose their health care. I'm glad your familes are OK for now, but the planned cuts may affect them in the future. For more details:
    http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempFi...bushtroops.htm

    Remember, they were there for us, we ought to be there for them!


    PS the vet I mentioned was on "blood thinners" because of a dire condition. He is more than high risk, his risk is imminent.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by koche005
    I never said that all people have been cut (how the heck did you get that?). But it's very sad to see ANY people who are in need and don't have alternatives lose their health care. I'm glad your familes are OK for now, but the planned cuts may affect them in the future. For more details:
    http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempFi...bushtroops.htm

    Remember, they were there for us, we ought to be there for them!


    PS the vet I mentioned was on "blood thinners" because of a dire condition. He is more than high risk, his risk is imminent.
    Sorry I just meant it makes it sound like that. I still would like to know what the criteria is. As mentioned my Father is also on blood thinners.

    I appreciate the link but I couldn't find evidence that it is indeed fact. Is there anywhere someone could verify the cuts? Do to the constant change in Kerry's positions I cant no longer accept any Democratic campaign statements for face value.

    I absolutely agree that the President should support all troops both past and present. I just cant find any EVIDENCE that Bush doesn't.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by koche005
    We are currently receiving many wounded service personnel from Iraq (over 30,000 nation-wide)...
    If you want anyone to believe anything you say, you shouldnt exaggerate things like the number of American troops wounded in Iraq. The number is just over 8,000.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    If you want anyone to believe anything you say, you shouldnt exaggerate things like the number of American troops wounded in Iraq. The number is just over 8,000.
    "Just over 8,000"?! My God, are 8,000 soldiers just bread crumbs? One is too many!
    You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
    -Michael Pritchard
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by koche005
    I work at a VA hospital. We are currently receiving many wounded service personnel from Iraq (over 30,000 nation-wide). At this same time, our budget has been drastically cut, and more cuts are pending. Many of our older Vets from WWII and Korea have lost their eligibility (read: lost their health care) due to Mr. Bush's budget cuts. Many of our Vets can't work because of service-related injuries. They have had their copayments and prescription fees raised dramatically. I met a man the other day who has had to stop taking his meds because he can't afford it. He's only 50 years old and he will probably die from heart failure or stroke without this prescription. Mr Bush has also attempted to eliminate overtime pay for nurses and make routine overtime a requirement.

    We here at the VA support our troops with every thing we do, every day. Mr. Bush has shown that he's good at talking and flag waving, but kicks our guys and gals when they're down.

    I work for the VA too. Everything you're saying is happening where I am too. Also, ignore Claire's ignorant comments - she has directed them towards me when I've made these same points over the last few months.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Sorry I just meant it makes it sound like that. I still would like to know what the criteria is. As mentioned my Father is also on blood thinners.

    I appreciate the link but I couldn't find evidence that it is indeed fact. Is there anywhere someone could verify the cuts? Do to the constant change in Kerry's positions I cant no longer accept any Democratic campaign statements for face value.

    I absolutely agree that the President should support all troops both past and present. I just cant find any EVIDENCE that Bush doesn't.
    The cuts have been widely publicized. The biggest change was just made recently. Any Veteran who makes over 25,000 a year is NO LONGER ELIGIBLE for ANY veteran's health care services of any kind. So, if you, for example, lose a limb and can get a job that pays 25k or more, you get NOTHING from the VA. This has affectively thrown out many Vets from the WW2 era who are on social security and close to the poverty line or just above it.

    http://veterans.house.gov/democratic...3-03budget.htm
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Interesting....... your post makes it sound as if all people have been cut from benifits. I wonder what the criteria is. My father has the same risk of stroke or hart failure do to high blood pressure and cholesterol (His is 56) and there has never been a problem with him getting meds from the VA. In fact that is one reason he will be sure to vote for Bush... To insure his benifits are not cut.
    Conservative praise to nation-wide government operated health plan! I knew you all would finally see the light!
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/01/2004 at 02:27 PM.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Conservative praise to nation-wide government operated health plan! I knew you all would finally see the light!
    LOL
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    I work for the VA too. Everything you're saying is happening where I am too. Also, ignore Claire's ignorant comments - she has directed them towards me when I've made these same points over the last few months.
    Either its 8000 or its not? Whats ignorant about it? These are the numbers the Pentagon released Oct 19th. I find it strange her comment is brushed off as ignorance when her numbers have a verifiable source, yet you have no rebuttal.

    Do you have a source with a much different number? By the very definition, your statement is ignorant since your are ignoring facts simply because you don't want to believe them.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Either its 8000 or its not? Whats ignorant about it? These are the numbers the Pentagon released Oct 19th. I find it strange her comment is brushed off as ignorance when her numbers have a verifiable source, yet you have no rebuttal.

    Do you have a source with a much different number? By the very definition, your statement is ignorant since your are ignoring facts simply because you don't want to believe them.
    The people that the pentagon reports as "wounded" are people who are wounded in what is deemed a "combat" scenario. The pentagon plays fast and loose with that definition for the purposes of DAMAGE CONTROL. Example: driver in Army convoy receives life threatening injuries in truck crash while trying to drive away from sniper fire. That is NOT counted as a combat-related casualty. If he'd been SHOT by the sniper, then it would be. See the slippery slope?

    This is an article that discusses these dynamics:

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...ent_id=2008146

    There have also been numerous issues around the award of purple hearts to wounded soldiers who have served in Iraq. The Pentagon does not want THOSE numbers to get too high either:

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-13.htm

    And I might also mention that "ignoring" facts is not an option for me. I see the "facts" each and every day in my job.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by carter437
    Either its 8000 or its not? Whats ignorant about it? These are the numbers the Pentagon released Oct 19th. I find it strange her comment is brushed off as ignorance when her numbers have a verifiable source, yet you have no rebuttal.

    Do you have a source with a much different number? By the very definition, your statement is ignorant since your are ignoring facts simply because you don't want to believe them.
    You'll find that eurokitten never really responds. Just rambles on like she was in the room all by her self
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    You'll find that eurokitten never really responds. Just rambles on like she was in the room all by her self
    There are posts you never responded to as well.
    You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop laughing.
    -Michael Pritchard
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    The people that the pentagon reports as "wounded" are people who are wounded in what is deemed a "combat" scenario. The pentagon plays fast and loose with that definition for the purposes of DAMAGE CONTROL. Example: driver in Army convoy receives life threatening injuries in truck crash while trying to drive away from sniper fire. That is NOT counted as a combat-related casualty. If he'd been SHOT by the sniper, then it would be. See the slippery slope?

    This is an article that discusses these dynamics:

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea...ent_id=2008146

    There have also been numerous issues around the award of purple hearts to wounded soldiers who have served in Iraq. The Pentagon does not want THOSE numbers to get too high either:

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-13.htm

    And I might also mention that "ignoring" facts is not an option for me. I see the "facts" each and every day in my job.

    Thanks for the information. I was pointing out, in a debate, its good to give counter information when discounting someone elses. From what I've found, even on news accounts suspicious of the "official count" put the numbers at around 12,000.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Conservative praise to nation-wide government operated health plan! I knew you all would finally see the light!
    From Eurokitty's links:

    A United Press International investigation, published Oct. 20, revealed that many wounded veterans from Iraq, under care at places such as the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, must wait "weeks and months for proper medical help"


    sounds about right for government health care.

    Found it sad, but typical, that in London companies advertise health insurance that will send you to private hospitals if you have to wait more than 6 weeks to see a doctor.
  18. #18  
    Your fellow conservatives disagree carter and think the VA (government health care) is a good system. Don't worry, Hillary won't be running for another 8 years.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/01/2004 at 04:09 PM.
  19. #19  
    Well there is two aspects here. One I don't see how you anyway showed I need a new argument. My basic premise was that most government health care leads to an over demand and under supplied system. As evident by the VA, UK and Canada.

    The other aspect is that I don't believe others should be forced to carry the burden of my healthcare. Most conservatives make an exception for the VA, because they believe those who serve in the military have paid an extremely high price for the care they receive. Of course there are problems with the VA, but I agree with the reasoning behind it.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Oops
    There are posts you never responded to as well.
    I've been away. I just finished mid-terms.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions