Page 32 of 37 FirstFirst ... 222728293031323334353637 LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 727
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #621  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    weird-- just got off the phone with my councilman's office -- after our talk about the reason I called, he mentioned having to get back to a meeting on the Walter Reed closing, announced today. (I'm blocks from there)

    I've met Medea Benjamin a couple of times at demostrations before the war began -- incredibly passionate and compassionate woman.

    I've not seen those protests at Walter Reed -- maybe I'll go up there and video them for you all -- if any one can link me to a free video hoster that allows decent file size ...
    Not sure why you felt it was important to bring up Walter Reed being designated to close, but since you did. If you are blocks from there then you are aware that there are 2 major military hospitals (Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Bethesda Naval Hospital) and one smaller military hospital (Malcolm Grow Medical Center, USAF) all within, oh what, 30 miles of each other. Are the other 2 centers outside of your councilman's district? I think combining the services, which is what was announced several months ago when the BRAC list was announced will save money with maintaining only 1 major facility, all services will be available in one location, eliminate duplication of services within miles of each other. Maybe he will support the colocation of the medical centers in a cost saving move even if it means less for his district.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #622  
    I can not speak for the past year or upcoming 2-3, however I know what the budgets were from 1991-2003 and they were pitiful. Trust me, I have a vested interest in the VA and disabled retired military medical service. I would love to see more money funded for the VA, see retired military cared for as promised but I also know that every administartion has taken a bite out of that budget for years. I did not say what about Cliniton, I said regardless of who was in the White House and to blame them all equally.
  3. #623  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    regardless of who was in the White House and to blame them all equally.
    Clinton is worthy of blame, but Bush is more so.

    A "war"president bears a greater responsibility on taking care of the veterans of war. If you plan for war, you plan for the long term consequences of it too.
  4. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #624  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Clinton is worthy of blame, but Bush is more so.

    A "war"president bears a greater responsibility on taking care of the veterans of war. If you plan for war, you plan for the long term consequences of it too.
    I think every president has the same responsibility. They have to consider the future and plan accordingly, not say well no war today so let's cut funding for the VA. Long term planning starts years before we have an actual conflict, or it would not be called long term would it.
  5. #625  
    No I disagree, even though the VA is underfunded, when we are without war, gradually the veterans from the previous wars die and then there is less of a health burden. I saw it early in my career when the WWI vets were dying and now it is happening with the WWII vets, they are dying too.

    But this war puts an abrupt change in that decline which no previous president could or should have anticipated. This war is going to increase the costs of the VA for many many years to come.

    If there is a decline in the number of vets, then one should plan for that. If one increases the number of vets that need health care, one should plan for that too.

    So Clinton does not bear the responsiblity of increasing the funding of the VA to pay for Bush's war, Bush bears it.
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #626  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    No I disagree, even though the VA is underfunded, when we are without war, gradually the veterans from the previous wars die and then there is less of a health burden. I saw it early in my career when the WWI vets were dying and now it is happening with the WWII vets, they are dying too.

    But this war puts an abrupt change in that decline which no previous president could or should have anticipated. This war is going to increase the costs of the VA for many many years to come.

    If there is a decline in the number of vets, then one should plan for that. If one increases the number of vets that need health care, one should plan for that too.

    So Clinton does not bear the responsiblity of increasing the funding of the VA to pay for Bush's war, Bush bears it.
    As you should know working with the VA increase or decrease of funding through the POM and budgetary process is 5-7 years out at best so I think it would be foolish not to plan for a possible war time scenario. If this war is put in context and compared to a conflict with say N. Korea or China the number Veterans requiring treatment is miniscule. Using your analogy we should have had a very robust VA system in place during the cold war when we had troops sitting in the Fulda Gap waiting for the Russian invasion, and still there for a possible showdown with N. Korea, we do not nor have we had a large VA program readily available. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II all share the responsibility of the current state of our VA program.
  7. #627  
    Any president who cares enough to expend the minor political capitol can push through something as non-controverisal as increased funding for health benefits of veterans during wartime, and it does not take 5-7 years to do, it can be done immediately.

    While any infastructure that needs to be updated might take time, subcontracting care to existing outside facilities could take place immediately and last until new hospitals are built. So responding to increased need is much more dynamic than you put it forward to be. Also, the increased need is not miniscule, given the number of forces, escalation of casualties and lack of a satisfactory resolution any time soon.

    Clinton, Reagan and everyone else could have done something, but they can't do anything now, only Bush Jr. can and so far he is not doing what he should.

    When war casualties occur, he is responsible for his troops, he is the commander in chief.
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #628  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Any president who cares enough to expend the minor political capitol can push through something as non-controverisal as increased funding for health benefits of veterans during wartime, and it does not take 5-7 years to do, it can be done immediately.

    While any infastructure that needs to be updated might take time, subcontracting care to existing outside facilities could take place immediately and last until new hospitals are built. So responding to increased need is much more dynamic than you put it forward to be. Also, the increased need is not miniscule, given the number of forces, escalation of casualties and lack of a satisfactory resolution any time soon.

    Clinton, Reagan and everyone else could have done something, but they can't do anything now, only Bush Jr. can and so far he is not doing what he should.

    When war casualties occur, he is responsible for his troops, he is the commander in chief.
    In 24 years I have not seen this immediate push through. If it was non-controversial every president would do it, why has it never been done, all the way back to Vietnam?

    Sub-contracting to existing hospitals, while in theory is an excellant idea the bed space is just not there. When I say bed space I refer to actual rooms as well as trained staffing (doctors, nurses and technicians). If you work in the VA medical field I am sure you have seen patients diverted from hospital to hospital even in emergncy situations. I am sure we can ramp up the medical community for a short term emergent/urgent event but we can not sustain it for any length of time, the civilian sector is not capable of supporting a large influx of patients.

    You have taken my statement of miniscule in comparison to an all out conflict with Russia or N. Korea out of context. I would never say even one injured soldier is miniscule, however compare the numbers from Iraq to any other war we have ever been involved in and the numbers are miniscule in comparison.

    Every president could have and should have done something, however they do not have total control. Budgets have to be approved and that is where partisan politics steps in and the fight starts as to where these monies will go. Politicians are not willing to cut back on Pork Barrell projcets in their district to spend the money in someone elses district to enhance the VA or the military medical system.

    I still say they are all responsible for the failure to maintain an adequate VA healthcare system. Yes, we have an influx of injured soldiers needing care now but the majority are being seen in active military facilities. The amount of new VA patients from the Iraq conflict should not put that big of a burden on the system.
  9. #629  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Don't need to research, I see the actual budgets. This year and the next two to three projected years will be the worst I have seen it in the ten years I have been working at the VA.
    I thought you worked at Stanford, and Condi used to sign your checks??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  10. #630  
    well cardio, the VA needs better funding, the previous presidents can't do anything, the current one can and should, but is not doing what he should. Congress is also guilty. The politics of the situation are less important than the fact that it is just not getting done.

    I hope that this focus on injured soldiers, regardless of your disdain for SHeehan, and the agreed upon inappropriateness of using our troops as political chess pieces (which the GOP does too by the way, ie: if you disagree with the policy of the president you are minimizing the efforts of the troops and variations thereof), despite all of these negatives about the situation, my hope is that at least one small bit of good that might come from it is that there might be increased awareness of veteran's issues.

    I appreciate that you agree it would be good to support our veterans more than we are, I do not care who suffers or benefits politically, I would simply like to see that happen too.
  11. #631  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I thought you worked at Stanford, and Condi used to sign your checks??
    I'm dual appointment at the Palo Alto VA and at Stanford, like many of the other medical school faculty here.
  12. #632  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I'm dual appointment at the Palo Alto VA and at Stanford, like many of the other medical school faculty here.
    So when you spend hours on T|C is that VA time or Stanford time?? Just curious
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #633  
    poor patients
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  14. #634  
    Does Cindy have a hangover today?? How's her Mom??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #635  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    well cardio, the VA needs better funding, the previous presidents can't do anything, the current one can and should, but is not doing what he should. Congress is also guilty. The politics of the situation are less important than the fact that it is just not getting done.

    I hope that this focus on injured soldiers, regardless of your disdain for SHeehan, and the agreed upon inappropriateness of using our troops as political chess pieces (which the GOP does too by the way, ie: if you disagree with the policy of the president you are minimizing the efforts of the troops and variations thereof), despite all of these negatives about the situation, my hope is that at least one small bit of good that might come from it is that there might be increased awareness of veteran's issues.

    I appreciate that you agree it would be good to support our veterans more than we are, I do not care who suffers or benefits politically, I would simply like to see that happen too.
    Yes the VA needs funding, agreed upon by all I think. The politics are not the issue except that politics prevent the approved funding.

    Yes, I wish all parties would stop using the troops as political fodder, but that is just wishfull thinking. Disagreeing with the president and protesting at the front gate of a military medical center with "maimed for a lie" are different. Sheehanigans protest, in my opinon, has gone over the top, she is pushing a political objetive, if not drop the Israel rants etc.
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #636  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I'm dual appointment at the Palo Alto VA and at Stanford, like many of the other medical school faculty here.
    CM, if you have any cardiology fellows ready to go to work in the far East Bay area (Fairfield, Vacaville, Vallejo area) let me know.
  17. #637  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    So when you spend hours on T|C is that VA time or Stanford time?? Just curious
    Really? Well I am not curious at all about what you do.
  18. #638  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Really? Well I am not curious at all about what you do.
    Wow, Cell!!! Use a smiley at least...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  19. #639  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Wow, Cell!!! Use a smiley at least...
    She just constantly harrases me, every interaction is that way. It is hard to smile. but I put one in.
  20. #640  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Really? Well I am not curious at all about what you do. It just seems all you want to do is harrass me.
    Good, cause I'm just a student, but if you are getting paid by the VA, and spend all this time on the net....well.

    Why dont you just make your post and leave it instead of editing it 3 times
    Well behaved women rarely make history

Posting Permissions