Bush Administration Proposes Cut in Veteran Benefits - page 14

It seems that our President has given his blessing, no he specifically gave his approval, to cut benefits to veterans, increase the out of pocket cost some veterans pay for their meds, cut... Read More

  1. by   William_SRNA
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    And so, let's praise Bush and Co. for DECREASING spending. Do not want those pesky, PITA vets getting any "Free rides", would we? OMG this is disgusting. I can't see how anyone can agree w/what the Administration is wanting to do here.
    THERE ARE NO CUTS TO VETERANS, PERIOD!!!!! More knee jerk reactions and bush bashing from the uninformed.
  2. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from hoop_jumper
    THERE ARE NO CUTS TO VETERANS, PERIOD!!!!! More knee jerk reactions and bush bashing from the uninformed.
    Please tell me how Bush has increased or even maintained the current rate of expenditures to vets and/or the vet system. He has not. In fact, he has reduced spending. That is not bashing, that is stating a fact.

    Grannynurse
  3. by   BamaBound2bRN
    Some may have forgotten Civics or Government classes in grade school. So, here is a brief lesson, Congress (not President Bush) controls the federal spending. The President sends a Budget to Congress, which is really just a request for funds. Then the Congress bickers back and forth until they come up with a pork-laden budget, like keeping un-needed bases open.
  4. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from BamaBound2bRN
    Some may have forgotten Civics or Government classes in grade school. So, here is a brief lesson, Congress (not President Bush) controls the federal spending. The President sends a Budget to Congress, which is really just a request for funds. Then the Congress bickers back and forth until they come up with a pork-laden budget, like keeping un-needed bases open.
    Great point! Everybody tends to blame the president, as if he controls every aspect of the government.
    However, I sure would like to keep all bases open, as I see they are all completely necessary. Of course, I live 60 miles away from the most infiltrated part of the border, so I really want to keep our open!
  5. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from cardiacRN2006
    Great point! Everybody tends to blame the president, as if he controls every aspect of the government.
    However, I sure would like to keep all bases open, as I see they are all completely necessary. Of course, I live 60 miles away from the most infiltrated part of the border, so I really want to keep our open!
    The base that is, not necessarily the border!
  6. by   elthia
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    And so, let's praise Bush and Co. for DECREASING spending. Do not want those pesky, PITA vets getting any "Free rides", would we? OMG this is disgusting. I can't see how anyone can agree w/what the Administration is wanting to do here.

    LOL, the official story I heard was that the VA I work at was given an certain amount of $$$ for the fiscal year. then after the budget was made the amount of $$$ was decreased. So no OT for nurses, hiring freeze when staff are quitting like crazy due to poor working conditions. I once was denied OT for staying over when a patient was beginning to crash and I was racing him to the unit. Regularly work with 4 licensed and 1 unlicensed staff for 30+ acute care patients, and more frequently having to work with 3 licensed and 1-2 unlicensed staff. But have been told that there is no money allotted for recruitment efforts. so how are we going to get more nurses???

    Frankly, there are going to be more and more vets needing care, after all census at VA's started to decrease when the WWII vets started dying off due to age. But now we will have the various gulf war vets and the vets from afghanistan and iraq who will start to age and need more and more care. It's proven that more vets have liver disease, kidney failure, cancer, and diabetes due to whatever they are exposed to during their service.
    The govt. needs to plan on INCREASING the VA healthcare system NOW, so it doesn't buckle under in the next decade or so.
    Last edit by elthia on Aug 26, '05
  7. by   ali_gator
    Quote from hoop_jumper
    THERE ARE NO CUTS TO VETERANS, PERIOD!!!!! More knee jerk reactions and bush bashing from the uninformed.
    Poor, defenseless Bush.
  8. by   fotografe
    I recently did a story on the injuries sustained by today's soldiers. They are more devastating, in general, than those received by previous vets. Because of the types of weapons being used -- ie car bombs, suicide bombers coupled with our ability to render lifesaving care quickly to the injured -- there are more soldier's with injuries that require longterm care and rehab. I guess we developed protective gear for traditional warfare that does indeed prevent many devastating injuries, but this type of warfare was not planned for. Funding needs to go up even if actual numbers don't go up, as the severity of injuries has increased.

    Thanks for clarifying how the VA system works. I didn't understand it before. I do think that treatment for service related injuries should be funded fully. Hope the increases in VA funding covers what is to come.
    Quote from kmchugh

    Those of you who decry the current "funding cuts" are simply incorrect. As demonstrated by the web site that Begalli sent us to, funding for veteran's issues are increasing, not decreasing. On the other hand, as Deb has pointed out, the numbers of disabled veterans may be going up, though I haven't seen any figures to back that up. Given that this is true, shouldn't the money we have allocated to veterans issues be spent on those with service connected conditions? Or are all of you suggesting that the VA should provide full care to ALL veterans free of charge? If so, be prepared to increase VA funding by at least 10 times the current levels.
    Kevin McHugh
  9. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from BamaBound2bRN
    Some may have forgotten Civics or Government classes in grade school. So, here is a brief lesson, Congress (not President Bush) controls the federal spending. The President sends a Budget to Congress, which is really just a request for funds. Then the Congress bickers back and forth until they come up with a pork-laden budget, like keeping un-needed bases open.
    And you seem to have forgotten, the President has to sign on the budget bill. And that he has line item veto. And that he makes his desire and spending level known to the members of Congress. If one is going to give a civic's lesson, please give it in it entirety. Federal spending is controled by two of our three branchs of government. And since both are of the same party, excuses are rather lame.

    Grannynurse
  10. by   kmchugh
    Quote from grannynurse FNP student
    Please tell me how Bush has increased or even maintained the current rate of expenditures to vets and/or the vet system. He has not. In fact, he has reduced spending. That is not bashing, that is stating a fact.

    Grannynurse
    No, that's not fact. You are in fact repeating a lie. In fact, if you go way back to the beginning of this thread, you will find an article referenced by Begalli that demonstrates that veteran's funding is increasing. While it's not much of an increase, any increase would be the exact opposite of reduced spending. As I quoted from the article earlier:

    "Although the proposed 2006 federal budget calls for a 1 percent increase in the overall veterans affairs allotment -- from $67.5 billion to $68.2 billion -- some programs are recommended for cuts, in part to compensate for rising disability and pension costs."

    Earlier you wrote in response to me about the problems your brother and father were having being seen as retirees in military hospitals. That's a different issue, and one that I strongly agree with you about. That is a case of promises made not being kept. However, that was a problem before I got out of the military in 1993. As I recall, GWB wasn't the President in 93. It was part of the "peace dividend." Which president gave us that? Part of the downsizing of the military included downsizing the medical branches of the military, and therefore they were able to care for fewer patients. Hence, retirees moved further down the list. Though they can go to the VA.

    Kevin McHugh
  11. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from kmchugh
    No, that's not fact. You are in fact repeating a lie. In fact, if you go way back to the beginning of this thread, you will find an article referenced by Begalli that demonstrates that veteran's funding is increasing. While it's not much of an increase, any increase would be the exact opposite of reduced spending. As I quoted from the article earlier:

    "Although the proposed 2006 federal budget calls for a 1 percent increase in the overall veterans affairs allotment -- from $67.5 billion to $68.2 billion -- some programs are recommended for cuts, in part to compensate for rising disability and pension costs."

    Earlier you wrote in response to me about the problems your brother and father were having being seen as retirees in military hospitals. That's a different issue, and one that I strongly agree with you about. That is a case of promises made not being kept. However, that was a problem before I got out of the military in 1993. As I recall, GWB wasn't the President in 93. It was part of the "peace dividend." Which president gave us that? Part of the downsizing of the military included downsizing the medical branches of the military, and therefore they were able to care for fewer patients. Hence, retirees moved further down the list. Though they can go to the VA.

    Kevin McHugh
    Excuse me, but neither my father, nor my brother nor I were promised having our medical care provided for, by the VA system. All three of us were promised life time medical care, in a military hospital or a civilian one if the military one was not within a reasonable distance. And the problem with access started back in the 80s, not 1993. And not under Clinton but under Reagen. It has always been an issue with career military, of promises made and not kept. Bush has never had to fight a day in his life. And he doe not have the foggest idea of what it is like to be career military. My family does. He talks the talk. Too bad he doesn't know the walk.

    Gtannynurse
  12. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Ok if spending is increasing, is it enough to keep up?

    If not, a decrease is actually being felt. If the Administration is not willing to increase spending to keep up w/needs, then it's not nearly enough

    But I will concede: you make a great case as far as the Admininstration NOT decreasing spending. I get your point Kevin.

    I will just leave the thread saying, if there is ONE vet "going without" anything he/she needs, who is rightfully eligible, it's not nearly enough and it's wrong.
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from SmilingBluEyes
    I will just leave the thread saying, if there is ONE vet "going without" anything he/she needs, who is rightfully eligible, it's not nearly enough and it's wrong.
    Amen to that!

close