Bush Administration Proposes Cut in Veteran Benefits - page 5

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   kmchugh
    And just to hammer the point home, go to this thread:

    https://allnurses.com/forums/showthr...73#post1042473

    The thread is from January of this year. None of our current crop of outraged had much to say here. Probably never even saw the thread. It's title was about a poor VA hospital. This thread's title was about how Bush was taking vets benefits. Think there might be a connection between how the threads are titled, and who reads them?

    KM
  2. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Nope. I think some of these people you speak of who failed to comment don't spend all their time here and may have missed that thread. I dont' know how I did; I don't remember seeing it prior to this time. Anyhow.....Thanks for calling it to our attention. I did go and read it. It is outrageous. But......................................

    I do find it interesting your outrage there, and yet none at the mere possiblity of budget cuts to veterans' medical care of any sort. Could it be YOUR political leanings lead you as well as you say they have the rest of us? Just wondering, no disrespect meant, but it's funny how we all choose "our causes" isn't it? Maybe the answer IS privitizatio as you suggest, Kevin----and moving away from VA hospitals/care. But just WHO will pay for it?

    Personally, I agree with jnette. I think ANY administration intending to cut benefits to those who served their country DESERVES ROUND criticism and a campaign should be initiated against such cuts.

    Just curious, Kev, are you a member of the VFW?
    Last edit by SmilingBluEyes on Mar 27, '05
  3. by   SmilingBluEyes
    The thing I find so distasteful about Bush/Co. doing this is how this man professes to respect our military yet cuts benefits to active duty budgets (yes they are doing this as I type this) and discusses extending cuts to VA recipients. I have REAL heartburn with it, Kevin. And Clinton was roundly and angrily criticized for his apparent disdain and lack of care regarding military issues. He deserved it..... I saw that too.


    I just find it odd that so few on the the Right are outraged at any of this treatment of our Vets and active duty at war under this administration. You are angry? Move over, some of who served, also (and are STILL SERVING) are angry, too. I am tired of Bush talking out two sides of his mouth. Making cuts to morale/welfare programs for active duty and dependents is no way to take care of your troops. Sending your troops into battle without sufficient equipment/protection isnt, either. And even BREATHING a thought of budget cuts to those who served us in war is heinous. He is talking out two sides of his mouth. I see it, sorry you don't.
    Last edit by SmilingBluEyes on Mar 27, '05
  4. by   mercyteapot
    The vast majority of the posts that I respond to show up on the first page of the daily new posts list. I'd love to have time to read more, because I am sure I miss out on lots of interesting topics, but there's only so many hours in the day. The thread you've linked us to is short, so it probably didn't stay on that first page for long. I am sure I've missed a few of the more blatant anti-Bush threads along the way, too. I don't think the fact that people don't participate in any given thread is a very reliable way to gauge their opinions on a topic.
  5. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Quote from mercyteapot
    The vast majority of the posts that I respond to show up on the first page of the daily new posts list. I'd love to have time to read more, because I am sure I miss out on lots of interesting topics, but there's only so many hours in the day. The thread you've linked us to is short, so it probably didn't stay on that first page for long. I am sure I've missed a few of the more blatant anti-Bush threads along the way, too. I don't think the fact that people don't participate in any given thread is a very reliable way to gauge their opinions on a topic.
    Have to agree. I have posted a few thread to which I got very little response or participation. I figured activity was low or it sunk fast. Either way, I never took it all that personally or judged anyone on that fact.
  6. by   begalli
    Quote from kmchugh
    what really gets me angry about this is how the issue is politicized. i got out of the military on a medical discharge in april 1993. within about six months of my discharge, i found out just how bad the care was at the va in wichita. since then, i have been to several different va's, and have talked to other service connected veterans who have been to va's where i haven't been. the story is always the same. ancient facilities. employees who could not care less, and often see the veteran as an interruption to their day, rather than the reason they have a job. the health and safety of veterans put at risk in the name of saving literally pennies. it goes on and on. i've seen enough to know how bad it is, and to know that the blame can not be laid at the feet of any presidential administration.
    it angers me too that the issue is politicized. if blame cannot be placed at the feet of any presidential administration, then at whose feet should it be placed? blaming the vets is wrong but it seems that's where the blame is being placed and vets are continuously penalized with a lack of coverage, pi**-poor facilities, and fees that many cannot bear. is it someone's fault for seeking treatment in a facility for a condition that's not service related when they may have no where else to turn? i am of the opinion that no matter what the illness or condition, our vets should be taken care of in one place and the burden of the cost should not be in the equation at all.

    i think it gets even more political and complicated when you start talking about "farming out" certain services to other healthcare facilities....it just creates too many places for vets to fall through cracks. and with the way it is now, this is exactly what happens.


    btw, the va facility in palo alto is a beautifully modern facility.

    but let someone find some way to blame george bush for problems that were there long before he was president, and all of a sudden people are jumping on the bandwagon. "look at how he is treating our veterans! we cannot allow this!" it becomes a hot button topic for others when it fits their political agenda, but not until.
    baloney. the fact is that the topic of this thread is the bush administration's plan. who would you recommend we hold accountable for this particular plan?

    you are preaching to the choir dear.
    if you were sitting in congress knowledgeably and articulately arguing your point on this issue would you say, "madame senator, dear..."? many people view this term as condescending and disrespectful in a debate or just simply in general, myself included.

    remember, i have primary hypertension which is considered to be service connected. i take tenormin and vasotec every day to keep my bp under control. well, i take vasotec as long as it is the ace inhibitor du jour. i have been forced to take others that don't work nearly as well in controlling my bp because they were cheaper.
    then i think you can safely conclude that under bush's plan (the topic of this thread), you will pay even more for less and you will probably wait longer to have that privilege. i'm just curious. i thought primary hypertension was considered idiopathic. how could it be classified a service related condition?


    i know the truth, regardless of what the reporters want you to believe.
    once more, here are the facts:
    ...see the article referenced by begalli.
    the message of the above two quotes conflict. what the reporters want me to believe are facts, right?


    and then i'm confused even further. first i read this,

    i've seen enough to know how bad it is, and to know that the blame can not be laid at the feet of any presidential administration.
    then this,
    welcome to what i have been dealing with since early in the clinton administration. why is this only deserving of your anger when you can use it to bash bush?
    the anger of posters in this thread is not misplaced. it is placed directly on the bush administration's latest plan (the topic of this thread). i'm ust wondering, is during the clinton administration when your experiences began with the va or are you placing blame on the clinton administration for the va's woes? if it's the sooner rather than the latter, i thought you said that the "blame can not be placed at the feet of any presidential administration?" again, where is blame placed then?

    where exactly was your deep and abiding concern then? (referring to what kmchugh's "been dealing with since the clinton admin."
    how on earth can you portend that i wasn't knowledgeable about this then? allnurses is not the end-all of existence. just because i wasn't here at allnurses posting about it doesn't mean i wasn't concerned or involved.

    yeah, i am banging the drum real hard. but it angers me beyond my ability to describe. go back to the long post i wrote on this page: https://allnurses.com/forums/showthr...+administration
    where was all the anger at how veterans were treated then?
    the difference between this thread and that older thread is 1) the older thread was posted in the emergency nursing forum, and 2) the original poster in that old thread was inquiring about working at a va hospital. while you gave very good examples of the outrages of the va system, you also basically insulted the posters who were replying to the op's question about working for the va by stating this:
    start with the "government employee syndrome." everyone who works at a va is a government employee, and therefore can only be fired by an act of god, and then only when the act is countersigned by the president, the pope, and some guy you never heard of. as a result, employees take the attitude that it doesn't matter whether or not someone received proper care. i put in 8 hours, and i go home. if something isn't done, if a med is missed, nothing is going to happen to me, nothing will be said. besides, its not like that post joint replacement patient really needed that antibiotic or morphine. i get paid to be there and to breathe, not to be competent.
    did you expect sympathy from people replying to the op in that thread after enduring these gross generalizations about themselves?

    like anything that passes through the hands or across the desks of our government, the va system is just another bureaucracy under the control of a bunch of bureaucrats.

    of all people, i would think that vets would be upset with such a plan. really, it's okay to support a president but disagree with some of the policies of that president's administration. you make it sound kevin like no matter what bush does, it's acceptable because of who he is. yet i'm sure if this plan came out under a presidential administration whose general philosophy you disagreed with (clinton?), you'd be crying foul.

    i'm not going to preface this last paragraph of this long post by saying "sorry, but..." because i feel strongly that i find many inconsistencies in your argument and there's no reason for me to apologize for pointing them out, but at the same time, my intention is not to devalue or disrespect your point of view or experiences.
    Last edit by begalli on Mar 27, '05
  7. by   barefootlady
    I think I have a right to say I have been concerned about vets, especially my vets for years. I have feelings that go back to Korea about the care our vets have or have not gotten. I don't blame Bush for this entire mess. No way, I do remember some messes from 70's. I am just a little more than angry that our precious young men are bleeding and dying in another war while politicians who should be supporting them are stripping them of services.
    Maybe you are getting all of your benefits and services Kevin, but I know some who are still fighting for them in the VA system.
  8. by   kmchugh
    Quote from begalli
    If you were sitting in Congress knowledgeably and articulately arguing your point on this issue would you say, "Madame Senator, dear..."? Many people view this term as condescending and disrespectful in a debate or just simply in general, myself included.
    Perhaps in my previous post I was a bit too subtle. Allow me to introduce you to a very obscure, little known literary device known as "irony."

    In this thread so far, we have six pages of comments. In those six pages, we have a number of posters, yourself included, who have never had to step foot inside a VA as a patient, and all of these posters want to lecture a disabled veteran, who must go to the VA for treatment of certain conditions, and tell him that he does not know how poorly we are treating our veterans. Yet that same veteran is being condescending in his choice of words. Can you see the irony in your statement?

    As you yourself have posted, spending on veterans benefits is going up, not down. Along the way, how that money is being spent is being realigned to better meet the needs of our veterans who were disabled in the line of duty. But you want to tell me that is just wrong, darn it all. If we don't keep the programs that are being cut, then we are, what, insensitive? In spite of the fact that the programs being cut as a rule aren't for the disabled vet. In fact, in the case of nursing home care, if a vet needs such care as a result of a service connected condition, s/he will get it. How do I know? I have been to the VA nursing homes, and seen the veterans get that treatment.

    Once again, the problem isn't with the money. It isn't with any actions taken by any presidential administration. It's with the entrenched bureaucracy. Or are you willing to increase our spending by more than tenfold to be sure that all veterans get free health care for life for all medical conditions? Because that is exactly what the outcry is all about. Those of us with service connected conditions haven't lost anything.

    Well, except perhaps our dignity.

    Kevin McHugh
  9. by   Marie_LPN, RN
    Quote from kmchugh
    And just to hammer the point home, go to this thread:

    https://allnurses.com/forums/showthr...73#post1042473

    The thread is from January of this year. None of our current crop of outraged had much to say here. Probably never even saw the thread. It's title was about a poor VA hospital. This thread's title was about how Bush was taking vets benefits. Think there might be a connection between how the threads are titled, and who reads them?

    KM
    It might be the timing of it, and might actually have nothing to do with the word "Bush" in the title. (Considering i was working wacky hours in January and February, and was half-awake when i visited this site.)

    Or perhaps some people were busy writing letters to their senators about their concerns? (Which is what i started doing as soon as i learned of the proposed cutback on CNN. It's not all i do either)

    Or maybe some people choose to fight this battle at other websites directly related to the subject? <raising hand>

    It also might have something to do with remarks such as "current crop of outraged", which can imply that that those who don't reply don't care. And quite honestly, i hear those kind of remarks at work enough as it is when they start talking 'cutback'. So typically, i read anything and everything in the CE forum, and skip replying here because i'd rather go as directly to the source as possible.

    In other words, just because there isn't a response doesn't mean it's not a concern to some people.
    Last edit by Marie_LPN, RN on Mar 28, '05
  10. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Quote from Marie_LPN
    It might be the timing of it, and might actually have nothing to do with the word "Bush" in the title. (Considering i was working wacky hours in January and February, and was half-awake when i visited this site.)

    Or perhaps some people were busy writing letters to their senators about their concerns? (Which is what i started doing as soon as i learned of the proposed cutback on CNN. It's not all i do either)

    Or maybe some people choose to fight this battle at other websites directly related to the subject? <raising hand>

    It also might have something to do with remarks such as "current crop of outraged", which can imply that that those who don't reply don't care. And quite honestly, i hear those kind of remarks at work enough as it is when they start talking 'cutback'. So typically, i read anything and everything in the CE forum, and skip replying here because i'd rather go as directly to the source as possible.

    In other words, just because there isn't a response doesn't mean it's not a concern to some people.
    bingo!
  11. by   kristylee
    ok, I couldn't hold back when I saw this comment...

    Quote from Katmease
    Good grief, what has President Bush done to be ashamed of?
    Are you kidding? He's taken us to war for no reason and over 1,500 of our soldiers have died because of it!! That is more than enough reason to be ashamed - HELLO!!! I too was blinded by Bush and the Bush Administration until I started to educate myself. You can start by watching Fahrenheit 911. Also, here's a link that will highlight all the news Bush and the Republicans tried to slip past while media obsessed on the Schiavo case.

    http://www.progressivedailybeacon.co...ary.php?id=458

    Our President is a LIAR and has many reasons to be ashamed! ok, so Clinton wasn't a good husband, but our dollar was strong and our economy was great. Since Bush has been in office, our economic state has been the worst in the Presidential history - big red flashing lights coming at you...
    Last edit by kristylee on Mar 28, '05
  12. by   Katmease
    Quote from kristylee
    ok, I couldn't hold back when I saw this comment...



    Are you kidding? He's taken us to war for no reason and over 1,500 of our soldiers have died because of it!! That is more than enough reason to be ashamed - HELLO!!! I too was blinded by Bush and the Bush Administration until I started to educate myself. You can start by watching Fahrenheit 911. Also, here's a link that will highlight all the news Bush and the Republicans tried to slip past while media obsessed on the Schiavo case.

    http://www.progressivedailybeacon.co...ary.php?id=458

    Our President is a LIAR and has many reasons to be ashamed! ok, so Clinton wasn't a good husband, but our dollar was strong and our economy was great. Since Bush has been in office, our economic state has been the worst in the Presidential history - big red flashing lights coming at you...

    I respectfully disagree with you. I think there was a valid reason to go to war, Farenheit 911 has been proven to be full of lies. Our economic status is fine & it goes in cycles to a certain degree anyway - just like when the internet & tech stocks that crashed, I didn't like Clinton but it wasn't the President that made people invest in risky stocks. We were diversified so it didn't hurt us but a lot of people were wiped out. I don't consider myself blinded by President Bush, no one is going to agree with someone a 100%, but overall, he thinks as I do far more often than not. Fortunately, there were more of us that voted for him than for the disaster Kerry.

    At any rate, this thread is about Veteran's Benefits.
  13. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from kmchugh
    Perhaps in my previous post I was a bit too subtle. Allow me to introduce you to a very obscure, little known literary device known as "irony."

    In this thread so far, we have six pages of comments. In those six pages, we have a number of posters, yourself included, who have never had to step foot inside a VA as a patient, and all of these posters want to lecture a disabled veteran, who must go to the VA for treatment of certain conditions, and tell him that he does not know how poorly we are treating our veterans. Yet that same veteran is being condescending in his choice of words. Can you see the irony in your statement?

    As you yourself have posted, spending on veterans benefits is going up, not down. Along the way, how that money is being spent is being realigned to better meet the needs of our veterans who were disabled in the line of duty. But you want to tell me that is just wrong, darn it all. If we don't keep the programs that are being cut, then we are, what, insensitive? In spite of the fact that the programs being cut as a rule aren't for the disabled vet. In fact, in the case of nursing home care, if a vet needs such care as a result of a service connected condition, s/he will get it. How do I know? I have been to the VA nursing homes, and seen the veterans get that treatment.

    Once again, the problem isn't with the money. It isn't with any actions taken by any presidential administration. It's with the entrenched bureaucracy. Or are you willing to increase our spending by more than tenfold to be sure that all veterans get free health care for life for all medical conditions? Because that is exactly what the outcry is all about. Those of us with service connected conditions haven't lost anything.

    Well, except perhaps our dignity.

    Kevin McHugh
    I am very curious what makes you think that none of the people who have posted so far have set foot in a VA as a patient. And even if that assumption is true, why you think it matters. As a citizen and a taxpayer, my interest is valid and legitimate. Thanks for the definition of irony, though. It was very helpful. (And yes, that was meant to be ironic. I'm a quick learner.)

close