Close....But no cigar!

[Gimpy]

We came real close to finally getting mandantory funding for VA health care a couple of days ago in the U. S. Senate. I've posted the vote "tally" below so all who are concerned enough about this critical issue can contact their appropriate Senator with praise or anger depending on how they voted.

A Close Vote on the Daschle Amendment is Disappointing for Veterans

On Wednesday, June 23, 2004, the Senate voted on the Daschle amendment to ensure full funding for veterans? health care. The amendment required 60 yea votes to pass . Only 49 Senators voted for its passage, 48 against it.

By 49 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 145), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the motion to waive section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, with respect to Reid (for Daschle) Amendment No. 3409, to assure that funding is provided for veterans health care each fiscal year to cover increases in population and inflation. Subsequently, the point of order that the amendment would increase mandatory spending, was sustained, and the amendment thus fell.

VOTE TALLY


Yea : 49 Members

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
John Breaux (D-LA)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
John Edwards (D-NC)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Ernest Hollings (D-SC)
Thomas Daschle (D-SD)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Herbert Kohl (D-WI)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
John Rockefeller (D-WV)


Nay : 48 Members

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Zell Miller (D-GA)
Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Jim Talent (R-MO)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Don Nickles (R-OK)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
George Allen (R-VA)
John Warner (R-VA)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Craig Thomas (R-WY

#############################

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to my Senators (Nelson & Graham) for their support for this measure.

******

As your constituent, I would like to thank you for supporting Senator Daschle?s amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, S. 2400, to ensure full funding for veterans? health care.

With the waging of the War on Terror, it is becoming increasingly urgent that we support our veterans. This amendment would have ensured full funding for VA health care. Not only is more secure funding for VA health care the right thing to do for those who have served this country so honorably, it sends a positive message to the young men and women in the military serving in harm?s way that their government is concerned about their health and well-being.

As your vote demonstrates, you understand that caring for our nation?s veterans is a continuing cost of national defense. This amendment would have eliminated the uncertainty the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) currently experiences with regard to planning for the future needs of our nation?s sick and disabled veterans because of uncertain discretionary funding levels and the uncertainty as to when funding will be received.

I thank you for recognizing the importance of adequately funding veterans? health care. I appreciate the commitment to America?s veterans demonstrated by your vote on this crucial amendment

####################

[39mto39g]

No text

[chilidog]

I see my 2 in the "yea" column. I'll have to drop them a line and say thanks.

Chilidog

[exlrrp]

Feinstein voted no?? I can't believe it--I'll be emailing her right away, usually she's better than that. (Boxer: Yaaay!!)
Seems pretty evenly divided along party lines all right--whats the rightward spin for voting against it?? Especially with such obscene deficits?? Saving America money? hahahahaha
Whats with Zell Miller speeching at the Repuiblican convention??

Thanks Gimp

James

[Gimpy]

Here's your "answer"!

#######

BROKEN PROMISES TO VETERANS
Op-Ed
THOMAS OLIPHANT
27 June 2004
The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON NATURALLY, THE POLITICAL WORLD'S PULSE QUICKENED LAST WEEK WHEN JOHN KERRY FLEW BACK HERE FOR A VOTE ON A VETERANS' HEALTH CARE ISSUE, ONLY TO BE SANDBAGGED BY THE REPUBLICAN SENATE LEADERSHIP, WHICH POSTPONED THE VOTE JUST LONG ENOUGH FOR HIM TO MISS IT.

What was missing from the brief dust-up was a discussion of the issue that produced Kerry's change in plans and the Republicans' childish maneuvering - befitting a political culture that loves the politics of anything and ignores the substance of almost everything.

As it turns out, the issue before the Senate has been before it - and the House - several times and goes to the heart of the promise made to people who serve in the military that they will enter a health care system designed to provide the care they require.

The truth is that the country breaks that promise every day, and indeed it is President Bush's intention to go on breaking it as far as the eye can see, just as it is his intention to let the government continue to save a few bucks by deducting veterans' disability payments from their military retirement benefits.

That a promise is being broken on health care cannot be denied. For years, Kerry and other members of Congress in both parties have battled to make the health care promise for the country's 26 million veterans unbreakable, instead of subject to annual discretion.

A task force Bush appointed as a means of avoiding the issue recently noted that there is a large and growing mismatch between a growing need for care and available dollars. The result is that the Veterans Administration operates on the same ridiculous basis that private insurance does: denial of care as a way to save money. In the antilanguage of government it is known as "demand management."

The result was that 200,000 veterans were turned away last year. That number will jump to 500,000 next year, and will hit 1.5 million people by 2013, as the aging phenomenon affects the country.

In addition to turning people away from VA facilities en masse, the government is also gouging them with escalating out-of-pocket charges. Next year veterans will be paying roughly $1.3 billion of their own money on health care expenses, six times what they were paying when Bush took office.

In addition, the government is using bureaucratic maneuvers to make it harder for veterans to use prescription drug benefits to which they are entitled. For example, an eligible person must see a VA doctor before he can use the drug benefit, even if he already has a prescription from his own doctor.

This situation cannot be defended on its merits. No one does, though the administration and its congressional yes men on occasion hide behind the fact that federal expenditures on veterans' health care have risen by roughly a third since 2001 to more than $7 billion. Given the explosion in need, however, and the much bigger explosion that is just ahead, that fact is beside the point.

Bush's task force on the issue ended up recommending what was offered in the Senate last week. The most recent House vote was unanimous, and the Senate has already voted three times before, always favorably.

What was being proposed - by Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota - was a change that would make health care for veterans like Social Security or Medicare: If you're eligible, you get treated. In government-speak, it's called an entitlement. Instead of keeping a promise made to people who earned it the hard way, the government makes its promise subject to the annual whims of administration budgeters and congressional appropriators.

In last week's legislative skirmish on the Senate floor, Daschle proposed a two-year trial of the entitlement. It is estimated that "fully funding" the health care promise would cost $2.6 billion more next year and then rise with the number of eligible veterans and inflation. There are arguments about how quickly the cost would rise after that.

The problem, however, is not cost estimates, it is what Bush has done to the hemorrhaging federal budget. There will never be any room for closing the gap between supply and demand in veterans' health care as long as Bush's priorities hold. As a practical matter, keeping the top marginal income tax rate at 36 percent and completely eliminating inheritance taxes on multi-million-dollar estates means there is no room for veterans.

Last week's vote never had a chance. Technically, it was a procedural test posing a question on national priorities. The Senate needed to waive budget rules to consider the proposal as part of an annual military spending measure, That requires 60 votes; without Kerry it got 49.

A point was made, however, and it registered clearly with the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Benefit Reform, which includes every veterans organization there is. Kerry is for it . Bush is against it. Simple as that, and playing games with the Senate's schedule won't change the reality.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.

THOMAS OLIPHANT

###################

And there you have it.................THE TRUTH!