OK Republicans---You HAPPY NOW?

[Arrow]

ps. I'm a card carryin' Republican and have been all my life. However I've been more than a little unhappy and down right disgusted with many decisions made and don't hesitate to have my say. The last letter I wrote to my congressional representatives went something like this:

What are youguys doin' up there? Are you all lookin' to get thrown out of office the next go round? Let me tell you something if you don't pay more attention to the needs of the veterans population out here you are going to find yourself put out of office by a large part of that group that voted you in.

They got so excited about that note I guess they were stunned into silence because I heard nary a word.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy Forget it then Blue, OK?

I never said is was working to my complete satisfaction, did I?

But, it IS working, ever so slowly. Which is a hell of a lot better than NOT doing anything!

I don't see any evidence that what YOU'RE doing is working as well as what the service organizations are doing, do you?

What I am doing is what I am doing, and it most certainly is helping.

Clearly though, what I am doing is not as involved with YOUR particular main issue as what you are doing is...but nevertheless, we are both trying our best to help.

I don't fault you in the least for attending to the matters that concern you most. All I ask is that I be extended a similar courtesy.


I have heard estimates of the number of living Vets in America between 20-26,000,000... that is a formidable voting bloc, especially when taking into account civilians who care for us. So, as Arrow has said here, there is strength in numbers, if only we would care to use it... at the ballot box, which is the only place our decisions will have impact.

However, thinking creatively... were it possible for Veterans to have the lobbying resources of the NRA or AARP (as two examples), then I am quite sure certain vital measures would be rather swiftly enacted in Congress and the White House. As of now, we do not have those assets.

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by Arrow I agree that we as individuals can do little andare rarelyheard when it comes to letters sent to congress. I can only speak ofmy own experience in contacting congressional representatives and getting little or no response. All I get is generic letters that don't apply to the concerns addressed in my correspondence if indeed there is a response.

On the other hand I do believe there is strength in numbers and we would be in evendeeper trouble without the service organizations.It's important for us to fight forveterans benefits even thoughwe may not choose to use them.We owe this to a new generation of warriors and their dependents.

Just thinkin' outloud.....

And that's why I love ya lil Sis!

I couldn't have said better.

God bless ya gal.

[BLUEHAWK]

I watched an entire House of Reps hearing today, on the topic of VA health care.

Here is what I heard being said. See if it comports with other people's understandings of the situation in which Vets find ourselves:

- When budget making time rolls around, the administration always asks each department (e.g. VA) to send in their estimates and figures.

- VA's estimates and figures are currently based upon a 5 year-old (i.e., pre-9/11) actuarial computer model of things as they were then.

- The VA sent their estimate in, and asked the administration to add about $1,000,000,000 in order to cope with the increases they foresaw coming down the pike.

- The administration did ask for that increase, and put forward the idea that there could be a modest "enrollment fee" and a somewhat larger "co-pay" for services given to anyone whose disability was not combat-related.

- The House committee turned down that administration request, even though VA managers warned of a shortfall if they did so.

- Now, the VA budget has that $1 billion shortfall to cope with. So, they have gone into their reserves to cover it, this year. Next year, there will be no reserves to go back to.

- More and more older Vets are beginning to sign up for medical services with the VA. This is significant because older Vets tend to have more and more complicated ailments which cost more to treat.

- The three unaccounted for (in the actuarial model) expenses which are the normal result of warfare and aging of the vet population are:
1. Long-term care
2. Prosthetics
3. Prescription drugs

- Of the $1 billion shortfall, almost $900,000,000 of it can be traced to the above 3 expenses plus a cost-of-living pay increase for VA personnel... and since Congress did not stammer when it came time to vote THEMSELVES a pay increase, maybe they might think kindly toward others in government who are in need of some assistance.

- The shifting from DOD medical coverage to VA medical care which occurs when a troop is separated from active duty, is governed by a 2-year time limitation in all instances not involving combat-related injury or disability.

- However, ailments such as PTSD and certain environmentally caused diseases (e.g. Agent Orange, Agent Blue and other such chemical/biological/radiological exposures) normally do not appear as symptoms until after the 2 year limit has expired. However, if the ailment can be traced to combat or even in-theatre causes, then the Vet will be 100% covered by VA for as long as they live.

- The exorbitant and incessantly increasing cost of ALL medical care for every American figures into the VA equation in that there are dramatically more Vets applying for VA care due to Reserves and Guard signing up after being activated, and due to the aging of pre-OEF and OIF service personnel whose medical coverage has either become too expensive or has been taken away by the corporations/organizations for whom many of them worked a lifetime.

> Congress could do one or both of two things to remedy this situation:

a. Immediately go back and approve the President's proposal to add a modest enrollment fee and a larger co-pay for non-combat related injuries and ailments.

b. Cut back on their distribution of "pork" by a factor of $1 billion, more or less.

> VA could do one thing:

a. Get rid of the outdated actuarial computer model (and consultants) they have been using for five years.

> The President could do one thing:

a. Offer to veto the entire national budget if Congress and the VA do not do the two above things for Vets.

> Vets could insist on all three of the above doing what is necessary.

And now, I go back to care packages and war dogs.

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by BLUEHAWK I watched an entire House of Reps hearing today, on the topic of VA health care.

Here is what I heard being said. See if it comports with other people's understandings of the situation in which Vets find ourselves:


- When budget making time rolls around, the administration always asks each department (e.g. VA) to send in their estimates and figures.


Yes, this IS true.---Gimp


- VA's estimates and figures are currently based upon a 5 year-old (i.e., pre-9/11) actuarial computer model of things as they were then.


NO.......This is NOT true!...The "actuarial model" is based upon factual "trends" and historical "expeditures" and "costs" that go back FIVE years, FOUR years, THREE years, TWO years and the CURRENT YTD.

This information is analyzed and a "business plan" is developed utilizing the past and current realtime info along with FUTURE estimates based on said historys and current trends forecast to accomodate coordination of resources, costs and expenditures.

This is the SAME way the DAV, the VFW, American Legion, and Paralyzed Veterans of America calculate the "Independent Budget" they submit annuallly to the VA and the Senate & House Veterans Affairs Committees. And, have HISTORICALLY come closer to the "actual" budgetary requirements than has even the VA itself!-----Gimp


- The VA sent their estimate in, and asked the administration to add about $1,000,000,000 in order to cope with the increases they foresaw coming down the pike.

It was more like $1.7 billion...........but that's close enough I suppose.----Gimp


- The administration did ask for that increase, and put forward the idea that there could be a modest "enrollment fee" and a somewhat larger "co-pay" for services given to anyone whose disability was not combat-related.

BULLSHIT!...............The administration DID NOT "ask" for that recommended increase offered by the VA's budget team........that's a CROCK OF OUTRIGHT HORSEHOCKY! ALL the Sevice Organizations (DAV, VFW, etc.) have been in an UPROAR over this administrations FAILURE to include this amount from the damn GIT-GO!

And for that "plan" to increase the "co-pay" and the "enrollment" fee. It's just so much MORE BULLSHIT!

The DAV and other Service orgs have "budgeted" the "estimates" given out by the Whitehouse themselves and have calculated that with the current "trends" of around 20,000 to 40,000 "new" enrollees per year(OIF & OEF and other vets) and "assuming" that the ENTIRE TOTAL of "new" enrollees pay that $250 fee it will ONLY generate an additional $10 million or so. And even WITH the increase in prescription co-pay going from the current $7 to the proposed $15 it would only generate another $10 million or so......which is a FAR CRY from the $1 BILLION or so needed!---Gimp


- The House committee turned down that administration request, even though VA managers warned of a shortfall if they did so.


That's so much MORE BULLSHIT it STINKS...............The VA managers BEFORE Jim Nicholson arrived (Anthony Principi who finally left after getting SO discouraged with his continued arguements with the administration) TOLD the WHITEHOUSE that IF the Whithouse "proposal" were adopted versus the VA's original "propsal" they would come up $1 billion SHORT.-----And that's EXACTLY what happened!.... Jim Nicholson has done nothing except twist the facts and follow the whitehouse orders to try and subvert the "facts" from coming out. Each and every one of the service organizations is aware of this tactic and Nicholson has been challenged and failed to comment on it!---Gimp


- Now, the VA budget has that $1 billion shortfall to cope with. So, they have gone into their reserves to cover it, this year. Next year, there will be no reserves to go back to.

Yep........for the reasons I"VE mentioned.......NOT for the misinterpreted or misunderstood reasons YOU'VE attempted to place before us!---Gimp

- More and more older Vets are beginning to sign up for medical services with the VA. This is significant because older Vets tend to have more and more complicated ailments which cost more to treat.

The VA (and the Idependent budget(s) submitted by the Service orgs) have thoroughly considered these trends in their calculations---Gimp

- The three unaccounted for (in the actuarial model) expenses which are the normal result of warfare and aging of the vet population are:

1. Long-term care
2. Prosthetics
3. Prescription drugs

- Of the $1 billion shortfall, almost $900,000,000 of it can be traced to the above 3 expenses plus a cost-of-living pay increase for VA personnel... and since Congress did not stammer when it came time to vote THEMSELVES a pay increase, maybe they might think kindly toward others in government who are in need of some assistance.

Can you please refer us to an actual, verifiable Government site where you have garnered or gathered this dramatic information????

It is my understanding (and that of ALL the service orgs...ie; DAV, VFW, AMVETS, etc.) that "long-term care", "Prosthetics", "prescription drugs" and COLA increases for VA personnel have been (and were THIS time as well) ALL PART OF THE EQUATION USED TO ARRIVE AT THIS YEARS BUDGET????---Gimp


- The shifting from DOD medical coverage to VA medical care which occurs when a troop is separated from active duty, is governed by a 2-year time limitation in all instances not involving combat-related injury or disability.

- However, ailments such as PTSD and certain environmentally caused diseases (e.g. Agent Orange, Agent Blue and other such chemical/biological/radiological exposures) normally do not appear as symptoms until after the 2 year limit has expired. However, if the ailment can be traced to combat or even in-theatre causes, then the Vet will be 100% covered by VA for as long as they live.

So...............what's your point????Gimp

- The exorbitant and incessantly increasing cost of ALL medical care for every American figures into the VA equation in that there are dramatically more Vets applying for VA care due to Reserves and Guard signing up after being activated, and due to the aging of pre-OEF and OIF service personnel whose medical coverage has either become too expensive or has been taken away by the corporations/organizations for whom many of them worked a lifetime.

No Shit Sherlock!....I'll give ya that one!----Gimp


> Congress could do one or both of two things to remedy this situation:

a. Immediately go back and approve the President's proposal to add a modest enrollment fee and a larger co-pay for non-combat related injuries and ailments.

That ain't gonna help JackShit!...........Don't believe ME...Just ask the Service Orgs!----Gimp


b. Cut back on their distribution of "pork" by a factor of $1 billion, more or less.

One more I'll "give" ya!...Gimp


> VA could do one thing:

a. Get rid of the outdated actuarial computer model (and consultants) they have been using for five years.

Look like it's working pretty well to me (and the Sevice Orgs IF the APPLY the SAME "trends"...) The VA pretty much hit it right on the head IF only the President had included Anthony Principi's orginal additional $1BILLION there would have BEEN no substantial "shortage" as the records CLEARLY INDICATE!--Gimp


> The President could do one thing:

a. Offer to veto the entire national budget if Congress and the VA do not do the two above things for Vets.

Only a TRUE BLUE Bush supporter would dare to offer such nonsense!----Gimp


> Vets could insist on all three of the above doing what is necessary.

Only in that fantasy, parallel universe where you arrive at these outlandish, misinformed and totally irrelevant conclusions of yours Sir Blue!---Gimp


And now, I go back to care packages and war dogs.


PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE....DO! And, add to those items a more "thorough" and fact driven synopsis which would be more probably derived from firm, actual accumulated objective information rather than somewhat biased assumptions based on what appears to be only presumptive conjecture along with conclusions drawn from simply ones own "guesswork"???---Gimp

[Gimpy]

waiting for that site where you gathered all that crap I mentioned in my last post Blue??? :cd:

Inquiring minds want to know.

Seems awful strange you've had time to offer answers or comments on other subjects on this thread since 12:13 PM this afternoon, but NOT this one?

I count 13 individual responses you've posted since that time on just the topics on this "political debate forum", not counting the posts you've made on others.

Could it be............you have NO adequate "answer" or "response" to those items I've placed before you???

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?? :cd: :cd:

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy waiting for that site where you gathered all that crap I mentioned in my last post Blue??? :cd:

Inquiring minds want to know.

Seems awful strange you've had time to offer answers or comments on other subjects on this thread since 12:13 PM this afternoon, but NOT this one?

I count 13 individual responses you've posted since that time on just the topics on this "political debate forum", not counting the posts you've made on others.

Could it be............you have NO adequate "answer" or "response" to those items I've placed before you???

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?? :cd: :cd:

Jeez... somebody sure is tracking my activity here on PF

In fact, I did not respond simply because, until this morning, I had received no notice that there had BEEN a response to my last post on this thread.

You demanded that I try to make sense of the issue. I tried to make sense of the issue. Now I am told that I have "...NO adequate 'answer'..."

I gave it my best shot, am comfortable with the conclusions I have reached on the matter, and am confident that the VA and President are doing all that can be done at this time. The House committee heard strong testimony from the VA Secty and his senior Medical underSecty that the actuarial model still in use is severely outdated and not in accord with a war footing. Congress, naturally, attempted to find negligence in the VA for this reason. However, the modeling firm is under contract with VA, and I am sure everyone is scrambling to resolve this difficulty as quickly as possible.

The findings I posted above did not come from a website. They came from notes I took while watching a very lengthy MSNBC (I think it was, or C-SPAN or something) unedited broadcast of VA testimony about Vet health care at their House Committee hearing last week.

I will be unsubscribing from this thread now.

Good luck on this, Gimpy (and others). I'll be keeping an eye on the progress whenever possible.

[Gimpy]

"Jukin" & "Jivin" again to the tune of Bushs' cronies propaganda machine!

Like I said before, The REAL "actuarial model" is based upon factual "trends" and historical "expeditures" and "costs" that go back FIVE years, FOUR years, THREE years, TWO years, ONE year and the CURRENT YTD.

This information is analyzed and a "business plan" is developed utilizing the past and current realtime info along with FUTURE estimates based on said historys and current trends forecast to accomodate coordination of resources, costs and expenditures.

This is the SAME way the DAV, the VFW, American Legion, and Paralyzed Veterans of America calculate the "Independent Budget" they submit annuallly to the VA and the Senate & House Veterans Affairs Committees.

If you were worth your "salt" as an intellectual investigator you would be able to provide more substantiative evidence of this "supposed" new (or old)---actuarial model---and it's so-called significance in this years VA budget as opposed to or compared to previous budgets. The DAV, VFW, AMVETS, etc., use the SAME methods as does the VA except WITHOUT the political influence of Whitehouse cronies!

You have misstated and misunderstood the information you "took notes" about and are unwilling to admit it.

Just proves my point................most Bush supporters DO NOT, or WILL NOT fully comprehend the facts and TRUTH of ANY subject before rushing headlong into incorrect assumptions based upon their biased and unknowledgable means at arriving at their conclusions!

[Gimpy]

related to this subject.

VETERANS RESOURCES NETWORK http://www.valaw.org

SUPPORT H.R. 515, THE "ASSURED FUNDING FOR VETERANS HEALTH CARE ACT OF 2005"


Evans : Priority funding for vets By Barb Ickes:

As Congress scurries for dollars to close a major gap in funding for veterans' health care, U.S. Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., is pushing a bill that would permanently fund medical operations for veterans. Evans told a roomful of area veterans Monday in Rock Island that the current estimated $1 billion shortfall in health-care funds is "unconscionable" and said he is trying to fix it. The ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee said a short-term solution to the current funding gap is getting Congress' attention and efforts, but he said veterans deserve a long-term solution as well.

He said veterans benefits are "in trouble" and are being sacrificed. A bill he is sponsoring would guarantee a permanent funding stream for veterans' medical needs. "At a time of war, funding for veterans must be a clear and unmistakable priority," the longtime congressman said. "But that applies at all times and we have to change priorities so we fulfill our duties to our vets. "When I was in the Marines, we said, `Leave no one behind,'" he added. "As a country, our pledge must be that we leave no veteran behind."

Evans' bill, dubbed the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2005, is accompanied by the signatures of 111 other members of the U.S. House. A staffer from the Rock Island Democrat's office gave a list of reasons for the shortfall in funding for veterans, including a new generation from the war on terror seeking government-paid medical services. He also attributed the deficit to an increasing number of unemployed veterans who have lost their private health insurance and are using Veterans Administration, or VA, benefits. Two other factors are increasing overall health-care costs and an aging population of World War II and Korean War veterans who need more health services.

Evans added that few federal lawmakers have been willing to tackle the looming problems of increased costs and reduced funding for veterans' needs. "The (latest) generation of veterans coming into the system is not being treated fairly," he said of the men and women serving in today's armed forces. "The real problem is that the VA is not facing up to the full extent of the problem. "The secretary of the VA claims the quality of health care isn't being adversely affected," he added. "He is badly mistaken." Evans used the VA medical center in Iowa City as an example of a struggling health-care provider.

He said hospital officials there have had to shift money from equipment and maintenance funds to cover medical care expenses. In fiscal years 2004 and 2005, he said, the Iowa City VA has experienced budgetary shortfalls totaling $10 million.

The VA nationally stands to lose 3,000 employees, mostly nurses, under the current Bush administration budget, he said. "We can and must do better than that," he added.

Barb Ickes can be contacted at (563) 383-2316 or bickes@qctimes.com.

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2005...c42d346c9bc684 388437064.txt

--- Rep. Evans Bill to fund VA Health Care ---

http://veterans.house.gov/democratic...5shortfall.htm

VA SECRETARY FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGES VETERANS HEALTH BUDGET SHORTFALL

SUPPORT H.R. 515, THE "ASSURED FUNDING FOR VETERANS HEALTH CARE ACT OF 2005"


June 24, 2005

Dear Colleague:

In June 2005, as a result of a mid-year budget review VA Secretary Nicholson acknowledged that the VA had at least a $1 billion shortfall in veterans' health care. Previously, he has strongly opposed providing VA with needed dollars because he claimed that the Administration's budget was adequate to do the job. Just ten weeks ago he told Congress that VA was not in a dire emergency and did not need any supplemental funding for FY 2005. In fact, the Secretary claimed that any funding problem could be solved by VA's "own management decision capability."


A $1 billion shortfall in veterans' medical care is dire during times of peace; while we are at war it is unconscionable. H.R. 515, the "Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2005," would create assured funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system based on the number of veterans it serves and the medical inflation rate for hospitals.

This landmark legislation would help avoid these budget shortfalls and provide real resources to meet real needs. The President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans found that: "?the only effective way to address the growing problem of access in VA is to reduce the mismatch [between demand for access and available funding]."

One solution proffered by the task force to address the "mismatch" was mandatory funding for VA health care. My bill proposes an approach to implement this recommendation. Nine major veterans' service organizations, who comprise the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, have identified assured funding for the veterans health care system as one of their top legislative priorities.

We must ensure the operation of a robust medical system for the nation's veterans in a time of war. VA officials have reported that one in four veterans returning home from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom have sought health care from the VA. Many thousands more veterans returning home will rely upon the VA for treatment of their combat injuries and the provision of post- deployment mental health care.

VA must be ready to meet the needs of our newest veterans and continue to care for veterans who have served our nation in the past. I hope you will join me and cosponsor H.R. 515, the "Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2005."

If you wish to be a cosponsor or would like additional information about this bill, please contact Leah Booth at the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Sincerely,

/s/ LANE EVANS,

Ranking Democratic Member Committee on Veterans' Affairs

--- end ----


(Below see how both President Bush, and Rep. Steve Buyer Chairman House Veterans Committee schemed to cover-up the short-fall in veterans health care, by ousting Rep. Smith.)

--- start---

Lawmaker punished for being right ---

July 11, 2005

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST ---

During an official Fourth of July celebration at the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson bumped into each other. They are both steadfast Republicans, devout Catholics and congenial gentlemen, but to onlookers, it looked like an uneasy encounter.

That's because Smith was right about a $2.6 billion shortfall in veterans benefits, and Nicholson's Bush administration was wrong.


Being right can hurt in Washington. It drove Smith out of the House Veterans Affairs Committee chairmanship, and it now may cost him becoming International Relations chairman. Nicholson represents an administration that operates on the principle that being in power means never having to admit being wrong.

There is no sign of any Bush official or House Republican leader apologizing to Smith. Smith, 52 and in his 13th term, knows politics is not beanbag. But his misfortune suggests the GOP's congenital fault is not being too conservative but trying to be too orderly. While often making principled stands on unpopular issues, the White House and House leadership often seem most interested in making the trains run on time.

That entails stifling dissent such as Smith's. Actually, Smith is no maverick. He is not part of the tiny liberal Republican clique that regularly opposes Bush and House leadership. He is center-right, as reflected by his voting record: 62 percent conservative (American Conservative Union rating) and 36 percent liberal (Americans for Democratic Action rating). He is really more conservative than that as a dependable vote for Bush's priority items, such as cutting taxes and war in Iraq.

He is a militant social conservative, battling abortion. Smith's problem has been failing to salute smartly when the leadership gives an order. That is the demand of Tom DeLay, the most effective majority leader in my 45 years of House-watching. DeLay found it intolerable that Smith functioned not as an obedient Republican soldier but as a fervent advocate of former U.S. foot soldiers.


At the end of the last Congress, the DeLay-headed leadership purged Smith from the Veterans chairmanship and from the committee itself for wanting $2.6 billion more for the Veterans Administration. Smith's vindication came June 28 when the Bush administration admitted that its estimate of 23,553 veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan for medical treatment fell far short of the real number: 103,000. The administration estimated its need for additional funds, coincidentally or not, at Smith's $2.6 billion.


Rep. Steve Buyer of Indiana, who was leapfrogged by the GOP leadership over two more senior congressmen to replace Smith as chairman, at first followed the party line by saying the shortfall could be covered by shifting funds. However, Buyer quickly had to change his position and say more funds were needed, just as Smith had insisted all along. Before Congress adjourned for its Independence Day recess, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi led a parade of Democrats chiding the administration for its blunder.


There will be more of the same when the 2006 VA appropriations bill comes up for votes the week of July 25. Republicans have been silent, but some in the House were smirking over Smith's vindication. There is little doubt Smith would easily have defeated Buyer had there been an open vote of the House Republican Conference without intervention. Similarly, Smith would be the conference's most likely choice for the International Relations Committee chairmanship against two other well- regarded conservatives, Reps. Dan Burton of Indiana and Ileana Ros- Lehtinen of Florida.

But the choice will be made by the DeLay- dominated Steering Committee, and so Smith is a long shot. If Smith is too independent to be a Republican committee chairman, a consolation prize might be a little commendation from the administration. None has come so far. According to all sources, the shortfall fiasco was not discussed at that Fourth of July chat between Smith and Nicholson. An orderly Republican Party does not dwell on mistakes, even to figure out what went wrong.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak11.html

--- end ---

And there you have it friends, neighbors & countrymen. JUST WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!