Bohica!

[Gimpy]

Y'all haven't forgotten what that means.........have you????

Get ready..............It's about time for me to say.............."I TOLD YOU SO"!


*******************

Underfunded VA

As the VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas has commented: "The DVA [Department of Veterans Affairs] has been chronically under-funded for decades, yet thousands of dedicated medical professionals see to it that millions of veterans receive high-quality DVA health care annually at 162 hospitals across the country."


Currently, the VA (The Department of Veterans Affairs) is coping with increasing demand, both from new veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan and also from other veterans now relying on VA benefits because of the economic downturn.

According to the OMB report:"more veterans are seeking VA medical care services... This increased demand has put pressure on VA's ability to care for its core-mission veteran population (military disabled, lower income, and those with special needs such as spinal cord injuries)."


Although the overall VA budget (as well as discretionary spending for the VA) has gone up every year, budget increases are simply not keeping up with this increase in demand.


Early in 2004, changes at the VA as well as the Bush Administration's projected 2005 budget led to a storm of controversy. As the Washington Post reported recently, veterans groups have strongly criticized these new policies and the planned budget. As yet, the budget has not been introduced to Congress.


Here are some of the major issues that have concerned veterans groups.


Inadequate Increases in VA Health Care Budget


The VA's Under Secretary testified last year that the VA health care system needs a 13-14% increase annually to maintain the services they provide now. The Administration request of $27.4 billion for 2005 provided for an increase of about 1% over the last year, and fell $2.9 billion short of the amount recommended by veterans groups (including AMVETS, the VFW, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans) in their Independent Budget. Following the Bush Administration's announcement, the House Committtee on Veteran's Affairs released a bipartisan plan calling for at least $2.5 billion more than the Administration proposal. On Feb. 4th, 2004, VA Secretary Anthony Principi admitted to a House Committee that he had asked for "1.2 billion more than I received."


New Drug Co-Pays and Annual Fees


For veterans who are currently paying a small pharmacy co-pay (7$ per month per prescription), the co-pay would rise to $15. In addition, these vets would have to pay a $250 annual fee.


New Eligibility Requirements


As of January, 2004, the VA has also announced new rules that exclude hundreds of thousands of vets whose incomes are now considered too high to qualify for benefits. The income threshold depends on where a vet lives, but ranges between about $26,000 and $40,000 per year. The VA has not pushed any enrolled vets out of the system, but veterans who now wish to enroll will be subject to the new rules.


Hospital Closures


The VA is planning a number of hospital closures as part of a larger "restructuring" plan. Originally, the VA intended to close at least 7 hospitals, but outrage from veterans groups led to a revision of the plan by an independent commission. Now, only three hospitals are slated for closure, and two new hospitals are planned in Nevada and in Florida. However, some smaller clinics are also going to be closed or cut down. Some of these clinics are underserved. But other cutbacks, like those at the clinic in Saginaw, Michigan, have angered local politicians and veterans groups. Read the article in USA Today or the AP story for details of specific clinic closures.


What about next year?


There is some speculation that the already stretched VA may be up for cuts next year, according to White House documents released in May. These planned cuts were covered by CNN.


What should be done for the VA?


Mandatory Funding of Health Benefits: Currently, VA health benefits are part of the VA's discretionary spending. This means that the federal government is not obliged to provide enough money for veterans' health benefits. When the federal money is inadequate, the states are left with the bill. Click here to see the funding gap in your state. Making funding for health benefits mandatory would ensure that the VA's budget would always cover the demand. Bills have been introduced in both the House (H.R. 2318) and the Senate (S. 50) to make this possible.


Increased Funding: Go to the respective web sites of the Service Organizations listed here to view the recommended Independent Budget proposed by AMVETS, the VFW, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans, and endorsed by 30 other groups, including Vietnam Veterans of America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart and at least 15 medical organizations.

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

What can you do?


The next step is to spread the word. Encourage your friends to learn about the issues and GET INVOLVED to correct these injustices!.


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

[Gimpy]

So says the Paralyzed Veterans of America!

How any military veteran can still support this administration is beyond comprehension and is a slap in the face to all the sick & disabled vets and their dependents. Nothing can justify this injustice being attemped by this Whitehouse!

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


Paralyzed Veterans of America Calls Administration?s Budget Proposal Woefully Inadequate, Forcing Some Veterans to Pay for the Health Care of Others by Increasing Fees and Co-payments.


February 8, 2005, Washington, DC?The release of the FY 2006 Budget request by the Administration demonstrates a callous disregard for the services of America?s veterans and represents another attempt to place the burden of needed funding increases on the backs of sick and disabled veterans.


?I don?t understand where their priorities are,? said Randy Pleva, national president of PVA. ?At a time when more and more service members are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan in need of health care and when aging veterans of previous wars are turning to the VA for their medical needs, the Administration proposes a basically flat budget with the only increases coming out of veterans? pockets. This is just not acceptable.?

Discounting the projected additional revenues from an annual $250 enrollment fee and more than doubling prescription co-pays for thousands of veterans the proposal only calls for additional appropriations of $111 million ? an increase of only four-tenths of 1 percent.

In contrast, PVA along with its partners who co-author The Independent Budget recommends $31.2 billion for veterans? health care, an increase of $3.5 billion to meet realistic inflation and health care demand increases. This increase does not include onerous enrollment fees or increased co-payments for prescriptions.


Pleva pointed out that the only rationale he could find for the Administration again proposing enrollment fees and higher co-pays was to drive veterans out of the system. VA estimates that as a result of the increased fees 213,000 veterans will leave the health care system next fiscal year.


?These proposals have been rejected by Congress the past two years; I don?t see why the Administration continues to try to force veterans to bear the burden of needed increases in health care funding,? Pleva said. ?The men and women who use the VA system have already paid for their care through their military service. For many veterans these added costs will force them to leave the system.?

[colmurph]

Its called "Inflation" Gimpy. Everybody's medical costs have gone up. INCLUDING folks who were never in the military. Instead of bashing the administration why don't you start bashing the Pharmacutical companies who are robbing us. Start bashing the bureaucrats in the Food and Drug Administration who have been on the take for years and are pushing drugs that are lethal to many people. These are the folks who don't want generic drugs imported ito the US because it might cut into the Pharmacutical Companies profits and hence theirs. I pay co-pay for Amiodarone $40.00 for 30 pills, If I bought the same pills in canada made by the same maker, I'd pay $7.50 WITHOUT co-pay! It isn't Bush who's doing this, it's the Bureaucrats in the FDA! AND GIMPY, if you haven't checked you might want to. Most of the GS-11's to GS-15's in Civil Service are DEMOCRATS!

[darrels joy]

http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/sh...threadid=41928

[reconeil]

Excellent Points, Murph.

Still, it is actually too bad that America's Democrat Leftists have to politicize and undermine most everything, and even The U.S. Military and U.S Veterans DURING WARTIME.

But then and in fairness, and big time LOOSERS that "They" are,...what-the-hell can "They" do other than their norms of obstruct, undermine and echoingly whine in concert about most everything Republican controlled?

"They" certainly don't have any answers to any problems (real, imagined or purposefully fabricated),...excepting for TAKING more of The People's Money, and socialistically dispersing same as "THEY" alone see fit. Guess "THEY" will have to wait about 4 more years before satisfying their insatiable political and/or quite financial appetites? Don't you think?

Neil

[colmurph]

It's going to cost some folks more. Those who are not considered "Poor" and those who's problems ARE NOT SERVICE CONNECTED. So what! If you're not poor you shouldn't be using the VA anyway. And if your ailments aren't service connected, why should the taxpayers take care of it for you?

[reconeil]

Unfortunately you're just too sensible, pragmatic, and make just too-damn-much good sense. And therefore, most everyone knows (or at least should know) that the fanatically bent of Leftist and/or Socialist Politics (whether in Officialdom or in The Press),...CAN NEVER go along with what you (others also) so wisely state.

Besides, what's wrong with The Private Sector American Taxpayer perpetually SUPPORTING every conceivable need on earth (both Veteran or civilian),...as America's Fanatical Leftists and/or Socialists so absurdly DEMAND be done?
Aren't We The Richest Nation on earth, anyway?

Neil :cd: :cd: :cd:

[Gimpy]

and the Smurph haven't got a freaking CLUE about what the hell is REALLY going on, ya know?

Your both so brain-washed by the radical-right-wing zealots in the Preznit Piss-Poors' Administration you can't see the truth if it bit you on your New Jersey Asses!

I'll let the Commander of the American Legion and the DAV speak for me................since it's obvious you are to blinded by your own hate, bias and prejudice to comprehend my words!

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

Legion Leader Says Proposed Budget Reaches Deep Into Veterans? Pockets

WASHINGTON, February 07, 2005 -


The leader of the nation?s largest military veterans organization reacted strongly to the effects that President Bush?s budget plan will have on veterans. He called it a smoke screen to raise revenue at the expense of veterans. ?This is not acceptable,? said Thomas P. Cadmus, national commander of the 2.7 million-member American Legion. ?It?s nothing more than a health care tax designed to increase revenue at the expense of veterans who served their country.?

Cadmus was referring to the portion of the proposed budget that would double the co-payment charge to many veterans for prescription drugs and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year to use their own their own health care system. ?Is the goal of these legislative initiatives to drive those veterans paying for their health care away from the system designed to serve veterans?? Cadmus asked.


?The President is asking Congress to make ?health care poaching? legal in the world?s largest health care delivery system.? ?When the President first came to Washington, among his first official acts was to triple the prescription co-payment from $2 to $7,? Cadmus said. ?Once again, the President wants to double the co-payment and fortunately, Congress has wisely rejected that proposal. Making veterans pay for timely access to quality health care is wrong.?

This is the third year in a row the President has attempted to establish an enrollment fee for those veterans making co-payments and third-party reimbursements to the VA. ?Many of these veterans are Medicare-eligible and already paying the federal government for their part A and B coverage, so why should they have to pay an additional enrollment fee? VA can't even bill Medicare,? Cadmus said. ?Other veterans with private health insurance make co-payments and then VA is reimbursed for services.

Again, why should they be forced to pay an additional $250 to go to VA medical facilities?? ?During my visits to VA hospitals, I have not run into Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or Ross Perot seeking care. I see mostly veterans ? many on small fixed incomes ? trying to make ends meet and exercising their very best health care option.? Cadmus observed. ?Veterans? health care is an ongoing expense of war,? he added. ?You don?t thank veterans for serving their country and then tell them, ?By the way, better not get wounded or you?ll have to pay extra for your health care.?


This is offensive to every veteran in America.


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


From the Disabled American Veterans:

Contact Your Elected Officials Regarding Fiscal Year 2006 Budget
Please Take Action Now!

Contact your House member and senators to urge that they support and vote for adequate funding for veterans? programs and oppose the recommendations in the Bush Administration?s fiscal year (FY) 2006 budget that asks Congress to enact legislation to allow veterans to be charged for their medical care to make up some of the shortfall in the appropriations requested.

A head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration acknowledged in congressional testimony that VA needs at least a 13-to-14% higher funding level each year just to maintain current services in the face of inflation and other increased costs. The Administration?s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2006 seeks $27.8 billion in appropriations for veterans? medical care. This amounts to only a 0.4%?or less than one-half of one percent?increase over the FY 2005 appropriation in nominal, or constant, dollars, and therefore would be a reduction below the FY 2005 appropriation of $27.7 billion adjusted for inflation. The Administration?s budget would tighten funding for veterans? medical care at a time when an influx of new veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will place substantial new demands upon a system already unable to meet its mission. The Independent Budget, coauthored by the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, estimates that VA will need at least $31.2 billion for veterans? medical care in FY 2006. Otherwise, VA will be unable to provide timely care to sick and disabled veterans. Another inadequate appropriation in 2006, following the inadequate appropriation provided for 2005, will likely force VA to delay medical care for many and deny it altogether for other veterans.


Even worse, to bridge some of the gap between the resources needed and the appropriations requested, the Administration?s budget would shift some of the costs of VA medical care from the Government onto veterans themselves. To shift costs to veterans, it would impose a $250 annual enrollment fee and increase pharmacy copayments for so-called ?lower priority veterans? (Priority Group 7 & 8 veterans) seeking medical care. According to the Administration?s budget, imposing these fees has two goals: (1) to generate non-appropriated revenues in the form of money collected from veterans and thereby partially offset reductions in appropriations, and (2) save money by driving a projected 213,000 veterans away from the VA medical care system in FY 2006. To further partially reduce the gap between resources needed and appropriations requested, the Administration merely declares that it will achieve $590 million in savings through new management efficiencies, a highly questionable proposition.

These proposed user fees are nothing more than taxation upon the benefits of disabled veterans. Such fees depart from the fundamental principle that veterans? benefits are provided to veterans free by a grateful nation in return for their service and sacrifices. Assuming Congress agrees to impose these taxes on disabled veterans, assuming the projected savings from the unconscionable scheme to drive veterans away from the system created for them, and assuming all of the savings from the attainment of new efficiencies, the total budget authority would still fall far short of what is needed to maintain services. The total budget authority for medical care would still be so inadequate that it would require draconian reductions in essential medical services to veterans. The Administration?s budget would reduce VA medical care staffing in FY 2006 by 3,712 fulltime employees below FY 2005 levels.


Also, the Administration?s budget proposes a sharp curtailment of long-term care to disabled veterans. The Administration?s budget requests that Congress change the law to relieve VA from congressionally mandated levels of VA long-term care. The Administration?s budget would provide VA nursing care to 27% fewer veterans in FY 2006 than in FY 1998, the year used for comparison because the law employed 1998 capacity as a statutory minimum level of VA nursing care capacity. The Administration?s budget will cover the costs of nursing care in state institutions for 61% fewer veterans in FY 2006 than in FY 2005.


The Administration?s budget would also make further personnel reductions in VA?s Veterans Benefits Administration at a time when benefit claims are expected to increase and despite the unacceptable delays already occurring due to inadequate staffing. The budget includes no funding to continue information technology initiatives designed to improve efficiency in benefits administration. Veterans who need benefits for the necessities of life or subsistence will suffer additional hardships because of VA?s inability to make timely decisions on their claims.


For medical programs, administrative and operating expenses, and other programs funded by discretionary appropriations, the Administration?s budget seeks $30.697 billion in appropriations, $4.286 billion less than The Independent Budget recommendation of $34.983 billion.




The Administration?s FY 2006 budget simply does not request the appropriations necessary to allow the timely delivery of benefits and services to disabled veterans. Urge you legislators to support total discretionary appropriations of $34.983 billion for VA, of which $31.2 billion would be for veterans? medical care. Urge your legislators to reject the Administration?s request for legislation to impose a $250 annual enrollment fee and a $15 pharmacy copayment upon Priority Group 7 & 8 veterans.

Contact your legislators by a personal visit to their offices, by telephone, by mail, or by e-mail. You may send a prepared e-mail message by entering your zip code at our web site.


As always, thank you for your support.

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

[reconeil]

Yeah sure,...Gimpy.
Du-dut-duh,..."And the beat goes on".

Hopefully, more Americans aren't duped and can see through all the canned and/or purposefully orchestrated and adnauseamly undermining DNC or Leftist Rhetoric,...than cannot?

THIS IS THE WORST WARTIME & THREAT TO SURVIVAL that America has ever faced. All else or whom get a bigger piece of the pie, and whether or not career Leftists get to: "Recapture The White House" or get control and again manage the vast beaurocracies AS QUITE FAILINGLY DONE BEFORE,...is actually trivia to me. Such political oneupsmanship nonsense and/or: "Trivia" was actually quite amusing, until war WAS DECLARED on America. Now,...it's just not funny at all.
Quite the opposite.

Besides, I despise politics in general, and especially as perpetrated by the most suspect of intent and undermining (historically past and present) Democrat/Liberal/Socialist Leftists. Such can only be trusted and believed: "About as far as one can throw a pregnant camel,...UPHILL".

I'm more so into America's Survival than trying to BS The People anyway, such as you and other Democrats posing as Liberals and in reality Leftist Socialists perpetually do.
Then too,...I'm not: "Connected" or even beholding to such pompous types and/or Career Ruling Elite.

Neil

[Gimpy]

I TELL YA!!!


I REST MY CASE!

:re: :re: :re: :re: