RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalor(19 posts)

Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalorcritmass
Oct 21, 2003 2:41 PM
As Halliburton announces it reversed big losses -$498 mil from last year to + $28 mil this year with its new revenues from Iraq, Dubya won't fund appropriate care for the soldiers who are wounded because of his lies.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031017-024617-1418r

But then Dubya's 2004 budget request for the Veterans Administration will effectively cut spending for its already-stretched health care system. Because of increased medical costs at an above-inflation rate of 4.7% and increased enrollment of 8%, the American Legion calculates that Bush's 2004 request "comes $1.9 billion short of maintaining an inadequate status quo." Now more than 235,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for an initial appointment.

The real cost of Dubya's lies:
As of 10/21/03
395 grieving families
Total U.S. wounded 1927
Boy, even I think that this is goofyMR_GRUMPY
Oct 21, 2003 5:14 PM
Ps.
george is still a dope.
Yeah real goofycritmass
Oct 21, 2003 7:12 PM
"the latrine smells of urine and is full of bugs" "soldiers say they have to buy their own toilet paper" "There are people here who got back in April but did not get their surgeries until July" I guess those Reserve and National Guard soldiers that fought for Dubya' and Halliburton are just disposable. Yeah real goofy
I'm surprised that W did just order ....Live Steam
Oct 22, 2003 5:03 AM
them to leave them on the field of battle bleeding away. Why waste good money on bandages and medicine?

This is a crock and more than likely is just a few lackeys who want to opt out on a medical, but don't qualify. Why hasn't this been reported by the big liberal media news outlets that are trashing Bush at every turn if it is true? Yellow journalism at it's lowest!
yep UPI are well known liberal lackeys... nmMJ
Oct 22, 2003 5:13 AM
You're right about himcritmass
Oct 22, 2003 7:25 AM
This is about sick and wounded soldiers and Live Streams' reality-challanged mind plays reels of knee-jerk illusions. What a dolt. I gave up responding to his nonsense during my last exchange with him when he thought you could get more oil through a pipeline than its capacity. Yeah UPI is the home of yellow journalism. What a BIG dolt.
I see you've been reading the back of your box of cereal againLive Steam
Oct 22, 2003 8:50 AM
Learn yourself a new word today?

Though there is no excuse for anyone having to go without medical treatment, there are always two sides to a story. I know the Base refused to comment. Probably because they are prevented from doing so because of regulations. They may even have more damning info on this. Who knows? But only a DOLT would post this story and then blame Bush for the situation. LOL!!!
This is sad not goofyjohncr
Oct 21, 2003 5:54 PM
Bush doesn't care anymore about the veterans that fought his war than his dad did. I can only hope that he is only a one term President too. I feel sorry for those troops that have all this to add to their problems. This is a sad comment on how we care about our veterans.

Crooner
Hopefully conditions at Fort Stewart will improve withcritmass
Oct 21, 2003 7:02 PM
the negative press I hope this receives. There's nothing like a politically embarrassing story like this to shake those chickenhawks around Dubya. But then they would just be doing it for all the wrong reasons.
re: Hey KristenBill B
Oct 22, 2003 2:38 AM
I don't know much about computers so here is the link that I couldn't do last week when I brought this up on the non-cycling board.
re: Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalorLive Steam
Oct 22, 2003 5:23 AM
They gave themselves away in the first sentance!

"Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war"

Including many who served in Iraq? How much is many out of hundreds? Two? Three? Ten? This is a smear campaign if there ever was one. It is STUPID to believe that there is some concerted effort to deny soldiers medical treatment. If it's even remotely true it's because the Dumocrats, over the previous eight year admin., slashed spending on military that would have provided fine medical support for our troops. This is plain garbage
it ain't the dumocrats who slashed veterans's benefitsrufus
Oct 22, 2003 7:22 AM
from the current budget.
it ain't the dumocrats who slashed veterans's benefitscritmass
Oct 22, 2003 7:38 AM
Isn't it strange how, to some of those patriotic conservatives, care for soldiers seems less patriotic than buying into Dubya's lies or spending 87 billion on his misadventure.
You must not have read the articlerdgrrl
Oct 22, 2003 8:26 AM
It says in the article that 40 percent of the wounded had been deployed to Iraq. So I guess "It is STUPID to believe" you. I read about this in the Sunday Boston Globe. Why are you being so anal about this. We should want our servicemen to get the best possible medical treatment.
Yes, we should want that.sn69
Oct 22, 2003 8:36 AM
Unfortunately (and tragically), reality is far different. I volunteered at a VA hospital for a few years, visiting with elderly terminal patients on a weekly basis.

While I never saw anything as bad as what the article claims, I did notice that the hospital wasn't very "nice" compared to others I have been to. Likewise, I've always heard that the VA system is generally understaffed and undersupported in terms of resource allocation and personnel management. Hell, if active DOD hospitals cannot recruit and hire enough specialized doctors to fill critical niches like OBGYN and Anesthitists (sp?...I can't even say it, much less spell it), how does one expect the VA to fare any better?

Like all of the "lesser" federal programs, if it lacks the grandeur, visiblity and, most importantly, direct economic impact to our legislators' constituants, it doesn't get much attention or funding.

In that vein, I'd counter both sides of this argument that the VA is indicative of a larger apathetic malaise on the part of the federal government when it comes to the generalized issue of follow-up. Bush has his role, as did Clinton and the other presidents and Congresses. This is a program that has long been in decline, as evidenced not only by what I saw first hand and based upon this report, but also based on the sheer numbers of veterans who end up on the streets. ...It's very sad, and I wonder how much attention the problem would receive if EVERY retired federal employee was required to seek long-term medical care through the VA.....

Scott
i agree with your last line 100 %rufus
Oct 22, 2003 8:42 AM
if all of our elected offices, appointed positions, and federal bureaucrats were limited to their personal 401k plans and social security, medicare and medicaid like the vast majority of the rest of us, instead of their lavish taxpayer funded retirement plans, then a lot of good work might be accomplished in the areas of health care and veteran's benefits
Yes, we should want that.critmass
Oct 22, 2003 9:33 AM
Mark Benjamin, the reporter of this article, was the one who broke the story about the soldier who was brought to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq. They had to amputate one of his legs. He was at the hospital for nearly two weeks and upon discharge, he received a bill asking him to pay back the cost of his meals at $8:50 per day.
I've been an advocate for proper care for too many years now. It incenses me that, when in a time of war especially, an administration will actually cut funding. Two years ago Dubya said, "Veterans are a priority for this administration" One year ago Dubya had a chance to approve $275 million for medical care of veterans and he didn't. As the amount of funding dwindles per patient costs are dropping to levels that are exposed by Benjamin's article.
To hear people like Live Stream say that these soldiers are " just a few lackeys who want to opt out on a medical" must warm the hearts of you who are serving now.
Yes, we should want that.sn69
Oct 22, 2003 11:23 AM
In my opinion, at least, the trend is pert-near (cute colloquialism for OldEd's sake) self-perpetuating. Military medical care--active, reserve and retired--is a long-standing contentious issue with the legislators, the executive and DOD, and it remains so year after year, regardless of which imbecilic party is in power.

Walter Reed, incidentally, is one of the "good ones" too. Try having a baby at Naval Hospital Jacksonville. You can deliver by any method you want, so long as it's natural since the Navy can't afford to have the infrastructure required for an epidural. In the event of a c-section, they ship you by ambulance to a real hospital. ...And that sort of thing is not atypical across the spectrum of DOD and VA.

So, if you're going to be righteously indignant/angry about the current admin.'s lack-luster track record with vets' affairs, I say thank you. BUT, I'd also say let's look back and note with interest that neither Dems nor Repubs have done much in the past quarter century, and I'd suspect that not much will happen in the future either.

Scott
Yes, we should want that.critmass
Oct 22, 2003 12:22 PM
I have been indignant and angry about this for 30 years. For the FIRST time ever the Dept of V.A. used it's authority in January of this year to curtail new enrollments for veterans' health care. Since January 1500 long-term care beds have been eliminated. There are more homeless mentally ill veterans now than at any time except the third year of Reagan's first term. Last year Congress passed a supplemental appropriation that included $417 million for VA health care. Dubya refused to accept $275 million of that
Chris Smith R of New Jersey the Chair of the House Committee on Veteran's Affairs is just as angry at Dubya as I am about Dubya's lack of care on this. For the last ten years Congress has always funded these programs more than the administrations. What's different with Dubya is that his administration is actually keeping appropriations from being spent. But then he needed to pay for those tax breaks.
You're right about the decline over the years and different administrations.
BUT when we ask soldiers to fight a war, that is not the time to be cutting funding of programs that they will need when they return.
Nothing may ever change about this but that doesn't mean we can't be rightously indignant about it. Maybe if more people were angry about it we could see a change.