VA healthcare poised for restructuring (began under slick willie)
The Honolulu Advertiser ^ | 11/3/03 | Tom Philpott

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Nov/03/mn/mn03a.html

The CARES process began in the Clinton administration. Principi added the commission so that final decisions are viewed as more fair and credible.

http://www.fra.org/mil-up/milup-archive/11-16-00-milup.html

Health Chief: TRICARE for Elderly Doesn't Mean Enrollment in Prime November 16, 2000 Service elderly will gain access to TRICARE Standard, which in stateside areas will become a ``second payer'' plan, or insurance supplement, to Medicare. Overseas, where Medicare is unavailable, 25,000 elderly beneficiaries will begin using TRICARE Standard next October as their primary medical insurance. But that ``doesn't mean,'' said Clinton, ``that [elderly] have automatic access to an MTF [Military Treatment Facility] or to a program that's a sub-component of TRICARE'' such as TRICARE Prime. ``To the extent that we can make that available, after we decide what our size and our mission ought to be...we can't determine that. So it's not an enrollment process.'' A concern, besides time, is cost. Opening TRICARE to service elderly could add $3 billion to the fiscal 2002 defense health budget. A more robust pharmacy benefit for seniors, which begins April 1, will cost $400 million next year and $800 million in 2002. One way to hold down TRICARE costs is to keep beneficiaries 65 and older out of the military health care system so Medicare serves as their primary insurance and TRICARE as second payer. Enrolling tens of thousands of beneficiaries 65 and older in TRICARE Prime would have a reverse effect. Persons 65 and older, said Clinton, incur medical costs at three to four the rate of all other military beneficiaries

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG928.cfm
Budget Gimmicks

The Clinton plan also contains a startling number of accounting tricks and phony assumptions to generate savings. The budget magically assumes $1 billion of savings through better management of Veterans Administration hospitals.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144

Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

http://cmax.myonlinepublication.com/article.asp?pop_id=106&article_id=161

Here is the truth:

The President's budget calls for a record 63.6 billion for veterans' benefits that includes an 8% increase of Veterans’ 'discretionary funding', which pays for the much needed veterans' health care programs offered by the Veterans Administration. More then this, the total budget reflects an increase that is 32% above 2001 levels - those budgeted by the Clinton Administration.

The Department of Veterans Affairs will receive a record budget of $64 billion for the current fiscal year, up $4.2 billion from the previous spending level.

"I'm grateful for President Bush's leadership in ensuring that VA can honor our nation's commitment to its veterans," said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony J. Principi. "I'm also appreciative of the support Congress has shown when it comes to taking care of veterans."

The budget for fiscal year 2004, which began Oct. 1 comes as VA is putting the finishing touches on the administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2005, which will be formally unveiled Monday.

Among the major items in fiscal year 2004 budget are $28.4 billion for health care, up $2.9 billion from the previous year, and $32.8 billion in benefits programs. Other budgetary categories include:

* $143.4 million for the National Cemetery Administra-tion, an $11 million hike over last year, plus nearly $32 million in grants for state cemeteries;

* Full funding to expedite the handling of veterans' claims for disability compensation and pensions -- a total of $1 billion for all programs;

* Nearly $176 million for health care and other programs to assist homeless veterans, an increase of over $22 million from fiscal year 2003;

* $101 million to support state extended-care facilities, $3 million more than last year; and

* $522 million for construction, plus the authority to transfer another $400 million to health care construction.

"This budget will ensure the VA is able to meet the needs of the latest generation of combat vets who are now returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, while continuing to care for those from earlier conflicts," Principi said.

source: http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/9_04/national_news/27317-1.html

http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/news/old_releases/pr022499.html

VA Official Calls Cuts in Clinton's Vet Budget "Staggering" Smith continues fight for Central Jersey veterans

Posted by: Gail at February 24, 2004 8:54 PM

Frankly, Principi is hardly a disinterested observer. It's his job to take a crap sandwich and tell the world how wonderful it smells and tastes.

As I commented earlier, every veterans group and vet service organization are protesting these cuts. They are broken promises to our vets.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 25, 2004 12:14 PM

It's Principi's job to sell Bush's cuts. He's hardly an objective source.

The hard fact remains: every veterans group and vet service organization is protesting Bush's cuts.

The Army Times has termed it "an act of betrayal."

It's plain to see that given a choice between defending Bush and honoring the commitment made to vets--the GOP has chosen a man who went AWOL during his own abbreviated military career.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 25, 2004 12:35 PM

Oh, look, JadeGold's back on his hobby horse. Where's the evidence, you scum-sucking liar?

Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 25, 2004 12:55 PM

Shorter Robert Crawford: It goes to eleven.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 25, 2004 1:34 PM

We've heard from the VFW, American Legion, and the Army Times.

Commenting on Bush's 2005 plan to increase pharmacy co-pays for retirees with 20 years of service from $3 to $10 for generic products, $9 to $20 for brand-name medicines. The Military Officers Association has already criticized the proposal as “grossly insensitive and wrong-headed” and asked the president: “Why do your budget officials persist in trying to cut military benefits?”

Dereliction of Duty

Southern Nevada veterans, witnessing proposed cuts in military benefits, are waiting for the other shoe to fall. They worry their health care may be next.

"This is wrong," says Bill Brzezinski, Nevada adjutant for the Disabled American Veterans. He believes the aging population makes the veterans politically vulnerable. "They figure we're a diminishing group. Veterans are uneasy about their future."

The controversy erupted last month when sources leaked a plan by the Office of Management and Budget, an arm of the White House, to raise drug co-pays for military retirees. The story broke in the Norfolk (Va.) Pilot and the New York Times, creating a firestorm of criticism from military associations. The Military Officers Association of America called it "a grossly insensitive and wrongheaded proposal." The Air Force Sergeants Association warned the plan would erode political support for the Bush administration among veterans and retirees because of "indifference and disrespect."

Even a Democratic presidential candidate got into the act. Sen. Joe Lieberman accused Bush of "dereliction of duty." Despite assurances from Pentagon officials that the planned increase in co-pays had been scrubbed, critics wonder if it's really dead. President Bush's proposed budget will be released in a matter of weeks and health-care contracts are due for renewal in April.

"We're still seeing it out there," says David Cherry, press secretary to Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

The Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel reported that the Bush administration also wants to double drug co-payments for many veterans. A spokesman for the Lieberman campaign who did not want to be identified confirmed that report. "It's our understanding that the administration plans to raise co-payments for veterans. The bottom line is to save some money."

What's particularly worrisome to many veterans is the secrecy surrounding the proposal, and whether other benefit reductions are in the offing. That secrecy has spilled over into related areas, such as identifying the injuries of the troops wounded in the Iraq war.

David Gorman, executive director of the DAV in Washington, says his organization has even been barred from visiting the wounded at Walter Reed Hospital. "Our guys go in there to talk to the active-duty guys on how to go through the system." But the administration won't permit those visits over privacy concerns. More than 2,200 have been wounded in the Iraqi war, many of whom will never fully recover. Earlier, the administration barred the press from covering bodies being returned from the war to Dover Air Force Base. "Certain people in the administration portray our warrior as the best of the best," says Gorman, 'but when they come back less than whole, they're forgotten. No one's convinced me there is a true commitment."

Irving Finver of the Jewish War Veterans fears more bad news is coming. "Uncle Sam is really screwing the veterans now," he says. He says many low-income veterans are already complaining about the increase in VA drug co-pays enacted last year from $3 to $7. Some veterans are on multiple medications, which they renew every three months. "If you get 10 of these at the same time, you're talking about $210."

David Martinez, spokesman for the local VA, says most of the 37,000 veterans served in Southern Nevada are 65 and older. "A lot are on Social Security," he says. They pay $15 for a doctor's visit and $50 for specialty care, unless their disabilities are service-connected, in which case no fees are charged. Those on limited incomes can obtain help with their costs for one year.

Finver says many of the veterans are low-income and simply can't afford those costs. "A lot of them are homeless but they still have got to pay for this stuff." Worse, OMB officials are defending the high co-pays for retirees that would reach more than $20 a prescription, saying they're equivalent to VA charges, which they aren't--unless the VA boosts its co-payments another three times.

And active-duty personnel under the Tri Care plan, similar to that offered to retirees, are often so poorly paid, they have to seek food stamps to support their families, much less pay more for drugs. No plans have been announced to raise their drug fees, at least not yet.

David Martinez, a former Air Force first sergeant, recalls airmen under his command who ran out of money before the end of the month, but were reluctant to seek assistance. He advised them to swallow their pride. "I'd tell them, apply for it."

Finver wonders about the effect on recruiting. "This is about not having a volunteer Army or Navy," he says. "Why would anyone stay in 20 or 30 years if they can't get anything?"

Brzezinski believes the president's policy is consistent. He says the VA is moving away from a veterans hospital in Las Vegas and favors using the Air Force facility at Nellis Air Force Base on a shared basis, against the wishes of the Nevada congressional delegation.

Cherry sees a persistent anti-veteran policy under way. "Here's another case where veterans were counting on the VA and looking to Medicare, who are now given a bum deal on prescription drugs. A lot of people see a gap between the rhetoric and what's coming before the veterans."

Not all Republicans are happy with the boost in health-care costs. Mike Henderson, spokesman for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said his office has not seen the proposal, but the congressman is worried about it. "So far all we've seen are media reports," Henderson says. "The congressman is looking into the matter and is very concerned about the shape such a proposal might take."

Southern Nevada veterans have long complained that the VA's budget is inadequate to serve the growing population, with long waits to see a doctor and trips to California for specialty services. That situation has been eased somewhat by a 6 percent increase in VA funding last year.

But Gorman insists the funding is still far behind the need. "The VA was in a six-foot hole. Now it's in five-foot hole. But it's still in a hole. We should be ashamed as a nation of treating the veterans this way. These veterans are the result of the continuing cost of war."

Posted by: JadeGold at February 25, 2004 4:13 PM

I'd direct your attention to the complaints of the DAV rep above. We have wounded folks coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and the DAV isn't permitted to show these people how to get benefits?

It's not an anecdote.

It's official policy. It's this appointed administration's official policy to discourage enrolling vetsin benefits programs.

Yeah, yeah...I can hear the whining and howling from our brave keyboard warriors...

Read and Weep: Bush Appointed Admin Policy to Keep Vets From earned Benefits

Posted by: JadeGold at February 25, 2004 4:23 PM

Do you have any evidence that the increases caused fewer people to be served?

BTW -- the "scum-sucking liar" comment was directed at your clutching to the "AWOL" lie despite it having been completely debunked.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at February 25, 2004 6:33 PM

Mr. Crawford: if you wish an answer to your question, then you should apologize.

In fact, I recommend you do so.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 25, 2004 6:45 PM

I recommend that JadeGold apologize for his or her numerous misrepresentations, outright lies, and pathetic insults over dozens of different threads on this site and others. But I don't expect it to happen.

As for the evidence offered:

The fact that veterans' organizations are complaining about funding proves very little. When have they ever been satisfied by the level of funding provided?

All lobbies behave this way. I've never heard of a union willing to say that their members were overpaid or even adequately paid: they're always in desperate need of a large pay increase. I've never heard of a business group that said that levels of tax and regulation were just right, much less too low: they're always way too high and desperately in need of cutting. I've never heard an environmental group say that we're doing anywhere near enough for the environment: they always want much more to be done. And so on. Why should any sane person expect veterans' groups to be different?

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at February 25, 2004 7:21 PM

Perhaps Guy Cabot/Jade Gold would like to show what these orgs were saying when Clinton was ACTUALLY CUTTING the vet budgets. I read them and the comments were far worse.

Posted by: capt joe at February 25, 2004 7:49 PM

Guy Cabot, why did you claim not to know Acidman on this site, when you trolled it frequently last year?
Why do you continue to lie about my stance on the Saxby Chambliss commercial that didn't compare (as you claimed) Max Cleland to Osama/Saddam?
Why do you continue to lie about my stance on the Georgia flag?

Shall I repost the links?

Posted by: Ricky at February 25, 2004 9:45 PM

Ahhh, the Weevil and his eight, not fifteen, year gapped resume returns.

The fact that veterans' organizations are complaining about funding proves very little. When have they ever been satisfied by the level of funding provided?

Are we saying vet organizations are liars and/or whiners? That they're spoiled little partisans grubbing for their share of pork?

How nice.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 25, 2004 9:55 PM

Yes, and lying hypocrite JadeGold keeps harping on the alleged gap in my c.v. while refusing to provide any information about his or her own gender, nationality, age, profession, location, or any other single piece of information on its own resume, and giving no reason for such reticence. We can only assume that the reason is the pleasure of being able to attack others with relative impunity, like a common graffiti-artist or maker of obscene phone calls. Occasional claims of military service have been proven to be lies. And then he (she?) accuses others of being cowards!

Wealthy Romans sometimes kept a retarded or brain-damaged person (a 'morio' or 'fool') for entertainment. That may provide some precedent for our host's reluctance to ban JadeGold.

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at February 25, 2004 10:55 PM

Weevil: You didn't answer the questions. Perhaps you were searching for that missing time period in your resume.

Again: are veterans and veterans organizations whining pork-grubbers? You seemed to strongly imply they are. You accused them of wanting more than they are owed or need.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 25, 2004 11:06 PM

JadeGold refuses to answer a legitimate question from Robert Crawford until he (or she) gets an apology.

That sounds fair.

I'll answer JadeGold's obviously disingenuous question about veterans' groups when he (or she) answers the ones I have already asked over and over, with no reply and no acknowledgement that they have been asked:

1. Why do you feel entitled to make fun of my resume while entirely concealing your own? Are you trying to look like a hypocritical jerk? My resume has a perfectly legitimate gap: I don't list any Teaching Experience for years when I wasn't teaching. (Duh!) Your resume is nothing but one huge gaping gap. You have told us absolutely nothing about yourself.

2. How can someone who so resolutely conceals every detail of his or her own identity use insults like "keyboard warriors" that imply that others are cowards? If JadeGold's looking for a coward, the mirror would be a good place to start.

3. No one is going to hold JadeGold's gender against him or her, but it would be nice to know, just so we can avoid having to write "him or her" over and over. Why is he or she so inconsiderate as not to tell us at least that much about him- or herself? Pure trollish nastiness is my guess. If JadeGold wants to correct that impression, he or she can easily do so. Until then, he or she will have to wait for the answer to his or her question. Of course, everyone else here knows that the question was disingenous and the answer perfectly obvious. Hint: instead of trying to read into my statement what you wish to think it seems to imply, try reading what it actually says. All will become clear.

Posted by: Dr. Weevil at February 26, 2004 5:53 AM

JadeGold is Guy Cabot. I assume it is a he, had a now defunct blog but seems to content to troll instead of blog. Profound laziness I guess. He has claimed to be annapolis grad but couldn't answer any of the questions from those who challenged him on it.

Anyway, don't appologize to him, he isn't worth it. I guess he will just have to go elsewhere, hint, hint.

Posted by: capt joe at February 26, 2004 9:20 AM

Weevil: Why won't you answer the question?

After all, you level a broadside at veterans and veteran service organizations. At best, you're accusing them of being just another special interest group--no different than, say, the snack food manufacturers. At worst, you're accusing them of being whining parasites.

I'm offering you a chance to extend--or revise--your slurs against veterans.

Posted by: JadeGold at February 26, 2004 2:20 PM

I work as a lobbyist for one of those Veterans' Organizations mentioned above. Yes, the budget has increased, but not by the 8% that was claimed above. The Medical Care budget provides a less than 2% increase in funding, when you take away increased fees charged to veterans (which were not supposed to count as appropriated money).

Yes, the budget has increased for VA health care at a large pace over the last few years, but it hasn't caught up to the demand. Since 1996, the number of vets in the system has increased around 150% and the amount of funding has 'only' gone up about 50%.

Bush's budget proposal is wholly inadequate for meeting this demand, but Congress is sure to increase it, and Bush is sure to approve it, by the time it's all said and done.

Posted by: Chris at February 27, 2004 9:04 AM

Dr. Weevil has no reason to apologize to a liar, a fraud and a troll such as yourself, little Jade. Your outright lies, hypocrisy, slander, snide remarks, and bloviating should be reason enough for YOU to apologise to everyone who's forced to read your filth.

But, as elsewhere, you won't do anything but ignore what you don't like. You'll also provide no concrete proof of your slander and lies. You never have. You're a pathetic idiot.

Posted by: Raging Dave at March 5, 2004 2:07 PM

I think that the men and women that have and are putting their lives on the line or our freedom should be well paid, if the pay was better we would have more people in the military.

We Should never cut the funds for the vets that have put their lives and limbs on the line so we can sit in our homes and think we are safe from harm, We should thankful and greatful they have done this.

Posted by: mark at March 16, 2004 7:47 PM

Hello,

I'll bet you feel really stupid now:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050319/ap_on_re_us/democrats_veterans_benefits_1

Posted by: Jonathan at March 19, 2005 6:28 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):