Showing posts with label Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA). Show all posts

Oct 3, 2016

Donald Trump Clueless and Chickenhearted on PTSD

Donald Trump Clueless and Chickenhearted on PTSD
Donald Trump is an idiot.

Donald Trump speaks at retired American warriors PAC Event October 3, 2016:

Said Trump, "Speaking to an audience of military veterans in Virginia on Wednesday, the Republican candidate said those in attendance were "strong," but some with PTSD "can't handle it."

Moron.

Said CorbinReiff in response:

I guess my buddy who I deployed with, who suffered from PTSD, and who took his own life wasn't as strong as a roomful of Trump's supporters. 

PTSD has nothing to do with 'being tough,' dipshit.

Jun 30, 2014

Obama Picks Corporate Chief over Veterans' Advocate for VA Sec

One can access Robert A. McDonald, President Obama's nominee for secretary of Veterans Affairs (DVA) (VA), by understanding whom Mr. McDonald is not.

McDonald is not Jim Nicholson, secretary (2005-2007), active in Republican Party politics since the mid-1980s, Republican National Party chair from 1997-2000, and dedicated to the Republican mission to privatize the VA and discourage disability benefits being delivered to military veterans.

Nor is McDonald a career veterans' advocate, somebody like Paul Sullivan or Anthony Hardie, who know where the neocon bodies are buried in the bureaucracies and have the inclination to clean house.

MacDonald is a successful "global corporate officer (whom Obama bets) can turn around a government health system that has been rocked by allegations of mismanagement and cover-ups of long patient waiting times." (Shear, Oppel Jr., New York Times)

In so many words, better than the guy the Republicans put in charge and not up to the job that is needed—a perfect metaphor for the Obama administration.

Jan 16, 2014

Rumbles from Veterans About New VA Rule for Disabilities

Help for veterans or vile insurance company
The question needs to be asked: Is the Obama administration all-in on helping veterans, or is it veering into the neocon territory of its predecessor?

Jamie Reno has the story in an exclusive at: Is VA deliberately blocking disabled from benefits? And it sure ain't good.

The VA (DVA) is pushing a change in disability applications that could stiff veterans in a manner the rightwing American Enterprise Institute could only dream.

"The scope of this proposal is enormous. If adopted, every year, hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans’ claims and appeals will get shot down by VA before the agency even reviews them," notes Michael Zacchea, a board member at Veterans for Common Sense.

If anyone sees an interest in helping veterans, check out Reno's piece.

The VA and its Veterans Benefit Administration are starting to look again like a particularly hostile health insurance company.

Mar 24, 2012

Paul Ryan Budget Ignores Veterans, Not Even a Mention

Paul Ryan is all smiles, veterans get no love or mention

The federal budget is a statement of priorities. In the Rep. Paul Ryan's version of the 2013 budget subsequently embraced by Gov. Mitt Romney, the word veteran never appears.

The budget proposal runs to 98 pages. Zero mention of veterans. Two protracted conflicts, high veteran unemployment and a multitude of coming home issues and not one mention of veterans in this budget proposal.

It clearly states that veterans are NOT a priority.

This budget proposal is worse than an empty thanks for your service, an empty thanks would require being mentioned. Veterans did not even make the list of prioirites. Veterans were ignored entirely. Veterans are essentially being told thanks for nothing, you are on your own. This is absolutely unacceptable. Especially coming from an aspiring commander-in-chief.

By Patrick Bellon and Christopher Miller

Now contrast that with the 2013 budget the President recently unveiled that clearly makes veterans a top priority. The contrast is very stark.

With a new generation of veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the few significant increases in the executive’s 2013 budget is to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs,which would be increased by 10%. This increase addresses issues facing veterans ranging from mental health to homelessness. It even addresses the needs of the growing female veterans population. Most importantly it budgets for needed increases in health care and disablity compensation.

But the budget mostly cuts. For every $1 in revenue raised from those making $250,000 annually and closing corporate tax loopholes, it cuts $2.50 from the budget. In ten years it will cut virtually the same amount of all discretionary spending for 2013. This was a target agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans.

The media has reported that President Obama’s 2013 budget is controversial, though it reflects bipartisan agreement in Congress that discretionary spending should be reduced by $1 trillion over ten years. It allows the Bush tax cuts that have mostly benefitted the wealthiest Americans to expire. It institutes the ‘Buffet Rule’ that no household making over $1 million a year will pay less than 30% in taxes. It also includes the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on America’s biggest financial institutions who contributed to the financial crisis to ensure every cent of taxpayer funds from the TARP are paid back to the federal government.

So where is the controversy? The budget still projects a $901 billion shortfall. In the $3.6 trillion proposal, $2.5 trillion, about 70%, is ‘mandatory’ spending, which means that the money must be spent according to laws passed by Congress. The other $1.1 trillion is ‘discretionary’ spending, meaning this is money the President would like to spend. To ‘balance the budget’, as many in Congress are calling for, would mean cutting out all discretionary spending except for around $200 billion.

This sounds easier than it is, especially when the cost of defense maintenance and operations is $272 billion alone. Virtually all defense spending is discretionary and the President’s budget already includes billions of dollars in defense cuts in procurement, operations, bases, and personnel. Discretionary spending increases in the budget include Veterans healthcare, student aid, the State Department, and housing. To balance the budget in 2013 would mean mothballing the Pentagon and State Department, as well as veterans’ healthcare, student aid, and the federal prison system. And that would just be for one year. It wouldn’t even begin to pay down the national debt which we have accumulated over decades.

Americans have gotten used to demanding government provide services we all want and benefit from, but refuse to pay higher revenue, or taxes, to fund them. This seems to include paying for the true costs of war,if the Ryan-Romney 2013 budget is any indication. This is unacceptable.

The budget discourse takes place on intellectually dishonest terms. Who would provide the services everyone is accustomed to if this budget was passed? Some of the most vital services the government provides no private sector firm can or would provide. What private firm could provide a military? Even private defense contractors employ former soldiers trained by the U.S. military. Private intelligence contractors do the same. Who would build and maintain roads and airports and secure them? Firms may build roads and airports where and when they need them, but they wouldn’t build them beyond their own need for capacity or use. Even if the government got out of the healthcare and Social Security game altogether, individual Americans would still have to pay for these services out of pocket.

President Obama’s 2013 budget should not controversial. Most of the President’s budget (like all budgets) is controlled by laws passed by Congress. If Sen. McCain were sitting in the White House today instead of President Obama, he would be facing the same problems. Americans support preserving and continuing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They want a strong national security apparatus, good infrastructure, and education. Americans also overwhelmingly support our military and veterans,one of the few issues most agree on regardless of party. As a nation we must take a hard look at our values and realize that all of these things cost money and must be paid for. It isn’t a choice of which or how much; it is a choice of either/or. Either we decide we don’t want these things and don’t have to pay for them or we decide we do and we pay the what is required. Great countries require investment and hardwork, not dishonest conversations that allow us to shirk our responsibilities. As americans we must set priorities that live up to our highest ideals and values.

President Obama’s budget proposal makes sense and displays a very different set of priorities than the Ryan budget. Veterans occupy a preeminent place within that set of priorities, especially compared to being completely ignored. It is a balance of cuts and revenue increases. It provides for the programs Americans overwhelmingly support. It continues to fund programs we need to help our economy grow out of this economic downturn.

Jan 18, 2011

New Vet Affairs House Chair Says: Look at VA Cost, Efficiencies and Privatization

Update: Dan Cedusky reports: The DAV Cap Wiz site indicates that Rep Miller has voted against veterans on nine key votes. "Not a good record ... we better watch him closely," said Cedusky.

U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller (Rep-Fla) is a former real estate broker and deputy sheriff who is now the new chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

By Michael Leon

If you think the Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA or VA) and Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) have problems delivering benefits, Miller says that's because "unfortunately, the bureaucracy within VA has grown immune to having someone check their work." (Carlton Proctor, PNJ.com)

Miller's statement reflects a sentiment held by most veterans and advocates.

Another widespread belief is that Congress is bought and paid for; and many veterans are skeptical that change is coming at the VA, irrespective of significant gains in revised regulations that were garnered the last two years regarding Agent Orange and PTSD-related ailments and associated benefits.

Congress is not where change at the VA will begin, but Congress can make things worse.

Miller says he is concerned about the "cost" of newly appropriated tens of billions of dollars into the VA for improved benefits and health care.

"This is a huge government agency and there is a mindset within the agency that is hard to change. But I think we need to focus not only on delivery of services but the cost at which those services are being delivered to the veteran," said Miller. (Philpott)

Miller will be overseeing and not appropriating money and he says he is "more focused on helping to increase resources through efficiencies." (Philpott)

Is this Congress-speak for watch out veterans: We can fund war but not the people who fight them?

Miller, like almost all of Congress, is heavily financed by military-industrial interests. See Open Secrets where Health Professionals, Defense Electronics, Defense Aerospace and money figure prominently in Miller's Campaign committees.

So, the question arises will a new VA oversight chair ignore the Health industry money and military-industrial money and wage a campaign f0r more money for veterans when Rep. Miller's first published words are about costs and efficiencies?

One thing we do know is that Miller is a member in good standing of the J. Randy Forbes-Mike McIntyre Congressional Prayer Caucus. So, maybe a Hail Mary pass is doable if we all pray hard enough.

In an interview with journalist Carlton Proctor, PNJ.com, the following question and answer is published.




Q: The VA is the second-largest federal agency, with 300,000 employees and a $120 billion budget. Is that a sustainable cost going forward for the American taxpayer?

A: We have to find better ways to provide service and health care to the veteran community. I'm asking veteran service organizations to help me find ways to solve some of problems that exist financially in Washington. And I want to be an honest broker in this process, because, as a fiscal conservative, I have not been one who has voted to raise the amount of money to the extent that has been done.

Q: With growth of military population in the Panhandle, do you think there is a need to build a full-fledged VA hospital in the 1st Congressional
District?
...
Q: Are you suggesting a kind of "voucher system" that would allow veterans to use private health care systems?

A: Yes. With three hospitals we have in Pensacola, and the many others we have in the district, there is excellent health care that could be afforded to the veteran community if there was a way to allow them to have private health care in their home community.

Q: What is this 112th Congress doing, or going to do, to deal with spiraling health care costs?

A: One of the largest problems that exists today is that nobody is confronting the actual cost of providing the care. Some will say that they have
tried to make it more affordable, and that may be true, but that is with the federal government subsidizing the cost of that care. Again, the issues like tort reform, negotiating prices, all of these things have to be looked at to solve the issue.
Confronting costs and vouchers. Sounds French for privatization, underfunding veterans and pumping money into the health-care industry which funds Miller's campaign committees.

Let's hope I'm wrong.