Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/27/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



So, we really need to look under the numbers quoted by an advocate.  If
veterans chose the VA system for maintenance, but chose other hospitals
for
high cost options, such as long stays in intensive care, then even a very
inefficient VA will, on paper, be more cost effective than the most
private
health care system.



If, if, if.  I see guys in long stays in intensive care at PAVA, one of the
brain and spinal cord centers near here.  It's not as if there are lots of
empty beds.  We're at war and well over ten thousand of our brothers and
sisters have been seriously injured.

You're not even arguing the other side of this issue.  If you're not
producing evidence of the VA's inefficiency and what's being done to make it
more efficient and thereby justify the funding cuts, you're just making
noise, not speaking to the point.

And there's still no justification for shifting VA revenue from taxpayers to
vets.  That has nothing to do with efficiency.



So, are you arguing that totally free health care should be given to
anyone
who served anywhere in the military?  That program would cost in the
hundreds of billionsand would certainly be a great inducement for
enlistment.  Would this be available only for those who served in war
zones,
or would someone who served two years in the 'States also qualify?



Oh, sure, that's what I said.  Yeah.  And a cookie and a balloon.  Maybe a
free train ride.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Dan Minette]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:58 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Who REALLY supports the troops
> 
> On 10/27/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Nick, it's not really that simple.  My dad and uncles were vets, and I
> > grew
> > up with their views of the VA.  Ending up in a VA hospital was
> considered
> > a
> > very bad thing at the time.  The VA administration was considered as a
> > last
> > resort.
> 
> 
> How nice for them that they had a choice. 

We're talking about average working class folks in the '60s.  Most had some
form or other of health insurance.  The VA was considered someplace to stay
away from, if at all possible.  

>I suspect you'll find that the
> problems they ran into were not caused by the VA wasting money.  
>More likely it was wasting their time fighting the rules and regulations
>that make many vets reluctant to fight for their rights.

Well, that's not what they said.  They said "I hope I never end up in a VA
hospital."  Now, I'll admit that's a snapshot, not a national survey.  But,
don't you think that the vets that I knew wanting to stay away from the VA
is meaningful?  If not, why not?  

Also, it appears that you don't believe that Weber's law is valid.  Is that
true? 

> 
> It wasn't that the nation wasn't spending money on the VA.  It's been a
> hard
> > to reform bureaucracy for ~60 years now.  Weber's law (a bureaucrat will
> > work for his own ends not the ends for which his job was created) has
> had
> > years to rule.  Anyone who tries to cut waste is accused of "attacking
> our
> > Veterans."
> 
> What sort of reform did you have in mind? 

In general, I'd have every level of the bureaucracy reviewed by folks who
are well respected for their expertise in care. 

> As a health care provider, the
> VA is very efficient, delivering more quality health services per 
> dollar than any other large health care organization in the United States.
> I refer you to Brad DeLong, for example:

Actually, you are referring me to Paul Krugman...Brad just posted his
column.  He is a liberal political columnist.  He does have an advanced
degree in economics, but he has chosen to be an advocate instead of neutral.
That's certainly fine, but I take all columnist columns with a grain of
salt.  Citing a comment by one side does not constitute proof. 


> http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/01/paul_krugman_on_1.html.  Yet those
> brilliant Republicans in Congress can see that they're elminating "waste"
> by cutting its budget!

In fact, if you look at some of the responses, you will see some interesting
counters.  First, Dr. Krugman argues that the overhead is close to nil,
because all veterans are eligible. But, there appears to be priorities that
determine who is served established by intricate bureaucratic rules.


One of the things Krugman says isn't even true: There's one "advantage" the
VA has that other government health care systems don't have -- they get to
pick their patients, and can limit the number of patients based on their
budget. Contrary to popular belief, not every military veteran is in the VA
system -- the VA sets eligibility requirements in order to make sure that
the number of patients they have is limited to what thay can fit within
their budget. In fact, only a minority of former military personnel are in
the VA system.

Krugman says, the VA is "highly successful in containing costs, yet provides
excellent care." True, but the do it by containing their patient load.
Krugman also says something that is flat-out false: "Because it covers all
veterans, the system doesn't need to employ legions of administrative staff
to check patients' coverage ..."

On the contrary, it does not cover all veterans, and it does have "legions
[pun intended?] of administrative staff to check patients' coverage." They
have an entire web site devoted just to eligibility which states, in part
"All Veterans are Potentially Eligible" (emphasis mine). There is an
eight-level system of "priority" detailed here. It has categories like,
"Veterans with service-connected disabilities rated 30% or 40% disabling"
(priority 2) and "Veterans who agree to pay specified copay with income
and/or net worth above VA Income Threshold and income below the Geographic
Means Test Threshold" (priority 7 -- which has FOUR "subpriorities," only
two of which are currently in use.

Does Paul Krugman really believe they can determine eligibility under such
complete rules

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/27/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Nick, it's not really that simple.  My dad and uncles were vets, and I
grew
up with their views of the VA.  Ending up in a VA hospital was considered
a
very bad thing at the time.  The VA administration was considered as a
last
resort.



How nice for them that they had a choice. I suspect you'll find that the
problems they ran into were not caused by the VA wasting money.  More likely
it was wasting their time fighting the rules and regulations that make many
vets reluctant to fight for their rights.

It wasn't that the nation wasn't spending money on the VA.  It's been a hard

to reform bureaucracy for ~60 years now.  Weber's law (a bureaucrat will
work for his own ends not the ends for which his job was created) has had
years to rule.  Anyone who tries to cut waste is accused of "attacking our
Veterans."



Ah.  Shifting the costs onto the veterans is cutting waste, is it?  How is
that so?  If there's waste, now it is more of the vets' money that is
wasted, rather than everybody's money wasted.  How do you justify that?

Back in my dad's day, there was a unhealthy co-dependant relationship

between some of the vets and the VA.  I suspect the same still
exists.  What
is really needed is someone with the political courage to reform the VA
systembut that won't happen because it would almost automatically
guarantee they will lose the next election.



What sort of reform did you have in mind?  As a health care provider, the VA
is very efficient, delivering more quality health services per dollar than
any other large health care organization in the United States.  I refer you
to Brad DeLong, for example:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/01/paul_krugman_on_1.html.  Yet those
brilliant Republicans in Congress can see that they're elminating "waste" by
cutting its budget!

There's a lot of call for reform of the VA... but it is by people who are
sick of Congress and the executive branch taking away more and more of
veterans' rights and services while demanding that they pay a greater
share.  How about reforming the incredible delays and denials that vets
face... but that would cost more, not less, since more vets would actually
be able to use the system.

Those who want to keep the VA costs down are opposed to real reform because
they know that the budget would have to go up if they removed all the
obstacles that prevent or discourage many vets from taking advantage of the
benefits they earned.

Yeah, reform now.  Eliminate the efficiency with which the rules and
regulations deny and discourage vets from receiving the benefits they've
earned.

It is sad that people accept the conservative propaganda that says to assume
that any large government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient.  The VA is
a fine example to the contrary in terms of delivering quality health care at
low cost.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Dan Minette]

> How do you spin the shifting of a big chunk of the VA budget onto the
> veterans through increased fees, copayments, etc.?  The increases are far,
> far more than inflation would account for.  There is no change in how the
> money is spent, only who it is collected from.  How do you justify that?
> Especially during a war?
> 
> We support veterans... just not with money.  Phooey.
> 

Nick, it's not really that simple.  My dad and uncles were vets, and I grew
up with their views of the VA.  Ending up in a VA hospital was considered a
very bad thing at the time.  The VA administration was considered as a last
resort.

It wasn't that the nation wasn't spending money on the VA.  It's been a hard
to reform bureaucracy for ~60 years now.  Weber's law (a bureaucrat will
work for his own ends not the ends for which his job was created) has had
years to rule.  Anyone who tries to cut waste is accused of "attacking our
Veterans."  

Back in my dad's day, there was a unhealthy co-dependant relationship
between some of the vets and the VA.  I suspect the same still exists.  What
is really needed is someone with the political courage to reform the VA
systembut that won't happen because it would almost automatically
guarantee they will lose the next election.  


Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/27/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which would be 6.35M in
2001 dollars. So a very modest cut in real terms from the 2001
levels. I'd have to say John's points on questions of how much it was
using, what it has used it for, and how effective it has been are all
good ones.



In 2001, we weren't at war.  We didn't have 10,000 troops who had been
injured in combat, many of whom suffered traumatic brain injury -- and more
every day. In previous wars, traumatic brain injuries accounted for about 20
percent of all injuries.  In Iraq, it is estimated at 40 to 70 percent...
and the reason the number is uncertain is that medical science is unsure
about the effects on the brain of the kind of explosions our troops are
being exposed to.  And that's why the research is important.

If you want to justify the vote, it would be very convenient to presume that
the research is ineffective.  But that's not even what the Republicans who
voted against it said.  They said there wasn't room in the budget.  And then
they boast about how they cut taxes and how the economy is doing so well
under their leadership.  And $20 million for a victory party.

And that's just one out of 154 votes against veterans since 9/11.

What does "support the troops" mean as a member of Congress?

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/27/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I know that its very easy for you to believe that Republicans are
cold-hearted monsters - but demonisation of your opponents is rarely
true.   I don't know what the specific answer is in this case, but I
suspect that the above questions are probably on the road to the
answer



Yeah, and I'm sure that the other 154 votes were just examples of good old
fiscal conservatism and don't for a moment mean that the majority of
Republicans consistently voted against the interests of veterans.

It's not cold-heartedness.  It is hypocrisy.  It is saying one thing with
their words and quite another with their votes.  It is irresponsible to
start a war and then cut veterans benefits because you say there isn't
enough money, especially while boasting of your tax cuts.

How do you spin the shifting of a big chunk of the VA budget onto the
veterans through increased fees, copayments, etc.?  The increases are far,
far more than inflation would account for.  There is no change in how the
money is spent, only who it is collected from.  How do you justify that?
Especially during a war?

We support veterans... just not with money.  Phooey.

Nick


--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Charlie Bell]

On 27/10/2006, at 9:48 PM, jdiebremse wrote:



So, in other words, the Republicans increased their budget from $6.5
million in 2001 to $12.7 million (2001 dollars) in FY 2006.   Close to
DOUBLED it in five years in *inflation-adjusted* terms.


...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which would be 6.35M in  
2001 dollars. So a very modest cut in real terms from the 2001  
levels. I'd have to say John's points on questions of how much it was  
using, what it has used it for, and how effective it has been are all  
good ones.


Charlie
Oh No I'm Agreeing With JDG Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. So much for
"well-reasoned"
>
> Yes, those are anecdotal, of course. But did we forget the wee matter
of
> 155 Senate votes on veterans issues since 9/11? Or is that just 155
> anecdotes?


Again, proof that you can make Congressional votes say "anything."


> > Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA
> > benefits.
> > > During a war. During a war that is wounding tens of thousands. Is
that
> > > spin?
> > >
> > > Here's the original source: http://www.iavaaction.org/
> > 
> >
> > Classic liberal thinking - measuring how much you care about a
problem
> > by how much you spend on it.
>
>
> Oh. My. Goodness.
>
> I'd like to see how long you'd survive with the family of a soldier
who has
> a traumatic brain injury when you defend the GOP senators' votes
against
> funding research into those types of injuries.

Here's a question for you Nick - what is the optimal level of research
funding into brain injuries?   $20 billion?   $200 billion?   $2
trillion?How do you decide how much funding to devote to brain
injuries vs. breast cancer vs. heart disease?How do you decide how
much funding to devote to research vs. actual programs providing
benefits to the poor?


> The Brain Injury Center, devoted to treating and understanding
war-related
> brain injuries, has received more money each year of the war —
from $6.5
> million in fiscal 2001 to $14 million last year. Spokespersons for the
> appropriations committees in both chambers say cuts were due to a
tight
> budget this year.

So, in other words, the Republicans increased their budget from $6.5
million in 2001 to $12.7 million (2001 dollars) in FY 2006.   Close to
DOUBLED it in five years in *inflation-adjusted* terms.

Care to take a guess as to how many federal programs have received a 95%
budget increase from FY 01   to FY 06?

Now, what you haven't considered in this situation:

  -How effective is the Brain Injury Center program?   Did it receive a
"Moderately Effective" rating or higher from the Office of Management
and Budget?   Does it have outstanding issues from the Government
Accountability Office?

  -How much money has the Brain Injury Center been able to actually spend
over the last five years?   With such a large budget increase, it would
not be surprising to me if it has large amounts of unobligated funds.
Under the proposed FY 07 budget, what would the trend in actual
expenditures look like?

I know that its very easy for you to believe that Republicans are
cold-hearted monsters - but demonisation of your opponents is rarely
true.   I don't know what the specific answer is in this case, but I
suspect that the above questions are probably on the road to the
answer


JDG

  -



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/26/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me.   So much for "well-reasoned"



Yes, those are anecdotal, of course.  But did we forget the wee matter of
155 Senate votes on veterans issues since 9/11?  Or is that just 155
anecdotes?


Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA
benefits.
> During a war. During a war that is wounding tens of thousands. Is that
> spin?
>
> Here's the original source: http://www.iavaaction.org/


Classic liberal thinking - measuring how much you care about a problem
by how much you spend on it.



Oh. My. Goodness.

I'd like to see how long you'd survive with the family of a soldier who has
a traumatic brain injury when you defend the GOP senators' votes against
funding research into those types of injuries.

"Oh, it's not that we don't care that thousands and thousands of you have
received traumatic brain injuries in Iraq.  It's just that we're
opposed to paying
for research into how to treat you best.  Because, you know, how much we
spend on that research doesn't show how much we care.  We care so much that
we're willing to spend a great deal on yellow ribbons for our cars... and
remember, we've set aside $20 million for a victory party in Washington when
we win in Iraq and Afghanistan.  That's how much we in the GOP care about
you, the brain-injured veteran."

Unbelievable.  Start a war and cut the veterans' benefits, vote against
research into the new kind of injuries that have become most common, raise
the fees and copayments to make the vets shoulder even more of the costs...
and justify it by arguing that how much we spend on veterans is friggin'
IRRELEVANT?  Better look over your shoulder when you make that argument...
there are some well-trained, combat-experienced people who will take deep
offense.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm

Excerpt:

"I find it basically unpardonable that Congress is not going to provide
funds to take care of our soldiers and sailors who put their lives on the
line for their country," says Martin Foil, a member of the center's board of
directors. "It blows my imagination."

The Brain Injury Center, devoted to treating and understanding war-related
brain injuries, has received more money each year of the war — from $6.5
million in fiscal 2001 to $14 million last year. Spokespersons for the
appropriations committees in both chambers say cuts were due to a tight
budget this year.

"Honestly, they would have loved to have funded it, but there were just so
many priorities," says Jenny Manley, spokeswoman for the Senate
Appropriations Committee. "They didn't have any flexibility in such a tight
fiscal year."

George Zitnay, co-founder of the center, testified before a Senate
subcommittee in May that body armor saves troops caught in blasts but leaves
many with brain damage. "Traumatic brain injury is the signature injury of
the war on terrorism," he testified.

Zitnay asked for $19 million, and 34 Democratic and six Republican members
of Congress signed a letter endorsing the budget request.


Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Further proof that you can make Congressional voting records say
> > *anything*.
>
> Nothing like a well-reasoned refutation. Before you totally dismissed
this,
> did you try Googling something like "republicans support veterans" to
see
> what you get? Talked to any veterans or veterans organizations lately?
> Visited a VA hospital to hear the staff and patients say how
incredibly
> pissed off they are at Congress lately?


Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me.   So much for "well-reasoned"


> Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA
benefits.
> During a war. During a war that is wounding tens of thousands. Is that
> spin?
>
> Here's the original source: http://www.iavaaction.org/


Classic liberal thinking - measuring how much you care about a problem
by how much you spend on it.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

On 10/25/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Further proof that you can make Congressional voting records say
*anything*.



Nothing like a well-reasoned refutation.  Before you totally dismissed this,
did you try Googling something like "republicans support veterans" to see
what you get?  Talked to any veterans or veterans organizations lately?
Visited a VA hospital to hear the staff and patients say how incredibly
pissed off they are at Congress lately?

Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA benefits.
During a war.  During a war that is wounding tens of thousands.  Is that
spin?

Here's the original source:  http://www.iavaaction.org/

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America analyzed Senate voting
records to
> see who really supports veterans -- 155 votes since 9/11. The results
might
> surprise you if you imagined that the party that took us into these
wars is
> the one that supports veterans.
>
> http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8535
>
> No Republican scored better than a 'C' and no Democrat scored worse
than a
> 'B-'.


Further proof that you can make Congressional voting records say
*anything*.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Jim Sharkey]

Nick Arnett wrote:
>Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America analyzed Senate voting 
records to see who really supports veterans -- 155 votes since 9/11.
>http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8535

>No Republican scored better than a 'C' and no Democrat scored worse 
>than a 'B-'.

While I am not entirely surprised, based upon the GOP's treatment of
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), I do have to wonder what the IAVA's criterion
were in determining the grades.  Despite my personal prejudices 
against the Republican Party, I'm loath to accept this at face value 
absent a little transparency in what the grades *mean*.

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[Dave Land]

On Oct 24, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America analyzed Senate voting  
records to
see who really supports veterans -- 155 votes since 9/11.  The  
results might
surprise you if you imagined that the party that took us into these  
wars is

the one that supports veterans.

http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8535

No Republican scored better than a 'C' and no Democrat scored worse  
than a

'B-'.


I suppose it's a coincidence that this comes out just before the  
election?


:-)

Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Who REALLY supports the troops

[Nick Arnett]

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America analyzed Senate voting records to
see who really supports veterans -- 155 votes since 9/11.  The results might
surprise you if you imagined that the party that took us into these wars is
the one that supports veterans.

http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8535

No Republican scored better than a 'C' and no Democrat scored worse than a
'B-'.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l