True cost of war visible in our overwhelmed Veterans' Administration


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Just wait another 20 years when these kids’ age-related maladies start piling up on top of their war injuries… Assuming that flag-waving patriots haven’t shut down their access to care by then.


#3

Assuming that flag-waving patriots haven’t shut down their access to care by then.

I’ve worked with homeless vets in Colorado with programs in Denver. When I first started in it I was amazed how many needed help. I always just assumed the same country that gets so amped up to send people into wars would also be just as amped to take care of the vets when they got back home. Now I know better.


#4

What George Bush has done for soldiers and veterans. - Journals
I’m sure that not much more has been done in recent years…


#5

I’d settle for if both parties stop getting us involved in one BS military/humanitarian crisis after another. Funny thing how the current party in charge rode into power on a wave of anti-war sentiment and has done absolutely nothing to stem the tide. And apparently there’s not a single person in Washington who knows how dire things are at the VA. Everyone in charge only finds out when it makes it into the newspaper.

Oh well though - nothing to see here folks!


#6

has done absolutely nothing to stem the tide

I agreed with everything in your post, but I only partly agree with this part. McCain has made it clear that we would be far more involved in Syria right now on top of being much further along a war path with Iran if he was our President. Romney also beat the war drums for Iran and Syria as well. While the current administration certainly beat the drums for the military-industrial complex to attack Syria, they did back down and listened to reason overall. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking a Republican administration would have listened and backed off on Syria. The fact these bloodthirsty idiots aren’t ushering us into wars with Syria and Iran is some tide stemming right there.

Keep in mind, with all the vicious things Obama has already done, Republicans repeatedly say he’s too weak on foreign policy. Too weak. When it comes to eagerness to enter wars, I think we can take the Republicans’ word to follow through on that, at least.

Obama and many of the Democrats are horrible, but it’s also a mistake to embrace false equivalence when it comes to comparing them with Republicans and it’s often based upon myths. For example, Democratic Representatives who voted against the Iraq war vastly outnumbered Republicans. If the American public had resisted falling for false equivalence and had voted in more “lesser evil” Democrats up to that point, we wouldn’t have entered the Iraq War. That would’ve been nice.

This isn’t to defend many of the Democrats nor the Obama administration which are absolutely despicable and even worse than GW Bush on certain issues. But, to suggest that things would be the same with Republicans is to ignore their sordid history. It’s no accident that most Americans think that Democratic Representatives at large supported the Iraq War resolution when they didn’t. Pushing a false equivalence narrative serves to keep us ping ponging back and forth between the two different parties instead of pushing liberal Democrats into the fold and pushing DINOs and bluedog Democrats out.


#8

Claims processing isn’t really the issue - it’s UNCONSCIONABLE denial of claims that are OBVIOUSLY service-related. I have been denied over and over for 26 years for things that relate to being a Marine Corps brat (poisoned by the water at Camp Pendleton and Camp LeJeune) and in the Navy (progressive joint injury, fibromyalgia).

The US Government HATES ITS VETERANS.


#9

One thing I know for sure. If there is a Democrat who is going to take us off the war path, it is not, repeat not, Hillary. Do you agree??


#10


#13

but but Mission Accomplished.

…Right?


#14

I assume that if it were legal to just euthanize surplus soldiers the way it is to euthanize surplus military working dogs, it would be trumpeted as ‘fiscal responsibility’ in short order…


#15

Agreed. This is the second time that graphic has been seen on my work machine.


#16

Which what where who how when?


#17

One thing I know for sure. If there is a Democrat who is going to take us off the war path, it is not, repeat not, Hillary. Do you agree??

I’m not sure what she’ll do, but seeing her close ties with The Council on Foreign Relations doesn’t give me much hope she’ll be a peacenik especially considering her vote for the Iraq War Resolution. But I’m tired of these royalty deals anyway: HW Bush, GW Bush, Bill Clinton, now Hillary Clinton? I’d like to see Bernie Sanders or someone like that. Warren would be nice down the road.

But, yes, I agree, considering Hillary’s past and present positions and votes, she’s obviously under the thumb of the military-industrial complex like most. She’s more status quo like Obama has been and that sucks. Ideally, someone like Lawrence Lessig would be great, but I don’t know if he’s shown any intentions or would rather run for a lesser office first and see how that goes.

But, no, I don’t look forward to more Clinton royalty running things.


#18

I deplore shabby treatment of vets as much as the next guy, but this conversation is mighty US-centric. The vets in question were volunteers who took part in an arguably illegal war of aggression, and they left behind hundreds of thousands of casualties (how sickening is it that nobody really knows how many?), including huge numbers of civilians, that you can bet aren’t getting VA standard care. Funny how nobody ever remembers them.


#19

Salaries are more reasonable when you factor in all the things they don’t have to pay for and benefits they are entitled to. I believe they also get more money for things like “combat pay”. That is you get a bonus if you are in Iraq getting shot at, vs back in the states on a base.

Federal workers on paper make less than a private counterpart, but when you factor benefits in, especially health insurance, it evens out for a lot of people.

Sure, no one is getting rich in the military, but not a bad in context. Remember too this is a volunteer army.


#20

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.