|
As a new Congress meets, it’s essential we know the new committee leaders. One that is prominent in my mind is U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller, the new Veteran Affairs House Chair. This is a critical position as we continue at war in two countries.
There are currently 1.4 million Iraq/Afghanistan veterans, 670,000 Gulf War veterans, 7.2 million Vietnam era veterans and 3.4 million World War II veterans. With each generation comes changing medical needs that are being addressed by the Veterans Administration.
With the appointment of Secretary Shinseki, there have been significant improvements made in the VA system. These changes have focused on improvement in psychiatric/therapeutic treatment, female veteran treatment and multiple wound/amputation adaptations. These types of medical and therapeutic treatment don’t come cheaply, but are a small price to pay to those who served.
“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 Rep. Miller in a recent interview. Rep. Miller says he is “more focused on helping to increase resources through efficiencies. I think there are ways to solve those problems ... by allowing (veterans) to go fee-for-service within a private hospital system. 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.”
My question for Rep. Miller: Are you willing to train private facilities to care for those with PTSD, TBI, infectious diseases, GWS and the myriad of other diseases and injuries we are seeing in the four generations of veterans?
Or ... are you going to carry on the time-honored position of honoring a few with contracts “to favor efficiency”... while cutting our veterans’ resources? Only time will tell. We at Veterans For Common Sense will be watching with great interest.
Elizabeth Dawson,
Red Oak
Article Rating
Current Rating: 3.6 of 8 votes! Rate File: Select Rating: * ** *** ****
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thedailylight.com.
owlnwaxa wrote on Jan 21, 2011 4:20 PM:
" Thank you Beth for your tireless efforts. What must be asked is what was the cost the soldier paid for his services? Did they think about "efficiencies" when they put their lives on the line? Is money more precious than the blood spilt or injury recieved insuring that Rep.Miller has a safe and healthy life? Paybacks a b**** ,ain't it, Jeffy? Welcome to the "will of the people". LOL. I have to laugh to keep from screaming. Namaste "
w8liftinglady wrote on Jan 22, 2011 10:05 AM:
" Thank you,Alan.
Notice that there are 1.4 million Iraq /Afghanistan veterans vs. 7.8 million VietNam veterans?
People are much braver with other peoples' kids,aren't they? (Length of both wars is almost identical).
Of course,cutting down on troops deployed by deploying the same ones over and over again will cut the money we have to shell out for their care later!
Peace.
Beth "
houstonh wrote on Jan 24, 2011 4:24 PM:
" Madam,
I shan’t quibble with your numbers, but there may be some grievous errors in your inferred conclusions. “Deploying the same ones over and over again will cut the money we have to shell out for their care” may, in fact, be true.
There is no known rational for presuming the strategy employed by our military leaders gave this an iota of consideration. It appears to be a direct insult to them. Even a “sad sack six” member(s) would know the times,
strategy, combat conditions, drafted vs. enlisted troops, battle tested under
the specific conditions, weapons, etc; would, and should dictate different method of deployment. To think otherwise is ludicrous. Admitting affiliation or association with this “Veterans For Common Sense” cult may
be bad news. Perhaps consultation with graduates of West Point or Annapolis would prove more fruitful than chitchat from old biddies. What a hoot, who cares what the cult watch?
Gosh, I may be wrong on this issue, but rethink your position before you say so.
Houston Humphries "
w8liftinglady wrote on Jan 25, 2011 6:59 AM:
" Mr. Humphries.
As always,I welcome discussion.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why the military has deployed these troops so many times and outsourced so many previously military jobs.Both actions have done nothing but hamper the military and open the door for corruption and harm of our troops.I simply refer you to Kellogg,Brown,Root.(KBR) ,Body Armor, and inadequate helmets for srtarters. Soldiers for the Truth has a myriad of information on this.
What exactly IS supporting the troops,Mr. Humphries?Is it allowing them to be sent to a war with improper supplies, begging for back-up(thus requiring their stop-loss and redeployment) and turning our backs on them when they return?
I think not,sir.
Good Day.
Peace.
Beth "
w8liftinglady wrote on Jan 25, 2011 8:16 AM:
" ..One last thing.
isn't it sad that I am the one pointing out troops lost and injured,money squandered?
The facts are there.
At one time,our news reported on our war involvement.weekly,You would know the troop numbers.
Now,you barely hear about it- no one cares,except in passing.
No one has "skin in the game" per say.
I hope your family stays safe,mr. Humphries-and that they get the care they've earned when they return.
I will continue to do what I can to ensure that.
peace.
beth "
houstonh wrote on Jan 25, 2011 7:17 PM:
" Now Beth,
My comment was aimed strictly at your previous statement that appeared to insinuate that our “Deploying the same ones over and over again will cut the money we have to shell out for their care” was a factor in the decision to deploy the troops as was so done. We know the rules of engagement have changed due to times, strategy, combat conditions, drafted vs. enlisted troops, battle tested under the specific conditions, weapons, etc.
For this reason alone, I feel your statement “Notice that there are 1.4 million Iraq /Afghanistan veterans vs. 7.8 million VietNam veterans?” People are much braver with other peoples' kids,aren't they? (Length of both wars is almost identical).” tends to insinuate our military commanders will sacrifice American troops to save money for post war care. I do not feel this was a factor in the deployment of our troops.
Now your later posting:
“At one time, our news reported on our war involvement.weekly,You would know the troop numbers. Now,you barely hear about it- no one cares,except in passing.
No one has "skin in the game" per say.” does not address the subject of “Deploying the same ones over and over again will cut the money we have to shell out for their care”. You have brought up several points, but none alluded to the subject of minimizing veteran post war care.
Ofhand thoughts may often be correct, I have no intent in dissecting them sentence by sentence.
If you are correct, so be it. I still feel you are avoiding the subject.
Well, to each his own, Houston Humphries "
stan4d wrote on Jan 25, 2011 10:25 PM:
" Beth....you almost had me untill you started the finger pointing and claiming to be the end all be all of supporting the troops........please try to keep from being so partisan in your posts, if you wish to help. Or if you wish to spread the half truths and outright lies of fringe websites.......at least be upfront about it. "
stan4d wrote on Jan 25, 2011 10:27 PM:
" On the difference of troops in the two wars......I can cure that.....DRAFT!!! (but then a few like some here will find ways not to serve) "
w8liftinglady wrote on Jan 28, 2011 7:00 AM:
" Stan-
i appreciate your statement. Troop support transcends all party lines.
if you'll notice,I never stated a party affilliation.Rep = representative.
Americans from all sides of the coin pick and choose their troop support.
I would like to see the wars end.That being unrealistic,I want to see the best care possible for those placed in harm's way...before,during and after.
What party am I,Stan?
Peace.
beth "
houstonh wrote on Jan 28, 2011 2:11 PM:
" As I posted earlier:
“Madam,
I shan’t quibble with your numbers, but there may be some grievous errors in your inferred conclusions. “Deploying the same ones over and over again will cut the money we have to shell out for their care” may, in fact, be true.
There is no known rational for presuming the strategy employed by our military leaders gave this an iota of consideration. It appears to be a direct insult to them. Even a “sad sack six” member(s) would know the times,
strategy, combat conditions, drafted vs. enlisted troops, battle tested under
the specific conditions, weapons, etc; would, and should dictate different method of deployment. To think otherwise is ludicrous. Admitting affiliation or association with this “Veterans For Common Sense” cult may
be bad news. Perhaps consultation with graduates of West Point or Annapolis would prove more fruitful than chitchat from old biddies. What a hoot, who cares what the cult watch?
Gosh, I may be wrong on this issue, but rethink your position before you say so. “
Houston Humphries”
Now, you have tried to change the subject; but again, it will not die until hell freezes over.
Let us get back to saving veterans health care money by deploying the same troops over and over again? Some of us may not be interested in other off hand, off subject, ranting. It appears you have dug a hole too deep to climb out of.
Houston Humphries "
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
