"When we think of Bush's character, we're likely to focus on the administration's proposed budget cuts for veterans"
Overall vet spending is up faster under Bush in ~3 years than Clinton in 8. If that is a "cut," I'm Bill Gates.
---See this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4064-2003Jan16
VA Cuts Some Veterans' Access to Health Care
Huge Backlog, Long Waits Prompt Decision
By Edward Walsh
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 17, 2003; Page A21
The Department of Veterans Affairs announced yesterday that it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system to some higher-income veterans, a move the agency estimated will affect about 164,000 veterans who were expected to enroll in the system during the current fiscal year.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi said he decided to restrict access to the VA health care system because of a growing backlog of about 200,000 veterans who have to wait an average of six months before receiving their first treatment at a VA health care facility.
The growth in the number of veterans enrolling in the VA system "is eating up all of our marginal capacity," Principi said in an interview. "Our clinics, our medical facilities are full."
The restrictions, which take effect today, apply to what the agency calls Category 8 veterans, the lowest priority in health care. These are veterans with relatively high incomes who do not suffer from military service-related disabilities or health problems. Category 8 income levels vary depending on geographic location, but Principi said generally the restrictions will apply to veterans with annual incomes of $30,000 to $35,000 or higher.
The restrictions will apply only to new enrollees and will not affect the 1.4 million Category 8 veterans who currently receive health care from the VA, he said.
Principi is required by law to set eligibility rules for the VA health care system every year, and the restrictions apply only to this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. But in the interview, he indicated that unless there is a reduction in the patient backlog, the restrictions will remain in place longer. "I would like to reopen enrollment if I can, but not at the expense of meeting our obligations to the highest-priority veterans," he said.
Principi informed leaders of veterans groups of his decision yesterday morning. Spokesmen for the groups said they understood why the restrictions were being imposed, but they lashed out at Congress for what they called inadequate funding of VA health care. "Without proper funding, the secretary is never going to get [the backlog] down, so what he has done is to make the tough business decision," said Bob Wallace, executive director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "If they can't take care of them, it's unconscionable to let them continue to enroll. The real bad guys in this is the Congress because they haven't fully funded the VA. I don't want to see anybody excluded from care, but we can't allow these false expectations and these lines to get longer and longer."
Historically, the VA's health care mission has been to treat veterans with service-related health problems and low incomes, and those needing special services. But that changed when Congress enacted legislation in 1996 opening the system to all veterans. That year, the VA health care system treated 2.9 million veterans. Last year, the number of patients had swelled to 4.2 million.
The largest segment of those entering the system are relatively high-income veterans who fall into Category 8. Principi said more than half of the 830,000 veterans who enrolled last year were classified as Category 8.
In an attempt to soften the effects of the restrictions, Principi also announced that under an agreement with the Health and Human Services Department, veterans who are eligible for Medicare and have been denied access to the VA health care system can still be treated at VA facilities, with Medicare reimbursing the department. He said he expects the program to begin operating later this year.
How sad that a Jew would side with the anti-Israel, anti-semitic left, and brag about it.
A self-hater.
You have an aknowledgeable audience... please respond directly to the questions.
Thank you.
Should SS be means tested ?
Mr. Perlstein, the article you posted does not contain a single budetary number. Are these cuts actual cuts, or just reductions in the proposed increase?
So when is Kerry going to apologize for calling veterans baby killers?
So, they blocked the higher income veterans and gave more money to the poor veterans (cruel Republicans?).
Is it intellectually honest to call this a "cut"?
So your argument is that in a climate of massively rising health care costs, quality and capabilities, merely huge total increases in Vet spending that involve means testing (of which liberals approve) amounts to a cut.
Nice logic. You are welcome to give me a 10% "cut" in salary, if you first give me a pay raise of 80%, you cold hearted conservative.
You claim Bush is responsible for budget cuts to vets, the right proves that Bush increased funding exponentially for vets.... and your rebuttal is to use an article that states there is a backlog of the wealthiest veterans with no disabilities or health problems being delayed access to VA clinics?
That's not just a strawman, it also flies in the face of the liberal "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"...
I'm confused. The VA is trying to cope with a mess created by congress by cutting back on the HIGH-INCOME vets looking for a freebie. Isn't the viceral hatred of the successful part of your creedo?
Your answer in #58 was a non-answer.
Total spending for veterans' health benefits have been increasing more under Bush than any other president, and the total number of veterans has been decreasing at a faster rate than under any other president.
We are losing WWII veterans at a rate of 1500 to 2000 per day. My fellow Korean veterans are in their 70's and leaving this vale of tears at higher and higher rates.
Bottom line: There are many more dollars available per veteran.
The letter you posted talked about "cutting access" to Category 8 veterans (which would include me if I applied). I know a lot of my former colleagues (retired engineers and managers) who did apply and are getting low cost drugs. Their average total assets is probably a bit north of $1 million. Most of us took lump sum pensions and had very generous 401-k's.
The biggest problem that most of these guys have is to make sure they have an adequate supply of drugs before they take off on their trip to Russia, China, or a safari in Africa - or when they travel to their winter homes in Florida.
The VA "spending cut" crap is a big DNC lie.
Instead of cutting and pasting previous works, why not debate with your original thoughts?
I'm afraid it's back to work, now, but I'll check in later for your responses.
Wish we could sit over a beer and yak it up, some time.
---See this
Your article fails to support your assertion. Did you not understand it, or are you being disingenuous? Neither option inspires confidence.
In any case, in my experience that sort of behavior is typical for liberals. And I say that as someone who voted for Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, and Clinton (in 1992 -- by 1996 I had realized that the Democratic party was rapidly going insane). I proudly voted for Bush in 2000, and will proudly do so again this November.
Your own article admits there are no "cuts" in the VA budget. The only change is the imposition of an income ceiling for new veterans seeking treatment of non-service related medical problems. That's not a "cut", no matter how the left tries to distort the truth.