takin' care of our best...

If you go to the homepage for the Veteran Affairs, you will see in bold writing:

MISSION
The mission of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is to provide assistance to Nebraska’s veterans and their dependents in acquiring county, state, and federal benefits to which they are entitled by virtue of their service to this country.


The New York Times recently announced:

"Under withering criticism from veterans and Congress, Obama Wednesday abandoned a proposal that would have required veterans to use their private health insurance to pay for the treatment of combat-related injuries."

Well that sure is nice of him. Especially since most of them rely 100% on the VA for their medical needs, and have no private health insurance. The only reason this particular subject gets me edgy is because I’ve watched my Dad go through the ringer with his health issues and injuries he sustained from the Vietnam War. Agent orange, Shrapnel, and PTSD are only three of the grounds for treatment my Dad seeks after fighting as an army ranger in Vietnam for 19 months.

In a recent letter to the president, the American Legion and 10 other veterans organizations denounced the proposal as “a total abrogation of our government’s moral and legal responsibility” to treat service-connected injuries and illnesses.

Lawmakers of both parties said the proposal would have made it more difficult for some veterans to get affordable private health insurance for themselves and their families.
“Pushing combat injuries onto personal insurance plans could make service to our nation a pre-existing condition,” which could then be used to validate the denial of private coverage.
After reiterating the importance of generating universal and feasible health insurance for all Americans as a top priority, Obama denied the proposal.

Veterans groups thanked the president on Wednesday.

Thanked him, eh? I am sure they were completely diplomatic, but I wonder what the veterans were really thinking. I know what my Dad would have said…

“Thanks for not takin’ away my right to free and full health care for fightin’ for this country when you were still shittin’ yer britches, Obie!” (In fact, I am pretty sure he yelled something along those lines at the T.V from his recliner about 2 hours ago.)

I wonder if that would have made the session in writing…

The plan was initially deemed “necessary” as it was proposed to save the United States more than $500 million a year. Putting it in such a simple expression does make it sound quite appealing, but not so much after taking a look at a few statistics.
* There are currently 24.3 million veterans alive in the united states that are eligible for VA benefits, and only 11% of them receive disability.
* 48% of veterans currently covered by the Dept of VA are ACTIVE DUTY… what are the chances of re-enlisting if they are unable to provide health care for them or their families?
* Average annual amount paid to veterans or survivors under disability compensation benefits: $9,811 – Now, I will be the first admit I am not very educated on this subject, but I know for darn sure that $9,811 annually isn’t alone enough to keep a disabled person above water. How much more could you take away?

Best quote from the entire article:
“Our budget cannot be balanced on the backs of our nation’s combat-wounded heroes.” Damn straight Bob Filner

--------
Something interesting I found while digging up on some statistics. Not relevant to the insurance proposal dropped, but fascinating none the less:
Wounded-to-killed ratio*
* Global War on Terror (Iraq, Afghanistan and surrounding areas) 16:1
* Desert Storm/Desert Shield: 1.2
* Vietnam: 2.6
* Korea: 2.8
* World War II: 1.6
* World War I: 1.8

Notice out of the 6 wars listed here, the ‘Global War on Terror’ is the first that the killed soldier ratio is not greater than wounded.