Bleeding the Vets

Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | 8 February 2005

[Mac Smith]

Tuesday, February 8, 2005

Don't bleed vets

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

They were less than heartening words to hear from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs if you are the incoming secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. "The fiscal environment that you inherit will be considerably less friendly than the relatively flush times the VA has enjoyed over the last four years."

But that's just what Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the committee's chairman, told the new secretary, Jim Nicholson, last month.

Craig's caution has been confirmed with the short shrift given veterans' health care in President Bush's budget.

With a war on, and with the baby boom's veterans aging, the White House proposes increasing spending for health care throughout the Department of Veterans Affairs by a paltry 2.7 percent. Beyond that, some veterans would pay a more than doubled co-payment for prescription drugs and some would have to pay a new fee of $250 a year simply to access government health care.

The Bush administration led the country into an unnecessary war in Iraq, championed tax cuts heavily tilted toward the nation's richest taxpayers and has presided over the excavation of a record federal deficit. Now the administration would propose cut-rate VA health care and pass the hat among veterans to help pay for it?

The deficit is a very real problem, but suggesting that shortchanging veterans to fix it is cold-hearted fantasy.

[RightWhale]

the short shrift given veterans' health care in President Bush's budget

So cut something else besides a program that isn't effective.

[Mac Smith]

Correct.

[Texas_Jarhead]

who is that?

[Howlin]

Get the facts before you rant.

[Mac Smith]

Is this a non sequitur in illustrated format?

[TADSLOS]

Let the scaremongering begin.

[leprechaun9]

Two years ago, I learned for the first time that veterans could get prescriptions filled by the VA for a nominal fee. So I decided to apply, except then there was a new set of criteria for ALL NEW applicants. I was denied, but some of my friends were grandfathered because they enrolled before the new requirements were imposed.

Some of those in the lower priority (i.e., no service connected disability) now will have to meet the new standards.

My understanding is that under the FY2006 budget, there will not be any change for those with service connected illnesses or disabilities.

[phoenix0468]

Do you smell Troll Meat?

[phoenix0468]

Come on PH, light this one up.

[MeekOneGOP]

[phoenix0468]

The nose knows!! ROFLMFAO

[Hildy]

Here's the facts. Vets who can't afford it will still get their services free. Like everything else, SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY. I don't think it's outrageous to ask a vet, who is working, to pay $250 a year for his health care. Why is that outrageous? WHY?

[JoeGar]

I would assume that there are fewer veterans today since most of the WW II generation is dying off.

[mhking]

Paging Thor...

[RepublicanReptile]

My Grandfather was a vet of WWII,my grandma is a widow of a vet. For this post,I send you a little friend.

[PilloryHillary]

Welcome to FreeRepublic.com. Interesting first post. We're all challenged by your unique point of view, DU troll.

 

[RepublicanReptile]

Ooops, meant to send to the troll!

[rdl6989]

Are you thinking what I am thinking?