Welcome to PatsFans.com

Support the troops by cutting benefits?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Feb 14, 2007.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    The Bush administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now — even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

    Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.

    After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070212/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget_veterans





    Its official....we live in bizzaro-world....
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +285 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    The rate of growth in the Bush administration has kept up with, if not surpassedl the growth in costs based on the little info in the article. An increase of 83% over 6 years outdoes the increase in costs depending exactly what this "Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years". The growth overall doesn't seem unreasonable on it's face.

    Keep in mind, too, that whlle we're adding new Iraq vets we're also losing WWII, Korea, Vietnam vets as they get old and pass away.
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    This is a cut in actual dollars, not a reduction in growth. If medical expenses go up, and the money available doesn't, that leaves less care per person. You could make an argument that this is good for the budget, but in no way is it good for the health of our veterans.
  4. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +306 / 4 / -2

    On the surface, without knowing all the figures involved in a cost analysis, this seems a bit surprising. I know that my brothers care has dramatically improved since GW took office. My bro is a disabled vet on disability. He went from never wasting his time at the VA, to going regularly. Regardless, he has his own health insurance as private care will forever be better over anything government provided. What's surprising is a leveling/cutting in 2012. Obviously, thats some years away, so who knows what will realistically happen. At any rate, on the surface, this looks bad. What I will add though, is that the budget has been increased 83% since GW took office, that's almost double, and will see a 9% increase this year. I'm sensative to vets and feel they deserve alot, but you can't ignore how politics plays out when it comes to spending. First of all, the 83% increase is indicative of the massive spending of this administration over it's tenure. Second of all, when you increase something 83% over 6 years, you'd think the animal has been satisfied. The problem is, the more you give an program (i don't mean to single out the VA here, think all programs), the more they spend, and expect to be fattened. When you almost double the funding, and then freeze, or cut, the cry is always "he/she wants to cut education/VA/defense/Homeland Security etc." When sheeple hear that, they think negatively. Again, I don't mean to say cutting the VA is a good thing, it's not, but without knowing cost analysis figures, it's hard to know whether or not a cut can be absorbed. On the surface, it doesn't look good though. It'd be hard for me to support any kind of cut for vets.
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    coupled with the fact that the troops are not getting the proper equipment, billions of dollars being 'lost' in Iraq....This is not a good way to deal with the future. Its a viscious circle only getting more wicked.
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,757
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +167 / 4 / -4

    Where is this growth rate of 83% coming from. Actually, while the growth rate has increased some, it had to given the fact that we're now involved in war.

    According to this reliable source:

    http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

    In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

    In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%.
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +306 / 4 / -2

    You've got to give the proper equipment thing a bit of a rest. My brother and a couple of his buddies I talk to all think that point has been very blown out of porportion. Equipment irregularities have been a part of every war we've ever faught. When you go to war you don't know what equipment will be more critical than another. When the theatre clarifies itself, and you come to understand what works and what doesn't, you then move to aquire what you need, or build more if you don't have many. In WWII, the Marines in the pacific theatre used bolt action Springfields cuz they couldn't produce Garands fast enough. During the Battle of the Bulge our forces had no winter gear. Does that excuse everything that's gone on? Of course not, but perfection is never going to be a part of any war. It sucks, but that's the reality of it.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,386
    Likes Received:
    139
    Ratings:
    +285 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Well that story didn't give enough info. I got the impression that spending increases have outdistanced costs, by a small amount, under Bush. And we don't know the number of people covered. WWII was about 70 years ago, that makes many of those vets 90-95 but 10 years ago would have been 80-85. I'm not rooting for people to die but while talking about all the new vets, a lot are no longer with us that were 10 years ago.
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +306 / 4 / -2


    The 83% came from the article in question.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>