Posted on Sep 16, 2015
Do You Think A Bipartisan Taskforce Can Get The Job Done, Fixing Veterans Health Care?
8.28K
143
69
8
8
0
In a recent report: (please click on the hyperlink--READ REPORT) it's a lot of topics to fully understand the thread!
http://taskforce.cv4a.org/#i9MsCu2IA60qw82ML5Az5A
From September to February, Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) convened the Fixing Veterans Health Care Taskforce with the mission of isolating existing challenges to veterans’ health care, identifying systemic solutions, and proposing concrete reforms that can dramatically improve health care delivery for our nation’s veterans. This bi-partisan taskforce included, and is co-chaired by, a top-notch list of former VA leaders, health care experts, and leading congressional voices.
The Taskforce issued its final report with a concrete set of policy recommendations—the Veterans Independence Act—at our policy summit on February 26, 2015. Both the report and video of the summit are available here. We will continue working with reform-minded legislators to propose legislation for the 114th Congress.
http://taskforce.cv4a.org/#Taskforce
http://taskforce.cv4a.org/#i9MsCu2IA60qw82ML5Az5A
From September to February, Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) convened the Fixing Veterans Health Care Taskforce with the mission of isolating existing challenges to veterans’ health care, identifying systemic solutions, and proposing concrete reforms that can dramatically improve health care delivery for our nation’s veterans. This bi-partisan taskforce included, and is co-chaired by, a top-notch list of former VA leaders, health care experts, and leading congressional voices.
The Taskforce issued its final report with a concrete set of policy recommendations—the Veterans Independence Act—at our policy summit on February 26, 2015. Both the report and video of the summit are available here. We will continue working with reform-minded legislators to propose legislation for the 114th Congress.
http://taskforce.cv4a.org/#Taskforce
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Government
Benefits
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 25
6
6
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
SGT Sean Wike Agreed, but since we are all "arm chair quarterbacks" here on RP I'll put in a good word with the Man up above - will that work Sean?
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
VA is a political organization, used for political purposes to achieve political gains. As such, VHA is less a health provider than an 'entitlements determination agency.' Despite the fact that veteran benefits are earned through service it is funded by the people who fund welfare entitlements. One group sees veteran benefits as different than other entitlements while the other sees them as the same, or worse the reason they can't do more for the 'needy.' Proof in this argument can be found in the number of people fired for poor performance, cooking the books on patient numbers, destroying veteran claims, etc.
(2)
(0)
FN George Woodruff
Col. Harrison you have put your finger on a major part of the problem. As a 100 percent service disabled veteran I have seen the best and the worst of VA care. I also served as State Legislative Officer for the DAV, Dept. of Florida, and, after moving to Georgia I served as State Legislative Co Chairman. The VA is all about politics which are cut throat and often as nasty as you can get. Congress writes legislation that is often unworkable that doesn't correct or solve the problems. A recent example is the Choice Act which got a lot of publicity for its sponsors and turned out to be practically unworkable in practice. Often legislation passed contains too many "mays" and not enough "shalls". That allows the VA bureaucrats latitude to write regulations that work in the favor of top employees instead of veterans. Can a bi-partisan group straighten out the mess? As one who served as a Legislative Advisor, owned three Public Relations Firms, and ran numerous successful campaigns I seriously doubt it. It will take outsiders who have experience in hospital operations and business who are willing to put aside personal considerations to find a workable solution. Then will come the job of getting Congress to pass it into law. I really do not hold out much hope. Veterans care has always been problematical and change will come hard. Too many special interests to buck.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Both of the mainstream parties are two sides of the same coin. They are both in the pocket of the lobbyists that fund their campaigns. We the people do not matter to the politicians. Veterans are only important when it is time to pander for votes. So to answer your question, I do not think any politicians are capable of fixing the veteran health care system. They aren't capable of fixing their own bureaucracy. Until we the people vote for change by not re-electing the bastards, no real solutions are going to be forthcoming.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Bipartisanship is dead. (That's a period at the end of that sentence and I mean it - Dead Period) The art of Log Rolling ended when civility departed the halls of Congress. To be sure, there has always been a degree of uncivility in Congress. There was even one famous case of a Senator caning (beating the crap out of) an opponent. Even so, the vast majority of members of Congress recognized that little could be accomplished without some give and take. Sadly an ideological divide has replaced collegiality and anyone who straddles the fence is only making a better target of themselves. Interestingly, President Johnson sits at the hub of this transition. As a "log roller" he prevailed on the GOP minority to join with a few of his fellow Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act (no majority of Democrats could be assembled to get the job done even though they held a significant majority in Congress) Later, Johnson used that Democratic majority to create the War on Poverty thereby enslaving minorities and binding them with the government teat. Ever since that time the divide between ideologies has grown into an abyss. It's not really a GOP vs Democrat thing. A good many GOP members of Congress are almost as left-leaning as their opponents (which has become clearly evident since the GOP won a majority in both chambers and have been legislating like Democrats). With the White House occupied by a radical leftist, little will get done except when the GOP Congress abandons their base and enact progressive legislation. Where does that leave the VA? So far, not very favorably...
(5)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL (Join to see) - Oops. I just noticed that I failed to vote up your earlier response as promised. As to this one, I'm still not sure you have answered my objection. I am fully familiar with "democracy" and the cycle of a democracy (I am a student of law as well as history. Although I write historical fiction I include as much actual historical foundation as possible). I still maintain that "democracy" is overused in reference to the United States and the failure of our citizens as well as our leaders to understand the difference has led us astray.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Using 'Democracy' to describe our Republic has a purpose. As a student of Communication and Mass Media, I learned how Hitler used the 'big lie' to persuade a country to believe as he wished. So, when the liberal socialist/democrats use the term 'democracy' to label our country and form of government, they are purposely shifting the country from a country of laws to a country 'of the people.' The messaging fits their purpose of 'serving the people' while they manipulate the system and laws to control the people. Both parties have used this method to request people to give up liberty for the promise of security (same thing Hitler did). In the end, people forget that the most secure place to be can be a prison. Our country was a Constitutional Republic but has evolved, at least since Johnson, into a democracy and soft socialism.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL (Join to see) - Although the progressive campaign to destroy the rule of law and replace it with democracy was greatly accelerated during the Administration of Lyndon Johnson, it actually began with Teddy Roosevelt. The interesting difference between them was that Roosevelt, Wilson and other early progressives were motivated by good intentions. Johnson was motivated by purely partisan politics. The best intentions, it really seems, do lead to hell...
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
I agree that TR and WW both advocated democratic programs. Wilson gave us the IRS, Federal Reserve and a transition from the peaks and valleys of government economic boom and bust (letting the central bank manage volatility) while providing the means for redistribution of wealth to address social issues. Thankfully, he failed in the League of Nations or we would already have the "New World Order' and centralized government. TR's 'Square Deal' was based on big government, protecting the middle class and controlling both unions and corporations. While TR focused on America, Wilson focused on the world. Both with the desire to protect the middle class from the plutocrats/oligarchy growing during the early 1900s. The crash in '29 didn't level the playing field but it was a good start.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google