Author Topic: Senate blocks Dems' bill boosting vets' benefits  (Read 409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 258,817
Senate blocks Dems' bill boosting vets' benefits
« on: February 27, 2014, 04:17:20 PM »

Support the USO

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,691
Re: Senate blocks Dems' bill boosting vets' benefits
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2014, 04:23:50 PM »
Quote
Republicans also objected to provisions letting more veterans without service-connected injuries be eligible for treatment at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. They said that would swamp an already overburdened system.

Why would a veteran do this?  From what I've heard, VA facilities IN GENERAL, suck.
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Senate blocks Dems' bill boosting vets' benefits
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2014, 06:11:17 PM »
Why would a veteran do this?  From what I've heard, VA facilities IN GENERAL, suck.

Maybe in some places, but we have a huge population of retired vets here and they all praise the treatment they receive through the AZ VA system, both locally and the hospitals in Prescott and Phoenix, too.

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,691
Re: Senate blocks Dems' bill boosting vets' benefits
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2014, 07:25:37 PM »
VA facilities should be for service-related injuries, especially if the vet has a second career with a non-military related organization.  I agree with Republicans on this. 
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 48,192
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: Senate blocks Dems' bill boosting vets' benefits
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2014, 07:40:17 PM »
VA facilities should be for service-related injuries, especially if the vet has a second career with a non-military related organization.  I agree with Republicans on this. 

I tend to agree.  I'm sure there are some gray areas at the edges that would have to be handled separately, but as a general matter if someone retired after 20 in the military at age 48, with no service-related injuries or health issues, and then obtains a good position with a private employer that provides some sort of health coverage, then that individual should be utilizing those services and not the VA's services.

This isn't about being nasty to vets, it's about conserving scarce resources so we can do as much as possible for those vets who were wounded in service; surely that's something that everyone can get behind.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf