With the recent reports of Walter Reid and how terribly we treat our injured soldiers, one has to ask if the Administation really supports the troops. Really, how can we treat our injured soldiers this way? What say you Dems, Rebublicans, Military folks? Do you really think we're supporting our troops?
2nd. I'd like to hear from anybody in-the-know about: Can injured soldiers get medical treatment outside of military hospitals and clinics? Repubs always talk about privatizing things, why not let the soldiers use private health care (paid for by the Gov of course)?
2007-03-05 10:31:57 · 12 answers · asked by dapixelator 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
btw-- I'm not normally in the Blame Bush camp. I try to be objective. BUT... He took us to war and I expect ANY president R or D to take care of business on his watch and that means across the board of what they are ultimately responsible for. Bush, Rummy et. al. had to know that we'd have casualties and we've had them for several years now.
2007-03-05 10:49:07 · update #1
Next time I read the Constitution and it says that its the president's job to inspect every veterans hospital in the country, you'll have my support in blaming him. Why waste the money to pay for private hospitals when there are veterans hospitals for a cheaper price? Do you WANT us to increase our national debt even more?
2007-03-05 10:37:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I know the buck has to stop somewhere, but I do not know if it goes all the way to President Bush. A president has to delegate and then trust that the job is being done properly.
The second question: I believe that the system should be privatized for out patient care and most rehab. As a soldier and OIF vet (soon to be making a seond trip) I would want to be near my family during rehab and would prefer to recieve care at the provider of my choice being that I am a reservist.
I hate to hear the bad, but I have heard great things about the military hospitals, Walter Reed included. You have to take the media witha grain of salt (or a shaker full at times) I hope that the issue is resolved and fast, we owe our injured soldiers the best.
2007-03-05 10:40:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
All depends on viewpoint. Mine is "no", because of the points you make. Does support only mean "asking for more and more military funding appropriations each year"? I honestly don't know what he means by it...
But could support simply mean "not protesting against the troops"? Many anti-war protesters are out there carrying on their protests at military bases, or worse, at the funerals of those who died in these wars, which I think shows no class and has echoes of the Vietnam War past.
As to your second point, sure they can get medical treatment outside military hospitals/clinics...assuming that they have the money or independant medical insurance which will cover the injuries suffered in this war, which is doubtful. And there lies much of the real tragedy of any war...not just the dead, but the many more who are injured and disabled and how we care (or don't care) for them and their issues.
2007-03-05 10:47:49 · answer #3 · answered by David W 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Every branch of the military has the word Honor in it's creed. It is held to the highest standards by those who serve, but is treated as "they take care of their own" by all of us back home.
Americans are shocked that they are responsible for the care of their armies. They want only whole soldiers, not any duty to those who may need care.
Shame on all of us. We still think every young soldier is John Wayne waking up to the tender care of a buxom blond nurse, without any thoughts of feeling guilty of just being alive after battle. We all think they'll just get over it.
We want warriors, but also want them to somehow turn back into gentle and unassuming citizens the moment their service is over.
Take a walk through your VA hospital. Are you satisfied that you are still supporting your troops by attaching a ribbon shaped magnet sign that can be easily removed , (God forbid, you advocate anything that may hinder reselling the SUV).
Like it or not, the days of calling oneself an American hero because your brother, sister, mother, or father spilled their blood are over. Americans have got to stop living on the glory of others, and do the honorable action of standing upright for their own words.
2007-03-05 12:46:43 · answer #4 · answered by navymom 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are blaming Bush for this? Good heavens man, he can't be responsible for every last nut and bolt. That is why there are cabinet members. He is reported to that everything is all right. I am not a fan of his, but how could he inspect foreign WMD's, keep Cheney from shooting people, inspect Hospitals, rescue people from New Orleans, bury Anna Nicole Smith? What do you do that is so spectacular that you expect perfection from anyone else?
Amafanius, why do you attack the troops by saying they do something idiotically? Have you no shame or pride?
2007-03-05 10:38:59 · answer #5 · answered by Jim R 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He surely does. It's the Congress who don't.
Walter Reed has nothing to do with Pres. Bush.
It is the lack of funding by the Congress. The people in Walter Reed and VA hospitals only want to serve the wounded. I know personally. These people dedicate their lives to helping our wounded veterans.
As far as med out side vet hospitals. Only if contacting their Veteran doctor and an emergency.
This crap now on the media is just that. The liberals are out to destroy Pres. Bush and will do anything they can to do so.
War is hell and results in young who are maimed both physically and mentally.
It takes money to take care of these troops. Call/Email your congressman/Senator. They are at fault. It's monies.
Hisemiester
2007-03-05 10:40:40 · answer #6 · answered by hisemiester 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Bush administration has failed.
You can donate to many private groups that have sprung up to take up the slack for the failures in the VA. Rehab centers, building homes for diabled troops, etc..
With nearly 20,000 wounded soldiers it is past time to address this problem.
2007-03-05 10:44:57 · answer #7 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No the politicians work on the fear into people to get votes.
At one time they used to say that (in between kissing babies) "Vote for me I will give more schools, hospitals, cut down on crime, build more prisons", etc etc etc, and they never, and people got wise to it, and the people thought "Yeah Yeah I heard all before". And the politicians got wise to the apathy of the voters, so they say "If you vote for me I will protect you from this and protect you from that Blah Blah Blah" and that is now that they getting votes Listen to Bush and over here listen to Blair. It's what you call the 'Power of Nightmares'.
So to the answer is no! He doesn't support them, but listen to him speak on his last election, and listen to Blair in the election in May 07.
2007-03-05 10:51:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no i don't think he supports the troops he just wants to fight the war over there just so he can get the oil and he is not bothered about the solders how get killed our injured as long as he can keep the oil prices down
2007-03-05 10:46:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
all i know about this is that yes, the president/government supports the WAR with the war funding for equipment and such...but as far as treatment of the soldiers after the war or after they are discharged and home they get barely anything.
2007-03-05 10:36:09 · answer #10 · answered by Paulien 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋