such as
the closing of several VA hospitals, pushing waiting lists for med services for +200,000 wounded veterans back up to six months
bush's decision to slash 900 million in veterans health care benefits
his decision to cut veteran housing program funding by +50 million
increase costs of prescription drugs for wounded veterans, preventing many veterans from a poorer background from receiving the necessary treatment.
don't forget: you're the ones who say you support the troops, and say we hate the troops. if we hate them so much, why are we trying to bring them home? and why are we the ones trying to secure their health benefits?
or let me guess, you give these wounded veterans the same line you give the poor, the elderly, and the others in no position to help themselves: "GO GET A JOB!"
or maybe by decreasing veteran health care funding, you guys figure you can save more money for the war, and give the rich bigger tax breaks, right?
2007-09-29
11:44:57
·
18 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
all of those proposals were proposed by and approved by conservative politicians
2007-09-29
11:45:59 ·
update #1
VA health care has gotten so good under bush that I can now afford to buy medication from china...
The "surge" has made it worse, as predicted. Now noteworthy successes but a lot more casualties with zero planning to take on the increased load. So VA staff is being shipped overseas
2007-09-29 11:55:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Gaspode 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
I am for helping all wounded veterans but don't see a need to give the non wounded health care for life unless it was promised as part of a benefit package. My brother spent 20 years in the Air Force, not wounded gets his promised pension and life time medical care. It like other government pensions shouldn't be changed after earned but if they can get people to give 20 years without the promises we would save some money. My brother is 60 so has already had more retiree health care than the time he served and now is getting a lung biopsy at tax payer expense.
You don't even need to be career military or injured to get a lifetime benefit my boyfriend's dad served in WWII and my boyfriend in Viet Nam and both get lifetime benefits. They didn't use them when they had good coverage at work. My boyfriend tried when uninsured but they took months to schedule an appointment. His dad had a chronic problem and had regular treatments so was well served.
If we make it too good everyone will want to use it even if they have other care.
The injured should be treated promptly and with all we can do for them.
2007-09-29 12:00:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by shipwreck 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't support cutting funds for health care for Veterans. I support giving more money to Veterans health care. And, I think they should have the same good health care as what the senators, congressmen and the Presidents get. I also think we should all get that kind of health care so we can have a very healthy and happy nation so that we can thrive as a people, an economy and as families.
2007-09-29 12:11:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Here I am, sitting at a computer screen where I otherwise do my job. Being wounded has not held me back in any way. Why do wounded war veterans need seperate hospitals (apart form getting them away from rude anti-military people)?
They could buy housing the same as others, if they got back their money taxed off them for various welfare projects they didn't vote for.
A true militarist government would spend more on military equipment and nothing on pensions except for the war wounded. How come all those other old geezer civilians are clogging up the cruise liners and golf courses on my dollar?
2007-09-29 11:58:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
No, I don't support politician's proposals to cut veteran health care benefits and I am a conservative. Bush is not one.
2007-09-29 12:04:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Their cries of "socialized medicine" and "go get a job, you bum!" will drown out any respect or sense of compassion for those who have served our country. Many conservatives don't like people taking their money- especially if it goes to those "bum" veterans.
2007-09-29 12:00:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Frank 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I'm not a conservative,but I'm a vet, and this is exactly the kind of crap that burns my as$...Somebody ....needs an as$ whippin' ,at the very least....Again,I volunteer to defend my fellow comrades...and for all the "non-participants"...Keep your nose out of military business,you might get it broke....
2007-09-29 11:50:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
0⤋
all that garbage factcheck article does is divide the amount of aid given by the amount of soldiers
There are more wounded now than during clinton's administration, of course spending is going to go up.
2007-09-29 12:12:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Antonis P 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
No. Soldiers need good medical care. Bums and drug addicted welfare mothers can get a job, or sleep in a snow bank. There is a difference between soldiers getting wounded serving and a idiot smoking crack and refusing to work.
2007-09-29 11:52:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by WEASEL LIBERALS 3
·
3⤊
3⤋
No. I do not support cutting any veterans' benefits ever.....
2007-09-29 11:56:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Brian 7
·
4⤊
0⤋