Comments on: Lawyers Say Vets Dying Waiting for VA Care

Federal Lawsuit Against Department Of Veterans Affairs Comes To A Close

[j-whitman]

lindaredtail,,,, Sorry pal,, Not enough outrage resulted in Bush''s appointment to a 2nd term & more devistataion to the War on Terror, military & national security.

[lindaredtail]

navalretgy Hopefully if we Americans do not diminish our outrage this situation can be remedied. I wish you the best.

[michael0004]

michael0004 I just downloaded it. I hope that I can be of help in some way.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by lindaredtail at 03:00 PM : May 02, 2008


Thanks. I appreciate your support.

[lindaredtail]

michael0004 I just downloaded it. I hope that I can be of help in some way.

[lindaredtail]

michael0004 Thank you. I am going to the link to become a commentor if I can. This is another rotten trick of the Bush administration.

[j-whitman]

marizara,,,, If the VA is privatized, there will be higher costs --- That''s the result of privatization in every industry as we''ve found out
.. Don''t forget our injured veterans & those with extedend medical problems don''t have the money to pay for privatized care.

[navalretgy]

I have been going through many issues with the VA for the past year in the fight for my benefits. I have been rated 10% disabled for my back condition and am now unemployable for this service connected disability. My Neurosergeon has issed a statement that I can no longer able or ever will be able do the job I was trained to do and the VA has not responded to my appeal for an increase. I can see where vets end up dieing before there claims are ever touched by the VA. They responmd to initial claims quickly but appeals end up taking years. They hope you either give up or die. The cover up demonstrates that VA protocol starts at the very top and it is the only way they can maintain their budget or even bonuses.

[michael0004]

lindaredtail - The following is the link to the VA''s proposed rulemaking:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-8091.pdf

This proceeding entitled "Definition of Service in the Republic of Vietnam" is open for public comment until June 16, 2008. The veterans who are adversely affected by this proceeding need as many people as possible to file comments with the VA opposing the VA''s proposal which attempts to redefine the definition of "service in Vietnam" to exlude those who served in the waters offshore (no matter how close to shore they were) and who served on ships in the harbors of Vietnam from being considered as having served in Vietnam despite their service recognition by the military services through the Vietnam Service Medal and other medals awarded in support of combat operations in Vietnam AND DESPITE THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OWN STAFF DECISIONS BETWEEN 1991 AND 2002 awarding these very same combat veterans disabilty for certain diseases associated with the spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Department of Veterans Affairs wants to interpret the statutory (The Agent Orange Act of 1991) "service in Vietnam" language to mean service in Vietnam for those who physically set foot on land in Vietnam even though neither the statute nor legislative history even so much as hinted at such a limitation or excusion. (This also is the basis for Haas vs Nicholson case currently pending before the US Court of Appeals.)

[Marie Zarankevich]

To mcapek: -- I have worked in a VA facility, and the real problem is not funding. -- It is the fact that the entire VA health care system is run as a bureaucratic agency, NOT as a health care system. -- I know, I hated it. -- Every single medical thing took as long as was humanly possible. -- The same as the workings in ANY government agency. -- Private medicine does NOT work that way. -- Private medicine expedites medical procedures, and does not protract them. -- From an experienced medical worker, that IS the problem.

[lindaredtail]

adek I too worked with veterans at a detox unit and the same was true. We used to take them anyway and work to find long term programs for them. This problem has been ongoing since the Reagan administration when they cut veteran''s funding. They don''t have a problem though funding war planes ect. Only equipment for our soldiers and services for our veterans. This should tell our veterans and soldiers who it is that supports them. It is not the Republicans. Bush is the first president in decades who commissioned new nuclear weapons. Smaller ones. What might he be thinking using smaller ones for? The Republicans fund wars. The Democrats do better at funding the issues that war creates.