Veterans Groups Critical of Bush's VA Budget

[papau]

Do we like the Bush "lower staffing levels = an increase in productivity by VA employees" :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24665-2004Mar2.html

Veterans Groups Critical of Bush's VA Budget
Dismay Over Higher Fees and Staff Cuts Could Be Boon for Democratic Nominee

By Edward Walsh
Special to The Washington Post
Wednesday, March 3, 2004; Page A25


<snip>After three years of mostly cordial relations with the administration, leaders of veterans' organizations and a union that represents VA workers are voicing strong criticism of Bush's fiscal 2005 budget plan. They assert that the budget would only worsen the backlog in processing disability claims, reduce the number of VA nursing home beds just as the number of veterans who need long-term care is swelling and force some veterans to pay a fee simply to gain access to the VA health care system.<snip>

VA officials reply that spending for health care will increase under the budget (even after a reduction of 540 full-time jobs in the Veterans Benefits Administration), but that tough choices had to be made because of the soaring budget deficit and limits on spending.<snip>

But critics in the veterans' organizations say the budget would effectively cut health care spending ($29.5 billion in budget- a 4.2 percent increase) because about $2.4 billion of the total would not come from congressional appropriations but from fees and other charges collected from third parties and from veterans themselves.<snip>

VA officials estimate that the new "user fee" would produce about $268 million a year and that the higher pharmacy co-payment would add about $135 million a year in revenue. They also project that these higher costs will prompt about 200,000 of the affected veterans to drop out of the system and get their health care elsewhere.<snip>

Linda Bennett, AFGE's legislative director, was equally critical of the proposed cuts in nursing home care, which she said would reduce the number of full-time VA nursing home beds to 37 percent below the level set in law by Congress in 1998. She said the VA has been trying to move more veterans into state-run nursing homes and "non-institutional" settings, such as home health care programs.<snip>

[papau]

1. kick n/t

n/t

[papau]

2. House Rejects Bush Scheme to 'Balance Budget on the Backs of Veterans'

http://www.democrats.com/

House Rejects Bush Scheme to 'Balance Budget on the Backs of Veterans'
The VFW stated Tuesday (3/2) that it was pleased that Bush's pathetically inadequate request of $1.8 billion for the VA was being rejected. Instead, $2.5 billion will be requested. "Aside from not balancing the budget on the backs of veterans, provides persuasive reasoning for rejecting the President's request to realign funding, charge enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug co-payment... anything less than the House Veterans Affairs' Committee's recommendations would amount to a denial of care. It would also fail to fully acknowledge our duty to those service men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq."


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=106-03022004

VFW Supports Recommendation to Increase VA Budget

WASHINGTON, March 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "The House Committee on Veterans Affairs' recommendation to add $2.5 billion to the Bush Administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical care programs represents a solid commitment to this nation's veterans" said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.

Expressing recognition of the House Veterans Affairs' Committee's rejection of the inadequate 1.8 percent increase in veterans' medical care funding contained in the Administration's proposal, VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said "The Committee has hit a triple and it is now up to the budget committee to drive us home and fully acknowledge the debt our nation owes its veterans.

"While the House Veterans Affairs' Committee's "Views and Estimates" funding plan falls short of what the Independent Budget shows is needed to meet the demand for quality veterans' health care, it is a real step in right direction. Aside from not balancing the budget on the backs of veterans, it provides persuasive reasoning for rejecting the President's request to realign funding, charge enrollment fees for access and more than doubling the prescription drug co-payment.

"With the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid projecting a 7.8 percent increase in health care spending and VA officials testifying that the veterans' health care system requires 13-14 percent annually to meet the needs of sick and disabled veterans anything less than the House Veterans Affairs' Committee's recommendations would amount to a denial of care. It would also fail to fully acknowledge our duty to those service men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I urge the House Budget Committee to build upon the recommendations of their colleagues on the House Veterans Affairs' Committee. I know that the American people will support their actions in defense of America's veterans, especially at a time of war." Banas said.

[zbdent]

3. There were a lot of PO'd veterans in Richfield Ohio a few weeks back

Came to vent about the rumors of closing the Brecksville (Ohio) VA.

Our boy, Representative Sherrod Brown (D-13) was getting a lot of support from them as he took their statements, questions, and concerns.

Somehow, I don't think that Bush has the support of many of the veterans any more.

Oh, I guess that you could count Tennessee Rep Van Hilleary (Repuke), who went to war in Gulf 1 not for "humanitarian reasons", but because the oil conflict could "wreck the economy". Once again, it was for the almighty buck, when it comes to Repukes.