'It's an Embarrassment, Absolutely' (Veterans React to Woodruff Documentary)

[sabra]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/WoodruffReports/story?id=2929321&page=1

'It's an Embarrassment, Absolutely'
Veterans React to Woodruff Documentary With Complaints of Treatment at Local VA Hospitals

March 6, 2007 — Since ABC aired Bob Woodruff's documentary "To Iraq and Back," we have received more than a thousand e-mails from veterans and their families, with many claiming they have had problems dealing with the Veteran's Benefits Administration as they seek rehabilitation from injuries sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What's remarkable among the notes is how many include similar complaints about how badly the smaller VAs around the country are dealing with the injured once they return home. A persistent problem mentioned is the bureaucracy involved in dealing with the VA system.

One mother wrote on the ABCNEWS.com message board that when her son returned from Iraq, he "had a time with all the paperwork" and "had to pay for his medical care for over a year before getting to the VA."

"I'm a disabled veteran who has experienced so many questionable decisions made by the VA," wrote another viewer, "that I refuse to go to any veterans hospitals. … I understand the VA is the largest provider for health care in our nation and they do have LIMITED RESOURCES; however, our country should not skimp on funds when our men and women have given their lives and futures for this nation."

[babylonsister]

1. bureaucracy = frustration. Mix government into it,

that's a recipe for failure, even before this admin. Now, I'm sure it looks and can be insurmountable.

Edit to add:
Thanks, sabra, for keeping this news out there. It has to stay 'news' for as long as we can do that.

[ProudDad]

4. You don't remember when Government

did a hell of a lot for people. For the last 30 years, it's been the goal of the ruling class to devalue and slander what government should and could do.

Remember, Government is supposed to be "We the People" and reflect our needs as a community of human beings.

That WAS the attitude of most people toward their government from the time of FDR until the right-wing started pissing in the soup around the time of Nixon. When I was growing up in the late 40s through the early 60s, government was supportive of people's needs and was fairly well regarded except by the ruling classes (and by the most oppressed minorities). (My Republican grandmother couldn't utter the words 'Franklin Roosevelt' but could only intone 'that damned man in the White House')

With ronny ray-gun's "election" (thanks to the repuke's collusion with Iran to prevent an 'October Suprise'), the process was complete. The replacement of "We the People in order to form a more perfect union" was replaced with "I've got mine, Jack, now screw you!" and "the government is not the solution, the government is the problem" and other right-wing memes.

Don't buy into the Randian crap... :shrug:

Let's all work together and finally create a government by and for "We the People"....

[babylonsister]

ProudDad, that was a well-deserved dress down. I really was

referencing the current climate, but grew up in the 50s, one of 5 kids, dad had a nursery (plant), and life was good for us. We had a roof over our heads, food, clothing, no one was complaining that I can recall.
Times surely have changed for many.
And I'm trying to get rid of this gov't so the 'we the People' idea is viable.

BTW, what is the Randian crap? Ayn?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

10. I believe he meant...

That barking mad insane White Russian...I'll stop right there. Yes, Ayn.

I have nothing but the deepest-held contempt for that sociopath and what she spawned. May her little slice of hell burn hottest.

[babylonsister]

11. Well, Hello There, T_S!

I'm a simple person, read Ayn Rand in my youth, liked the books, never got the political implications then (or now). I think I need to re-read them.
I don't get distressed over books but am not aware of what 'she spawned'. Really? That bad?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. Why yes it is, m'dear.

Put concepts like those espoused by that...thing...in the hands of sociopaths and the intellectually-challenged, or even worse, young and budding politicians, and you get what you have today.

Did you know that Alan Greenspan was a member of that thing's inner circle of lickspittle sycophants? Hasn't he made a lovely mess of things and walked away from it? That's Half-Assed Objectivism in action.

Alan Greenspan as one of Ayn Rand's superior beings. It is to laugh.

[babylonsister]

13. I do notice when Greenspan farts, even though he's retired, people

react. Yet. Now. Still. All this is a result of an author?

OK, so I checked out wiki. I must re-read a book or two and figure it out. Were her books any good, because when I was around 15, I do remember reading 2, and liking them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Rand's writing (both fiction and non-fiction) emphasizes the philosophic concepts of objective reality in metaphysics, reason in epistemology, and rational egoism in ethics. In politics she was a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism and a staunch defender of individual rights, believing that the sole function of a proper government was protection of the individual's right to his life, liberty, and property.

She believed that individuals must choose their values and actions solely by reason, and that "Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." According to Rand, the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Rand decried the initiation of force (considering fraud to be a covert initiation of force), and held that government action should consist only in protecting citizens from criminal behavior (via the police) and foreign hostility (via the military) and in maintaining a system of courts to decide guilt or innocence and to objectively resolve disputes. Her politics are generally described as minarchist and libertarian, though she did not use the first term and disavowed any connection to the second.<2>

Rand, a self-described hero-worshiper, stated in her book Romantic Manifesto that the goal of her writing was "the projection of an ideal man." In reference to her philosophy, Objectivism, she said: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." (Appendix to Atlas Shrugged)

[Up2Late]

19. Sounds just like "...an Army of One"

Probably the dumbest sales pitch for the Military ever.

I prefer the Vulcan Philosophy, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." I've yet had the nerve to go onto one of these "Star Trek 'Fan' sites" to tell them that "Vulcan Philosophy" is actually Buddhist Philosophy (and that Gene Roddenberry didn't actually come up with the whole "Vulcan Society" thing from scratch), it might cause a few heads to explode.

<http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Vulcan_philosophy>

This one's pretty amazing too: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(Star_Trek)>

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

27. That Wiki entry...

Was certainly written by a Half-Assed Objectivist, m'dear.

And as for her embrace of "reason", I would point you to her interview/audience interaction on an old episode of "Donohue". This is not a person of reason in this clip. This is a neo-royalist maniac.

I personally came away with the feeling that there was too much close breeding in her family.

[carla]

23. Ayn Rand's fiction may be

"fun to read", but her "philosophy"(if you can call it that) amounts to the incoherent, rantings of a diletante. The very notion of "selfishness as virtue" was based on her FEAR of Stalinist totalitarianism and has led to catastrophes the likes of Reagan, Bush 1&2 and the entire coterie of heartless bastards that have been in power for far too long. If one really wanted to follow any of what she wrote, then the best question to ask is "Where is John Galt?"...the probable answer is "Retired and living off a fat stock portfolio on some offshore get-away, at the expense of decent hard-working people from all over this poor planet." Scum like Greenspan are the cream of her crop, while ex-Trotskyites like Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle are the true heirs to her misguided attempts at "liberation-ology". Their notion of "freedom" is freedom to kick people when they are down, freedom to rob the trusting millions who make life possible and the freedom to avoid any responsibilty for the disaters they leave in their wake. If the rest of the world could secede from the fantasy realm of the followers of "the maven", Atlas would shrug these parasites onto the ash-heap of history...it is far better to be unselfish, to help the less fortunate and to take responsibility for what one does on this planet than to be a member of this gang that can't think straight and who are 99% ignorant of history. I wish her eternity in a realm of her espoused values..that's what I would call HELL.
I had studied her and read all her "works" in my twenties and I warned many would be "libertarians" that her concepts were half-baked reactions, not thoroughly considered ideas. I have, unfortunately, been proven right by the course of late 20th century American and "globalist" history. Anyone who would consider laissez-faire capitalism the "best system" and the proper expression of human values is a demented monster with no children to feed and no tomorrows to care about...a portrait of Rand.

[POAS]

16. Try this site for information about

Ayn's evil spawn:

Aynrand.org

[carla]

24. One need only read her 4th stanza

at the link to understand my point. Objectivism is a lie and science has proven this beyond a doubt...consider quantum theory as example of my position on her rantings. "A is A", perhaps, but reality is what you make it, what you perceive, what you see as a result of your own values, feelings,relationships and your own experiences plus much more that eludes us even on our "best days". Read Douglas Hofstadter's latest volume to understand more of what I am saying.

[POAS]

14. I think he was referring to Ayn's philosophy and I agree

with him about the "good old days" when government was working for the people. Now the people that are anti-government are in charge and the result is both predictable and obvious.

Government today is disfunctional because those in charge want it to be so. They do indeed subscribe to a "Randian" view of the world and just want to get government out of the way so we can return to what they view as "the good old days" when robber barons ruled and the rabble knew their place!

[babylonsister]

17. Thanks, POAS. I know it's late, and I'm out of here soon, but how

does this apply to Greenspan, who has been around for so long? Or for any other 'Randers', and who might they be besides anyone attached to this admin? Are older rethugs (not many left, are there?)like Warner, a part of this?

[POAS]

18. I don't think any of the

current leadership would identify themselves as followers of Rand's philosophy (just my impression at work here) but the concept of putting the self above and before all other considerations and the political/economic philosophy of total laissez-faire capitalism seems to be at the heart of their conservative governing strategy.

[ProudDad]

22. I don't want to be too "Pollyanna-ish"

When I was young I had the advantage of the best public schooling and a decent standard of living. My father was a Naval officer so we weren't really "well off" but we managed fairly well on his one salary.

Of course, I'm white. Our black and brown brothers and sisters didn't do as well. The "government of We the People" still didn't include black people at all (except in hawaii).

I'm cynical but I'm still an optimist. I think we can get there if we think of ourselves as a community of beings and not just as a loose collection of buccaneers...

[POAS]

25. I don't think your being

"Pollyanna-ish" as you put it. I agree that at one time the government did strive to work for people. As you point out that was more true for folks with pale skin (like me) than for others but it seems to me that at the very least the power brokers of the day were trying to bring about positive change for everyone.

Sometimes it took strong movements like those of Martin Luther King, Jr. and others to shake us into realization but eventually the government was moved to a progressive agenda aimed at the ideals set forth in the Constitution.

I hope we get back to those liberal and progressive ideals. The "Rand" types have set us back in their attempt to sqeeze the life out of a government aimed at progressing to those ideals.

[ProudDad]

20. Yes, Ayn

I wonder if she's even spinning in her grave about how they've used her words...???

[JoFerret]

7. NOT government, but THIS government

.

[heliarc]

8. Please...

I know for a fact that there are just as many people who have bureacratic nightmares with their HMO's This isn't about the Government being a bureaucratic mess. Its about the Government hospital at Walter Reed being outsourced to IAP. Its about every single Federal and Government power being brokered off to the friendliest bidder, and then letting the American people (and the poorest among them the most) hope that they will take a stake in it.

[babylonsister]

9. You don't think the government is involved in HMOs? Think

big pharmas and lobbyists, and then consider insurance companies. Let your imagination fly.

[POAS]

15. Privatization of government services is a two pronged

strategy, as I see it.

First it creates an entirely new profit stream fed entirely on the a tax burden borne by the lower and disappearing middle class.

Second it furthers the aim of "shrinking the size of government till it can be dragged into the bathroon and drowned in the tub".

[xchrom]

26. indeed.

the tax payer is seen by business and the republick party as an ever renewing gold mine.

their strategy has changed over the years -- in the 70's -- dixiecrats and conservatives appalled by lbj's great society burdened social welfare programs with SO MANY rules and regulations as to ham string them.
and it worked -- when reagan came into office he had the perfect spring board to launch his ''smaller government'' diatribe and propaganda -- notable is the deregulation of the airlines.

like a lot of things -- there's not reason why goovernment can't do the job it's supposed to do if you design it that way.

and of course -- if you hate it -- you design it to do the opposite.

and last but not least -- ineffective or not -- government is not an alien beast -- it is us -- the people.

which makes for an interesting psychological perspective called self loathing among the ruling classes and the subjects if one would care to look at it that way.

[Joe Chi Minh]

29. I think its privatisation, not government that makes the bad mix.

[seriousstan]

2. And I should trust my government for health care why?????

[heliarc]

3. Because the management for Walter Reed was outsourced to IAP

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/03/walter_reed_dis.html

About a year ago the Federal jobs for management support at Walter Reed were outsourced to IAP ... read the article. Its a damn good argument for why you should trust the government and NOT big Corporations.

[ProudDad]

5. Uh, because the privatized

medical-industrial-pharmaceutical complex won't do SHIT for you?!! :shrug:


On Edit: And what Heliarc said...

And the fact that we're not talking about "government health care", we're talking about Universal Single-Payer health coverage.

HR676 == http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676_2.htm

[DeepBlueC]

6. maybe not this government

..which is working its way out of the little health care they are currently obliged to provide by outsourcing it to Halliburton and friends. The reason they do it so badly is that they want you to give up trying and go away. You notice the planned cuts to the VA? That's policy not fiscal prudence. I imagine it won't be long before the VA "has" to be reformed along the lines they have in mind for Social Security. In fact I bet that will be what some commission or other tells Bush eventually, if not the Dole/Shalala one, then another one whose conclusions run more to his liking.

[SoCalDem]

28. If your "government" is the "cause" of your NEED for care, then YES!

I suspect that most injured soldiers would have preferred to return home intact, and to go back to their "normal" lives, but when that atrocity created by Bush wounds these soldiers for life, then YES..the government does OWE them the best of care...at NO financial cost to the soldier..

[HardWorkingDem]

21. Know what really got me? The doctor's comments vs Nicholson's

When I was watching segments on Woodruff, when he went to the VA doctor and asked about hospital care and then asked the political appointee Nicholson the same question, Nicholson lied his rear end off (I'd type "ass" but am afraid the right wing nuts out there will count my word "ass" and keep track of it). It made me sick.