Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (49959)	6/29/2004 8:35:31 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Broken promises to veterans By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist \| June 27, 2004 WASHINGTON NATURALLY, the political world's pulse quickened last week when John Kerry flew back here for a vote on a veterans' health care issue, only to be sandbagged by the Republican Senate leadership, which postponed the vote just long enough for him to miss it. What was missing from the brief dust-up was a discussion of the issue that produced Kerry's change in plans and the Republicans' childish maneuvering -- befitting a political culture that loves the politics of anything and ignores the substance of almost everything. As it turns out, the issue before the Senate has been before it -- and the House -- of Representatives several times and goes to the heart of the promise made to people who serve in the military that they will enter a health care system designed to provide the care they require. The truth is that the country breaks that promise every day, and indeed it is President Bush's intention to go on breaking it as far as the eye can see, just as it is his intention to let the government continue to save a few bucks by deducting veterans' disability payments from their military retirement benefits. That a promise is being broken on health care cannot be denied. For years, Kerry and other members of Congress in both parties have battled to make the health care promise for the country's 26 million veterans unbreakable, instead of subject to annual discretion. A task force Bush appointed as a means of avoiding the issue recently noted that there is a large and growing mismatch between a growing need for care and available dollars. The result is that the Veterans Administration operates on the same ridiculous basis that private insurance does: denial of care as a way to save money. In the antilanguage of government it is known as "demand management." The result was that 200,000 veterans were turned away last year. That number will jump to 500,000 next year, and will hit 1.5 million people by 2013, as the aging phenomenon affects the country. In addition to turning people away from VA facilities en masse, the government is also gouging them with escalating out-of-pocket charges. Next year veterans will be paying roughly $1.3 billion of their own money on health care expenses, six times what they were paying when Bush took office. In addition, the government is using bureaucratic maneuvers to make it harder for veterans to use prescription drug benefits to which they are entitled. For example, an eligible person must see a VA doctor before he can use the drug benefit, even if he already has a prescription from his own doctor. This situation cannot be defended on its merits. No one does, though the administration and its congressional yes men on occasion hide behind the fact that federal expenditures on veterans' health care have risen by roughly a third since 2001 to more than $7 billion. Given the explosion in need, however, and the much bigger explosion that is just ahead, that fact is beside the point. Bush's task force on the issue ended up recommending what was offered in the Senate last week. The most recent House vote was unanimous, and the Senate has already voted three times before, always favorably. What was being proposed -- by Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota -- was a change that would make health care for veterans like Social Security or Medicare: If you're eligible, you get treated. In government-speak, it's called an entitlement. Instead of keeping a promise made to people who earned it the hard way, the government makes its promise subject to the annual whims of administration budgeters and congressional appropriators. In last week's legislative skirmish on the Senate floor, Daschle proposed a two-year trial of the entitlement. It is estimated that "fully funding" the health care promise would cost $2.6 billion more next year and then rise with the number of eligible veterans and inflation. There are arguments about how quickly the cost would rise after that. The problem, however, is not cost estimates, it is what Bush has done to the hemorrhaging federal budget. There will never be any room for closing the gap between supply and demand in veterans' health care as long as Bush's priorities hold. As a practical matter, keeping the top marginal income tax rate at 36 percent and completely eliminating inheritance taxes on multi-million-dollar estates means there is no room for veterans. Last week's vote never had a chance. Technically, it was a procedural test posing a question on national priorities. The Senate needed to waive budget rules to consider the proposal as part of an annual military spending measure, That requires 60 votes; without Kerry it got 49. A point was made, however, and it registered clearly with the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Benefit Reform, which includes every veterans organization there is. Kerry is for it. Bush is against it. Simple as that, and playing games with the Senate's schedule won't change the reality. boston.com