Something Concrete You can do to Support Severly Injured Vets Today

The Veteran's Omnibus Caregiver and Health bill is being blocked by
one Senator; Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. More of our wounded soldiers are
surviving but a larger portion than ever require life long care. Right
now much of that care falls on families and aging parents. This bill
helps out financially and will give caregivers some break time.

You can help by letting Coburn know what you think and getting some of
his party members to press Coburn harder. Coburn says he's blocking
the bill for budget reasons. But NO OTHER REPUBLICAN OR DEM agrees.

Here is a Marine Corps Times article on the issue. Read it and maybe
you can help in some small way today or tomorrow.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...nhold_110309w/

Dave

On Nov 11, 9:36*am, DaveS wrote:
The Veteran's Omnibus Caregiver and Health bill is being blocked by
one Senator; Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. More of our wounded soldiers are
surviving but a larger portion than ever require life long care. Right
now much of that care falls on families and aging parents. This bill
helps out financially and will give caregivers some break time.

You can help by letting Coburn know what you think and getting some of
his party members to press Coburn harder. Coburn says he's blocking
the bill for budget reasons. But NO OTHER REPUBLICAN OR DEM agrees.

Here is a Marine Corps Times article on the issue. Read it and maybe
you can help in some small way today or tomorrow.http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...eteransbill_co...

Dave

Here is Coburn's addy. I suggest you read the Marine Corps Times
article first because Coburn wants to make his point on the deficit at
the expense of moving forward on vet health care. He doesn't need to
do this because actual funding for benefits traditionally is handled
separately from the bills that authorize the benefits.

www.Coburn.Senate.Gov

Coburn and his staff are not known for their intellectual capacity but
when you Email them or talk to them please, be polite (particularly us
Dems), be non-partisan, keep it simple and direct. "It is time to let
this legislation go forward."

Whatever your feelings about these 2 wars, we cannot walk away from
this responsibility to care for our wounded and bury our dead.

Dave

On Nov 11, 12:27*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:36*am, DaveS wrote:

The Veteran's Omnibus Caregiver and Health bill is being blocked by
one Senator; Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. More of our wounded soldiers are
surviving but a larger portion than ever require life long care. Right
now much of that care falls on families and aging parents. This bill
helps out financially and will give caregivers some break time.

You can help by letting Coburn know what you think and getting some of
his party members to press Coburn harder. Coburn says he's blocking
the bill for budget reasons. But NO OTHER REPUBLICAN OR DEM agrees.

Here is a Marine Corps Times article on the issue. Read it and maybe
you can help in some small way today or tomorrow.http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...eteransbill_co...

Dave

Here is Coburn's addy. I suggest you read the Marine Corps Times
article first because Coburn wants to make his point on the deficit at
the expense of moving forward on vet health care. He doesn't need to
do this because actual funding for benefits traditionally is handled
separately from the bills that authorize the benefits.

www.Coburn.Senate.Gov

Coburn and his staff are not known for their intellectual capacity but
when you Email them or talk to them please, be polite (particularly us
Dems), be non-partisan, keep it simple and direct. "It is time to let
this legislation go forward."

Whatever your feelings about these 2 wars, we cannot walk away from
this responsibility to care for our wounded and bury our dead.

Dave

Thank you, Dave.

I just sent an e-mail to encourage him to do the right thing,
especially on today of days.

oz, USAF, ret.

On Nov 11, 11:18*am, MajorOz wrote:

I just sent an e-mail to encourage him to do the right thing,
especially on today of days.

oz, USAF, ret.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you.
Dave

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:36:36 -0800 (PST), DaveS wrote:

The Veteran's Omnibus Caregiver and Health bill is being blocked by
one Senator; Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. More of our wounded soldiers are
surviving but a larger portion than ever require life long care. Right
now much of that care falls on families and aging parents. This bill
helps out financially and will give caregivers some break time.

You can help by letting Coburn know what you think and getting some of
his party members to press Coburn harder. Coburn says he's blocking
the bill for budget reasons. But NO OTHER REPUBLICAN OR DEM agrees.

Here is a Marine Corps Times article on the issue. Read it and maybe
you can help in some small way today or tomorrow.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...nhold_110309w/

Dave

FWIW, if you're at all interested in his side of the story:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...d-60a182852e39

I'm not saying he right or wrong, only that there are at least two sides to any
disagreement...and often three sides - one side's, the other side's, and the
whole truth. And I've got to say, assuming Coburn's side is even somewhat close
to the truth, the idea that there is already a similar program that is
under-utilized is pretty significant. And assuming every eligible vet's
caregiver took advantage of the proposed new program, $390,000.00 a year per
caregiver seems a bit excessive, assuming the thing was fully funded at the $3.9
billion (3.9 billion / 5 years / 2000 eligible vets' caregivers). One question
that might be worth asking is that if this thing would cover _potentially_ 2000
vets' and their caregivers at about $3000.00 a month, why isn't something like
390 mil, plus a coupla mil in admin costs, being budgeted...?

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that if the US Government is gonna send people
into harm's way, such that they wind up in a position to require long-term care,
it better damned well figure out how to take care of them properly.

Just running a few things up the flagpole,
R

On Nov 11, 5:05*pm, wrote:

Richard, you are one hilarous guy, but do you really need to **** on
yourself on even this? Can't give it rest can you?

Dave

On Nov 11, 6:58*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:05*pm, wrote:

Richard, you are one hilarous guy, but do you really need to **** on
yourself on even this? Can't give it rest can you?

Dave

What Richard missed is that the cost estimates START with 475 vets in
the first year phase in, and are serving 52,500 Vets by the 5th year.
Then he takes the 5 year costs for the larger vet figure, but divides
it by the 2000 figure for CURRENT post 9/11 RETIRED severely injured
vets needing caregiver support, to get an absurd cost per vet figure,
and he calls it the "other side." I call it a shenanigan.

Here's the actual language from page 5 of the Congressional Budget
Office S. 801 estimate of vets who would be served by the caregiver
part of the Caregiver and Omnibus Health bill, made on 8/31/09.

"Stipends.
Section 102 of the bill would require VA to pay a monthly stipend to
caregivers
of severely injured veterans. CBO estimates that implementing the
provision would cost about $2.5 billion over the 2010-2014 period.
Under section 102, caregivers of veterans whose severe service-
connected injuries were incurred or aggravated on or after September
11, 2001, would be eligible for monthly stipends and other benefits.
(The other benefits are discussed below.) Based on
information from the Department of Defense (DoD) on military retirees,
CBO estimates that in 2010 caregivers to about 2,000 veterans would be
eligible for VA benefits.
Starting in 2012, the bill would widen the eligible population to
include caregivers of
other veterans with severe service-connected injuries. Based on
information from VA on how they would implement the bill, CBO
estimates that caregivers to 52,500 veterans would become eligible for
VA benefits. CBO further estimates that the program would be
implemented gradually, with only 475 caregivers receiving stipends in
2010 and full implementation in 2015."

And the CBO estimate WAS linked on Coburn's own site, but they never
expect people to drill down .Consequently the kindest interpretation I
can make of RDs post is he made an "oversight."

Dave

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:09:27 -0800 (PST), DaveS wrote:

On Nov 11, 6:58*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Nov 11, 5:05*pm, wrote:

Richard, you are one hilarous guy, but do you really need to **** on
yourself on even this? Can't give it rest can you?

Dave

What Richard missed is that the cost estimates START with 475 vets in
the first year phase in, and are serving 52,500 Vets by the 5th year.
Then he takes the 5 year costs for the larger vet figure, but divides
it by the 2000 figure for CURRENT post 9/11 RETIRED severely injured
vets needing caregiver support, to get an absurd cost per vet figure,
and he calls it the "other side." I call it a shenanigan.

Something is definitely a shenanigan, but it's hard to tell what. For example,
according to the CBO document both you and Coburn cited, 475 vets will be
eligible in 2010, but:

"CBO estimates that in 2010 VA would reimburse $1,950 each to 34,000 nonveterans
(an average per diem rate of $130 for 15 days a year), for a cost of $66 million
in 2010."

and

"After adjusting for gradual implementation of the program over the 2010-2014
period and for inflation, CBO estimates that the number of nonveterans receiving
per diems would grow to almost 150,000 a year by 2014 and VA would spend about
$1.2 billion a year over the 2010-2014 period."

Now, there may be a perfectly good reason why 34,000 "non-veterans" are
traveling 15 days, on average, a year in relation to care-giving for 475 vets
served (versus 2000 eligible and which works out to a little over 1000 travel
days per year per vet), or 150,000 are traveling when there is _projected_ to be
52,500 vets _eligible_ but I didn't see even a agency-speak explanation of any
of it. Moreover, since thus far there have only been about 35,000-40,000 total
"injuries" in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which would obviously be about the only
sources of combat-related injuries requiring LT care after 9-11-01. That number
includes everything from minor combat and non-combat injuries to severe,
permanent injury requiring a FT caregiver - which, again apparently, using the
docs own numbers, there are 2000 such vets today. It seems unlikely that Iraq
and Afghanistan will swell that number - thankfully - by 2012, but there's no
explanation of where the 52,500 number comes from, nor is there an explanation
of how or why it goes from 475 to 52,500 in four years (actually, it _appears_
it does it in 3 years, because the date-of-injury limitation only, well, changes
somehow (again, no explanation) in 2012.

IAC, and IMO, one question that Coburn seems to have right is why in the ****
aren't _all_ injured vets being cared for equally, properly, and in a reasonable
fashion (as an aside to that, maybe Congress', and their staffs', health-care
ought to be provided by the VA - that alone would solve a bunch of issues)? And
some I'd like to answered: Why this September 11th bull****? Why is the US
Congress addressing people injured in 2001 in 2009, or, if there is already
another such program, why isn't it being used by eligible vets with caregivers,
whether they were injured at Gettysburg or yesterday in Iraq?

As to what else is right or wrong about this bill, who knows? Even looking at
the revised text of the bill itself provides little help (not an uncommon
situation, considering most are written by little more than college kids with
too much education, too little knowledge, and little or no "real-world"
experience, with a read-over by lawyers too ****-poor to make it even as corp
counsel). For example, the "travel" thing - 34,000 "non-vets" versus 475 vets,
progressing to 150,000 versus 52,500 - WTF?

Actually, above, the Congress and the VA, I would propose, rather than
having a VA medical system, a "Federal Health Care Administration," which would
provide all Federally-provided health care - vets, Congress, POTUS, Veep -
anyone who gets fed-funded health care. Pelosi needs a flu shot? Either she
unasses her checkbook or to the FHCA clinic she goes. Boehner can't get a
boner? It's the to Internet or the clinic, Johnny-boy. Schumer needs surgery
to reenforce his vocal chords? CNN can give his sorry ass coverage in the bed
right next to Spc. Jones of Coonpecker, TN who got IED'd in Iraq....actually,
no, it wouldn't be right to do that to poor Jones - put Schumer next to Tom
DeLay, who will be getting his dancing injuries fixed - that'll serve 'em both
right...

Here's the actual language from page 5 of the Congressional Budget
Office S. 801 estimate of vets who would be served by the caregiver
part of the Caregiver and Omnibus Health bill, made on 8/31/09.

"Stipends.
Section 102 of the bill would require VA to pay a monthly stipend to
caregivers
of severely injured veterans. CBO estimates that implementing the
provision would cost about $2.5 billion over the 2010-2014 period.
Under section 102, caregivers of veterans whose severe service-
connected injuries were incurred or aggravated on or after September
11, 2001, would be eligible for monthly stipends and other benefits.
(The other benefits are discussed below.) Based on
information from the Department of Defense (DoD) on military retirees,
CBO estimates that in 2010 caregivers to about 2,000 veterans would be
eligible for VA benefits.
Starting in 2012, the bill would widen the eligible population to
include caregivers of
other veterans with severe service-connected injuries. Based on
information from VA on how they would implement the bill, CBO
estimates that caregivers to 52,500 veterans would become eligible for
VA benefits. CBO further estimates that the program would be
implemented gradually, with only 475 caregivers receiving stipends in
2010 and full implementation in 2015."

I not only saw that, I referenced it - now explain it.

And the CBO estimate WAS linked on Coburn's own site, but they never
expect people to drill down .

I drilled, I drilled...unfortunately, no one said anything about there being a
full septic tank down there...

Consequently the kindest interpretation I can make of RDs post is he made
an "oversight."

Yeah, right - your head under your muumuu makes your ass look big...and there's
no way to "oversight" around it...

Dave

No doubt whatsoever about that...

HTH,
R

On Nov 15, 5:59*am, wrote:
Richard
This is one of those times when you reveal all too clearly that at
least a big chunk of your particular assiness is based on what your
life experiences have not included. In the interests of a busy day I
will be brief.

Here are a few relevant words:

Ramp up?
Surge?
Implement?
Roll-out?
Tool up?

Start to get the picture? Nope?

Richard, maybe you can talk to some of the management types you know
and ask around "What are the steps. phases etc you go thru when you
implement a large new, nationwide program? . . . when you roll out a
new product or service? . . . when you change over to a new production
process? Do you bring people together to train them in the new program/
the new way of serving your customers?"

I am going to take a risk and say that you just might hear words like
"plan," train, test market, roll out gradually, anticipate
bottlenecks, set goals and objectives, involve suppliers, reach out to
the market," etc. You know, those pesky words that managers use to
describe how decisions and investments are implemented on the ground.
I would think you could get 90% of your bull**** questions and half
your excuses addressed this way.

Oh, I forgot, your MPA is from the "GOOD JOB BROWNIE School of Public
Administration. And your last post just tries to pack more bull****
around your earlier half ass-ed boy debater attempt to join yourself
to one of the biggest buffoons and hypocrites ever to pretend to be a
US Senator from either party.

This country has given you and your family a lot. You got no call to
defend an asshole who ****s on wounded vets. You can back out of this
anytime soon and I won't give you a hard time.

Dave

Today, largely thru the bi-partisan pressure applied to Sen.Tom Coburn
a compromised was reached with this America Hater whackjob, to
withdraw his hold on the bill IF he were allowed to enter a BS
amendment to take US contributed money away from the UN and other
international aide orgs. Pretending his hold was based on his concern
about the deficit (Strangely he had no compelling concern pre- Obama)
Coburn's embarrassed Republican colleagues helped with the face-saving
compromise that freed up efforts to improve care of the most severely
wounded post 9/11 Vets, care for raped military women and fill other
critical vet health needs.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/1...sbill_111809w/

Ironically, today it was also announced that the DC rooming house
where Coburn has lived for years, also lost its tax free status as a
"church" run by the ultra secretive christian rightwing "Fellowship,"
a group thought to be a front of the "Family" a subversive theocracy
unit of Dr. Dobson's "Focus on the Family" cult based in Colorado.

Known as the "C Street House" for "bible study", this house gained
considerable notoriety last summer as the home for several
philandering congressmen. Coburn said he was just "counseling" the
other men. Right.

Dave