h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.usavanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/01/28/401970abb42d7

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

The Bush Administration's 2004 budget proposed gutting Veterans Administration (VA) services, including health care funding. Proposed cuts included: denying at least 360,000 veterans access to health care; $250 annual premiums; increased pharmacy co-payments; a 30 percent increased primary care co-payments; and increased waiting time for a first medical appointment.

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

The FY 2004 budget approved by Congress calls for reducing VA funding over a 10-year period by $6.2 billion. Cuts are in the areas of veterans' health care and disability benefits.

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

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, disputed the credibility of Bush's budget proposal. He doubted reducing VA medical staff could meet the expanding needs at the Veterans Health Administration.

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

Rep. Bob Stump(R-AZ) noted the VA budget "identifies hundreds of millions of dollars needed for existing fixed costs, new advanced treatments and new initiatives to provide greater care for veterans. Unfortunately, the Administration hasn't included any new funding to address those needs."

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

An army of veterans twice the size of that involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom has lost health insurance benefits since Bush took office. As many as half a million vets are homeless. Seven VA hospitals are being closed as part of an effort to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. Meanwhile, veterans of the Iraq campaign can fall in line with over 250,000 veterans who are already waiting at least six months to see a doctor.

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

Disabled American Veterans (DAV), an organization that since 1920 has helped U.S. combat casualties learn about the benefits they have earned and how to apply for them, has been obstructed in its efforts by Bush.

The Pentagon has been severely limiting DAV access to wounded veterans on grounds of "security" and protecting "privacy." The Pentagon protects the veterans' privacy by not allowing them to speak with DAV representatives "unmonitored."

Dear Heavens! This sounds bad. The soldiers are the guys who go and put their lives on the line for their Country, or to do the bidding of the leaders ... risking death, getting injured, getting into situations that are hell on earth ... and having to get back with all the difficulties of re-adjusting to normal life ... many of them really need serious support then! This sounds like abandonment and betrayal ... it sounds like people being used and then discarded.

I have to agree.

I can only hope that the veterans and active service military personnel of the United States, without whom Bush would not be in the White House today, realize that as well.

Hi again and I'm happy to see yous back here again!

One thing that really amazes me, is how 'leaders' manage to cheat the people whose support they need to be leaders ... and how those people seemingly let the leaders get away with it. It is as if we somehow believe the leaders got their power through some divine means, so that they are untouchable. I reallly wonder about that. It just amazes me that people don't stand up for their own concerns and interests more, against their leaders. George W. Bush is *nothing* except for the popular acceptance of his leadership.

I just wish people would wake up and realise and say that we *cannot* afford to have crooked leaders!! We cannot allow the people who are in positions of authority, to misuse that authority. There must be extreme scrutiny of every little thing said and done by any 'leader'. It amazes me that people seem so apathetic, so unwilling to do that. We cannot afford being manipulated, exploited, lied to by our leaders.

I feel that leaders should be the kind of people who we feel we can trust absolutely ... but then we must *still* never trust them absolutely. And they must be willing to accept that. Another thing I feel is that the *law* should prescribe heavier penalties for transgressions by people who are in positions of high responsibility. The higher the responsibility, the heavier penalties. A high government official who commits fraud should get the death penalty. High-level corruption can cause the death and misery of many, many people. It makes more sense to severly punish people high-up than to punish lowly, poor, desperate individuals driven to crime.