The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Governmental Malpractice

3.16.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 2 of 5)

What would happen to all the health care and administrative personnel currently employed in the VA system? Shortages exist for almost all health care personnel nationwide. No group of professionals is better suited to find alternative employment within a matter of weeks. Definitely do not worry about this.

Second topic: The mission of military hospitals such as Walter Reed is separate and distinct from anything found in the private health care world. The scope of what they do includes providing specialized mobile care in war zones and patient transport in similar circumstances. There is nothing remotely like it in civilian medicine. Of course military hospitals need to survive and evolve as they are doing.

But active-duty patients, for example those with severe neurological injuries, once back in the United States, should be allowed to avail themselves of the best care around. Especially when the military health care system is overwhelmed, as it is now. They could easily (but for bureaucratic, authoritarian, and turf considerations) be treated in one of several superb medical centers located in the Baltimore-Washington area or nearby in New York or Boston. Or for that matter, anywhere in the country. There is no reason why such an injured patient on active duty could not be given a similar "voucher" for care outside the military hospital system, one similar to that which I have suggested above for the veteran patient.

In fact, doesn't the VA have such a system in place already in the form of TRICARE? Doesn't TRICARE pay for treatment in a civilian setting when such care is unavailable or unsuitable in the VA system? Well, why not make a TRICARE for active duty personnel? This is essentially what I have in mind.

The first impression many would have of such a notion is that it would be the demise of military hospitals and that it would be a disgrace. Quite the opposite: It would allow a lot of cross-connecting between military hospitals and excellent civilian medical centers, and there would be a lot of informal learning going in both directions. It would alleviate the shortage of military physicians. It would allow the military hospital to focus more on the specialized things that make it unique, and allow the civilian hospital do what it does best: Deliver complex care. In medicine, this specialization of mission is the name of the game.

We should face the reality that health care is a highly modernized, extremely specialized, technology-intensive, rapidly changing, and competitive field. It requires constant, ongoing adaptation to change. It is therefore unrealistic to expect isolated, antiquated and highly bureaucratized divisions of the federal government to do this mission well, in either the active duty (military hospitals) or civilian (VA) settings. This in spite of their best efforts to do so.
-- Francis Dillon, MD
Indianapolis, Indiana

May I respectfully request that Mr. Reiland be assigned to write an article of equal or greater detail and specificity on this particular problem once per week, every week, until at least a small dent is made in the problem? This problem has been with us since at least WWII. It would have been a problem before, but in 1919 our society did not think that government had the duty to our wounded warriors that we demand today.

This is a problem of bureaucracy, and those that "demand" government provided health care and/or health insurance better hope that they do NOT get what they claim to want. Regardless, whatever the problem, it must be fixed once and for all, right now. This is another "Katrina," and it is also on the watch of George Bush. He needs to worry more about getting this fixed and less about whether some Mexican national is allowed to come to America illegally, get on welfare, sire some kids to be instant citizens, and accept a blanket amnesty so that they can register and vote for Democrats.

I would, however, like to suggest that there is another source of the problem. On Sept. 12, 2001, George Bush chose NOT to put the American citizenry on a war time footing. He told us to just go about our business and he would handle everything. So we have. As a result, taxes have been cut and the military budget is now below the budgets of the 1970s and '80s in terms of real inflation adjusted dollars, and in terms of percentage of the overall discretionary budget. Now I am always for tax cuts as a means of downsizing government, in every area except national defense and the military.

This move by Bush has given the anti-war and anti-American types free reign to ramp up their movements at warp speed. This told the majority of regular Americans that they did not have to worry about our warrior's welfare or about the proliferation of cut and run Dems and their supporters here at home. I would argue that the only counteracting force on the support for our warriors front, has been the hard core horde of citizens (myself included) who refuse to let our warriors suffer the treatment that was handed their predecessors in the years of the Viet Nam era.

Bush had the opportunity to ask America to join him on a war footing until the scourge of Islamic Jihadism was beaten. I maintain that we would have responded positively. I believe that we would have also responded positively to a move to tax ourselves to pay for the ramped up military/national defense connected bill.

The Bush administration better dang well fix this crisis in the medical treatment and support system for our wounded warriors and their families. There are a whole bunch of us watching, and pay back will not be pleasant for bureaucratic failure in this instance.
-- Ken Shreve
New Hampshire

Just wanted to pass along my thanks for the fine article on how our veterans are being treated by the same Congress who always wants to appear pro-veteran on camera.

The facts mentioned in this article go back to the Vietnam war and possibly before that, but never before has anyone seemed to turn the spotlight on this mess. Could I also point out the other travesty your fine magazine might want to discuss some day soon?

That would be the law established in 1890 -- yes, 1890 -- that denies retired military personnel who served 20 yrs. active duty their full military pension, if they also receive disability pay from the VA for injuries suffered on active duty. It's called the "concurrent receipt" law which specifies whichever amount the veteran receives for his injuries from the Veterans Administration, that amount must be DEDUCTED from his military pension each month.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Health Care, Bill Clinton, Business, Earmarks, Catholicism, Islam, Abortion, Law, Military, Iraq