Democrats Greedily Blocking Healthcare for our Returning Veterans
View Comments | Print This Post Print This Post |

by Rachel Alexander | November 18th, 2007

 Whether one agrees with the war or not, individual patriotic Americans who signed up to serve our country, putting their lives in danger, should not be blamed.

The Democrats in Congress did a sneaky thing to try and force massive spending increases for social welfare programs and government education through – they included them in a bill that provided funding for veterans’ healthcare. Instead of including all funding for veterans’ healthcare in a defense appropriations bill, Democrats put part of the authorization for funds for veterans’ healthcare in a $606 billion dollar domestic spending bill that contained more than 2,000 pork earmarks, including a sailing school taught aboard a catamaran, a prison museum, a Portugese language program, $665 million in sheer giveaways to private community organizations, and $225 million for community health centers, something that is already well-served by the private sector.

The bill would have increased spending for social services and government education by more than $10 billion over what Bush told the Democrats the country could afford, another 4.3% more for these programs than last year. 56 of the programs are ineffective or duplicative and should be eliminated. Bush observed that although the Democrats ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility last year, they’ve acted like a teenager with a new credit card. Consequently, Bush was forced to veto this spending monstrosity until a compromise could be made to allow the veterans’ healthcare provisions to pass. Democrats, not surprisingly, led by Senator Joe Biden, have used the opportunity to blame Bush for blocking veterans’ healthcare provisions. This is a transparent attempt at fooling the voters, considering the Democrats' tradition of advocating for reductions to all things military while Republicans have consistently asked for more support for our troops.

This is despicable considering that our wounded veterans are this country’s greatest heroes. Whether one agrees with the war or not, individual patriotic Americans who signed up to serve our country, putting their lives in jeopardy, should not be blamed.

Since the war in Iraq began in 2003, over 60,000 troops have returned with physical injuries or mental health problems. 1/3 of the troops returning from Iraq are diagnosed with some kind of mental health problem within 3-5 months. Coincidentally, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder wasn’t diagnosed until the Vietnam War – when war protesters first emerged, calling our troops “babykillers” and taunting them when they came home. With the emergence of TV during that war, and now the ever present media of today, hatred towards our troops is magnified. It was appalling to hear of the rude protesters who showed up at Veterans’ Day parades around the country last week. Hollywood actors and stars like the Dixie Chicks are contributing to the psychological toll that is demoralizing our troops and contributing to mental health issues like depression. According to CBS, over 120 veterans per week across the U.S. committed suicide in 2005, a total of 6,256 that year. 

It is impossible to determine how many of our veterans’ mental health issues have been caused or made worse by the American left’s harsh criticism and ridicule. The number is probably in the thousands, but we’ll never know. Similarly, it’s unknown how many of our enemies have decided to continue their terrorism and killing due to encouragement from American leftists. If we could identify an absolute number of American troops who have been killed due to leftist criticism of the war, perhaps the left would be shamed into subduing their criticism of our government during times of defensive war. The American left is gambling that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, the terrorists won’t attack us again. We already know the terrorists are irrational, and are becoming increasingly emboldened, so why would we think they would be satisfied with killing just 2,996 Americans on 9-11? 

Our troops who return from Iraq unable to work requiring disability income are encountering bureaucratic delays, no doubt caused by government giving priority to other interest groups over our veterans. There is only so much money to go around in government to administer programs. War veteran D.A. King recently observed that illegal immigrants have more powerful lobbyists in Congress than our veterans , because illegal immigrants have unfettered access to no-cost healthcare paid for by American taxpayers under federal mandated law. Whereas according to the American Journal of Public Health, more than one million of our vets have no insurance or access to VA medical care. Unlike illegal immigrants, veterans are screened out from healthcare coverage by income, number of dependents, and the nature of their condition. This is a direct result of Democrats prioritizing medical care for illegal immigrants and designating the medical care of our vets to second-rate citizen status instead, ironically. 

Democrats are playing similar games with providing adequate funding for our troops who are still in Iraq. They’ve tacked a “cut-and-run” withdrawal deadline onto a defense bill authorizing continuing funds for our troops in Iraq. They won’t authorize necessary supplies, ammunition, and basic living expenses for our troops unless a deadline for withdrawal is included in the bill. By cutting funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and setting a timeline to leave, Democrats are sending a clear message to our enemies that we are giving up. Democrats are gambling on the risky chance that the terrorists will never make a major attack on the U.S. again. Which party do you feel safer with? If you serve your country, which party do you think will consistently value that service?

Note: D.A. King was in the USMC 1970-1971 and stayed in Camp Pendleton, California. It should be noted that means testing for vets has only recently been implemented. His website is www.TheDustinInmanSociety.org

Labels: Politics: General, Congress & the Legislatures, Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Foreign Affairs: Iraq War, Terrorism, War on Terror, Vietnam War

rachel@intellectualconservative.com
Visit their website at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/

Read more articles by Rachel Alexander on IntellectualConservative.com

 

 

Responses to "Democrats Greedily Blocking Healthcare for our Returning Veterans"

  1. Actually, the evidence isn't particularly good that the Republicans 'consistently value' the service of veterans. Ignoring the polemical rhetoric, the numbers in these links are accurate:

    http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/Vets.ppt
    http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/597/

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 19, 2007

  2. I think the article goes a bit awry in suggesting that those protesting the Iraq war have contributed to the mental problems and possibly to the suicide rate of vets. If Hillary manages to become president (Lord help us) and leads this nation into a war because of being irresponsible enough to not properly confirm the so-called intelligence (as has already happened once when she voted for this war), and if her administration sorely mismanages that same war, there will be few of us who'll remain silent in the face of such incompetence, purely because we believe that to do so shows the proper support for our troops. Whatever your personal feelings on this war, partisan bashing will get us nowhere.

    Furthermore, to make an across-the-board determination that Democrats prioritize health care for illegal immigrants over our war veterans is not quite fair. It's as broad a generalization as Dems saying that Republicans want to make fascist conquest of the entire world. Again, the partisan dirt-slinging does no good – from either direction.

    Lastly, the facts are indisputable: 1) the U.S. started this war based on incorrect "intelligence" (without that incorrect info the need for war would never have been sold to Congress or to the American people); 2) that same war has been sorely mismanaged through incompetence; 3) the world, meaning other nations, knows facts 1 & 2.

    It is of course true, as Ms. Alexander contends, that terrorists are "irrational" and are "becoming increasingly emboldened." But exactly how do you think that the world sees this nation of ours now, considering all that has happened? Is it any wonder that some Americans want to let it be known that they feel differently than some others regarding the Iraq war. Even if a person feels that this war IS still a right thing and was never the least bit ill-advised, protesting the war does not vilify the other person.

    Comment by danielk | November 19, 2007

  3. Hey, uh, Raymond. Just to clue you in, not all of us consider Marxist political websites as good sources of unbiased information, free of "polemical rhetoric". Or the home pages for your favorite Democratic congresswoman. If you want to stand out as a non-partisan free-thinker, it would help if you don't direct-link to extremist websites or the home pages of professional political partisans. Thanks for enlightening us to that objective, unbiased fountain of unadulterated truth though. Just what we needed. Some other great resources for clear-headed thinking you may want to check out are http://www.aryan-nations.org and http://www.aljazeera.net – brilliant insights into race relations and Islamic terrorism, respectively.

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | November 20, 2007

  4. Mr. Mulligan – is your problem with the numbers as reported there, or just the people reporting the numbers? I specifically stated that there was plenty of 'polemical rhetoric' there. That is, y'know, the direct opposite of claiming they were "free" of that. But the key question is 'are the numbers accurate?' This Marine thinks so:

    http://www.mcleague.com/mdp/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=32

    I linked to the others because they collected a bunch of information in one place, and while I pointed out the numbers, I specifically noted that there was biased verbiage surrounding them. What 'unbiased' sources of information do you propose here?

    Comment by Raymond Ingles | November 20, 2007

  5. I see. I misread your statement. I thought you meant "ignoring the polemic rhetoric", you were referring to this article.

    Anyway, I didn't finish the article at the link you posted, but was there a full accompanying methodology report? Anything to make those numbers more reliable or accurate than the numbers put out by those of opposite political persuasion? Usually when I see a very clearly politically biased author or source, I tend to be more skeptical of the accuracy of their computations, as the same set of numbers can often be massaged by two different parties to fit each of their respective political motivations.

    Comment by Patrick Mulligan | November 21, 2007

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.