Reply With Quote
Was wondering if boutons had any articles he could spam on the issue?
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/20...ampaign=buffer
apparently this had been warned about since 2008, and only learned of this problem through CNN's report lol. way to be on top of your . if an administrator has to learn about administrative problems through the media, he's an awful executive
Was wondering if boutons had any articles he could spam on the issue?
Why Is the VA Suffering From a Lack of Resources in the First Place?
Why is the VA suffering from a lack of resources? You can find the answer on Capitol Hill. Insufficient funding of veterans’ healthcare has been caused primarily by political decisions made by “support-our-troops” members of the US Senate and House of Representatives. Members of Congress who have in recent years voted against increasing the funding of veterans’ healthcare—increases necessary to meet the need created by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—deserve much of the blame for starving the VA into this scandalous situation.
Many of those members of Congress who are now calling for the resignation of Gen. Shinseki are themselves guilty of voting against adequate funding for veterans’ healthcare, and they are therefore partly responsible for the deaths of veterans who didn’t get necessary medical treatment quickly enough to save their lives. It is just as reasonable to call for their resignations as it is to call for Gen. Shinseki’s resignation, if not more so. If you’re truly outraged, then tell your member of Congress to cough up the necessary funds for the VA. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs can only ask for increased funding; it’s up to Congress to actually provide it.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179961/why-va-suffering-lack-resources-first-place
2003
January 2003 Bush Administration cuts off veterans’ health care for 164,000. In January, the Administration cut off VA health care for 164,000 veterans without service-connected disabilities, who make as little as $25,000 a year. Through 2005 this has denied health care to more than 522,000 veterans. [68 Fed. Reg. 2670, 2671, January 17, 2003]
March 2003 Republicans vote to slash veterans’ health care. House Republicans voted in their budget to cut $14 billion from veterans’ health care. The GOP budget also included the President’s proposal to impose a $250 fee for enrollment in VA health care for low and moderate income veterans, along with a doubling of the drug co-payment for those veterans. [H Con. Res 95, Vote #82, 3/21/03]
July 2003 Republicans break promise on veterans’ health care. After agreeing to reduce some of their budget cuts, the House GOP reneged on their promise to increase funding for VA health care and passed an appropriations bill providing $1.8 billion less than their FY 2004 Budget. [H. Res. 338, Vote #450, 7/25/03]
October 2003 Democrats seek an additional $1.3 billion for veterans health care, but Republicans reject it. The Bush Administration opposed and House Republicans rejected a Democratic motion to include $1.3 billion for veterans’ health care in the Iraqi Supplemental. [H.R. 3289, Vote #600,10/31/03]
2004
February 2, 2004 Veterans Secretary acknowledges inadequacy of FY 2005 Veteran Budget: "In a rare move by a Cabinet member, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi told a House committee he had sought $1.2 billion more than President Bush was willing to put in his budget. 'I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received,' Principi said...Last year, Principi said the administration did not provide as large of an increase as he requested for the 2004 fiscal year."- Associated Press, 2/4/04
February 26, 2004 Bipartisan House Veterans’ Committee calls for an additional $2.5 billion funding for veterans health care.
March 25, 2004 Democrats seek to amend the budget both in committee and on the floor to add money. Republicans defeated – by a vote of 194 to 232 (Democrats votes YES) – the Democratic subs ute to the GOP FY 2005 Budget Resolution to include a $2.5 billion increase over the Bush budget for veterans' health care for FY 2005, which veterans critically needed to maintain the current level of veterans' health care services. [H.Con.Res. 393, Vote #91, 3/25/04. Rejected 194-232 (R 0-224; D 193-8)]
March 25, 2004 Republicans pass inadequate budget resolution that shortchanged veterans' health care by $1.3 billion, compared to the amount the bipartisan Veterans’ Affair Committee said was needed just to maintain current services. [H.Con.Res. 393, Vote #92, 3/25/04 .Adopted 215-212 (R 215-10; D 0-201)]
June 24, 2004 Democrats offer “National Priorities” Bill to increase veterans’ health care by $1.3 billion. Republicans defeated an “investing in national priorities” bill that would have invested in key priorities, providing an additional $1.3 billion to improve veterans' health care, shorten waiting times at VA health care facilities, and provide critical mental health services to address needs resulting from wartime deployments. The Paralyzed Veterans of America called this bill "vital," as it would have brought veterans’ health care funding to the level that the House Veterans' Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis had said was needed to maintain current services. [H.Res. 685, Vote #301, 6/24/04. Rejected 184-230 (R 2-217; D 181-13)]
September 29, 2004 Democrats offer motion to add veterans’ health money to Fiscal Year 2005 Continuing Resolution. Republicans defeated the Democratic motion to provide an additional $1.3 billion for veterans' health care for FY 2005, which veterans critically need to maintain the current level of veterans' health care services. [H.J.Res. 107, Vote #478, 9/29/04. Rejected 200-221 (R 1-219; D 198-2)]
2005
January 6, 2005 House Republicans oust Chris Smith as chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs for his tireless advocacy of veterans rights. "It all came down to the fact I wanted to spend too much on veterans," Smith said following a 90-minute meeting in which he detailed the 22 laws he authored to help veterans in his four years as chairman. .. "This is not only a slap at Chris Smith, but a shot over the bow at veterans organizations," said Richard Fuller of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. "The Republican leadership has made a statement that the country is making too much of a commitment to the men and women who have served in uniform." [New Jersey Star-Ledger, January 06, 2005]
February 16, 2005 Despite news reports of VA shortfalls, newly appointed VA Secretary and former Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson testifies that he is unaware of that VAs are deferring purchases and maintenance to address shortfalls.
February 17 House Democrats, led by Reps. Baird and Hooley, send a letter to the President urging him to support including $1.3 billion for veterans health care in the Iraqi Supplemental.
February 23, 2005 House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Buyer supports increasing veterans co-pays and imposing health enrollment fees for in the budget views and estimates.
March 15, 2005 Republicans vote to block Democrats from offering an amendment add $1.2 billion for veterans’ health care for FY 2005 on the $82 billion Iraqi Supplemental offered by Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR). [H.R. 1248, Vote #69, 3/15/05. Motion agreed to 220-195 (R 220-1; D 0-193)]
March 15, 2005 Republicans blocked consideration of an amendment by Rep. Bob Filner to add $3.1 billion for veterans’ healthcare in FY 2005. [H.R. 1248, Vote #71, 3/15/05. Motion agreed to 224-200 (R 220-1; D 0-193)]
March 17, 2005 Democrats make repeated efforts on the budget to add money in committee and on the floor on the FY 2006 Budget. Democratic Rep. Obey of Wisconsin attempted to offer an amendment to provide $3.2 billion more than the President’s budget in FY 2006 for veterans' health care, to meet the growing needs of returning soldiers, The Democratic budget included a $20.9 billion increase over 5 years, for veterans’ health care and to eliminate the President’s proposal to increase fees. Similarly, Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards offered an amendment in to increase health care funding and to eliminate the Republican budget's plan for $798 million in veterans cuts over five years. [H CON RES 95, Votes #82 & 87, 3/17/05]
March 17, 2005 Republicans pass a budget that is more than $2 billion short of what is needed for veterans’ health care this year, cuts veterans’ health care by $14 billion below the amount needed to maintain these programs at their current levels over five year, and cuts of $798 million over the next five years – requiring either new fees for veterans’ health care or cuts in veterans’ benefits. [H CON RES 95, Vote #88, 3/17/05]
April 5, 2005 Bush Administration denies any funding shortfall. On April 5, 2005, the Veterans’ Affairs Department Secretary Nicholson said “I can assure you that VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue to provide timely, quality service…” [Con. Rec. 4/12/05, S3466]
May 18, 2005 Democratic Rep. Obey offered an amendment in full committee to increase VA health care spending by $2.6 billion in FY 2006, but Republicans defeated it.
May 26, 2005 House Republicans block consideration of a Democratic amendment to provide an additional $2.6 billion for veterans’ health care in FY 2006, supported by the coalition of AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. [H.R.2528, Vote #223, 5/26/05. Motion passed 223-194 (R 223-0; D 0-193)]
June 23, 2005 Bush Administration acknowledges FY 2005 shortfall of $1 billion, even though they have been aware of this since April. “The Bush administration, already accused by veterans groups of seeking inadequate funds for health care next year, acknowledged yesterday that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year…Leaders of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans and the Disabled American Veterans all noted a striking partisan division in Congress on veterans issues, with Democrats giving them much more support than Republicans.” [Washington Post, 6/24/05]
June 24, 2005 House Democrats, led by Rep. Chet Edwards, seek to offer an amendment to eliminate the Republican VA funding shortfall by adding $1 billion for VA health care in FY 2005 to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. The Republican majority refused to allow the amendment, so Congressman David Obey of Wisconsin then offered a motion to send the bill back and add the needed funding for veterans' health care. [HR 3010, Vote #320, 6/24/05. Failed 185-216]
June 28, 2005 Bush Administration acknowledges FY 2006 shortfall that amounts to $2.7 billion. Secretary Nicholson acknowledged that there is also a shortfall of $1.5 FY 2006 – which would reach $2.7 billion in fiscal 2006 if the Administration proposals are rejected, as they have been over the past few years. Secretary still refuses to acknowledge that the shortfall is hurting veterans access to timely, high quality care.
June 28, 2005 Republicans reject Democratic attempt to make up for the shortfall in the House. House Republicans voted to block consideration of an amendment by Rep. Chet Edwards to add $1 billion for VA health care in FY 2005 to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. [HR 3057, Vote # 325, 6/28/05. Failed 217-189]
June 28, 2005 Veterans Secretary Nicholson says “We certainly don’t have a crisis.” [NYT, 6/29/05]
June 28, 2005 Majority Leader Tom Delay said, “Veterans need to know, no veteran will be without their health care in 2005 and no veteran will be without health care in 2006. There are solutions to this problem and those solutions are being addressed.” [CQ Today, 6/28/05]
June 29, 2005 Rep. Edwards introduces an amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill to add $1 billion for VA health care but Republicans block it from consideration.
June 29, 2005 All House Democrats send a letter to President Bush urging him to send up a budget request for $1.3 billion to make up for the shortfall this year.
June 29, 2005 The Senate votes 96 to 0 to add $1.5 billion for FY 2005 for veterans health care.
June 30, 2005 Several months after becoming aware of the shortfall and more than one week after acknowledging a shortfall, the White House and House Republicans begrudgingly act to deal with the current year shortfall in veterans’ health care, passing only $975 million – significantly less than the Senate passed – thereby delaying funding for veterans’ health care. Democrats attempt to bring the total of the supplemental to $1.5 billion to match the Senate amount, but Republicans reject this effort to get the money to veteran’s medical facilities immediately on a party line vote. [H RES 345 Vote #359, 6/30/05. Motion agreed to 216-191 (R 216-0; D 0-191)] So final action for this year’s shortfall is not completed as Congress adjourns for the July 4th recess.
July 12, 2005 Just two weeks after announcing the shortfall for FY05, the Bush Administration admits their numbers were wrong and requests an additional $300 million for FY05, bringing the total shortfall to about $1.3 billion, matching the number Democrats have been calling for all along.
July 12, 2005 The Senate again votes 96 to 0 to add $1.5 billion for FY 2005 for veterans health care.
July 14, 2005 The Bush Administration formally requests the additional $300 million this year, along with $1.7 billion for FY 2006 – admitting a $3 billion mistake over the two years, but still leaving veterans health care $1.5 billion short in the upcoming year.
July 14, 2005 OMB Director Bolten testifies that “There have been three consecutive years preceding this one in which more there was more money requested by the Administration and more money appropriated by the Congress for the medical care portion of veterans services than was actually needed in that year. The appropriations have exceeded the VA medical care needs in the preceding three years by over half a billion dollars in each of the receding three years. “ (testimony before the House Budget Committee)
July 18, 2005 Senate Democratic Leader Reid ask to bring up legislation to provide $1.5 billion for veterans health care in FY 2005 separately, but Republicans objected.
July 28, 2005 35 Days after White House acknowledges shortfall, House passes legislation providing $1.5 billion for veterans health care in FY 2005, finally getting the money to the VA.
October 26, 2005 It is reported that the Republican Chairman of the Budget Committee has proposed a two percent cut in all programs, including veterans’ health care. This would cut more than $600 million in veterans’ health care -- enough funds to care for nearly 100,000 veterans. The American Legion expressed concern that this cut would mean “...rationing of care, hiring freezes of medical personnel, delaying repairs on facilities, growing backlogs of medical equipment, and many other fiscal-based constraints.” And Senate Republicans have proposed a five percent cut, which would slash veterans health care by $1.6 billion, the amount needed to care for 243,000 veterans. And now, the President agrees that “I'm open to a further across-the-board spending cut as well." (Reuters, 10/26/05)
November 10, 2005 Disabled American Veterans and many other Veterans groups begin announcing concern and consternation that Republican Veterans Affairs Committee
Chairman Buyer (R-IN) recently announced that veterans service organizations will no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. “The tradition of legislative presentations by veterans service organizations dates back to at least the 1950s. And the timing of this announcement -- just before Veterans Day -- could not have been worse,” said DAV National Commander Paul W. Jackson. For several decades now, these joint hearings have been held each year to allow the elected leaders of veterans groups to discuss their organization’s legislative agenda and foremost concerns with the lawmakers who have jurisdiction over federal veterans programs. Senators and Representatives who serve on those committees also get the rare opportunity to address the hundreds of cons uent members from these organizations’ who make the annual pilgrimage to Capitol Hill.
November 15, 2005 House Democratic Leaders hold roundtable with Veterans and Veterans representatives to continue dialogue and work on passing the New GI Bill of Rights, ending the SBP/DIC Offset, fully funding Veterans Health care, fully ending the Disabled Veterans Tax, providing TRICARE to National Guard and Reservist along with many other issues of importance to America’s Veterans and Military Retirees. Democrats are listening and working with Veterans.
http://www.vfvs.com/Veterans_WeWillNotBeTalkedDown.html
, be slapped
There you go
How the Media’s VA ‘Scandal’ Coverage Is Making the Same Old Mistakes
However, as more and more of the VA story has emerged, it’s increasingly clear that a credulous press corps has once again allowed political grandstanding and dubious claims to run ahead of actual evidence. First and foremost among these failings, the CNN whistleblower’s disturbing claim of forty veterans dying, which has already begun to fray. In fact, as of last Thursday, a VA Inspector General had reviewed seventeen of those supposedly fatal cases and ruled out wait times as contributing to their deaths in every one of them. Reputable news outlets, like NPR, have been careful to couch these death claims as “not yet been proved.” But still today, reports among some of the usual right-wing suspects haven’t been so diligent; the slippery “as many as forty veterans died” meme has now been firmly entrenched in the narrative.
As is often the case when news organizations indulge in flood-the-zone coverage, much of the reporting has a parachuted-in feel to it. As a result, a lot of what readers and viewers have gotten is a very narrow view of the VA, with little background on the Obama administration’s overall track record serving the veteran community.
For example, few reporters bother to note the great strides made by the VA in the past few years in shrinking a massive claims backlog. (That backlog—which Obama inherited, by the way—further ballooned in late 2010 after the White House decided to finally do right by thousands of Vietnam veterans and accept more claims for PTSD and Agent Orange exposure.)
Nor has much attention been paid to the administration’s striking success in reducing the chronic problem of veteran homelessness, which has been cut by twenty-four percent since 2010.
And if the central issue under scrutiny right now is a healthcare system’s inability to match its supply with patient demand, might it be worthwhile context to note that the VA will be serving one million more patients by 2015 than it did when Obama first came into office?
But rare is the news story that rounds out its scandal focus with a look at the broader challenges facing the VA. Even when I come across a well-reported, nuanced story about the agency’s recent ups and downs, I have to get past an oversimplified, scandal-hyped headline to do it: “Obama Has Every Reason to Fix the VA. Why Hasn’t He?”
Perhaps inevitably, the DC press corps’ fetish for horserace coverage has also crept in. Over at the National Journal sister site, Defense One, we saw even less context and more shoddy narrative framing this past week. With a shameless, clickbait headline, it ran a story suggesting that the “VA scandal” could be worse than—wait for it—Benghazi! Of course, the “veteran Democratic strategist” quoted saying this is no doubt only a “veteran” of political campaigns, since he refers to the VA as the “Veterans Administration,” a name the agency hasn’t officially had for twenty-five years. Not to worry, the reporter makes the same mistake. Though the story at least hedges “veterans dying” as an allegation, there’s no mention of the VA IG investigation that has also so far disproven all those claims. And then, true to form, the reporter devotes the kicker paragraph to the potential impact of those alleged dead veterans on the Democrats’ chances in the midterm elections. Classy.
As the coverage of the VA’s problems began to coalesce, right on cue, right-wingers jumped on board with their own agenda to push. Just how obviously political has the issue become? Consider the transparent absurdity of this PR two-step from last week. On Thursday, a group called the Concerned Veterans of America demanded the “immediate resign[ation]” of VA Undersecretary of Health Dr. Robert Petzel as retribution for the agency’s problems. Not even twenty-four hours later, however, the same group dismissed Petzel’s actual resignation as a “meaningless gesture.” Such transparently phony behavior on the part of the CVA might come as less of a shock when you learn it has received $2 million of its funding through the dark money network of the Koch brothers.
Conservative outrage artists like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have wasted no time either. They’ve already used the VA as an excuse to, respectively, revisit the Obamacare “death panels” canard and compare the VA backlog to Nazi genocide. Never mind that all their railing about the poor quality of “government-run healthcare” is a lie. As with Medicare, VA care is among the best in the country. It’s better administration and greater access to that care that are the issues that need fixing at the VA. Gee, I wonder how conservatives feel about putting more resources into the VA to do just that.
Surprise, surprise, they’re against it. Back in February, the Senate GOP killed a $21-billion funding bill that would have opened or expanded more than two-dozen VA medical centers. The reason? It was an “election-year ploy” by Democrats that cost too much.
(It seems there is a connection between the VA and Benghazi stories after all, since Congressional Republicans repeatedly cut funding for embassy security in the years before the 2012 attack on our compound in Libya.)
This isn’t anything new—blocking funding for vets has become something of a habit among the GOP on Capitol Hill.
Of course, these votes don’t excuse misconduct or failures at the VA, which, if proven, should be dealt with harshly and promptly. And members of Congress from both parties are right to be concerned about what’s been unearthed about the VA recently. But falling victim to shallow, speculative coverage that haplessly fuels a partisan witch-hunt isn’t the answer. For, when mainstream news coverage routinely mischaracterizes the extent of misconduct or failure while ignoring the actual conditions that make misconduct and failure more likely, it becomes derelict in its duty to the public. This is the trap of “scandal journalism”—being obsessed with the theatrics leads to overlooking the facts. It’s all distraction and no solution. All of us, especially our veterans, deserve better.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179937...e-old-mistakes
es! how's Another Great Boutons' Slapping workin out fer ya?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-21-2014 at 01:25 PM.
lol boutons thinks this is a money problem. Typical liberal mentality.
VA DOES have huge underfunding due to the huge increase in the number of veterans from REPUG extended, botched, underfunded, ill-equipped wars.
I like how your second post says "partisan witch-hunt is not the answer" and you have a thread about the insanity of the GOP and your first post was nothing but partisan.
Regardless, the issue I raised in the OP was that the administration didn't even know of these issues until they saw it on the news, ergo not being on top of their
yep, the Obama administration has done nothing about VA's problems often caused by REPUG funding cuts.
yes, the WH receives DAILY reports of every ing single thing that goes on in the Exec branch.
My bigger concern is that Obama's attack on whistleblowers will be extended to this VA waiting list whistleblower.
why did VA hospitals need to cheat on the waiting lists?
why are their waiting lists so long in the first place? lack of funds? lack of doctors?
the need for a waiting list =/= cheating the waiting list
you said that irrelevance, not I
why did SOME VA hospitals need to cheat on the waiting lists?
why are their waiting lists so long in the first place? lack of funds? lack of doctors?
same with months-long waiting to process vets' applications? why so long?
we KNOW why IRS enforcement of tax evaders is way down, Repug cut $100Ms off the IRS budget.
i brought up an article about cheated waiting lists and you spammed figures about budgets. i'll say it again. the needs for a wait list =/= cheating the wait list.
throwing money at a problem is not always the solution, in any event. LAUSD, always asking for more money, had a 1 billion dollar program putting ipads into the hands of students. then they about needing a billion dollars forunfair wages. if agencies are using money carelessly, its irresponsible to give those agencies more money so they can do the same . its also how i felt about the bailouts
i wonder how much boutons makes from the astroturfing firm. is on top of every spin job.
http://freebeacon.com/blog/the-real-...hcare-scandal/
"Because the VA scandal looks pretty bad—dozens may have died as a result of excess wait times—liberals don’t really have a choice but to be outraged, even as they insist that Obama, who has been in office for five years now, is in no way responsible.
But there’s another reason the VA scandal is incredibly inconvenient for liberals. It’s because, for years, they’ve been touting the VA as a model for socialized medicine. And now, they look pretty foolish for doing so."
Paul Krugman was on the case way back in 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/op...bad-ideas.html
What Mr. Romney and everyone else should know is that the V.H.A. is a huge policy success story, which offers important lessons for future health reform...
Multiple surveys have found the V.H.A. providing better care than most Americans receive...
What’s behind this success? Crucially, the V.H.A. is an integrated system, which provides health care as well as paying for it. So it’s free from the perverse incentives created when doctors and hospitals profit from expensive tests and procedures, whether or not those procedures actually make medical sense. And because V.H.A. patients are in it for the long term, the agency has a stronger incentive to invest in prevention than private insurers, many of whose customers move on after a few years.
And yes, this is “socialized medicine” — although some private systems, like Kaiser Permanente, share many of the V.H.A.’s virtues. But it works — and suggests what it will take to solve the troubles of U.S. health care more broadly.
he's the LeBron's Zipper Nation of the political forum
But of course they would block this bill
http://freebeacon.com/blog/senate-de...rs-department/
The House overwhelmingly passed the legislation on Wednesday, with a bipartisan vote of 390 to 33. (Only Democrats objected.)
House is awfully fast with firing people (War on Employees), but obstructive when giving them enough money to their jobs.But of course they would block this bill
http://freebeacon.com/blog/senate-de...rs-department/
The House overwhelmingly passed the legislation on Wednesday, with a bipartisan vote of 390 to 33. (Only Democrats objected.)
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-23-2014 at 08:40 AM.
President Obama’s transition team was warned in 2008 that repeated audits showed the Veterans Affairs Department was misreporting wait times for medical treatment, including one audit revealing delays nearly 10 times worse than the department was officially acknowledging.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/21/obama-transition-team-told-about-3-audits-showing-/
all y'all rednecks still trying to stick Dems exclusively with VA problems?
It's REPUGS who enormously jacked up the load on VA with their bogus, bull , botched, prolonged wars, while repeatedly refusing to fund, and to defund the VA.
Somehow, when hits the fan under the Repugs, the defense is they are equivalent to the Dems
But when the hits the fan under the Dems, the Repugs are totally innocent.
How many of you ignorant rednecks think the House Repugs would have approved huge increases in VA funding equal to the huge increase in veteran care, if the Dems proposed such a bill these past 5 years?
boutons, I do believe that the government budget has been operating under a continuing resolution since the Dimm-o-craps wont let a budget come to the floor in the Senate. So as far as I know government has been operating under the only budget passed during Obama's administration.
McCarthy: Last Time Senate Passed a Budget ‘The iPad Hadn’t Even Been Introduced’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mcca...een-introduced
This little fiasco with the VA is just a preview of single payer that you "progressives" so desire.
a federal budget didn't even exist until 1974, so did give that We The People/Tri-corner bull .boutons, I do believe that the government budget has been operating under a continuing resolution since the Dimm-o-craps wont let a budget come to the floor in the Senate. So as far as I know government has been operating under the only budget passed during Obama's administration.
McCarthy: Last Time Senate Passed a Budget ‘The iPad Hadn’t Even Been Introduced’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mcca...een-introduced
This little fiasco with the VA is just a preview of single payer that you "progressives" so desire.
And there's a huge difference between what the federal budget actually says and what funds are actually allocated/spent.
The VA fiasco is not systemic nor recent, and is totally irrelevant to a federal health insurance/single-payer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
