New Veterans' Caregivers Bill -- A Response to Molly

So Molly Pitcher said to my last post:

WOW. Where to start. Every veteran is entitled to treatment at a VA whether service connected or not. If you are service connected over 50% all treatment is free. Women do not receive adequate care. I would suggest reading recent GAO reports on the matter. What you take for granted in your private physicians office, I thank Congress for. Childcare: women vets are WAY younger than male vets. therefore childcare is a HUGE barrier to care. Its also true for most OIF/OEF vets. However, women are getting the spot light. It will benefit the single dad tho too. so why complain? To answer you question about a admitted vet: way too early to tell, these are pilot programs. Women are a small minority in the VA. We fight extremely hard to get equitable care (and it is not equitable). Please do some reading before writing against what we work hard for. Check out GAO please. I will be interested in what you post then. I mean you no disrespect and have a huge amount of respect for any mother with as many children as you in the service, however how many are daughters? Follow up with me at my email, and I will be happy to send you the different reports.

Different niches of veterans have been fighting for whats best for them since there were veterans groups. Women are finally doing the same. Don't discount that. esp. when they are the smallest minority in the VA.

Wow. Where to start? I was going to respond via email (but I didn't see an addy at her address), but when I thought about it, I realized it was a good opportunity to educate people -- not just on this particular bill, but on the Veterans Administration health care system... although I am far from an expert (Lord, can anyone be an expert on that bureacracy?) but I'll talk a little just on the points Molly makes.

Shall we begin?

First, Molly: I did read the 2009 GAO report; heh. To imagine that you had but I hadn't. Thanks for offering to provide copies, but I have them*:

Exec summary including recommendations: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-287#recommendations
Full report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10287.pdf

On to the specifics.

Molly: Every veteran is entitled to treatment at a VA whether service connected or not. If you are service connected over 50% all treatment is free.

Molly, you really should have clicked on the link with the big red HERE that took you to the VA eligibility page (my emphasis):

1.VA must determine your eligibility [for VA health care] status as a veteran by reviewing your

◦Character of Discharge from active military service, and your
◦Length of active military service [snip].
2.VA must determine whether you qualify for one of the eight enrollment Priority Groups.
+ Enrollment Restriction:  In order to ensure the availability of quality and timely health care to veterans with service connected conditions, special authority based on military service, low income, and those with special health care needs, in January 2003 VA made the difficult decision to stop enrolling new Priority Group 8 (high income) veterans whose income exceeded VA Income Thresholds.

IF you are enrolled in the VA, care for ALL service-connected conditions is free -- even if it is not rated at or above 50% disabled (you're just in a lower priority group which has its own problems of getting services). The rules for care and medications you receive via the VA for non-service conditions are complex (can you say convoluted?) but the bottom line is that you MAY have to pay a co-pay or fee. Or not. Results may vary.

 

However, here's where I think Molly got the service-connected over 50% is free   (my emphasis)

Certain veterans do not need to be enrolled to receive medical care benefits.
You do not have to be enrolled if you:
•Have been determined by VA to be 50% or more disabled from service-connected (SC) conditions
•Are seeking care for a VA rated service-connected disability only
•It is less than one year since you were discharged for a disability that the military determined was incurred or aggravated by your service, but that VA has not yet rated

yeah. but it's still free. And it is true that any veteran can walk into the VA to seek treatment; whether it's free and how long the wait is a different story.

Molly: Women do not receive adequate care.

Horse hockey.  The 2009 GAO report found that there were varying levels of compliance with privacy configurations of check-in areas, waiting rooms and exam rooms at SOME VA facilities -- but made no finding or recommendation with respect to the SERVICES PROVIDED TO WOMEN VETERANS. Your statement that "women do not receive adequate care" is a talking point and a sensationalist headline, but not substantiated by the "recent GAO report" you so readily refer me.

As a matter of fact, the recommendations in the 2009 GAO report were to improve compliance WITH EXISTING PRIVACY POLICIES and mandates relating to access to information on women veterans services via the VA website and its materials. As the GAO noted, many of the problems with privacy compliance have to do with the lack of space, current [physical] configurations of VA facilities, standardizing reporting of implementation of privacy measures; special note is made that many of the VA facilities were having difficulty meeting the "one-stop care" measure because they could not attract physicians and mental health providers with gender-specific (i.e., women's health) training to satisfy the mandate -- especially at facilities that treat few women veterans.

The GAO report does enumerate many gender-specific services provided to women veterans:

The VA facilities GAO visited provided basic gender-specific and outpatient mental health services to women veterans on site, and some facilities also provided specialized services for women. Seventeen of the 19 medical facilities GAO visited offered basic gender-specific services including pelvic examinations and cervical cancer screening on site, and 15 offered access to one or more female providers for gender-specific care. The availability of specialized gender-specific services--such as treatment of reproductive cancers--and mental health services for women varied by service and facility. While some VAMCs offered a broad array of specialized gender-specific care on site, smaller CBOCs referred women to other VA or non-VA facilities for many or most of these services. Nationally, 9 VAMCs have residential mental health programs that are for women only or have dedicated cohorts for women.

One of the GAO's recommendations is for the VA to improve the information about these services and to make the information highly visible on the VA website. (see Summary, para. 2, and recommendations, generally). In their report (p. 10), the GAO said, "VA Facilities Provided Basic and Specialized Gender-Specific Services and Mental Health Services to Women Veterans, though Not All Services Were Provided On Site at Each VA Facility." They go on to note that those facilities that did not provide every female-specific service referred female veterans to other [VA] facilities for such care (same practice as for all veterans when services required are not offered at the closest VA facility). The GAO also reports that all facilities planned to offer all female-specific services in the future. In not one case did the GAO cite inadequacy of care or a disparity in care given to male v. /female veterans.

Is that a justification for the VA facilities for not having implemented the privacy measures that were noted all the way back in 1982 (and '92 and '94...)? Hell no. Should have been done LONG ago. But inadequate privacy is not the same as inadequate or inequitable care.

Now, if you were referring to the VA's Report of the Under Secretary for Health Workgroup, Provision of Primary Care to Women Veterans and the discussions of women veterans' dissatisfaction (performance) ratings for VA services... or the mismatch in utilization of services (immunizations, colo-rectal screenings, etc.) between male and female veterans, the assumption being that these services are not being offered or communicated as well to female veterans? OK. I get that. Something that needs attention. However, utilization of care is not the same as adequacy or equity of care. I heard no such allegations of inequity by the female veterans appearing before the Committee on Veterans Affairs (see discussion a bit later) nor did I read or hear examples of services provided to male veterans that women veterans did not also receive. Does that mean there aren't any disparities? No, but no one has recently spoken to some disparity or a level of disparity that exists and requires attention. Do service levels and quality differ from facility to facility? Yes, they do. But those measures are across the board and not explicit to women veterans. Poor (and exceptional) service affect men veterans at those facilities as well.

Molly: childcare is a HUGE barrier to care.

The GAO report (in addressing the "one-stop care" model mandated to better meet the needs of female veterans) states [at p.2]  (my emphasis),

Because many of these women work or have child care responsibilities, multiple visits can be problematic, especially when services are not available in the evenings or on weekends.

[Note that the footnote to this entry states that under current law, the VA cannot provide child care nor operate childcare facilities.]

Even in facilities that have "one-stop" providers, the GAO notes [p. 26, para. 2] that many of the women veterans themselves have opted to have their gynecological care from a VA provider separate from their VA PCP.  The GAO report does not say or even intimate that child care is a significant problem or bar to access and offers no facts, figures, suggestions or recommendation for such.

In fact, since the GAO report is silent on the issue, I was curious where the impetus had come from. Seems the child care "thing" resulted from testimony from two of five [hand-selected] female veteran panelists representing various veterans' organizations that appeared before the  July 2009 Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs Hearing on "Women Veterans: Bridging the Gaps in Care".

According to the summary of the panel's testimony provided by Women's Rights/Change.org, the panelists "spoke about the vital need for child care at VA facilities, as well [as] the importance of making VA clinics and hospitals more child-friendly."  I watched the video of the hearing to ascertain who said what and the basis of this dire need. Ms Olds of the VFW listed child care among the needs of women veterans on par with hiring more physicians and mental healthcare providers, access to service, and outreach to women veterans, etc. It was a big issue for panelist Ms Williams, as well (she sits on the Board of a women's veterans organization whose name was not in her written testimony and I could not understand the organization's name from viewing her testimony.)

Ms Williams regales the Committee and guests with shocking stories of a woman veteran who had to change her child's diaper on the floor at a VAMC while waiting for appointments and of another who was told emphatically that if she couldn't find child care for her child, she should just not show up. I don't doubt for a second these stories are true -- who would make such things up?  I find no study, no data, no survey -- nothing in sworn testimony or reports or news stories -- to indicate whether, in fact, lack of childcare impacts in any way access to health care for veterans (male or female); there are just anecdotal accounts that it's a problem for two veterans.

In her testimony before the Committee, Ms Olds referred to the VA's  Report of the Under Secretary for Health Workgroup, Provision of Primary Care to Women Veterans and pointed to their findings generally -- which led me to think it contained facts or a discussion or study or recommendation on child care, but I could find no such information in that report on the need for child care. I did find (my emphasis): 

While no-show rates for general primary care have a target of 13 percent, the no-show rates for women’s gender-specific prevention clinics have ranged from 14 percent to well over 28 percent at most facilities. (f/n 70)   Factors related to no-show rates for women’s clinics differ from those for men, e.g., not missing work and childcare and eldercare responsibilities.

Don't get me wrong. I was a working mother with young children before most of the women on that panel were born; my former DIL is a working mother; we have a daughter who expects to be a working mother in a few years; and six nieces -- four of whom are currently mothers of very young children. I fully -- and I mean FULLY -- understand the problems of balancing work, family and all our other commitments as women -- including to our own health -- and the child care issue. It all just leads me to ask how all the mothers of young children in America who are NOT veterans get to medical appointments and what do they do with their children... and makes me wonder where all the child care facilities are in non-government hospitals and medical facilities around the country?

I am ok if the VA provides a stipend to cover child care costs the same way mileage is reimbursed, but not OK with using funds to create and staff child care facilities. Of course they should outfit restroom facilities with changing tables -- but childcare? I'd also be OK with the VA partnering with child care providers or day care centers to provide occasional care for veterans' children while they are at the VA. [Side note to Molly: My son would not really benefit from childcare at the VAMC since he and his child's mother -- also an enrolled veteran, fwiw -- provide child care for their child for ALL of their personal commitments.] 

Frankly, while it may be a problem for SOME women veterans -- and I empathize, I sincerely do -- is it a "HUGE" impediment in access to care? No.

Since both the GAO report and the VA Report also found that having a job could also be a factor that prevented female veterans from accessing care, is it proposed the VA pay them, too? Perhaps the Congress that is so willing to pass inane and often over-reaching laws should MAKE employers give veterans time off for medical appointments? Maybe it can be illegal to fire or suspend a veteran-employee for attending medical appointments? (Sure... one more reason not to hire a vet.) Besides, every attempt at legislating decency throughout history has failed.  Not sure what will have to be done about elder care responsibilities... (well, if Obamacare comes to pass, we won't have to worry about us elders. ok. /snark)

WHY should the VA provide newborn services? OK. I do get that the VA offers obstetrical care -- but not at its facilities. They do cover it... so I see where the whole newborn services got there... but that's not mentioned in the GAO report or the VA's report either!  Maternity and neo-natal care is available through private providers or community health care providers -- at facilities far better equipped to provide such services. In fact, the GAO notes that veterans requiring obstetrical care are routinely referred to non-VA facilities for such care and the report contains no note nor offers a recommendation to provide newborn services or provides a justification.

The use of resources to provide these services to the very small number of female veterans that might require them is a misplacement of resources. Could it be nominal in the scheme of things? Sure. But where does it end?

Molly: Women are a small minority in the VA.

You make my very point: if women veterans are such a small percentage of the overall veteran population (8% of 23,067,000) -- and child-bearing female veterans an even smaller percentage -- why siphon off dollars, resources (space and staff) and create programs for that small group of veterans when there are so many other needs to be met that could serve ALL veterans?

The original VA medical system's mission was quite explicit: "to provide care to veterans with service-connected disabilities. In addition, to the extent that staff and facilities are available, VA facilities can provide care for non-service disabilities to veterans who are unable to defray the cost of care elsewhere."

It seems that the purpose of the VA is now to be everything it can be to every single veteran -- that qualifies. The money earmarked (and I use that term deliberately) for these new expanded women-only services (some of which are not detailed) could well be used to expand the eligibility to veterans -- including women veterans -- who remain excluded from all VA medical services because they are above the even newly-revised financial threshold and do not have combat- or service-connected conditions.

I am not against providing services to female veterans. On the contrary: female veterans -- like male veterans -- have earned every service at the highest level. Where there are deficiencies -- in either male or female care -- they should be addressed. However, I am opposed to creating special programs that apply to a very tiny minority of veterans when the needs of ALL veterans -- male & female -- are better served by the use of those funds and facilities... especially when no need has been empirically established for things like childcare and newborn services. In fact, the money being spent on these measures could easily have been used to bolster and expand the class of providers caring for the wounded or increase the comepnsation level.

Molly: What you take for granted in your private physicians office

I take nothing for granted.

Molly: I mean you no disrespect
sure you do... if even a little or you wouldn't have admonished me as you did.

have a huge amount of respect for any mother with as many children as you in the service, however how many are daughters?
Jeez. I'm surprised you didn't pull the race card... or the chickenhawk argument... and you didn't mention that in addition to the three sons (two are veterans and one is active), my father was a disabled veteran, my husband is a veteran (note: 25 years, 2 combat tours, and not eligible to enroll for VA medical services!), one sister is a veteran of the USMC in the 70's, and we have a nephew also serving (AF). As for the daughter? She went to medical school. Aren't my husband and three sons enough?

Molly: I will be interested in what you post then.
Well, now you know.

_______________________

* Here's the links to the 1982 GAO Report , 1992 Report , the (limited scope) 1994 Testimony (report) and of course, the GAO's and VA's 2009 Report is linked above.

New Veterans Caregivers Bill: A Small Rant (I Don't get it.)

Well, I do get the principle parts of the bill -- and good that the approximately 2,000 family members who care for the severely wounded in their homes day in and day out. Yeoman's work... and long overdue for recognition and compensation.

But this I don't get.

From Many Angles to Caregiver Bill

Expand VA services for 1.8 million women veterans currently receiving VA care or expected to enroll in the system. VA for the first time will cover up to seven days of newborn care for enrolled female veterans. Other initiatives will force changes to the VA health system to make it respectful of privacy and other needs of female veterans. VA is directed to launch a pilot for providing patient childcare services too.

OK, I know I'll take heat for this... but can someone explain this to me?? EXPAND services???  Do women veterans not get the same services as male veterans?? Is there some service (besides GYN) that doesn't apply EQUALLY to men? What do they want to expand?? I don't get it.

The VA is now going to provide childbirth services?? NURSERIES? Is childbirth now a combat- or service-related medical condition? The VA has a hard enough time attracting physicians and medical professionals to treat the GENERAL veterans' community and now they'll have to hire OBs???

Do women veterans have some additional privacy concerns that aren't being extended and/or that don't apply to men?? In every treatment area in our VA there are curtains and private examining rooms... it's not a shower room atmosphere. If there was a problem at selected facilities, did that require a piece of legislation -- and funding??

"Other needs of female veterans??" That's a rather nebulous phrase. WHAT other needs?? I'd like to know.

Filner said other parts of S. 1963 focus on VA health care “access for people who don’t normally have access. Like women. It’s time to think about childcare, privacy curtains, to think about respect, basically.”

"Access for people who don't normally have access... Like women??" Since when? Every veteran -- male or female -- has access to the VA if they meet the eligibility requirements. If the intent is to grant women veterans access under conditions that men cannot qualify -- well I object. STRONGLY object. If they want to expand access, then they should open the VA health care eligibility to ALL veterans and not just the combat- and service-connected disabled or the very poor. (Oh, you didn't know that access to VA health care is limited to certain classes of veterans?? Go HERE.) They certainly shouldn't be granting special privileges to veterans who just happen to be women.

Childcare services? The VA is going to provide babysitters?? (This from a woman with a VA-enrolled son who has a child.) Will the VA be taking charge of the child/children when the veteran has to be admitted?

Older veterans will find it refreshing, he said, to see children of women veterans, from time to time, in waiting areas of VA medical facilities.

“It changes the whole ambiance of the place,” Filner said. “It’s no longer a bunch of dying people. There’s life! And so… childcare not only helps the families with kids but the whole atmosphere.”

Ambiance??? Atmosphere??? Atmosphere???  Are you kidding me??? If you want children's ambiance go to the play areas at McDonalds or to Chuck E Cheeze or volunteer at a day care center. Jeez. What happened to finding your own childcare and being responsible for your child/children? 

This is nuts! I'm damn sure this isn't what the VA was set up to do. YES I know there are women veterans... and I know that there are areas of "special" in that topic, but the VA as a Nanny?? FFS.

It is high time that we accept that there is no way to meet every single need of every single veteran for things NOT connected to their service. If it's service-connected, we should spare no effort or funds. However, given the demands -- practically and financially -- on the VA for medical and psychological care for SERVICE-CONNECTED conditions, is this really the best use of the money?? Birthing and childcare?? Turning this esteemed veterans medical provider into a new welfare program is a tragedy. What other needs common to ALL veterans will be shortchanged or not be attended while these new women-only mandates are established and funded?? It's just plain crazy, I tell you.

Next they'll be mandating sex-change operations for transgender veterans. These new women-only measures are plain pandering and electioneering. I'm sure I could come up with a list of services to ALL veterans that should be expanded or improved rather than adding obstetrics, newborn care and babysitting services.

OK. rant end.

Ant & Grasshopper: Old Story, New Moral

based on an email from my sister Paula...

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. He has a small business that employs 10 bugs of various colors. He provides a living wage and provides as many benefits (health insurance, holidays, sick time) as his business can afford and still have money left to invest and grow his business (so that he can hire more people).

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. He thinks nothing of spending his welfare money on the newest car, the newest phone, the newest game system and is outraged that anyone could expect him to spend money on adequate housing or health insurance.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed as are his employees.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself! Work hard, live within your means, save for a rainy day and your future.

MODERN (Democrats) VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. He has a small business that employs 10 bugs of various colors. He provides a living wage and provides as many benefits (health insurance, holidays, sick time) as his business can afford and still have money left to invest and grow his business (so that he can hire more people).

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. He thinks nothing of spending his welfare money on the newest car, the newest phone, the newest game system and is outraged that anyone could expect him to spend money on adequate housing or health insurance.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed as are his employees.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant and the other hard-working bugs should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food...

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight. Mrs. Obama says she has never been proud of the ant's country but likes the grasshopper's country better.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share of the grasshopper's needs (but not his own. The ant is too "rich".)

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and fined for laying off the green bugs he has employed because he can no longer afford the salaries, taxes and health insurance premiums for all, and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his business closes, all the bugs are unemployed, and the ant's home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead from over-consumption, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses under the debt created by self-serving legislation bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be very careful how you vote in 2010.

Dear CNN: That's NOT What He Said (Again)

You need to read Greyhawk's coverage of a blatant distortion of the truth that CNN and now other news organizations are spreading.

The TRUTH: The soldier said he clearly heard Hasan shout, "Allah Akbar" when he began firing last week at Ft Hood... the adrenaline made the soldier forget he was SHOT -- it did NOT make him forget what Hasan said.

To you at CNN: you are either the world's worst reporters of news (ok, that's true) OR you blatantly rewrote the Private's interview because you didn't want to hear what he said (yeah, I get that you do that, too). Maybe it's both. And neither of those is speculation.

Please go over and read... HERE. And tell your friends... and family... and tell them to tell their friends and family... Do not let CNN excuse or canonize the TERRORIST MURDERER who killed American citizens... American soldiers.

And I urge you to read the story of the U.S. Naval Academy Midshipmen who were "punished" for being male and white... no matter that they worked harder and longer than many others to make the Naval Academy Color Guard... but were yanked and replaced before their appearance at the World Series for a more "diverse" looking color guard... even though those others selected may have been less qualified. Srsly. If it shouldn't be about color (as so many tell me), THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT ANYONE'S COLOR!!

My Thinking Exactly...

Conservative v. Liberal

• If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn't buy one.
• If a liberal doesn't like guns, he feels that no one should have one.

• If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
• If a liberal is, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.

• If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
• A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

• If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
• If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect .

• If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
• Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

• If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
• A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

• If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
• Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

• If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
• A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

• If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
• A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
  

Congressperson Ann Kirkpatrick's "Town Hall"

Updated 8/8/09: HERE is video. As you will see from this video, she is in the entryway of a grocery store and the crowd is a bunch of white-haired gents and ladies. When one woman directly asks Rep. Kirkpatrick a question on health care, Kirkpatrick tells her she's not going to answer any questions on that. When the woman tells her that these people all want to know (and the people clap signaling their agreement with the woman), Kirkpatrick simply walks out. So much for the wild, swastika-bearing organized mob... (and kudos to the guy who calls after her, "You're our employee!") And note, these senior citizens don't get "unruly" until she has left.

This is all about the news/gossip reports about how Ann Kirkpatrick's "Town Hall" meeting in Holbrook, AZ was supposedly overrun by a group of organized thugs. Not true... According to people who were there, she simply canceled the event when a crowd showed up. (Transcript here.)

First, I was not AT that "Town Hall" meeting... or at any town hall meeting because -- according to my conversation with Ann Kirkpatrick's office earlier this week -- she is not holding any town hall meetings... just small hand shaking or photo ops. I have been trying (along with a number of other private citizens we know) to get Ann Kirkpatrick to hold a meeting ANYWHERE in the state to answer questions about the president's & congressional health care proposal. She has refused... she and her office telling me OUR representative prefers small "Chats with Ann". (see the list HERE.) No one organized me to call. I didn't receive a robocall encouraging me to call or attend anything. We have attended Town Hall meetings in the past held by Senator McCain and information meetings held by Senator Kyl and the former Congressman... and it was important to us to have the opportunity to ask questions of our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE.

Rep. Kirkpatrick is limiting her "chats" to areas remote and far off the beaten path -- AND SHE IS HOLDING HER "GET TOGETHERS" IN THE LOCAL GROCERY STORES!!! Her office told me that her only appearance in my area was an invitation only press conference to talk about TARP funds but it was a short visit and there would be no opportunity for questions FROM THE PUBLIC. They did tell me that I could drive the two hours from the most populous town in this county -- where she will NOT meet with constituents -- to attend one of the small gatherings in either Payson, Winslow or Holbrook in one of two neighboring counties... BUT she had no intention of addressing the health care issue at any of them. SHE was coming home to discuss infrastructure projects and public safety (as in fire and police). Note in the transcript referenced above, the woman says of Kirkpatrick, "She didn't want to answer any questions..."

When I asked why she wasn't scheduling any meetings in the immediate Prescott area, her staff informed me that the Congresswoman "already heard enough from the people in the Prescott area and didn't see a reason to meet here." Pardon me?? So I asked the staffer, "You mean because the people of Prescott are informed and communicate regularly, the Congresswoman is penalizing us?" Of course, her answer was, "No, of course not..." After registering my strong disapproval at Ms. Kirkpatrick's lack of communications with her constituents, I asked her staffer to relay a message to my representative: "NO on H.R. 3200!"

Now let's look at Ms. Kirkpatrick's tactics at staying as far away from the maddening crowd while she's home this summer. Holbrook and Winslow are in Navajo County. Payson is in Gila County. Prescott is in Yavapai County. I'm sure the choice of Ms Kirkpatrick's "chats" had nothing at all to do with the fact that Navajo county is 44% registered Democrats to 32% Republican (she won the county) and Gila County is 44% to 36% Democrat/Republican (she won the county) and whereas Yavapai County is 46% Republican to 26% Democrat (she lost the county)? (/sarcasm).

Now you would think that a Congressperson would want to reach as many of her constituents as possible? (Population HERE.) Holbrook has a population of approximately 5,100, Winslow has 9,900 and Payson has 15,500. Prescott (alone) has 42,700; add Prescott Valley and Chino Valley (which border Prescott on either side), there are an additional 38,500 and 11,100, respectively. But Ann, who made exceptionally few campaign appearances in Yavapai County her entire congressional campaign, doesn't feel the need to talk with the people of Prescott or Yavapai?

The whole health care issue is THE topic everyone is talking about and everyone (including me) wants to talk about it... and people everywhere want to talk to their elected (as in YOU WORK FOR US) representatives... and I can't blame people one bit if they showed up at an event that is publicized on their Congressperson's website and where her staff directed people to go... and they get boisterous and perhaps even irate when she DOESN'T SHOW UP AND CANCELS THE EVENT???

Truth Hurts??

The Daily Mail:

But the President's supporters have condemned the image, calling it 'mean-spirited and dangerous.'

A spokesman from the Los Angeles urban policy unit said that depicting the president as demonic and a socialist 'goes beyond political spoofery.'

First, WTF is "the LA urban policy unit"?? Is that ACORN?? You get zip -- except European and UN references -- when that term is googled... European and UN... that's about right.

And I didn't hear anyone on the left say it was mean-spirited when such images or worse were made of our previous President.

Just a reminder: GOES.AROUND.COMES.AROUND.

And in the case of this poster, I figure it's because the truth hurts, doesn't it??

For those libtards who are offended, please read the First Amendment to the Constitution in regards to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yah.

The Sotomayor Hearings

I am so impressed with Senator Kyl's opening remarks at the confirmation hearings. He hits every salient point -- in a reasoned, straight forward manner -- on why this woman's nomination should be setting off alarm bells!! A little long at 8+ minutes -- but SSSOOOO worth the time!!

Fox video

PS HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ADub!!

Taxed Enough Already Protest - Prescott

Prescott, AZ -- Everybody's Hometown (and Arizona's Christmas City)! The Protest started with a prayer to the Almighty asking that He impart on our elected officials real wisdom to deal with this economic problem... wisdom which has escaped them all so far!.Then there was the singing of the National Anthem and the Pledge. There were 4,000 people at the height of the TEA Party -- and people were riled up throughout. The cold temps may have kept people away, but there was an exuberant bunch on hand. We live in horse & cow country and while no one was suggesting we string up the horse thieves, the sentiment was not lost on this crowd. The crowd was filled with veterans and conservatives -- and the joke of the night was just how dang proud we all were to fall in one or both of those groups! I could not get my pics or videos to post up at PJTV... so I'm putting some up right here!

Veterans: Can't Catch A Break

Thanks to some mighty good and generous friends from Fort Benning who paid his expenses, Noah is currently away on his first vacation since he was wounded in 2005 and was medically discharged (we won't count his mid-Iraq tour R&R and his 30-day convalescent leave after he was wounded) and hasn't seen his mail in the past 3 days. Really. This poor kid just can't catch a break.

As this recent post illustrates, he has been busting his a$$ since the day he left the Army. He arrived here in AZ on a Friday and began his classes in Fire Science on Monday. He certified as an EMT within 6 months of leaving the service, has completed the basic and advanced Wildfire Academy, completed the seriously rigorous Firefighter Academy, as well as classes in fire codes, inspections, hazardous materials, fire management, business management, and many others. He currently has a 3.85 GPA. He tried to find a job (any job) to supplement his VA disability allowance, but what few jobs were/are available, could not (or would not) accommodate his class schedule -- which is inflexible because the classes in his degree program are offered progressively, i.e., one class is offered one semester and the follow-on class offered the next, then the next. If you opt not to take a class this semester, it's not offered again for 2 or 3 semesters AND you're then ineligible for the follow-on class. Since this degree program is not only geared to those seeking a first-time career, but also to those already working as firefighters and to those working in some other field but wanting to change careers, many of the classes are late afternoon/night classes (longer classes-- fewer days) or every weekend for say 10 weekends.

For the past 18 months, Noah has attended school full time, has almost full time hours as a student intern at the Veterans' Center, PLUS he is a single Dad with custody of his fifteen-month old son. He also attends regular counseling sessions. He has a lot on his plate for a 23 year old. Hell, for a man of any age!

So here's what has come in the mail since he left to relax a few days ago:

Even though Noah has had his son living with him for almost a year, it was considered "informal" because there was no court decree. Prior to his divorce being final, he and his (ex-)wife received a subsidy from the state for child care which enabled her to work full time and Noah to attend school and work. When custody was formally granted to Noah, he went to the Department of Economic Security and asked that the subsidy paper work be put in his name and he gave them a copy of his divorce decree -- only to learn that the State of AZ considered that a whole new application for a subsidy which, because of the budget deficit in this state, are frozen, and his "new" application WAS DENIED. There was no arguing with these people that nothing had changed except the formality of the baby's custody. If Noah wants to keep his son in the licensed child care center, it will cost Noah an additional $400-$500 per month!!

Next, he applied for health insurance through the State because he has no real income and (as I wrote here) he has no health coverage (the VA only covers his service-connected conditions):

Veterans of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan who are medically unable to continue in the service but receive less than a 10% disability from their service branch, receive no medical insurance once they separate. For those with service-connected disability ratings of 10 or 20% (ratings are 0% or greater in 10% increments), they receive UP TO 12 months of medical insurance (Tricare) for themselves and their families after separation; for 10% and 20% ratings it is typically 6 months but can be 9 or 12 months depending on the medical condition. If a service member receives a disability rating of 30% or greater from the service branch (a medical retirement), medical insurance for themselves and their families continue at no cost to them FOR LIFE.

Remember: 90% of Soldiers, 83% of Marines, 73% of Airmen and 64% of Sailors who were injured, wounded or became chronically ill while in the service received a disability rating of 20% or less. Unless they were covered by an employer or can afford other insurance within say 6-9 months after their discharge, they and their families have no health insurance coverage.

Although the case worker told Noah that they do not count disability allowances as "income" for purposes of the "how poor are you?" test, they DID, in fact, count his VA disability and -- you guessed it -- his application for health insurance WAS DENIED. (He has already been turned down by other private insurers because he has too many combat-connected injuries/conditions -- and he can't afford those premiums any way!)

Next, Noah had applied through USAA (I'm not even linking them!!) for some life insurance because, well, he is a responsible parent (and a great Dad, I might add), and he wanted to be sure that his son would be provided for if anything were to happen to Noah. Now, USAA is a membership association and the single requirement for membership is that you (or a close family member) are or have been a member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America -- active, Guard, Reserve. Now my DH has been a member since the 60's and our children have been members since they got driver's licenses -- before any of the sons even entered the services. Today he received a letter saying that his application for life insurance WAS DENIED BASED ON HIS HISTORY OF (symptoms associated with) PTSD ??

WHAT THE HELL??!! This country has sent more than 1.7 million men and women to war over the past 8 years and as many as 20% of these men and women will suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress and many of those will develop post-traumatic stress disorder/syndrome. This is a business organization who states its mission is "to facilitate the financial security of its members, associates, and their families through provision of a full range of... products and services;" and "to be the provider of choice for the military community"??? Well, USAA, in this regard you are doing a piss poor job of meeting those needs. Will this be just one more reason NOT to seek treatment for the invisible wounds of war?? I'm trying to figure out how they justify this -- if they're wary of say, suicide, don't most insurance policies limit benefits within 2 years (or some period) or say that benefits won't be paid in the event of suicide??

Golly gee!! I can't wait to see what comes in the mail for him tomorrow!! Seriously, I can't imagine Noah coming home to these things... He just can't seem to catch a break. And I'd venture to say he's not the only young OIF/OEF veteran facing such obstacles. (See HERE, for example.)

Doesn't all this just suck?? As a parent, I am frustrated and angry beyond measure! Already veterans and veterans organizations have had to rant and rail against the new administration to turn them from their proposal of having combat-wounded veterans pay for their care with their own private insurance (if & when they have it). I ask -- as I have asked before -- IS THIS HOW WE TREAT OUR WOUNDED?? IS THIS HOW WE TREAT OUR VETERANS??? Why would any parent now consider encouraging their child to enlist if it means that they will have to fight and claw for any and every benefit they have EARNED or have to fight against discrimination and reprisal for having served their country and been wounded in that endeavor?? Really. Why would anyone volunteer for that??

Two Alligators

Two Alligators were sitting at the side of the swamp near the lake. The smaller one turned to the bigger one and said, 'I can't understand how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age; we were the same size as kids. I just don't get it.'

'Well,' said the big Gator, 'what have you been eating?'

'Politicians, same as you,' replied the small Gator.

'Hmm. Well, where do you catch them?'

'Down the other side of the swamp near the parking lot by the Capitol.'

'Same here. Hmm. How do you catch them?'

'Well, I crawl up under one of their Lexus cars and wait for one to unlock the car door. Then I jump out, grab them by the leg, shake the shit out of 'them and eat 'em!'

'Ah!' says the big Aligator, 'I think I see your problem. You're not getting any real nourishment. See, by the time you finish shaking the sh*t out of a Politician, there's nothing left but a butthole and a briefcase.'

people will never knowingly adopt socialism

If we forget history, we lose a very valuable tool!

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

The Socialist Party candidate for President of the US, Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 campaign speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every principle of our socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run on the Socialist Party ticket because the Democrat Party has now adopted our platform."

As the Wall Street Journal opinesabout the "stimulus" bill,

There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

and

$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As I said to my [Republican] Senators and to my [Democrat] Congresswoman (who should be ASHAMED for voting FOR the friggin' "plan"),

"NO! NO! NO! A TRILLION TIMES NO!!

and if you want to know how those politicians who want to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS think, it's just like these Verizon employees who do not know the difference between CENTS and DOLLARS!! (or who just don't care)



Here is a place to find your Senators' fax numbers and emails just in case you'd like to tell them to JUST SAY NO

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK???

in my email from Congress.org:

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THESE BILLS?

More than 500 bills have been introduced in the House and more than 200 in the Senate in the 111th Congress. What is on the minds of Members of Congress that they feel need to be addressed?

Here are a few examples:

H.R. 15 creates a nationalized system of free health care.
My Comment: I guess by "free" they mean hospitals, doctors, pharmacies, etc. will be providing their services for free? Yeah. That's what I thought.

H.R. 414, the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, requires cameras in cell phones to make an audible sound to alert others (such as in locker rooms) when a picture is taken.
My comment: Um, ok. I get the reasoning... but do we not have better things to be legislating?

H.R. 346 repeals the automatic payraises Congress receives.

My comment: It's about time. When they have fixed the messes they got us into -- i.e., when they have EARNED a pay raise, then they should get one.

H.R. 390 addresses "college football playoff games" while H.R. 187 says let Cubans play American baseball.

My comment: Um, ok. I get the reasoning... but do we not have better things to be legislating?

H.R. 227 states that human life begins at fertilization.
My comment: Danger! danger! danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! This is definitely NOT the type of thing that ANYONE should be legislating. Not likely to get passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress anyway...

H.R. 254 moves voting to the weekend.
My comment: Maybe more working people will take the time to vote??

H.R. 113 requires anything funded by an earmark to be audited. Perhaps things like H.R. 202, which creates a "Museum of Ideas."
My comment: this should not only require an "audit" but it should require that each earmark be voted on its merits and not be tacked on to any other spending item.

H.R. 116 ends political "robocalls" if you are on the "Do Not Call" Registry, while Senate bill S. 30 wants there to be caller ID honesty.

My comment: Um, ok. I get the reasoning... but do we not have better things to be legislating?

H.R. 126 would limit citizenship at birth only to those who have at least one parent who is a citizen or legal resident. H.R. 160 would limit Social Security benefits to only legal citizens or residents.
My comment: Absolutely friggin' about time for both these measures... but, again, neither likely to be passed by the socialist Democratic-controlled Congress.

H.R. 155 would ban taxes on unemployment benefits for two years, while H.R. 162 bans taxes on Social Security benefits.
My comment: Makes sense to me... it's not like people are getting rich on unemployment benefits.

H.R. 87 says "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is," and invites those who like to pay taxes to voluntarily pay extra taxes. Or how about just a "Fair Tax" as called for in H.R. 25.
My comment: Yeah... maybe Ashton & Demi would like to make this part of their Presidential Pledge initiative???

H.R. 70 would make it a hate crime to display a noose with the intent to intimidate. And H.R. 40 explores paying reparations to African-Americans.
My comment: This is always so friggin' preposterous. I didn't own any slaves. My family immigrated (legally) after slavery was banned. Besides, they have been receiving reparations for more than 40 years via minority preferences and quotas ... and any scholarships, grants, etc. paid to the African-American should be deducted from a "reparation". They should also have to prove they were personally damaged by slavery.

S. 213 would create an Airline Passenger Bill of Rights.

My comment: This is long overdue. I have said for the longest time that every airline ticket is a contract with an airline: I pay you to get me from point A to Point B within a reasonable time frame. If they can't do that, I should get my money back. Period. And it should be illegal to hold passengers on a grounded plane. If they did this off the plane, it'd be called kidnapping.

And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is back in the swing of things. He's introduced S.151, a bill to protect Indian arts and crafts.
My comment: oh, john, john, john.....

And just one other little note on the "Stimulus Plan"... what's the price tag now? $850 Billion? Let us do a little math. Mr. Obama says that this stimulus plan would "create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next TWO YEARS. $850,000,000,000 / 4,000,000 is $212,500 PER JOB! Maybe we should just pay $50,000 to each unemployed American?? It'd be cheaper.

Also note, that at least 5 million jobs, and probably many more, will have been lost during this economic downturn. So even if the new Administration's most optimistic projections bear out, unemployment in December 2010 will still be higher than it was in December 2007.

Just sayin'.