Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
How pathetic is this?
Posted by: McQ on Friday, March 02, 2007

Seriously. And I have to wonder where it came from. The Baltimore Sun found it "newsworthy":
Many people know that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas.

But an intriguing sliver of his family history has received almost no attention until now: It appears that forebears of his white mother owned slaves, according to genealogical research and census records.
It has received "almost no attention" because it is irrelevant. It's being given attention because it is inflammatory. It is, as was the piece on Mitt Romney's great-great-great grandfather's polygamy, nothing more than a political hit piece disguised as news.

(HT: Villainous Company)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
So, does this mean that Obama should be attacking his own credibility? Must be a reeaally slow news week at the Baltimore Sun.
 
Written By: cjd
URL: http://
It must be a slow news day here as well. Why not post something on Walter Reed? I’m sure a veteran’s perspective would be insightful. Intel Dump has been going to town on that story.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
One could argue that truth is the sole requirement for publishing information on candidates for President.
This poll of right wing bloggers is an interesting statistic:
Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?
Yes (0) — 0%
No (59) — 100%
Do you suppose that a poll of left wing sites would produce the mirror image?

 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
So, here’s a news article that yet again, drives home the bias of the media and the liberal establishment in this country.

Why is Obama ’black’?

He’s half white, isn’t he? Why then is the default definition of this man ’black’ or ’African American’ simply because one of his parents was a member of a ’minority’? Isn’t he equal parts white European? If he can be referred to as ’black’, can not just as easily be ’white’?

This goes for each and every mixed race person walking the earth today. If they become famous or noteworthy, they are automatically referred to by the minority part of their heritage. Is it simply the racist desire of the Left to pigeon hole everyone by race and not on merit and achievement?

I’d like to see this brought up to an ’enlightened’ politician, simply to watch them jump through hoops to not appear to be racist.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
The forebearers of my mother owned slaves, and they were from Tunisia.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
It must be a slow news day here as well. Why not post something on Walter Reed? I’m sure a veteran’s perspective would be insightful. Intel Dump has been going to town on that story.
Do you really want to read my take on that? It’s fairly simple ... while terrible, and certainly a disservice to the military wounded, what do you expect with government run health care?

And when the "we want government run universal health care" cry goes up, I’ll be using Walter Reed as an example of why we really don’t.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
what do you expect with government run health care?
Well, a few things actually
-I expect government run health care for wounded veterans to be held to a higher standard
-I expect that when the situation is uncovered and people begin to be held responsible, that they aren’t replaced with people who are even more culpable.
-I expect that the people responsible for bringing problems to the public’s attention not be punished with 7 am bed inspections.
-I expect that if a Congressperson who knows how bad the situation is is asked in a committee hearing what the situation is like, he not lie and say things are fine.

It’s all well and good to say that government health care is problematic but it’s there and it’s a part of a promise we made to the soldiers we sent overseas. How does holding the administrators of these hospitals to absurdly low standards while wishing that the hospitals weren’t there at all make things better for the veterans?
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
it’s a part of a promise we made to the soldiers we sent overseas.
No, it’s actually a promise we made when they joined the military to serve our country.
Sending them overseas has, or should have, nothing to do with it.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Why is Obama ’black’?
Ironic, isn’t it, that the very methods used to keep people as farm machinery are perpetuated and nutured by the modern media and the people who benefit most from continued racial divisiveness.

It used to be that if you had ’one drop’ of slave blood in you, you were a slave.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It’s all well and good to say that government health care is problematic but it’s there and it’s a part of a promise we made to the soldiers we sent overseas. How does holding the administrators of these hospitals to absurdly low standards while wishing that the hospitals weren’t there at all make things better for the veterans?
I think if McQ did a post on this it would be totally unsatisfying to you. People like myself and McQ would look at it as what is to be expected. That it is a sad situation which has nothing to do with this administration but is instead symptomatic of the government enterprise. That we have thousands of such targets to go after, Walter Reed is just one example. That the expectations you list will never be met. The kinds of things you are complaing about are exactly what you should expect. You can still complain, but don’t act as if it is somehow not par for the course. If this example is made better due to all the attention know that similar sad situations will exist all through our state and its many arms and more will pop up.

So if he took it on he would use it as an example of the failures of government as he does most other things like this and as a liberal that analysis strikes more at you than it does at conservatives and Republicans. So why is this example he would hold up important for him to explore?

Of course liberals take a different lesson, which is the incompetence of this administration, but I see no evidence that this administration is any less competent than the previous one. This kind of thing was exposed all the time under Clinton, Carter, Blair, Chirac, Mitterand, etc. So our criticism would be of the concept, not the particular incompetents, though they would get it as well.

This idea that everything would be run better if we had liberals or progressives running things is just silly. It is as silly as hearing Republicans make the same complaint. Liberals believe if smart people (them) who care about government (clue for you, Bush does care, deeply) rather than hostile to it, were in charge it would work better. Republicans feel that if smart, business like people (them) were running things rather than starry eyed idealists, panderers and union thugs things would work better. Both ideas are silly. I roll my eyes every time I hear some Republican say, "if things were run more like a business,blah, blah, blah."

So, what we would have to say wouldn’t fit the liberal narrative anyway. The complaints liberals have about the administrations running of anything are just generic in content, they could be reformulated to apply to any number of issues under any administration. If what the government does is better than them not doing it, it is in spite of things like this. So in the end you will probably see it as an attack on liberals and Democrats anyway since they are the party most attached to the growth of government and its responsibilities.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
I expect government run health care for wounded veterans to be held to a higher standard ...
Well, your expectations just met reality. How do you like it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Badger,

Your concerns about the situation are welcome, and yes, it is a problem that needs to be solved. McQ and Lance have done a good job summarizing how a lot of people who have been in the military feel about it.

Ask yourself this, though: Why is this suddenly an issue? If it’s because there is a war going on, and there is more exposure, fair enough. But as others have pointed out, the problems have been there a long time. The soldiers at Walter Reed and elsewhere are encountering the same issues that soldiers wounded in Mogadishu in 1993 under Clinton encountered. Not a peep was heard then.

FWIW, I’m glad the military health system is under scrutiny. But McQ is right, this is what the nation would encounter under a government-sponsored healthcare system, only it would be on a larger scale and probably even more inefficient and faceless, as most government-run systems are.

The bottom line is, the reason for the sudden righteous anger about all this is political in nature. When Bush is gone, the issue will disappear. Maybe not for you, but for most of the nation, it will.

Oh, look, it’s the original topic of this post! Let’s tackle it and wrestle it to the ground!! So, those guys at the Sun really are a bunch of jerks, eh?
 
Written By: cjd
URL: http://
So in the end you will probably see it as an attack on liberals and Democrats anyway since they are the party most attached to the growth of government and its responsibilities.
I don’t see this as a partisan or ideological issue at all. I think that, whatever your ideological background, the competent management of government agencies and basic principles of accountability and honesty, are critical concern. And I agree with the libertarian viewpoint that at least some amount of incompetence and mismanagement can be expected from government agencies and that that is always a motivation for looking for alternatives (not that privatization doesn’t have it’s own mountain of problems). But I think that the level and duration of the negligence at Walter Reed exceeds what is normally to be expected and that the continuing cover-up, blame shifting, and refusal to hold people responsible is not acceptable no matter how low your standards.

If we really did have a universal, government-run, health care system, and it displayed the levels of incompetence and negligence as the Walter Reed outpatient system, would conservatives and libertarians stay silent about that too, since it’s only to be expected from government health care?
Liberals believe if smart people (them) who care about government (clue for you, Bush does care, deeply) rather than hostile to it, were in charge it would work better
What are you basing this on? How could someone who cares about functioning government appoint someone like Michael Brown to FEMA after 9/11 or keep Rumsfeld around as long as he did? Or appoint an incompetent crony like Bernie Kerik to take charge of Iraqi police training, then try to promote him to head DHS? Or give Tenet a Medal after producing the flawed intelligence that got us into one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in American history? Ask John Dilulio or David Kuo or Paul O’Neil about his deep interest in domestic policy.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
cjd,

I’m curious about the previous mismanagement, can you direct me to any souces on that?
Ask yourself this, though: Why is this suddenly an issue?
Good question. I bet Salon.com is asking the same, since they broke this story two years ago.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
"-I expect government run health care for wounded veterans to be held to a higher standard"

It is my understanding that the fuss is about the condition of the living quarters, not the health care.

"Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m."

These are outpatients, remember, not inpatients, and they are still soldiers. Unless standards have changed radically in the last 20 years, getting up at 6 a.m. and having your quarters straightened up by 7 a.m. is sop. It actually surprises me a little that they were not required to to so, if physically able.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I think that, whatever your ideological background, the competent management of government agencies and basic principles of accountability and honesty, are critical concern.
Sure, and this website (and mine) address this kind of a thing on a regular basis. Exactly why is this example more important than any other? Is it that it is the military? This website in particular has raked our government and this administration over the coals on a number of issues such as this. Search the archives under equipment, training, detainee treatment, torture, armor and on and on. This is only a big issue as opposed to one among many because it is yet another thing which some people want to pin specifically on this administration on an issue where Democrats are perceived as weak. It is substantively no different than many other examples over the history of government programs. McQ is under no obligation to endorse liberal perceptions of what is important in choosing the finite number of issues he might wish to address. Torture and detainee treatment was one he chose to address, this isn’t.

If we really did have a universal, government-run, health care system, and it displayed the levels of incompetence and negligence as the Walter Reed outpatient system, would conservatives and libertarians stay silent about that too, since it’s only to be expected from government health care?
No, but that would be a much bigger issue. Maybe he’ll make a post making the point of its implications for health care. I then expect a bunch of liberals and leftists to whine about white washing the administrations culpability and using it to make that point when what they want is outrage at this administration.
What are you basing this on? How could someone who cares about functioning government appoint someone like Michael Brown to FEMA after 9/11 or keep Rumsfeld around as long as he did? Or appoint an incompetent crony like Bernie Kerik to take charge of Iraqi police training, then try to promote him to head DHS? Or give Tenet a Medal after producing the flawed intelligence that got us into one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in American history? Ask John Dilulio or David Kuo or Paul O’Neil about his deep interest in domestic policy.
That’s right, I couldn’t have made similar observations about Clinton, Carter, Johnston or Kennedy? I’ll leave it with one name, Janet Reno, who makes Alberto Gonzales look good, and that is a pretty tough thing to do in my book. I ’ll avoid the stupid list, but your answer shows exactly what I am talking about. My people were competent, their people were not. Well, it isn’t true. The level of incompetence hasn’t changed at all. Oh, remember, Tenet was originally Clinton’s guy. He didn’t suddenly become less competent. I could rephrase it as, how can you give the Clinton administration a pass after they and their cronies got the intelligence so wrong? The Clinton administration endorsed the Bush administrations findings and bombed the heck out of Iraq more than once based on the exact same set of assumptions. That is partisan thinking. Liberals are smart and competent, conservatives and Republicans are not.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Reading Badger’s comments made me think of this.
Yes, liberals will have a tough time when Bush is gone. All of the problems that are his fault will still be with us; and no one to blame. (paraphrase)
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
I could rephrase it as, how can you give the Clinton administration a pass after they and their cronies got the intelligence so wrong?
Clinton didn’t know about the failings of Tenet’s intelligence during his Presidency and he’s not the guy who awarded and praised Tenet after those failures were uncovered. And Clinton didn’t bomb Iraq because Tenet’s intelligence had uncovered evidence of WMDs, he did it because Hussein wasn’t cooperating with inspectors.
Sure, and this website (and mine) address this kind of a thing on a regular basis. Exactly why is this example more important than any other? Is it that it is the military? This website in particular has raked our government and this administration over the coals on a number of issues such as this.
Doesn’t that make it all the more interesting when the issue doesn’t get discussed? I’d say if this had been a one-shot story (problems found, problems addressed) then it’s something that can be dismissed as "business as usual". But when there are daily developments indicating that the problem has been known about for a while and is now being dealt with with censorship, deck chair shuffling and coats of fresh paint, it moves into a region where the silence starts to say something.
No, but that would be a much bigger issue. Maybe he’ll make a post making the point of its implications for health care. I then expect a bunch of liberals and leftists to whine about white washing the administrations culpability and using it to make that point when what they want is outrage at this administration.
In all of this, I don’t want to imply that i think that McQ is looking these Walter Reed stories, twirling a moustache, and muttering about how he’ll ignore the story so that the paychecks from Bush keep coming. There are a million different reasons why a blogger would choose to post or not post on a news story. I’m sure I could count the number of liberal bloggers with William Jefferson posts today on one hand. But, since he’s a veteran with a history of being willing to criticize the Bush Administration I thought it was worth pressing the point.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
But, since he’s a veteran with a history of being willing to criticize the Bush Administration I thought it was worth pressing the point.
I think the point is this isn’t an administration specific problem. This is an inherent systemic problem found in almost all governmental bureaucracies and governmental programs. Government is simply inherently inefficient in comparison with other choices when involved in areas such as health care, delivering the mail, running a railroad (Amtrack), etc.

So beating up the administration doesn’t address the real problem. They’ll clean up Walter Reed and make big noise about reviewing the whole system and, for a while, it’ll look better. Eventually, regardless of who’s in power or running the show, this will be "uncovered" again.

And to those who don’t understand this, I’ll ask the same question I asked Ezra Klein on a past podcast when he touted the VA system as being so grand:

"Ever been in a VA Hospital?"

Trust me, if you have, Walter Reed is no surprise.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Actually, the VA Hospital system has made something of a turnaround:
Yet here’s a curious fact that few conservatives or liberals know. Who do you think receives higher-quality health care. Medicare patients who are free to pick their own doctors and specialists? Or aging veterans stuck in those presumably filthy VA hospitals with their antiquated equipment, uncaring administrators, and incompetent staff? An answer came in 2003, when the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a study that compared veterans health facilities on 11 measures of quality with fee-for-service Medicare. On all 11 measures, the quality of care in veterans facilities proved to be "significantly better."

Here’s another curious fact. The Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a study that compared veterans health facilities with commercial managed-care systems in their treatment of diabetes patients. In seven out of seven measures of quality, the VA provided better care.

It gets stranger. Pushed by large employers who are eager to know what they are buying when they purchase health care for their employees, an outfit called the National Committee for Quality Assurance today ranks health-care plans on 17 different performance measures. These include how well the plans manage high blood pressure or how precisely they adhere to standard protocols of evidence-based medicine such as prescribing beta blockers for patients recovering from a heart attack. Winning NCQA’s seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose this year’s winner is: Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the VHA system outperforms the highest rated non-VHA hospitals.


It’s an interesting article, that of course puts me in the uncommon position of praising something that has occurred at least partially during the Bush Administration (apparently the program is so successful he believes that we can afford to cut the funding now) but there it is.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Interesting discussion, I’d like to add something quick. Though badger’s last link doesn’t work, I’m going to guess that it’s not an actual cut in funding, it’s simply not increasing the funding by as much as it was increased last year. Calling that a cut, while sadly standard procedure, seems a very unfair characterization.

Of course I could be wrong and it really is a cut, but from what I remember, it was simply not increasing funding by as much as previously (while still more than during clinton years, please correct me if wrong on that) and means testing some of the benefits, so poorest of the vets gets the most govt assistance.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Actually, the VA Hospital system has made something of a turnaround:
Actually, that’s the new "conventional wisdom".

I’ll ask again, have you ever been in a VA hospital?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Whoops. Betrayed by Google again. Here is a link that works.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
The answer is yes, but not in over a decade. If citing a magazine article didn’t make it clear enough that I’m not basing my argument on personal experience, I hope my answer does.
 
Written By: Badger
URL: http://
Win or lose, when the Clinton Machine is done with him, Obama will wish he tried to sandpaper a bobcat’s ass instead of challenging Hillary.

I certainly don’t want a liberal Dem like Obama to president, but I bear him no ill will and shudder at what’s in store for him.
 
Written By: Augustus
URL: http://
These are outpatients, remember, not inpatients, and they are still soldiers. Unless standards have changed radically in the last 20 years, getting up at 6 a.m. and having your quarters straightened up by 7 a.m. is sop. It actually surprises me a little that they were not required to to so, if physically able.
Try making your bed with an IV stuck in your arm.

Nuremburg hospital, 1981.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
The new "conventional wisdom" is the VA system is a grand system. And compared to what it was, it is better.

But you know, one of the truisms about any medical care is it doesn’t matter how good it is if you can’t access it:
"Our vet centers lead the world in helping combat veterans successfully re-adjust to life at home," said Nicholson. "It’s an important service which combat veterans have earned. VA continues to expand into more communities with our vet centers to bring our services closer to the veterans who need them."

"Care is available and it’s available 24/7," said Dr. Lawrence Adler, a researcher in psychiatry with the Denver VA Medical Center. Adler told FOXNews.com that returning veterans’ mental health is a top priority and the vet centers are providing critical care for veterans and their families facing re-adjustment and substance abuse issues.
There you have the perfect bureaucratic boast and here you have reality:
But that is not placating the family of Marine Jonathan Schulze, who hanged himself Jan 16. His family says four days earlier, Schulze had called doctors at the veteran’s hospital in St. Cloud, Minn., and told them he was suicidal. They told The Associated Press that he was turned away on account of a waiting list for beds at the hospital.

As a rule, the VA does not put off veterans with suicidal tendencies, say VA officials. The Minnesota hospital would not comment directly on the claim, but officials say beds in their psychiatric unit do not have a waiting list.

Currently, 21 veterans are on a waiting list for a separate mental health residential treatment center, according to AP, which reported that the other unit is for less immediate, ongoing cases.

VA hospital records indicate that Schulze never told hospital staff he was contemplating suicide, but Schulze’s father and stepmother insist they heard Jonathan tell hospital staff over the phone that he was suicidal. They say he told them he was informed he was 26th in line for a bed.
And not just in the mental health area:
With the combination of aging veterans living longer and new veterans coming home, there are more than 300,000 VA claims still waiting to be processed. Some VA patients wait up to a year to see specialists. Artie Guerrero says he’s on a waiting list.

"I was told I had high blood pressure and I needed to be monitored and it was an emergency," he says. "They wanted to do a 24-hour check on me. I still have not been contacted for that appointment to get a heart monitor."
Would you willingly put up with that?

VA treats a very small and select percentage of our population and can’t even handle that. It has to do what all socialist systems do ... ration health care through delaying its delivery.

No thanks.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So, here’s a news article that yet again, drives home the bias of the media and the liberal establishment in this country.
And for that reason, to address McQ’s point, is why this story is relevant.... exposing the usual Democrat double standard....though I’m willing to bet the usual suspects will disagree. But think; can you imagine, for example, an Al Sharpton offering up the info about Obama’s family history, as he offered up his own ties to Strom Thurmond, recently?

No? So what is the difference between the two?

That he’d not be able to castigate those waskuwee Weepubwicans.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Clinton didn’t know about the failings of Tenet’s intelligence during his Presidency and he’s not the guy who awarded and praised Tenet after those failures were uncovered.
What does that have to do with the competence issue I was addressing? Whatever praise he received he was no more or less competent under either administration.
And Clinton didn’t bomb Iraq because Tenet’s intelligence had uncovered evidence of WMDs, he did it because Hussein wasn’t cooperating with inspectors.
Yeah, they weren’t cooperating, which was a problem because they believed they did have weapons. The inspectors believed they had weapons as well. If they didn’t believe they had weapons they wouldn’t have bombed. We know this to be true because Clinton, Gore and the rest of the apparatchiks have told us this, and Hillary and Edwards have confirmed that the Clinton administration figures inside and outside the Bush administration felt it was true in the run up to the invasion as well. So, equal incompetency.

I would also submit you can make the claim, and it was made then and afterward by some, that the Bush administration (along with other factors) invaded because Hussein wasn’t cooperating. This was a problem why? Because the entire world believed he did have weapons, or at least programs which could be ramped up fairly quickly. So, same excuse of you want to use it.
But when there are daily developments indicating that the problem has been known about for a while and is now being dealt with with censorship, deck chair shuffling and coats of fresh paint, it moves into a region where the silence starts to say something.
And you find that unusual? Why? Clinton was famous for just that kind of thing, and don’t get me started on the Carter administration.

I also think this is bizarre. We all know things like this have been ongoing, and you yourself submit the system as a whole is better than before, so why is this so scandalous? It seems a story of things still are not finished in an admirable effort to improve the system for veterans. Is that the post you want to see him write? I can only conclude it is from the evidence you have provided, because if the information is accurate that would be the fair post to write. I apologize if I understood you wanted an outraged condemnation rather than a balanced assessment of the administrations efforts emphasizing the overall progress. In fact, if the information you have provided is correct, then it is frankly astounding that the care is so good overall.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Well, now Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey has resigned, and the Bushmeister
has called for an investigation at Walter Reed (and probably further).

Now - how about that Obama guy, I heard he was black!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Who cares. If you trace everybody’s genealogy back far enough we all came from Africa.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
Bingo!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"VA treats a very small and select percentage of our population"

It is not a very small percentage anymore, and that is one of the problems. Like Social Security, benefits and eligibility have expanded over the years.

http://www.houston.med.va.gov/docs/veteran_information_guide.pdf

"If the veteran completed 24 months of continuous active duty and served in the regular branch of the armed forces, he or she is eligible for VA medical care."

Since we now have tens of millions of eligible patients, they have been necessarily prioritized. For the sake of brevity, I cite only the two lowest priority groups. None of the groups list emergency care, and I believe that VA hospitals generally do not have emergency facilities. It should not be a surprise that some VA patients wait up to a year to see a specialist.

Priority Group 7:
• Veterans who agree to pay specified co-payments with income and/or net worth above the VA Means Test threshold and income below the HUD geographic index
• Subpriority a: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans who were enrolled in the VA Health Care System on a specified date and who have remained enrolled since that date
• Subpriority c: Nonservice-connected veterans who were enrolled in the VA Health Care System on a specified date and who have remained enrolled since that date
• Subpriority e: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans not included in Subpriority a above
• Subpriority g: Nonservice-connected veterans not included in Subpriority c above
Priority Group 8:
• Veterans who agree to pay specified co-payments with income and/or net worth above the VA Means Test threshold and the HUD geographic index
• Subpriority a: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans enrolled as of January 16, 2003 and who have remained enrolled since that date
• Subpriority c: Nonservice-connected veterans enrolled as of January 16, 2003 and who have remained enrolled since that date
• Subpriority e: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans applying for
• Subpriority e: Noncompensable 0% service-connected veterans applying for enrollment after January 16, 2003
• Subpriority g: Nonservice-connected veterans applying for enrollment after January 16, 2003
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It is not a very small percentage anymore, and that is one of the problems.
In comparison with the entire population of the US (i.e. government run universal health care), it is a small and select group.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features/001503.html


"26.4 million
The number of military veterans in the United States; this is a ratio of about 1-in-8 (or 13 percent) of U.S. civilians 18 and over. "
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The number of military veterans in the United States; this is a ratio of about 1-in-8 (or 13 percent) of U.S. civilians 18 and over. "
Universal health care doesn’t exclude those under 18 so try again.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net
"Universal health care doesn’t exclude those under 18 so try again."

What??
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
What??
What do you mean, "what"??

I said:
In comparison with the entire population of the US (i.e. government run universal health care), it is a small and select group.
Since when does the "entire population of the US" not include those under 18? Including them would obviously change your ratio. Try 300 million instead.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I was referring to your

"VA treats a very small and select percentage of our population and can’t even handle that."


which is why I quoted it at the beginning or my comment. How you got to universal health care from that I have no idea. I was under the impression that the subject was the VA, since that entire comment was about the VA.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider