George W. Bush and his apparent exclusion of people from the "culture of life"
Overview
In the previous post, I discussed Reason 1 why Bush is a fraud when he talked about Terri Schiavo and his "culture of life." I began that post with statements by Bush made on March 17, 2005, and March 31, 2005. For the purposes of this post, here are the highlights:
In the Schiavo case, Bush supported Congress's efforts to halt all other business and pass a bill that applied only to Terri's parents; he cut short his Easter vacation so he could sign that bill into law; and he wanted the courts to make different decisions. He made all these efforts on behalf of only one person.
As the autopsy results show, Terri Schiavo had massive, irreversible brain damage, was incapable of any cognitive thought, and could not have responded to any possible treatment. And, by the way, that is what the record built through all the court proceedings showed (this site has a timeline with links to the judicial decisions). George W. Bush was willing to do everything within his power to keep this one person alive as part of his "culture of life"--a culture that George his own self said would place priority on the weak and those with disabilities. And while he was saying and doing these things on behalf of one person who had no chance to experience true life, he was disregarding the needs of hundreds of weakened and disabled persons--and these hundreds obtained their disabilities in the service of this country. And that is Reason 2 why George W. Bush is a shameless fraud when he speaks of a "culture of life." What follows are examples of Bush's disregard for these lives.
Example 1: amputee rehab center
A March 25, 2004, article from the Army News Service reported that plans were in place to build a new amputee rehabilitation facility at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. At that time, funding for the project had not been obtained, but, as Chuck Scoville, manager of the amputee patient care program, said, "We’re trying to find funding quickly because there is such an immediate need."
On November 19, construction on the new facility started. The Army News Service reported that the facility would cost $10 million and be completed by December 2005. A November 20, 2004, AP article described the state-of-the-art rehabilitation center:
The reality is that there will likely be no new rehab facilities for military amputees anytime soon. One of the reasons for BRAC is to save money and eliminate duplication and waste. Indeed that is a primary reason given for closing Walter Reed. The Washington Post quoted William Winkenwerder, Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, as saying "It is very expensive to run a hospital. It just did not make sense to have two tertiary facilities within seven miles of each other." The Pentagon estimates that the merger of Walter Reed and Bethesda, along with expansion of the hospital at nearby Fort Belvoir, will save $301 million over 20 years.
"Tertiary care" is defined as "Specialized consultative care, usually on referral from primary or secondary medical care personnel, by specialists working in a center that has personnel and facilities for special investigation and treatment." Treatment of amputees comes within this definition. This is significant because the current BRAC recommendation calls for all tertiary care to be moved to Bethesda. Thus, it is possible that a facility could be built at Bethesda, but who knows if there is enough room there for a new 30,000-square-foot rehab center for amputees?
This emphasis on efficiency and saving money is a major reason why I say there will be no new rehab facility. The Washington Post reported that "Construction at Fort Belvoir and Bethesda probably would not begin until about 2009, Winkenwerder said, and the last medical programs would have to move from Walter Reed by 2011." At first glance, this might not seem to be a problem. After all, construction on the amputee rehab facility at Walter Reed is already under way, and it could stay there until 2011. However, let's look at the fiscal realities. The DoD wants to save money and be more efficient. How efficient would it be to spend millions of dollars on a facility that you know is going to be open a maximum of five years? If you build a facility, operate it for a few years, and then close it, chances are you will need to build a new facility. None of that is very efficient, and I do not see how it could save DoD any money. Let's assume that there are currently plans for a similar rehab facility at Bethesda. According to DoD, construction at there will not be finished until 2009. So why would DoD--given that a major objective is saving money--spend millions building two facilities to do the same thing, especially when one is going to be shut down in a few years? That does not seem likely.
I have not yet found any information on the current status of the rehab center or future plans for any rehab center at Bethesda or any other location. Still, given the foregoing, it seems to me that construction on the amputee rehab facility at Walter Reed will be halted, and that means that until DoD decides otherwise, there might not be such a facility until 2009.
That hardly seems consistent with Bush's statements about the "culture of life."
Example 2: making the wounded pay for meals
On January 27, 2005, Salon.com published an article by Mark Benjamin entitled "Insult to Injury." Benjamin describes how some patients at Walter Reed--all military personnel injured in the war--are having to pay for their own meals. This policy does not apply to inpatients, but does apply to some outpatients. Benjamin explains the basic sytem:
Example 3: Guardsmen, Reservists, and medical care
A USA Today article from February 18, 2005, described the problems faced by National Guardsmen and Reservists regarding medical care:
Example 4: budget problems
Here are some excerpts from a March 10, 2005, article from Stars and Stripes:
Now I know what some of you are thinking...why should we take the word of some freedom-hating Democrat? Well, perhaps the word of the National Commander of the Disabled Veterans of America will be more credible. James E. Sursely is a disabled veteran who lost an arm and both legs in Vietnam. He testified before Congress on March 8, 2005, and he had plenty to say about budgetary matters:
Conclusion
I am not saying that Bush was wrong in speaking up in the Schiavo case. I am not saying that Bush was wrong in speaking about a "culture of life." I am not saying that it is absolutely the obligation of the government to provide all the needed health care for veterans (although I agree with Sursely about the moral obligation). What I am saying is that Bush's impassioned statements about a "culture of life"--especially his express pleas to take care of disabled persons--are simply abject hypocrisy when he makes them on behalf of a single person who is beyond help and disregards disabled people who are very much alive and very much in need of help. And the fact that these people happen to be military personnel in general and especially people who served in a war that Bush ordered goes beyond hypocrisy and heads straight ino immorality.
In the previous post, I discussed Reason 1 why Bush is a fraud when he talked about Terri Schiavo and his "culture of life." I began that post with statements by Bush made on March 17, 2005, and March 31, 2005. For the purposes of this post, here are the highlights:
Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected--and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.(emphasis added). I have argued that despite the generalities, Bush's statements equated "culture of life" only with keeping Terri Schiavo alive. In this post I will provide further support for that claim.*******I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.
In the Schiavo case, Bush supported Congress's efforts to halt all other business and pass a bill that applied only to Terri's parents; he cut short his Easter vacation so he could sign that bill into law; and he wanted the courts to make different decisions. He made all these efforts on behalf of only one person.
As the autopsy results show, Terri Schiavo had massive, irreversible brain damage, was incapable of any cognitive thought, and could not have responded to any possible treatment. And, by the way, that is what the record built through all the court proceedings showed (this site has a timeline with links to the judicial decisions). George W. Bush was willing to do everything within his power to keep this one person alive as part of his "culture of life"--a culture that George his own self said would place priority on the weak and those with disabilities. And while he was saying and doing these things on behalf of one person who had no chance to experience true life, he was disregarding the needs of hundreds of weakened and disabled persons--and these hundreds obtained their disabilities in the service of this country. And that is Reason 2 why George W. Bush is a shameless fraud when he speaks of a "culture of life." What follows are examples of Bush's disregard for these lives.
Example 1: amputee rehab center
A March 25, 2004, article from the Army News Service reported that plans were in place to build a new amputee rehabilitation facility at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. At that time, funding for the project had not been obtained, but, as Chuck Scoville, manager of the amputee patient care program, said, "We’re trying to find funding quickly because there is such an immediate need."
On November 19, construction on the new facility started. The Army News Service reported that the facility would cost $10 million and be completed by December 2005. A November 20, 2004, AP article described the state-of-the-art rehabilitation center:
"Our guys and gals, they don't want to just walk household distances; they want to be able to return to running, they want to be able to return to duty," Lt. Col. Jeff Gambel, clinical chief of the amputee clinic, said yesterday at a groundbreaking ceremony. "And if they don't return to duty, they want to be able to rock climb and do all those other things."Retired General Frederick M. Franks, Jr., himself an amputee, was the guest speaker at the groundbreaking. The Army News Service decribed some of his remarks as follows:
The center brings together new and existing facilities and counseling services for amputees in a 30,000-square-foot, three-story addition to the hospital.
When it opens in December 2005, the center will feature a running track, obstacle courses and a one-of-a kind hydraulic platform to simulate different terrain, from mud to sand to gravel. Computer labs will help amputees learn to control advanced prosthetics, and a gait lab will help patients learn to walk and run again.
To troops injured and recovering, Franks said, “It’s not getting knocked down that’s important, it is the getting back up again and going on. It is the reaching inside and finding that steel in all of us.”This all sounds great, but there is a potential problem. The latest round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is well under way, and Secretary of Defense Rumskull has recommended that Walter Reed Army Medical Center be consolidated with Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, which is just a few miles away from Walter Reed. In other words, the facilities at Walter Reed will be closed. Under the BRAC process, such recommendation must be approved by the BRAC Commission, the President, and ultimately Congress. The point is that as of now the Bush administration wants to close all the facilities at Walter Reed, meaning that the state-of-the-art rehab center likely will not be completed.
Franks said the groundbreaking for the amputee training center continues to fulfill the military’s promise to never leave a fallen comrade behind.
The reality is that there will likely be no new rehab facilities for military amputees anytime soon. One of the reasons for BRAC is to save money and eliminate duplication and waste. Indeed that is a primary reason given for closing Walter Reed. The Washington Post quoted William Winkenwerder, Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, as saying "It is very expensive to run a hospital. It just did not make sense to have two tertiary facilities within seven miles of each other." The Pentagon estimates that the merger of Walter Reed and Bethesda, along with expansion of the hospital at nearby Fort Belvoir, will save $301 million over 20 years.
"Tertiary care" is defined as "Specialized consultative care, usually on referral from primary or secondary medical care personnel, by specialists working in a center that has personnel and facilities for special investigation and treatment." Treatment of amputees comes within this definition. This is significant because the current BRAC recommendation calls for all tertiary care to be moved to Bethesda. Thus, it is possible that a facility could be built at Bethesda, but who knows if there is enough room there for a new 30,000-square-foot rehab center for amputees?
This emphasis on efficiency and saving money is a major reason why I say there will be no new rehab facility. The Washington Post reported that "Construction at Fort Belvoir and Bethesda probably would not begin until about 2009, Winkenwerder said, and the last medical programs would have to move from Walter Reed by 2011." At first glance, this might not seem to be a problem. After all, construction on the amputee rehab facility at Walter Reed is already under way, and it could stay there until 2011. However, let's look at the fiscal realities. The DoD wants to save money and be more efficient. How efficient would it be to spend millions of dollars on a facility that you know is going to be open a maximum of five years? If you build a facility, operate it for a few years, and then close it, chances are you will need to build a new facility. None of that is very efficient, and I do not see how it could save DoD any money. Let's assume that there are currently plans for a similar rehab facility at Bethesda. According to DoD, construction at there will not be finished until 2009. So why would DoD--given that a major objective is saving money--spend millions building two facilities to do the same thing, especially when one is going to be shut down in a few years? That does not seem likely.
I have not yet found any information on the current status of the rehab center or future plans for any rehab center at Bethesda or any other location. Still, given the foregoing, it seems to me that construction on the amputee rehab facility at Walter Reed will be halted, and that means that until DoD decides otherwise, there might not be such a facility until 2009.
That hardly seems consistent with Bush's statements about the "culture of life."
Example 2: making the wounded pay for meals
On January 27, 2005, Salon.com published an article by Mark Benjamin entitled "Insult to Injury." Benjamin describes how some patients at Walter Reed--all military personnel injured in the war--are having to pay for their own meals. This policy does not apply to inpatients, but does apply to some outpatients. Benjamin explains the basic sytem:
But until Jan. 3, outpatient soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan ate for free in the chow hall. Now outpatient soldiers there longer than 90 days pay for meals in cash. Although Walter Reed did not disclose the exact number of soldiers affected, the policy is most likely to affect at least the estimated 600 soldiers getting long-term outpatient care at the hospital in what the Army calls "medical hold."The Army's explanation for the new policy is the elimination of soldiers getting a monthly food allowance AND free meals. In other words, the Army is trying to cut expenses--a fact which supports my conclusion above that fiscal realities will keep a new amputee rehab center from being built. Benjamin explains how this policy hurts soldiers financially:
Soldiers in medical hold are considered outpatients, but they usually live on hospital grounds -- some are put up in nearby hotels if housing on the grounds is full -- and have little choice but to buy food at the Walter Reed chow hall. Even as outpatients, soldiers in medical hold often have serious injuries. Some have been blown up by roadside bombs or crumpled in Humvee wrecks. They have serious head wounds and amputations. Others are struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder after being flown out of Iraq with shellshock. Some soldiers in medical hold are waiting to get processed out of the Army because their wounds are so serious that they will never return to duty. But processing at Walter Reed can take over a year[.]
Enlisted soldiers get an extra $267.18 every month in their paychecks for food. So before this month, all soldiers at Walter Reed got free food at the chow hall and extra cash. Soldiers say they received that extra food money while they were serving in Iraq, too, and they just let their families spend it on groceries. Now, though, the outpatient soldiers forced to buy meals at Walter Reed say they could spend around $15 a day if they eat three square meals at the dining hall--about $3 for breakfast and around $6 each for lunch and dinner. That adds up to $450 a month, $183 more than soldiers' food allowance from the military. (The situation is even worse for officers, who get only $183.99 extra each month for a food allowance.) The soldiers at Walter Reed point out that that they don't have the option of eating at home to save money because they are stuck at the hospital.Is this the way to treat people who put their lives on the line in service of this country and have come back with life-altering injuries? Not surprisingly, there are some who think the answer is "no."
A veterans' advocate who lost the use of his legs fighting in Vietnam said the meal charges constitute a personal affront to soldiers. "I don't care what bureaucratic bullshit they come up with, this is an insult," said Bobby Muller, chairman of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and director of the foundation's Alliance for Security.And anyone who--like George W. Bush--speaks so passionately about a "culture of life" and the need to provide for the injured and disabled should also be disturbed when people serving in our military are treated this way.*******The meal charge policy "is an example of a much larger problem relating to the overall cost of the war. It is all an indication of extreme costs they are trying to make up on the backs of these men and women," said Steve Robinson, a retired Army Ranger and the executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center. "If the war is costing too much, the one place you don't skimp is on soldier and veteran programs. The administration has no problem deficit-spending on the needs of conducting war, and we see no reason not to apply the same methodology to veterans' benefits and soldier care."*******Beyond the creeping food bill, perhaps what's most bothersome to soldiers about the meal charge rule is the principle of the thing: Paying for food at an Army hospital after fighting in a war doesn't seem right. "You know they treat us like shit up here," said the soldier from Pennsylvania. One officer from the Army Reserve who served in Iraq told Salon he was "highly disgusted" at being asked to pay for food after being stuck at Walter Reed. "It affects me to a point, but it has a tremendous impact financially on the junior enlisted soldiers," he said. "After these kids get physically or mentally injured in combat, and then you expect them to take away from their personal finances to feed themselves? That is what disturbs me the most."
Example 3: Guardsmen, Reservists, and medical care
A USA Today article from February 18, 2005, described the problems faced by National Guardsmen and Reservists regarding medical care:
National Guardsmen and reservists who are injured on active duty face daunting and sometimes insurmountable hurdles to get medical care, soldiers and military officials told a congressional panel Thursday.Now, to be fair, Bush is not directly responsible for these problems. However, have you ever heard him address any of these problems? As Commander-in-Chief, as the man to whom the military bureaucracy ultimately answers, he is in a position to speak about these problems and try to get something done. Instead, he speaks out passionately about a "culture of life" and Terri Schiavo and says nothing about taking care of the men and women he sent to war.
The troops described an Army bureaucracy that loses track of wounded reservists, drops medical coverage before some are healed and often inflicts hardships on families.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, described the problems injured Guardsmen and reservists face as "the equivalent of financial and medical friendly fire."
The panel heard sometimes-emotional testimony from Guard soldiers who have been wounded in battle and administrators responsible for helping them navigate the medical system.
Gregory Kutz, a Government Accountability Office official who helped prepare a new report on deficiencies in Guard and reserve benefits, said that the Army has made improvements in treating Guard and reserve soldiers since 9/11. Still, he said, "many problems remain."
Among the shortcomings:
* The GAO said that soldiers, including many with severe injuries, are given little help navigating a thicket of regulations and procedures necessary to gain access to military doctors.
* Injured soldiers sometimes have to pay their own medical bills or go into debt because their active-duty tours end and they are physically unable to go back to their civilian jobs.
* As recently as April, more than one-third of injured soldiers who applied to have their benefits extended were denied.
Example 4: budget problems
Here are some excerpts from a March 10, 2005, article from Stars and Stripes:
Hundreds of disabled veterans booed and jeered Republican House members on Tuesday for their budget proposal for veterans’ health care, which critics call inadequate to deal with the future needs of current troops.Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) went to Walter Reed in April to visit with the wounded. As he wrote on his website,*******The proposed 2006 budget includes a 1.1 percent increase for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which officials from the DAV called too little to deal with the large number of service members expected to return from Iraq and Afghanistan with missing limbs, mental illnesses and other service injuries.
In addition, the budget would require veterans without combat injuries and who make more than $25,000 a year to pay a $250 enrollment fee to use department health services.
Walter Reed is about a half hour away from the Capitol, and during the drive over, I had the opportunity to talk with representatives from the Army about some of the grim statistics behind the war in Iraq. So far, 1,545 have been killed, and 11,664 have been wounded. And, in part because of improved medical technology, I was aware that this war will generate a far higher proportion of disabled veterans than in previous wars. Also, through my service on the Veterans Affairs Committee, I've learned that soldiers are already coming home with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, with Traumatic Brain Injury that could lead to epilepsy, and with conditions that may result in over 100,000 soldiers requiring mental health treatment when they come home.This shows that there is a need for sufficient funding for medical care for disabled veterans. Sen. Obama went on to say that the courage of the wounded soldiers made him proud to be an American, but
What doesn't make me proud is the failure on the part of politicians to adequately support these veterans after they're discharged from active duty.Again, I ask is this the way to treat people who put their lives on the line in service of this country and have come back with life-altering injuries?*******There are roughly 480,000 compensation and pension claims still unprocessed, but this year's veterans budget provides for only 113 new employees to help deal with this backlog. There are thousands of veterans who can't afford to get the health care they need, but the President's original budget called for a $250 annual enrollment fee just to enter into the health care program, it proposed doubling prescription drug co-payments, and the budget tells veterans who make as little as $30,000 a year that they're too wealthy to enroll in the VA health care system. There are VA hospitals on the brink of closing down around the country, but this year's budget cuts $351 million in funding for veterans' nursing homes, and eliminates more than $100 million in state grants that are desperately needed by VA facilities.
Now I know what some of you are thinking...why should we take the word of some freedom-hating Democrat? Well, perhaps the word of the National Commander of the Disabled Veterans of America will be more credible. James E. Sursely is a disabled veteran who lost an arm and both legs in Vietnam. He testified before Congress on March 8, 2005, and he had plenty to say about budgetary matters:
Although the medical care and services they are receiving from the military today is second to none, I am concerned about their ability to receive quality health care in a timely manner from the VA in the future, if our government continues to fund VA programs at inadequate levels or undermines the “critical mass” of patients needed to provide a full continuum of quality health care to disabled veterans currently enrolled in the VA health care system and those who will enroll at some future date.(emphasis added). Kind of hard to argue with that last paragraph, isn't it? As this section shows, the Bush administration has not sufficiently funded programs needed to treat the veterans of our armed services, in particular those who have returned disabled physically and mentally from a war that Bush ordered. And yet has Bush spoken out about this? Has he ever said that his "culture of life" includes disabled veterans? And if he has, why has he not done anything to address the budgetary problems described above?*******On December 20, 2004, I was briefed by the Under Secretaries for Health, Benefits, and Memorial Affairs on the various VA programs under their jurisdiction. I also received a briefing on VA’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget outlook. While I was acutely aware of the fact that the FY 2005 budget approved by Congress for VA was totally inadequate, falling short by $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion, based on the recommendations of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and The Independent Budget, respectively, I was shocked and dismayed to learn that the $1.2 billion increase for VA health care provided by Congress above the Administration’s request, resulted in a zero net gain for the VA health care system.*******Within a month of the passage of the FY 2005 appropriations bill, stories began to appear around the country about the shortfalls in VA health care funding and its adverse impact on VA’s ability to care for our nation’s sick and disabled veterans.*******As called for in the President’s budget, total VA funding for the next fiscal year would increase about 1%, from the current $67.5 billion to $68.2 billion. More than half of the budget would go for mandatory programs such as disability compensation and pensions. Medical care for veterans would rise from $27.7 billion to $27.8 billion, a mere 0.4% increase. In testimony, VA is on record as stating that it needs an annual 13% to 14% increase in medical care funding to provide current services.
The DAV and other major veterans service organizations are united in calling on Congress to provide $31.2 billion for veterans medical care, $3.4 billion more than the President has requested, and we are united in opposition to imposing new fees and higher co-payments on certain veterans who choose to get their care from the VA.
The Administration wants to impose a new $250 annual user fee on certain veterans who also would see their prescription drug co-payments more than doubled, from $7 to $15. Those veterans, some of whom are DAV members, already pay for the health care they receive from the VA. Adding to their out-of-pocket costs would force them out of the system and put even greater strain on resources needed to treat their fellow veterans. The cost of medical care for these veterans is the least costly care of any group of veterans treated by VA, and these groups bring in the highest level of collections.
*******This budget proposal is bad news for the nation’s veterans, made even more distressing in light of the war in Iraq and military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Messrs. Chairmen, let us not forget that benefits and services for disabled veterans, in fact all veterans, remain primarily the responsibility of our government. The citizens and government of a country that sends its young sons and daughters to defend its homeland and fight its wars have a strong moral obligation to repay them for bearing such a heavy burden. Our indebtedness to veterans is more important than any other part of our national debt because, without their sacrifices, we would not exist as a nation, nor would the citizens of many foreign nations enjoy the freedoms many Americans take for granted.
Conclusion
I am not saying that Bush was wrong in speaking up in the Schiavo case. I am not saying that Bush was wrong in speaking about a "culture of life." I am not saying that it is absolutely the obligation of the government to provide all the needed health care for veterans (although I agree with Sursely about the moral obligation). What I am saying is that Bush's impassioned statements about a "culture of life"--especially his express pleas to take care of disabled persons--are simply abject hypocrisy when he makes them on behalf of a single person who is beyond help and disregards disabled people who are very much alive and very much in need of help. And the fact that these people happen to be military personnel in general and especially people who served in a war that Bush ordered goes beyond hypocrisy and heads straight ino immorality.
posted by WCharles @ 6/27/2005 11:41:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home