Letters to the Editor
-
Compassionate Conservatism? Yeah. Right.
"I'm shocked", the young man said as he recoiled in horror. "I'm shocked that the Bush Administration, which presented itself as a compassionate conservative one, is actually more interested in corporate profits than compassion. That means that Mr. Bush...lied!"
"All that Bush demonstrates are ostentatious shows of faux-Christianity, a lack of empathy for those struggling to make it through each single day and a dearth of charity for anyone other than his corporate-class buddies.", he mused, adding, "I wonder what he thinks his legacy will be because of his avarice and hubris?"
The wiser friend of the author, putting an arm around the shoulder of the political neophyte, leaned and whispered in his ear, "We get the kind of President we pay for...and, we have paid a mightily high price for this one."
The younger man, crestfallen, turned to the friend and asked, plaintively, "So, what do we do when another candidate comes along and promises to be a compassionate conservative and wants our vote?"
The author's friend became silent for a moment, composed himself, and turned to him, saying, "We get a shovel and a shotgun; the shovel for the plethora of bullshit spread by the conservatives." "And, the shotgun?", his naive friend inquired.
"That's in case they think we'll buy into their bullshit for the third election in a row", he said.
They both laughed as they donned their coats and headed out to the hardware store for large shovels and a couple of nice Benelli 12-gauge semi-auto shotguns and a case of triple-ought buckshot.
-
anti-capitalistic libwits...
Hey, thanks 'anonymous'! That epithet suits me to a TEE! "Libwits" doesn't sound nearly as bad as you think it does, amigo!
The article merely states the obvious; While this new appointee may very well do an admirable job at the VA, it shore 'nuff don't look too good when the appointees are people with the very most to gain in that position. Were they the ONLY QUALIFIED candidates available? I seriously doubt it. Even someone as blatantly partisan as yourself must admit that the decision to select these two was not the best choice, PR-wise.
-
What's wrong with privatization?
Privatizing gov’t services at the low end-lets say janitors-may lead to some savings but also leads families in poverty, working multiple jobs, no benefits and one fatcat raking it in versus families living the American dream.
Privatizing gov’t services at the middle end-lets say social services-often leads to discontinuity of help for vulnerable populations of people or to contractors who demand more and more for less and less.
Privatizing our military functions-you judge.
I’m not against gov’t privatization knee jerk, but it is not a universal answer or automatically better-we should be looking carefully at situations and impacts on multiple levels.
Dozing bureaucracies-reorganize them. Its cheaper than contracting out.
I like the post office.
-
The US has plenty of "privatized" service delivery
Look at health care. Not long ago, the Gov't-run Walter Reed hospital was in the news for its appalling service delivery.
Medicare, which is a form of national health care, has private service delivery. I don't hear many people clamoring to change that. In general, it seems to work well.
In England, the National Health Service runs almost all hospitals. They are often run down and a bit grungy. And politicians are always micromanaging.
When I look at health care in the US, both the public and the private, I don't see that public is the winner.
-
Ugh!
I've seen what these companies do. Some horrific things that the soldier goes through gets a rating of zero so therefore no money.
For the love of God if we are putting our men and women in harms way we better take care of them when they return home broken.
Signed,
Like all democrats I CARE!
-
Right, privatized by definition isn't better or worse
My postal carrier I'm sure would smoke crack no matter who he worked for. The companies that get contracting deals under minority owned set asides I don't believe do a better or worse job than anyone else. That's not the point of the contract. And so on.....
-
Evaluation = medical care
When Principi says, "QTC does no treatment...We do a medical disability evaluation. I distinguish that from the treatment and the care that VA provides," he is either being disingenuous or displaying his ignorance.
Triage—determining the urgency and type of care required by the patient—is a crucial aspect of medical care at every stage, particularly initial evaluation. Precisely because this determines the level of care to come, it can't be distinguished from medical care. To get treatment, you're evaluated by a doctor; the nature of the treatment comes from the evaluation; and the doctor will see you regularly to continually evaluate your response to treatment. If a doctor prescribes antibiotics and you get them from a pharmacist, you don't say the pharmacist is treating you, you say the doctor is. If a doctor evaluates you and determines you need treatment by a specialist, even if he doesn't determine the exact form the treatment takes, he is treating you by proxy. If he says you don't need the specialist, that's a treatment determination as well.
A medical disability evaluation is indeed medical care, in that it decides if treatment occurs. That decision-making ability is the reason doctors go to medical school, and because it requires a doctor to make that call, it is de facto medical care.
-
Malusinka
I'm pretty sure the area where the VA was recently found negligent and terrible was in a non-hospital, but attached resident care where the VA employees had been replaced by private contractors.
In any event, the issue here is not contracting per se, but conflict of interest or perceived conflict.
This is another "here's a stick in your eye" appoinment by Bush.
-
No smoke and no fire
Accepting the highly visible and besieged position as DVA seems either brave or reckless. Veterans are a large and vocal lobby. Ignoring veterans needs is politically risky. Peake does indeed come from the private sector and like his predecessor earned a living by providing services to the VA.
The assertion that such work is "war profiteering" and inherently untrustworthy is unfounded. It seems clear from the review processes that QTC has fulfilled its very personal and sensitive obligations well. Are Democratic lawmakers "spineless" simply because they have found no honest reason to attack Mr. Peake?
Using assertion and hyperbole to suggest fire where there is no smoke is irresponsible, especially under the guise of journalism.
It is appropriate to raise questions, to probe and to determine the truth. The latter is rarely possible when one begins by calling service providers "war profiteers".
Before I am lambasted, tarred and feathered as some right-wing conspiracist, let me state that I am not involved in any government or political work outside of local issues, none of which relate to this topic. I am a veteran and my son is serving in Iraq with the 82nd right now. This issue is personal for me.
It is best, however, to stick as close to the truth as words allow. It is too easy to attack people instead of reporting facts.
For example, QTC was awarded its first contract in 1998. Bush was NOT president and no war was underway. Hardly "cronyism" or "war profiteering."
I strongly prefer private examinations for benefits determination. Using a private or third party firm actually removes the process one step from the pressure that could be applied to appointees. As war costs mount, there may be pressure on and by the administration to reduce those costs. Those costs could come at the expense of veterans services and health care.
No process, private or government, can be free from flaws. The VA and the actual medical care it provides should remain firmly in the public sector. It is wise, however, to focus on core business, and contracting non-core activity is a smart practice that all government and industry follow in order to maximize efficiency and improve the quality of their core work.
I like having a veteran running the DVA. I like scrutiny of all appointed and elected officials.
It is true that congress should thoroughly scrutinize any appointment. I urge that appointments can be depoliticized so that our government is staffed with well-qualified and enthusiastic people. I can't imagine any job being worth the political attacks that accompany the review process as it stands. I hope to see more journalistic reports that help us citizenry understand the appointment process and the track record of nominees. I hope to see less politicized opinion from journalistic source.