April 2005In April 2005, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) attempted for the third time that year to provide adequate funding for veteran health care by sponsoring a $2 billion
amendment to a military spending bill. The bill was voted down along party lines, with Arlen Specter being the only Republican voting for the bill. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), who led the fight against Murray’s amendment, said “an emergency request is unnecessary in this tight budget year.”
June 2005But then, just two months later, we have
this reported from the Washington Post:
The Bush administration, already accused by veterans groups of seeking inadequate funds for health care next year, acknowledged yesterday that it is short $1 billion for covering current needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs this year.
The disclosure of the shortfall angered Senate Republicans who have been voting down Democratic proposals to boost VA programs at significant political cost. Their votes have brought the wrath of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and other organizations down on the GOP.
With that, Hutchison changed her tune, saying “We can never fall short on our promises to those who have sacrificed so much”. And many GOP Senators voiced similar sentiments, acting quite surprised about the new news that veteran’s health care was under-funded.
But according to several veteran’s groups, the problems should have been obvious to anyone who was paying attention:
Richard Fuller, legislative director of the Paralyzed Veterans, said that the problems should have been obvious to anyone visiting a VA facility: “You could see it happening, clinics shutting down, appointments delayed…” The article goes on:
Joseph A. Violante, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, said Perlin's testimony yesterday confirms the veterans' assessment that the administration is "shortchanging veterans."
The Bush administration and House Republicans have been the main focus of anger among veterans organizations. Their "policies are inconsistent with a nation at war," said Steve Robertson, legislative director of the American Legion. They violate the basic military value of "an army of one, teamwork, taking care of each other," he said.
And here is what House Democrats recently had to say about this issueAmerica's veterans fought for our freedom overseas. They shouldn't have to fight the government to get the benefits they deserve. But the Veterans Administration (VA) health care system is perennially under funded. Democrats believe that our troops should be taken care of when we send them into battle and that they should be given the respect they have earned when we bring them home.
Right now, more than 30,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for an appointment at VA hospitals. Last year, Democrats proposed to increase funding for the VA by $1.8 billion and to require the VA to pay veterans $500 a month when their claims have been left pending for more than 6 months. In contrast, last year, Republicans broke their promise to increase veterans' health care by $1.8 billion. This year, the President's budget fails to provide enough current services for veterans' health care and about $3 billion less than veterans' organizations agree is needed for their health care.
June 2006Then, just recently, Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Tim Johnson (D-SD) sponsored a
bill “To provide an assured stream of funding for veteran's health care that will take into account the annual changes in the veteran's population and inflation”.
And this bill was to be paid for by “restoring the pre-2001 top rate for income over $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy.”
Whoa. That’s pretty radical – cutting into the hard earned profits of those millionaires. I would have thought that maybe with an election year upon them some of those Republican Senators who were up for re-election would have voted for that. Yet only one Republican Senator up for re-election in 2006, Olympia Snowe, joined the Democrats in
voting for this bill.
Excuses for legislating against health careHow do Republicans get away with this? It’s not just veterans who don’t get adequate health care. There were
46 million U.S. citizens as of 2004 who had no health care insurance, and approximately an equal number of additional
inadequately insured citizens. So how are Republicans able to do this without getting voted out of office – other than by the fact that the corporate media basically ignores these issues?
Well, they’ve got lots of excuses. First, they claim that Americans don’t want government involved in health care. But this claim is consistently disputed by polling data – for example, a
ABC News/Washington Post which showed that Americans “by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program” over the current system.
Then they claim that America has the best health care system in the world. That is a patently absurd claim, given that more than a quarter of our citizens don’t have enough health insurance to afford the care that they need. Furthermore, that claim is belied by the high and
rising infant mortality rate in the United States since George Bush took office in 2001. Infant mortality rate is considered one of the best indices of the health status of a community or a nation.
Another favorite claim of Republicans is that we can’t afford to provide health care to our citizens. Setting aside the consideration of the billions of additional dollars we would have available if the regressive Bush tax cuts were reversed, our General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that if the United States adopted a single payer system similar to the Canadian system it
could save $66.9 billion in administrative costs. The point is that health care is notoriously unresponsive to market forces because health care consumers have little understanding of how to evaluate individual health care providers or systems. Therefore, government control of the process would likely help to bring prices under control. And you don’t see too many politicians complaining about Medicare these days.
Then there is the so-called “tort reform” trick. That’s where Republicans pretend to support health care by limiting jury awards for malpractice. For example, there is the misnamed “
Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act”, which Senate Democrats have
successfully filibustered twice. Republicans are more than willing to improve “access to care” by handing money to the insurance companies at the expense of our Constitutional rights (trial by jury), but they won’t consider improving access to care by expanding the insurance coverage of ordinary Americans.
And most notoriously of all, and perhaps the main lie by which Republicans defeated Bill Clinton’s national health insurance plan, is that a federal health care plan would lead to health care rationing. Yeah sure, if they refuse to fund it adequately it would lead to rationing. Yet somehow the Senators themselves receive health care from the federal government, and
their health care isn’t rationed. How could that be?
I think that when they run for re-election this fall someone ought to ask them that question, as well as why they voted against Patty Murray’s and Debbie Stabenow’s veteran’s health care bills.