Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can't built anything all over the place, there is way too much red tape in that and then hiring people to staff it all...well it makes no sense since there are already doctors offices all over the place.
Then we need to quit sending troops every place to get broken. Odd we can afford so much destruction but we can't afford to help people.
I agree wholeheartedly with you. Clinics should be built everywhere.
The Koch brothers are not behind this legislation because they like and want to help veterans, they are behind it because they want to profit from privatization and '' FOR PROFIT " medical care to veterans.
Yeah well, they would be non profit if it was up to me.
"so that we are less willing to send them off to get broke in the first place.
I know it is tough buy, PLEASE do stay on topic.
Just because you don't like to face up to something does not make it off topic. We are not having this discussion without the destruction we first cause.
I've got a better idea; give them all a small apartment in Costa Rica, India, or Thailand for example so they can see those doctors over a million and a half of you go to see each and every year. They'll not only be getting better care but getting it cheaper.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I agree. Which is why I support creating clinics all over the place making the care of veterans incredibly expensive so that we are less willing to send them off to get broke in the first place.
While I completely agree we should make the people in Washington less willing to send men & women off to get broke, I don't believe making it more costly to repair them would accomplish that goal.
Personally, I believe there should be a limit (perhaps 3 months) to how long a POTUS could deploy combat troops to a 'hot spot' without a declaration of war being voted by Congress. I believe the political hacks would be far less likely to send people off to be broken if forced to put their names on it.
I do not support this but for those like myself that do not we allowed this to happen by NOT holding politicians responsible for not addressing the issues associated with the problems here.
Bush and Obama both made speeches and that was it.
don't forget Hillary who claimed the problems at the VA were cherry picked by repubs to make its management look bad.
Obama used his laser focus to fix the vA in 2009, 2013, 2015.
what government program is not fraught with colossal waste, inefficiency and fraud that deprives those targeted by the program for help???????
the government cannot handle any large program unless it compensates the waste and fraud with cash from the endless wellspring of taxpayer wallets.
While I completely agree we should make the people in Washington less willing to send men & women off to get broke, I don't believe making it more costly to repair them would accomplish that goal.
Maybe not but if that is all we are left with.
Quote:
Personally, I believe there should be a limit (perhaps 3 months) to how long a POTUS could deploy combat troops to a 'hot spot' without a declaration of war being voted by Congress. I believe the political hacks would be far less likely to send people off to be broken if forced to put their names on it.
Great, but we voted no on Syria. We are still there. If it takes bankrupting the country to quit things like that, I support that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.