News-Record.com

I've got another story today on veterans' problems in dealing wth the government. This one focuses on problems primarily created by government -- lack of money for health care. The executive branch (the Department of Veterans Affairs, which auditors say is marching to the White House beat) doesn't ask for enough money, and while Congress gives it more than it asks for, it still doesn't give the VA enough.

The U.S. has long praised its war veterans but failed to care for them. The history goes from World War I veterans, whose 1932 march on Washington was put down by future war heroes Douglas MacArthur and George Patton, to Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans who wait weeks or months for services.

Unfortunately for both Congress and the president, a perfect storm of issues and the power of the Internet threaten to lay bare the collapse of care and make information about it available to Americans as never before. A few examples:

• The commander of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the secretary of the Army lost their jobs this past week after The Washington Post reported on poor conditions there.


• Veterans Affairs' backlog of disability claims approaches 400,000 despite repeated warnings dating back years.


• Inadequate VA health care spending means long waits for service even as growing numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans return with wounds. That number is almost 24,000 as of this past week. Many of the returning wounded are hurt severely enough to require long-term or permanent care.


• Up to a third of the servicemen and women who have fought in Iraq, particularly from National Guard and Reserve units, will develop post-traumatic stress disorder.

With its lack of psychologists and psychiatrists, "the VA's going to be overwhelmed," said Tom McGriff, national commander of the service group AMVETS.

I've got a short roundup of info sources and other coverage on just how bad the system that cares for our current and former service people has gotten -- and, in the Internet age, how widely that information can be spread and shared: For some reason, it didn't make it online, but I'll see if I can post it here later this morning

• Links to the Washington Post's coverage of problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
• A Newsweek overview of systemic problems.
• The Independent Budget, a detailed annual recommendation to Congress of funding for veterans needs prepared by a coalition of veterans service organizations.
• Data on pending benefits claims, in spreadsheet form and updated weekly.
• ABC News' report on the VA’s ability to care for patients with traumatic brain injuries.
• An award winning McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder) series on problems in the VA.

* * *

One other thing. Regarding the recently uncovered problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and in particular to a question from Chris Wallace about the firing of the Walter Reed commander and the Secretary of the Army, Fox News anchor Brit Hume said this on Sunday (and if you don't believe me, by all means follow the link and watch for yourself). My comments are in italics.

I think it tells you a lot about the effect of the last election and the political atmosphere in Washington. This is an administration which is known or had been known for sticking by people even when they were embattled.

Well, yes, the administration had been known for sticking with people even when they'd made major mistakes ... and Hume seems to be implying that letting our injured returning service people and their families live, and try to recover, in such squalor is a POLITICAL problem that would not have arisen had the Democrats not taken over Congress in the 2006 elections, and not a substantive problem of neglect documented as having gone back years.

The idea that conditions at Walter Reed hospital, a hospital that is on its way out of business, had deteriorated, that’s probably one of the reasons they wanted to put it out of business.

Conditions "had deteriorated." Note the phrasing; it implies that the deterioration just happened, that, despite documented complaints and warnings going back years, no one is responsible and that, if anything, this was why the administration was trying to close the place -- and, Hume implies, bore NO responsibility for the quality of conditions in the meantime.

This is unfortunate. It looks terrible, which is the problem. The problem is that it looks as if this administration, which has sent troops into harm's way, is now neglecting them when they're injured and need care and help.

No, the fact that it LOOKS TERRIBLE isn't the problem. The fact that it IS terrible is the problem. The administration HAS neglected wounded personnel and veterans (although in many cases the neglect of older veterans goes back decades and is not exclusive to this administration). Various aspects of that fact have been reported here in the N&R and by other news organizations in Washington and around the country. This is not a debate with a range of opinions. This is a set of facts that journalists and politicians alike can address honestly or not.

But make no mistake about it, this was a -- there was a potential political firestorm on Capitol Hill began to brew about this. The administration did what it did to try to get it over with, and it may well have succeeded.

Again with the "political" argument. This isn't political; it's a demonstrable breach of the country's duty to its active-duty, Reserve and National Guard service people and its veterans, and the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim otherwise.

UPDATE, March 6: As some of you know, I have a nephew who is a Marine. I learned this weekend that in a couple of months his unit will be deployed to the Middle East for one year. Not having spoken directly with him, I know no more than what I've told you.

I've informed the editors above me up through JR, and I'm informing you, not because I think my writing about veterans' issues will create an actual conflict of interest but more in the interest of full disclosure, transparency and following the no-surprises rule. So far, my bosses have agreed with me. Should that change, they and/or I will let you know.

UPDATE, March 6: This doesn't apply directly to the VA's funding problems, but it's an issue with respect to the Walter Reed case that I don't think has gotten a lot of attention.

In early 2006, many of the services at Reed were outsourced to a private contractor. The CEO, when he was with Halliburton, had to testify before Congress in 2004 about overcharges for fuel and troop support in the Middle East. The company poorly in ice delivery and other services after Hurricane Katrina.

If these claims are borne out, and the early evidence suggests they will be, then we have a couple of market failures here.

Certainly, cases exist in which privatizing government services makes sense in market terms, and many already exist on the micro level -- getting office supplies, to use a mundane example. Caring for wounded soldiers and providing support for care they receive, however, is almost certainly not one of them: It's not as if many hospitals are competing for the soldiers' business or as if soldiers are in any shape to make competent, informed decisions about from whom they will get their care and the support that care requires.

Moreover, because providing those services is, realistically, the almost exclusive purview of the government, it's a little hard to imagine a real-world scenario in which corporations could compete for the government's business in any meaningful fashion. Accordingly, despite calling it "privatization," what we got here wasn't the market at work, but monopoly -- stemming, it would seem, from political patronage.

Looked at from that point of view, the stacking of the Walter Reed story and the Katrina story on the front page of today's paper makes a little more sense: They have more in common than meets the eye.