Bravo Robbie! And Thank You for your service to our country. Great letter to the Senator. I hope you copied Rumsfeld.

I am sure there are some serious l hardships suffered by our military people, especially if they have a good paying job and then end up with drastically reduced military pay. What are the rules? The company I worked for paid the entire salary of our guys that went to Desert Storm while they were away. But, I’m not sure that’s the rule. And, of course it’s hard to be away from family but that goes with the territory. My husband’s father died suddenly while he had orders for Viet Nam. His request for an extended leave was refused so he left a couple of days after the funeral, leaving his mother alone. He did get his college paid for after he was out of the service. Serving in the military comes with perils, sacrifices and rewards.

I’m sure I’ll hear Kennedy screaming at some senate hearing about all the horror stories he has received. Wonder what he’ll say about the women in the military who get free breast implants on the government’s money?

Wait I misread..Kerry not Kennedy! EVEN WORSE. He must be sleeping with Hanoi Jane on the sly.

I can’t understand what possible opposition you could have to improving the conditions of service men and women and veterans.

Your concerns seem to be 1. Senator Kerry is politically ambitious and 2. he has not filled out an unrelated form.

In fact, every politician is ambitious and it is not a bad thing. Just as individual greed moves our economy (to put it bluntly) ambition moves our government as politicians strive to please their constituents.

It is simply a fact of modern politics that Kerry’s attempt to get ‘true stories’ of hardship is a common technique to pass laws today. Terri’s Law, Megan’s Law, and Amber’s Law all appealed to our sympathies of individuals to form broader policy goals. Criticism of Kerry for using the same technique seems a bit selectively directed. (We will surely soon be hearing about Paris Hilton’s Law soon as Republicans attempt to repeal the estate tax…)

I think that the political system succeeds when credit is given when it is due. If there is an instance of political opportunism it is by people who allow political opposition to Senator Kerry to obscure common interests.

Preston, I think the issue here is that Senator Kerry seems to be seeking only negative stories about the military (stories of “hardship”). How can he possibly form a realistic and reasonable law to address what I’m sure those military members (or former members) issues or concerns when he fails to get a balance view of the situation.

My suggestion? How about if he goes to the VA and talks to the veterans there, in the hospitals and using the other programs the VA offers. Ask them this, “What’s good about this program, what could be better about it, and how should it be fixed if at all?” He could talk to veterans that aren’t using the VA, too. And why not go to the military bases and ask those questions? Maybe he could ride on Air Force One to Ft. Hood and find out first hand what hardships the Soldiers are experiencing.

I think that soliciting email stories of hardship is lazy and potentially damaging. He could receive anything by email. Suppose he uses an email detailing horrendous hardships of a military family. Don’t you think that media will tell that tale over and over? Then suppose someone wants to actually interview this family only to find out it was a sham or not as bad as the email made the hardship sound. Hopefully, the Senator’s staff won’t let that happen, but the potential is high if they receive many emails. Will they have time to sort through them all and then vet the one’s they want to enter into the Senate record? Hope so.

Jack- I agree it would be bad if he used unsubstantiated emails in support of his Senate bill: “Fellow Americans, our veterans are coming home only to suffer attacks from rabid monkeys- join me in supporting this bill!” But, it feels like you’re accusing him of things that he hasn’t done when you warn of those dangers.

I’ll grant that taken out of context that appeal sounds one-sided, but that’s politics. I don’t remember the politicians who asked Americans for stories of sex-offenders who moved next door and became good friends and citizens.

To his defense, this is the whole paragraph which is much, much less sensational than portrayed: “They put it all on the line for us. Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. Which is why this week, as the Senate debates military spending, I will be pressing to advance key elements of our Military Families Bill of Rights. When I do, I want to enter into the Senate record stories from families that know firsthand the hardships that our troops and veterans so willingly take on to keep America strong.” http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

Lastly- it just doesn’t make really much sense to send an email asking for all of the good things about being a vet- he’s trying to solve problems not just looking to hear a good yarn.

For many years, his “agenda” has been helping veterans and servicemen and women by increasing their benefits. Are you suggesting that’s a bad thing?

Preston: Some time if you want to hear about the estate law, I can give you an earful and I ain’t Paris Hilton that’s for sure. How bout this..heirs have 10 months to pay estate tax after death…but of course the estate isn’t anywhere near settled yet.(one I was involved in took 2 years and 3 months)..and you’re still reeling from what has happened and you don’t have any money yet…just expenses like funeral expenses, bills to pay, attorney fees but IRS doesn’t care..you better have a fire sale or something because IRS doesn’t care about your hardship. You WILL pay on the estate you WILL get someday before you get it. Off my soapbox..save for another time.

Dianne:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2126/1/119/

Preston: DLavenburg AT aol DOT com

Looks like Powerline’s John Hinderaker is following the tradition of Rumsfeld and Giuliani with some more Repulican blame the troops rhetoric:

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=644

Wow. Way to take a single sentence and create your own context to fit your own agenda:

‘He said they didn’t have enough sandbags up there,’ she said softly.”

It doesn’t state that Cpl. Bruce’s unit didn’t have enough sandbags for him to fortify his position. It says that he didn’t have enough ‘up there’ (remember, he was on a rooftop).

As Hinderaker notes:

So, the day before he was killed on the roof, Bruce said that he was “increasing the height of the sandbag barricade” because he didn’t think it was high enough. No suggestion that he was unable to get his hands on enough sandbags to accomplish this task. No suggestion that there was a shortage of sandbags, only that they didn’t have enough on the roof. Then, the next night there was an attack with an RPG, which “hit a sandbag,” ricocheted and exploded against a water tower, apparently showering Bruce with shrapnel from above. So apparently there were enough sandbags to deflect the RPG. Would more sandbags have protected Bruce from above? Who knows, but one wouldn’t think so.

This is spot on accurate.

Note too that Hinderaker isn’t the one blaming the troops for the death of Cpl. Bruce—rather, he is criticizing Senator Mark Dayton (D) for blaming the military (for not having enough sandbags…which is ludicrous…believe me, if you were ever stationed the desert, you would know).

Hindraker provides quite a bit of speculation but no additional evidence whether there were sandbags available or not. In fact, he spends a large part of his piece musing on the preposterousness of not having enough sand- as if that were the issue.

Given the disturbing shortages of kevlar and armored Humvees (in addition to other inexplicable planning failures) it is clearly within bounds to keep the administration’s feet to the fire in providing our troops with the necessary tools to complete their mission.

Robbie-
Good call with the email substitution above- really you only need 5 or 6 Phen-Fen and Viagra emails a day… Any more than that gets annoying.

Senator Kerry is just looking for a place to grab headlines and make waves on the Senate floor so we won’t forget who he is for the next election. The military is not perfect, but everybody knows that. If he really cares about our servicemen and women and veterans, maybe he should try to make an effort to clean up the disability claims process. My father went through almost 2 years of hell dealing with the VA, most of it waiting for months for a simple letter and then it would be to ask more questions or request another physical. He finally got a 20% raise in his disability pension and died the very next month. Then the VA sprang into action. Within a couple of months, they wrote a letter to my mom and said she had to pay back that one month’s pay increase because he died before the full month was over and all future payments would be terminated. He wasn’t fully disabled so my mom couldn’t continue to get benefits and there was no way to prove the conditions that caused his death were the result of his military service years before. The long delay in processing veterans claims is known to everybody, including the good senator, but not a big enough headline for him.

Things do move slowly through the VA.

But that’s the nature of socialized medicine (if you’ve ever been in the military…which is the textbook example of socialized medicine in practice…you know why socalized medicine would never work on a nationwide-scale.

Dianne-
Shouldn’t the point be whether the bill is good or not- not the motivations of Senator? It was clear that President Bush was trying to burnish his credentials as ‘Compassionate Conservative’ when he proposed the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Bill but that was beside the point. At issue at that time was the bills failings in reducing drug costs.

Similarly, it seems unfair to blame the Senator for the bill not doing something it does not claim to do.

I’m don’t know when your father died but you might find this article interesting regarding the current state of the VA. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html
He manages to cut through much of the rhetoric on ’socialized medicine’ to show how privatization in insurance isn’t able to provide incentives for long-term wellness.

Quite frankly, Preston, some fancy article about how the VA can do this and that with computer technology, etc. doesn’t impress me one damn bit…and I didn’t care who was President when my dad was dying (3 years ago). All I know is what happened to my dad. The WWII vets are almost all dead now..so who gives a damn anyhow. When they were a burden on the system because of their numbers, they were just that numbers. We’re sort of in an in-between time right now. The Viet Nam vets aren’t dying by the thousands a day but that day is coming … and I bet my last damn dollar the same thing will happen to them…the long delays…the overcrowded VA hospitals. Laptop computers don’t equal good medicine and they sure don’t equal compassionate care.

Boy I sounded angry last night…prolly was that 3rd glass of wine..sorry…lol

I’m sorry that your father had a bad experience with the VA but I’m impressed by the numbers of satisfied ‘customers’- some 80%.

I agree that we will benefit from a short window of opportunity before Vietnam Veterans begin the ends of their lives- that’s why I feel that it’s incumbent on the government to address these problems now.

You can count me in that 80% of satisfied VA customers.

The VA does move slowly; much more slowly than similar services in the private sector.

But I’v always received great service, care, and treatment from every sector of the VA system I’ve worked through (medical treatment, disability benefits, educational benefits, and insurance).

It will be interesting to see if the VA is able to help provide greater wellness care. The problem with the current insurance system is that any investment they make in improving the health of their customers is likely to benefit another- lower overhead- insurance company.

I’m as nervous as you about allowing a single governmental agency run health services but the VA could provide an interesting example about a better way to run health care in this country. It’s clear that our current system is allowing millions to fall through the cracks while putting an unsustainable burden on American companies (GM reportedly spends over 1 Billion dollars on health care).

Gm’s plan is the best of the best. VA is not even close. Look at the plan Congress has. This is what Kerry was proposing but not for everybody. He knew it was not affordable for everybody but he wouldn’t say that. If we go to National Health Insurance in this country, some people are going to get inferior care. Survival of the fittest will be the rule. Maybe that’s just what we should accept. Nobody lives forever. But if it’s your kid? Let’s face it…nothing will be good enough.

Seriously? That’s exactly what we have now! The fact is that despite the “best healthcare in the world” we rank at around 15 of 20 industrialized nations in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality despite paying far more than other countries. Furthermore, people are just happier with their healthcare service in other countries. (and people in this country with some form of centralized care: VA, Medicare, Medicaid are happier with their care than the rest of us.) I’m not sure why we’re so afraid that we’re unwilling to experiement with other systems.

Something has to be done about a system that allows 40 million people to roll the dice with their health and go without health insurance.

I was wrong- GM spends over 5 Billion on health care for it’s employees.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050419-1351-earns-gm.html

The current system is like a lead weight on American companies.

Well, what do you suggest Preston? A multi-billion dollar system that’s a lead weight on the taxpayer…or perhaps just a multi-billion dollar system on the taxpayer who works his guts out and everybody else gets a free ride? That’s what socialists want…they want the system to take care of them..course their definition of system is everybody but me. I will never support a system like that. I support a national health care system but one that covers everybody who is willing and able to roll up their sleeves and put in a decent day’s work, pays taxes and contributes to society. And for those who can’t, well we already take care of them and for those who won’t, well then too damn bad.

Hey, I agree, I’d rather have a system that is individually financed- it feels right to make people pay their own ways. However, I refuse to remain tethered to a broken system simply because of ideological rigidity.

We used to fund our fire protection individually: you would pay a fire company and they would come to your rescue if your house caught fire (and you had paid your dues…). Eventually, we realized it was not only immoral to stand there and watch your neighbor’s house burn down- it actually threatened the whole community. So now each community shares the burden.

Similarly, our current system is expensive and ineffective judging by life expectancy and infant mortality. People who can’t afford insurance and have jobs that don’t provide it (1 million Wal-Mart employees, for example) then get sick more frequently and burden emergency rooms that are not intended for that use- expenses the rest of us pay both monetarily and through increased disease in our communities.

I don’t think the French model or the Canadian model are necessary best for the US- let us figure out what works. Maybe each state is allowed to experiment. But I feel that companies like GM that are doing right by their employees are being punished by the current system while freeloaders like Wal-Mart are subsidized by Medicaid and your local hospital emergency room.

First, heard on tv yesterday that GM is in such bad straights, there is talk they may ask for a government bail-out like the airlines got..well just talk right now but if it happens, I will personally get involved in protesting this one..I can’t even imagine the justification for the U.S. taxpayer, yeah, including those who work at Walmart, to pay for the sensational wage and benefit package of the GM worker.

On the flip side, your assailment of Walmart as a freeloader is unjustified. How many companies do you know that even “offer” health insurance to part-time workers? If you work part-time for my city, you don’t get benefits. If you work part-time for the drug company I worked for, you don’t get benefits. I bet the number of employers who don’t provide benefits to part-time workers far outnumber those that do. That’s where the majority of uninsureds come from at Walmart. They CHOOSE to work part-time and have to wait 2 years for benefits. Furthermore, Walmart pays 2/3 of the premium of its workers. That’s pretty dang good Preston. Yeah some companies pay more of the premium, but a heck of a lot don’t and a lot of small companies don’t even offer health insurance to full-time employees. Furthermore, take a look at what retirees pay for medicare and supplemental medicare policies..I’d bet you my last dollar on a comparison basis they pay a bigger percentage out of their SS income for health insurance premiums than the guy who works at Walmart.

I have no particular reason to care about Walmart or GM. I pay $2160 a year for my health insurance offered via my former company (a drug company at that). I’m glad to get it. It’s not cheap, but my company doesn’t even have to offer it to their retirees, especially their early retirees.

None of this solves the health care insurance crisis in this country. I just think you better take a broader look at the “system” and who you condemn before you bite.