BE IT HEREWITH RESOLVED
by Lee Steese
THE VETERAN The following 'statement of mission and purpose' was found on a flyer in a VA Medical Clinic in Los Angeles, California: QUOTE: Always remember. The most important person ever in this facility is the veteran. The veterans are not dependent upon you...It is you who are dependent upon them. The veterans are not interrupting your work... they are the purpose of it. The veterans are not just cold statistics... They are flesh and blood human beings with feelings like your own. The veterans are not asking for favors... They are seeking the service which you were hired to render to them and to which they are entitled under the law. The veterans are not just casual passers-by...They are citizens of the community upon whom rests the decision as to whether this office and your job are essential or useless. Remember that the only real difference between you and the veteran is but three feet of desk space. Can you then afford to be other than courteous, pleasant, and efficient? UNQUOTE Whereas the Department of Veterans Affairs (previously known as the Veterans Administration) seemingly has less and less interest in assisting veterans in any meaningful way shape manner or form, the time has come to take some drastic action in order to fulfill the promise which was made to all veterans, including this one, as late as the 1960's, before the introduction and implementation of the 'all volunteer' force. The claims processing offices are currently on their third or fourth "reorganization" which means that those who were called up for combat and as a result are suffering from Agent Orange exposure or Gulf War Syndrome and other assorted malady causing things will now have to wait even more time to be considered for and receive just and necessary compensation for their lifelong and life threatening injuries such as Agent Orange exposure, old wounds, etc. And while we are at it, has anyone considered another item of habit which is very likely connected to active military service way back as far as anyone can remember, which would be smoking related illnesses. So shouldn't smoking related diseases also be considered as being 'service connected'. Before anyone poo-poo's this example, may it be noted that up until about halfway through the Vietnam experience, both 'C' and 'K' rations contained cigarettes. Both 'C' and 'K' rations were issued to those in the field by the military. Could we possibly ask how many service personnel began smoking as a result of this practice? After all, smoking was a 'Government Approved' activity at that time. There are some who have questioned where individual responsibility enters the picture. Are these service personnel not responsible for their own actions. Yes they are. However, there is something to the argument that if the military services merely allowed smoking to those who had access to the materials, that would be one thing. In this case the military actually supplied the substance and as noted, most of the service personnel who began smoking, began smoking after they entered the Service. The statement of mission which is quoted at the beginning of this piece was found by the writer. It had been carelessly discarded by whoever among the staff of that facility had received it from the management of that facility. Admittedly, unfortunately (before publishing it here) there was need to correct the spelling, punctuation and grammar of the missive. It is also unfortunate that it is 'merely words' which have no real evidence in fact or action in all too many cases at any of the VA Medical Facilities which this veteran has visited. Along with long waits for treatment (and a wait for a drug prescription in a pharmacy can be up to four hours or so). There is a seemingly total disregard for the veterans by the staff of the facility. Mr. Bush, President of the United States, promised in a speech in November 2000 before a group of veterans that he fully intended and promised that he would restore the Department of Veterans Affairs (a cabinet level office) and its medical service facilities to their former level of care and service. So far, this has not been accomplished. Perhaps some think that it is because it might cost too much money. I along with many others am no fan of higher taxes. That is not the question. The questions are: "How much care should be afforded to those whose injuries are a direct and irrefutable result of the fact that they were sent into harm's way as a result of their patriotic military service?" and "If their disabilities and ailments are simply a product of time and age and not a direct result of their military service, they having been willing to put their lives on the line for their country even though they survived the experience, should they also receive care and service at the VA facilities?" Were one to visit any VA Medical Facility, they would encounter/observe statements printed on the walls of various VA offices and quoted by politicians in time of office-seeking activities. These statements are such as "The veteran has already paid for the services of this facility with his/her honorable service to his/her country!" As of now, the VA is requiring co-payments, the payment levels of which have just been severely increased. For example, the co-payment for a thirty day supply of any medication has increased from two (2) to seven (7) dollars each (to a maximum annual cap of $840.00). The Congress keeps screaming about wanting prescription drug programs for the elderly. And the cost to a level 7 veteran of any visit to any service beyond triage and general medical treatment is $50.10 per visit. No one has mentioned these sometimes prohibitive co-payments which are charged to veterans, albeit they are figured on a sliding scale. Perhaps these Congresspersons have forgotten that veterans vote. Or perhaps the problem, as explained to the author of this piece, is that the percentage of veterans in the Congress has dropped from forty (40) percent to twenty (20) percent over the past few years. Or perhaps it is just that the veterans have not done what other organizations and causes have done, voted their own cause as 'single issue' voters in sufficient numbers. So the Congressmen and women can do what precisely what they wish to do, ignore the situation totally and proceed along to the next time they can raise their own salaries. As to a possible solution, the writer offers the following suggestions: The first step is easy and cost neutral, that being that somewhere between thirty five (35) and forty (40) percent of the Department's employees should be released from duty because they were hired for reasons of political correctness which other than any which would be relevant to the duties of their position. If they were working in the privagte world, they wouldn't even be allowed to handle cabbages. If these employees were working with dogs, cats, or other 'critters and varmints', then PETA, the World Wildlife Fund, the A.S.P.C.A., and/or other 'animal rights' groups would have accomplished this step long ago with the blessings of politicians on all levels of government everywhere. As it is, veterans are seemingly classified somewhere below a fish called the snail darter. I would submit that if these VA personnel were 'handling cabbages' then either the Friends of The Earth, Greenpeace, or The Sierra Club would have effectively handled the situation by now with the full attention, complicity and cooperation of government on all levels. What are some examples of this 'incorrect treatment' you might rightfully ask? Fasten your seat belts. Here we go. First example? An incident in the Nursing Home Unit (NHCU) at Long Beach where a volunteer observed a nurse who was pushing a patient in a wheelchair from one place to another when his IV fell out and down to the floor. The nurse, without missing a beat, picked up the IV needle off of the floor, wiped it on her uniform and merely shoved it back into the patient's arm. In a 'constant care' ward at the West Los Angeles (Wadsworth) VA Medical Center where many of the patients were on IV's on the night being used in this example (there had to be thirty or more patients), the total nursing shift consisted of only three nurses for the entire overnight shift and one of those three nurses was detailed solely to a man who had been brought in during the night in a very poor physical and mentally delirious condition. Many reports are, as a matter of general knowledge among the veterans themselves, of patients being left in their beds in their own excrement and worse for long periods (some of them comatose) because no one could be bothered to rectify that situation. These are just three of the least egregious examples which this author could list. Many are the other incidents which have been related by other veterans with whom I have spoken. Parenthetically, I remember that in about 1994 Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton got her picture in the Long Beach Telegram newspaper because she had addressed the staff of the Long Beach Veterans Affairs Medical Center, informing them that the Clinton Administration fully intended to close that facility to military veterans and reopen it as an AIDS hospice for civilians. Some time later, a group of volunteer veterans who were visiting residents found a group of patients in a partically sealed off section of that medical facility. During conversations, the veterans naturally inquired as to the type and scope of military service of the patients therein. The unanimous answer was that they, indeed, were not military veterans, but rather civilian AIDS patients who were there for treatment. This caused a Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to resign under severe pressure from Veterans Groups. The second step is merely logical. Just as is true in the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior, which has a "tradition" that the positions in that Bureau are filled by Native Americans and any which are not so filled are filled with others only until some Native American applies, the rule should be similarly applied for the management at the VA. That is to say that in order to hold a management position, the first requirement beyond ability to fill the management position should be that the candidate has served for no less than one year on active duty in one or another of the branches of the United States Armed Services. No exceptions!!! This may seem as if it is a "nonsensical" step. After all, what would military service have to do with working at the VA? Believe me and hundreds of other vets with whom I have spoken on this subject, it makes a world of difference. And besides, would it not be 'discriminatory'? I don't think so, but perhaps we could check with some employees of the BIA whose position is guaranteed not because of their service to the Country but by an accident of birth. And before the Feminists start their chorus, please note that they have just as much right to serve in the Military of their Country as any male ever born. Many years ago, while an inpatient at a VA facility, the author asked why there were not more veterans working at that facility. The medical resident of whom I inquired promised to ask that very question at the next staff meeting which was to be that very afternoon. The following day she met with me and explained it thusly, "I asked why there weren't more veterans working here and I was told " it is because they cause too many problems". Does it need to be pointed out that this attitude on the part of the management of that facility is in direct, willful, and flagrant violation of the following: The Servicemen's
Readjustment Act of 1944 (more commonly known as the
original and extremely effective GI Bill.) That noted, as it seemingly is with all such Agencies and Departments, they consider themselves to be 'not subject to the laws which govern them'. That aside, I must whole-heartedly agree with the above quoted statement for the following reason, based upon the service of the many military veterans who were volunteers at the Long Beach facility. The reason that they were seemingly or, if you prefer, allegedly considered a 'problem' or causing too many problems being that the veterans were "veteran oriented" and not "position oriented". My own experience at the VA supports the statement that the volunteer veterans did a much better and more 'client/patient oriented' job than the paid staff of that facility. I must here confess a certain bias in this matter, having applied for various positions at that very facility over 350 times (that's right, three hundred and fifty times), and turned down a similar number of times. Interestingly, the 'checked boxes' on the 'notification of position award' notice (which was always sent to all position applicants) always indicated that I was fully qualified for the position but that someone else had been chosen. The successful candidate was normally either a woman or a person of color. The VA employees know that somewhere in the mix of the various ethnic and gender rights groups, their union contracts and the rules of Federal civil service will protect them. That it is nearly impossible to fire them. That would logically lead to the third step which is based upon common sense and the desire to deal effectively with the stated problem. There is an old saying, "He can't see the forest for the trees". Taking this one step more, "It is nearly impossible to see the forest if the one who is looking is, themselves, one of the trees." Therefore, the suggestion is offered that there be a system of 'secret shoppers' as it were. People who, being eligible to avail themselves of the services of a VA facility then report on their experience. These reports would be made to a special office which was independent of the VA. Very much in the same manner as the Office of the Inspector General operates in all Agencies and Departments.There is currently a "patient advocate" at each VA facility however, as the author was once told by a lady named Ms. Palmerm, the head of that department at the Long Beach facility, "I have no power to change anything. I must instead rely on mediation and agreement." That is a terrible way to have to carry out one's responsibilities. In light of this verity, there is a fourth step which could and should be taken. This would be to do for the VA positions what was done in the case of the security service baggage checking employees at airports who were just made Federal employees. One of the provisions of the charter for those persons is that they can be fired for ineptitude or malfeasance in the same manner as one who works in private industry. This step is absolutely imperative if the VA system is ever to be restored to anything even closely resembling what it should be and should always have been. True, thereafter, it does come down to money. It is undeniable that the VA has been grossly inadequately funded for as long as anyone can remember. Having once spoken to the Chief of Staff of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and found funding to be purely political the questions began. When I asked about the defunding of programs, this gentleman assured me, in a very defensive voice, that all of the VA programs had been fully funded. What he failed to mention is that, obvious to all, these programs which were funded were what was left after another Draconian round of cutting, either partially or totally, any program which the VA had. For example, the Downtown Outpatient Clinic in Los Angeles at one time had a full complement of physicians, specialties and support staff. Now they no longer have much of anything. No more emergency services. No more cardiology, physical therapy, neurology, prosthetics, and many others, including basic general practice physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and lab technicians. These have all been cut back and/or sent out to the main facility at West Los Angeles which is miles from where it is needed. If one is going to close down something then, just as the railroads back in the fifties and sixties did, the route to go is to keep cutting back services until they are no longer serving anyone and when no one can use them any more, then delete them completely on the grounds that they are not used by the clientele. But the writer seems to remember that our Government was more than willing to offer a sum which was in excess of a million dollars to Russian so that they could boost the morale of Russian troops by building better housing for them. We can give money to another country to assist with their military but we steadfastly refuse to support our own??? Perhaps someone will explain this to me. How important is all of this?? Not nearly as important as the fact that, seemingly, no one who could rectify this tragedy, such as the Congress or other Federal officials, seems to care one whit beyond the empty mouthings of political promise. Shall it be therefore resolved that we, as the recipients of freedoms which are totally unknown in most of the rest of the world, shall rectify this seeming 'American Tragedy'?? The answer to that question is in the hands and votes of each and every one of us. Do we each have the courage, concern, interest, and gratitude to act accordingly??? As always, the
author invites comment and dialogue concerning this piece
or any piece which appears on this site. The address for
this is vurdraak@pacbell.net
Opinion Piece # 20 |