• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Coburn Blocks Bill on Veterans' Suicide Prevention

Then they should figure out how much the additional psychiatrists would cost them and appropriate those funds. I doubt that makes up the bulk of the $22 million.

From what I can see, Coburn was right to do what he did. It needs fixing, and this bill wasn't it.

Well, I look forward to seeing Senator Coburn sponsor a new and improved bill. He is an MD so it should be somewhat up his alley.
 
I think that is more for accountability. But what is most important is the bill would fund more psychiatrists working for the VA. That will reduce wait times.


Based on your previous statements that would be a great positive ... though as with many things with the gov; it gives me pause... why not increase the existing budget specifically for that purpose?

Maybe there could be a Vet's vocal movement to that end. is there any... oh BS.... sure there is .. the Military don't quit, they adapt and get it done.

There is food for thought in this situation

Good eve BB

Thom Paine
 
* Link transitioning veterans to mental health services and information
* Provided funding incentives to mental health practitioners (so that returning veterans can afford needed care; Remember: The VA is having a difficult time keeping up with mental health treatment of our returning veterans. So, why not allow them to seek care in the private health arena?)
* Assist active duty "combat" veterans w/transitioning back to civilian life

70% of veteran suicides are committed by veterans age 50 and older and 85% by veterans age 40 and older.

Either we're talking about recently separated men (predominantly men, 97%) who have served long enough (at least more than one enlistment and have attained at least junior to mid NCO rank) to know what kind of benefits are available to them post service or, more likely, we're talking predominantly about Vietnam and Cold War Era vets who have been out of the service for decades.

Either way, pumping more money into providing more services to single-enlistment, lower enlisted servicemembers who have recently separated isn't a rational use of money if addressing the "veteran suicide epidemic" is your stated goal.

I don't know what would be a good use of the money, but this isn't it.

It's all feel good and ****, I mean, Americans love veterans these days almost as much as they love puppies, but it's pandering.
 
Then why did the GOP House pass the bill to prevent Veteran suicides ?

Because just as the OP of this thread proves, most only read a headline.
 
I dont know the specifics regarding this bill. But personally i felt insulted when i returned home from iraq and everyone wanted to treat me like i was crazy and all this "transition" sessions and what not.

Let me state, if you treat soldiers crazy, some will believe they are crazy.
 
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., called the bill a targeted measure that would help ensure that programs to prevent veterans' suicide work as expected.

The bill would require the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department to submit to independent reviews of their suicide prevention programs. It also would establish a website to provide information on mental health services available to veterans, offer financial incentives to psychiatrists who agree to work for the VA and create a pilot program to assist veterans transitioning from active duty to veteran status.


We need bills to ensure that the government agencies do their jobs now?

I believe that the existing programs need oversight, and not just mental health. The VA killed one of my best friends, and fellow musician. And, besides, nothing is too good for those who have fought for our country. I am for the bill.
 
So you need a bill passed to update a website? For the VA to do outreach for veterans with mental health issues? If so, it further affirms Coburn's position. If this legislation is truly necessary, than the problem isn't opposition to the bill, the problem is the VA. There is nothing in this bill that would actually address the actual problem then either.

So, I'll ask you the same thing I would ask Sen. Colburn:

Fair enough, but if that's the case why doesn't Sen. Colburn identify what those duplicate services are, the agencies that provide identical services and present a new/revised bill that would streamline the process?

If the VA isn't doing outreach programs currently to reach veterans in need of mental health services, doesn't it make sense that they start?

If the VA doesn't have enough psychiatrists and it's not projected that they'll hire enough to handle the influx of returning combat veterans diagnosed with PTSD, doesn't it make sense to all the VA to contract mental health services to private doctors?

But beyond all this, I'd really like to know what you think is "the actual problem" with the VA were mental health services is concerned?
 
I can't defend what any politician does not do; Your questioning him not identifying shortcomings may point to an indictment of us, the voters, who should be paying closer attention to our hopefully minimal needs from the Fed gov. i.e maybe we as individuals should know more specifics about many things before we decide a politico voted rightly or wrongly.

It's becoming more apparent that no matter political lean we should each step away from the painting and take in the entire picture before zeroing in on specifics that must be accomplished.

my 2 cents

Thom Paine

Very well then. I'll ask you the same question:

Objective Voice said:
What you think is "the actual problem" with the VA were mental health services is concerned?
 
Do we believe that the people in Washington don't have any idea what the VA and Pentagon don't currently do?

And what he did was because he wanted to reduce the size of government. He's been identifying and fighting against redundancies in government for years. It's because of him the GAO now has to report annually and everyone sees where the redundancies are.

He also objected to the cost of the bill not being offset elsewhere.

If the Pentagon and the VA aren't working efficiently today, perhaps there is a better way to fix them without tossing millions of dollars at them?

So, what do you suggest be done to improve efficiency between both Departments and provide needed services to post-war veterans with mental health disorders who can't received adequate care at the VA in a timely manner?

What's your solution to these problems other than defending the politician who advocates for limited government or criticizing the poster who views his stance as obstructionist?
 
70% of veteran suicides are committed by veterans age 50 and older and 85% by veterans age 40 and older.

Either we're talking about recently separated men (predominantly men, 97%) who have served long enough (at least more than one enlistment and have attained at least junior to mid NCO rank) to know what kind of benefits are available to them post service or, more likely, we're talking predominantly about Vietnam and Cold War Era vets who have been out of the service for decades.

Either way, pumping more money into providing more services to single-enlistment, lower enlisted servicemembers who have recently separated isn't a rational use of money if addressing the "veteran suicide epidemic" is your stated goal.

I don't know what would be a good use of the money, but this isn't it.

It's all feel good and ****, I mean, Americans love veterans these days almost as much as they love puppies, but it's pandering.

Got a link to that stat? (Just curious at how accurate you are in your position here.)
 
Very well then. I'll ask you the same question:

As with possibly millions of others with no direct experience in this matter I really do not know ... but I may in the future, through investigation, learn; I never rely on politicians for the straight forward answer to anything. I do my own research .. gotta' keep those politicos honest.

Thom Paine
 
Got a link to that stat? (Just curious at how accurate you are in your position here.)

Sure. The figures I used are from the most recent (2012) VA study on veteran suicide.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...UlD69Tbtl2ejjSg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.cWc&cad=rja

There's a little bit of, maybe call it, "controversy" surrounding those (or any) figures related to veteran suicide because they all rely on self-reporting of veteran status. Nobody actually goes back and vets a guy's claim of veteran status against DOD records, so as long as a claim of being a veteran is made it's accepted.

Consequently, there are almost certainly some phonies lumped in there, but nobody really knows how many, or how such claims skew the issue.
 
So, what do you suggest be done to improve efficiency between both Departments and provide needed services to post-war veterans with mental health disorders who can't received adequate care at the VA in a timely manner?

What's your solution to these problems other than defending the politician who advocates for limited government or criticizing the poster who views his stance as obstructionist?

Um, if you saw my post as "defending the politician who advocates for limited government or criticizing the poster who views his stance as obstructionist", that's on you. Not interested in your silly posts, sorry.

I don't have any suggestion to improve efficiencies. You'll have to ask the people who are in charge. I don't work in Washington. Sorry. I can't give you advice.
 
I thought Republicans were all in favour of supporting "our veterans". They certainly were quite vocal in their attacks on the failures of Obama's Veterans Affairs department. Why did Coburn do this - ego?



The Republican-controlled House passed the bill but the rather complex and esoteric rules of the Senate allow a single Senator to derail a popular measure.

The outrage, in this case, seems more to be based more on the party using that rule than on the rule itself. The point being made is that VA mental health care is not a new thing. I am tired of the idea that if a current gov't program does not accomplish its stated goal then it must be continued and we must add yet another gov't program (or two or three) to accomplish that same goal.
 
Um, if you saw my post as "defending the politician who advocates for limited government or criticizing the poster who views his stance as obstructionist", that's on you. Not interested in your silly posts, sorry.

And yet you commented anyway...

I don't have any suggestion to improve efficiency. You'll have to ask the people who are in charge. I don't work in Washington. Sorry. I can't give you advice.

And so we're left with criticism without offering solutions to resolve the problem while hiding behind "that's why we elect politicians to do these kinds of things".

Look, I'm in no way saying you nor anyone else can't have an opinion on such matters. I'm not even saying you can't agree with any one or group of politicians on an issue. But what I AM saying is do more than criticize.

I agree that if all this bill does is allow the VA to build websites that act as information resources for veterans with mental health disorders, then it's really not doing much of anything to help them get the medical help they need. But the bill goes further than that. It ensures that the VA will update mental health information and medical resources specific to helping meet the mental health needs of (combat) veterans. It would connect (combat) veterans suffering from mental trauma to private mental health providers which is important considering that the VA has a significant shortage of mental health doctors AND we all know there is a significant delay in getting veterans to such practitioners. Additionally, I don't see a problem with the VA conducting more outreach initiatives to reach veterans in this regard considering that it's common knowledge that in many instances people who suffer from medical conditions such as clinical depression or suicide don't always reach out for help.

So, again, if there are already such initiatives out there being offered by the VA and/or DOD such needs to be made public knowledge. If not, I see this bill as a positive, not a negative. Furthermore, if the only "bigger government" here is "more federal spending", then that doesn't seem like a valid reason to me to do nothing.
 
And yet you commented anyway...



And so we're left with criticism without offering solutions to resolve the problem while hiding behind "that's why we elect politicians to do these kinds of things".

Look, I'm in no way saying you nor anyone else can't have an opinion on such matters. I'm not even saying you can't agree with any one or group of politicians on an issue. But what I AM saying is do more than criticize.

I agree that if all this bill does is allow the VA to build websites that act as information resources for veterans with mental health disorders, then it's really not doing much of anything to help them get the medical help they need. But the bill does further than that. It ensures that the VA will update mental health information and medical resources specific to helping meet the mental health needs of (combat) veterans. It would connect (combat) veterans suffering from mental trauma to private mental health providers which is important considering that the VA has a significant shortage of mental health doctors AND we all know there is a significant delay in getting veterans to such practitioners. Additionally, I don't see a problem with the VA conducting more outreach initiatives to reach veterans in this regard considering that it's common knowledge that in many instances people who suffer from medical conditions such as clinical depression or suicide don't always reach out for help.

So, again, if there are already such initiatives out there being offered by the VA and/or DOD such needs to be made public knowledge. If not, I see this bill as a positive, not a negative. Furthermore, if the only "bigger government" here is "more federal spending", then that doesn't seem like a valid reason to me to do nothing.

Once again, if you read my post's purpose as "defending a politician", you didn't read it.

And no, I most certainly can criticize - and in fact, that's just what I did.

My post was clear. If they have issues running the VA, they don't need a law to fix it. Issues get fixed in the real word all the time without laws being passed to make a business fox problems. Coburn is and always has been focused on spending, and that's why I mentioned the GAO.

If you think the bill is necessary, please call your Congressperson.
 
Once again, if you read my post's purpose as "defending a politician", you didn't read it.

And no, I most certainly can criticize - and in fact, that's just what I did.

My post was clear. If they have issues running the VA, they don't need a law to fix it. Issues get fixed in the real word all the time without laws being passed to make a business fox problems. Coburn is and always has been focused on spending, and that's why I mentioned the GAO.

If you think the bill is necessary, please call your Congressperson.

I might just do that, but first...

I've read your post at least three times now, even quoted it herein and replied accordingly. But for the record (and since you insist that I haven't read it), let's look at it again, shall we:

Do we believe that the people in Washington don't have any idea what the VA and Pentagon don't currently do?

I'm sure folks in Washington, DC are very much aware what the VA and the Pentagon (DOD) does. Problem here is these departments/agencies aren't very good at talking to one another. To put it mildly, DOD gets them (combat soldiers) chewed up and spits them out. The VA is left to put "Humpty Dumpty" back together again. They was fine when each branch of the military provided medical care for the servicemen who enlisted or was conscripted under them, but that's not the case anymore and hasn't been for a very long time. Now, all retirees and/or medically discharged veterans go to the VA for their medical care. And in case you hadn't noticed, there are a LOT of sick and wounded veterans out there!

This bill would force DOD and the VA to "TALK" more about their programs on suicide prevention and may very well lead to streamlining the process of managed care in this area. But you're correct in that you really don't need a law to make them do that. Internal policy, i.e., Memorandum of Understanding, could take care of this problem.

And what he did was because he wanted to reduce the size of government.

Unless the bill forms a new government agency, I don't see anything in it that would increase the size or scope of government. In fact, neither of the pilot programs suggested in this bill would form new agencies outside of the VA or any of its sub-divisions that currently exist. Also, Section 8 of the bill prohibits any new appropriations for these pilot programs. Therefore, the VA would have to carry out these initiatives from funds that are already allocated.

He's been identifying and fighting against redundancies in government for years. It's because of him the GAO now has to report annually and everyone sees where the redundancies are.

So, where are the redundancies between the VA and DOD that this bill would duplicate? Name them.

He also objected to the cost of the bill not being offset elsewhere.

Again, if the overlaying reason Sen. Colburn objects to the bill is the price tag (which Section 8 of the bill prohibits), he's being more of an obstructionist than an advocate for limited government. Of course, the offset could easily be "cut spending within either the VA or DOD," since both agencies always have cost overruns, but which politician would be willing to do so especially from within the GOP when they've fought hard to establish an ideological identity as being big on supporting our troops?

If the Pentagon and the VA aren't working efficiently today, perhaps there is a better way to fix them without tossing millions of dollars at them?

Other than an intra-department MOU as suggest above, what other solutions would you suggest? Again, I'm a far cry from picking on you. However, I am advocating for solutions, not just criticism.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom