• 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!

Ben Carson: ‘We Don’t Need a Department of Veterans Affairs’

Yet another reason to believe that Carson is away with the fairies.
 
radcen said:
Ben Carson: ‘We Don’t Need a Department of Veterans Affairs’

Ben Carson: ?We Don?t Need a Department of Veterans Affairs?
Click to expand...

Reading past the headline, it is not a terrible plan, and some of his ideas are good(increased emphasis on treating soldiers while they are in service, and expanded transition assistance for those getting out). I do not know how much savings could be had efficiency-wise if you rolled the VA into the DOD(I suspect it would backfire actually), but I would have no problem with at least examining the possibility.
 
Redress said:
Reading past the headline, it is not a terrible plan, and some of his ideas are good(increased emphasis on treating soldiers while they are in service, and expanded transition assistance for those getting out). I do not know how much savings could be had efficiency-wise if you rolled the VA into the DOD(I suspect it would backfire actually), but I would have no problem with at least examining the possibility.
Click to expand...
That was kind of my thought, as well. Reading beyond the headline there were some intriguing ideas. I still wonder, though, if we'd lose more in the end because it's just a screen to save money.
 
Redress said:
Reading past the headline, it is not a terrible plan, and some of his ideas are good(increased emphasis on treating soldiers while they are in service, and expanded transition assistance for those getting out). I do not know how much savings could be had efficiency-wise if you rolled the VA into the DOD(I suspect it would backfire actually), but I would have no problem with at least examining the possibility.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the VA is separate for reason - the goal of the DOD is to destroy things and intimidate people. We're having problems paying for DOD healthcare already, I'm not sure that we would see increased efficiency, in fact, I suspect the opposite.

Currently you are supposed to go to SEPS/TAMP a year out from EAS. Lots of folks wait until 6 months, but I think that Carson is misdiagnosing Veteran unemployment. Every single vet that goes through SEPS/TAMP (which is to say, all of them) is told that they rate 6 months of unemployment, and that they should apply for it as soon as they get out, and keep it until they get home/ get a job and or schools starts. Since most are younger, first - termers, they wait for the next semester to start, and collect in the meantime. This means that "VETERAN UNEMPLOYMENT IS SKY HIGH" is a perennial headline, because the flow of people getting out and waiting to pick something like school up is a constant, and artificially inflates the numbers.

I heard him discuss this plan on Dave Ramsey's show - I was impressed with him as a person, but not with this plan as a policy.
 
cpwill said:
I suspect that the VA is separate for reason - the goal of the DOD is to destroy things and intimidate people. We're having problems paying for DOD healthcare already, I'm not sure that we would see increased efficiency, in fact, I suspect the opposite.

Currently you are supposed to go to SEPS/TAMP a year out from EAS. Lots of folks wait until 6 months, but I think that Carson is misdiagnosing Veteran unemployment. Every single vet that goes through SEPS/TAMP (which is to say, all of them) is told that they rate 6 months of unemployment, and that they should apply for it as soon as they get out, and keep it until they get home/ get a job and or schools starts. Since most are younger, first - termers, they wait for the next semester to start, and collect in the meantime. This means that "VETERAN UNEMPLOYMENT IS SKY HIGH" is a perennial headline, because the flow of people getting out and waiting to pick something like school up is a constant, and artificially inflates the numbers.

I heard him discuss this plan on Dave Ramsey's show - I was impressed with him as a person, but not with this plan as a policy.
Click to expand...

I agree that I don't think efficiency would be gained. I suspect that making things bigger is not always the way to make them more efficient kinda thing.

Your first hand knowledge is much more up to date of separation. When I got out, we got a 1 week class a couple months before our enlistment ended. It was a really good class, but more would have been a big help(though I did not struggle at all when I got out). Your insight on the veteran unemployment sounds accurate.

Edit: something I do want to add: it is important to not reject things based on who said them. Carson is I think not suited to be president, and in fact I tend to dislike his politics. That does not mean he won't maybe accidentally stumble into a right answer once in awhile.
 
his 'solution' is to fold the VA into DoD

that in no way eliminates the obligations for which we have the VA

he offers no indication of a beneficial outcome from combining the departments, having two very different functions, into one which would then have two very different missions

now why should the veterans have a 'health account'? that implies they would only receive the amount of treatment covered by a finite account balance. that is NOT what we have promised them for their service and sacrifice!!!!!!!!

but why should any veteran eligible for VA assistance not be able to go into his/her local hospital and receive that treatment? bill the VA
 
justabubba said:
his 'solution' is to fold the VA into DoD

that in no way eliminates the obligations for which we have the VA

he offers no indication of a beneficial outcome from combining the departments, having two very different functions, into one which would then have two very different missions

now why should the veterans have a 'health account'? that implies they would only receive the amount of treatment covered by a finite account balance. that is NOT what we have promised them for their service and sacrifice!!!!!!!!

but why should any veteran eligible for VA assistance not be able to go into his/her local hospital and receive that treatment? bill the VA
Click to expand...
I'm guessing here, but I suspect he feels some of the redundancy would be eliminated if one department were contained in the other.
 
The DOD has dozens of jobs past killing people and breaking things. A TINY fraction of the DoD has that job, the vast majority of DoD employees are simple civilians who at the most have learned how to salute and are far more concerned with keeping office chairs in fine 'fighting' condition than anything destructive.

The true duplication of service comes in the medical services field. I read Dr. Carson as saying we need to voucher most medical services to the civilian sector where most vet's health issues can be speedily resolved- rather than long trips to VA centers or military bases. A savings and better healthcare would be the result- no more year long waiting lists. Part of the NoGo's problems with vet healthcare is the armories are scattered across rural America- far from VA Centers or military bases where they are eligible for care.

Overhauling the VA system to focus on research and special care (though many civilian facilities are some of the best in the world) and stop being a nursing home/minor care facility for retirees who suffered little past a paper cut while in uniform would be a good thing.

I shudder at the thought of relying on the VA for anything more than my disability check.

I wouldn't mind a system that sends me to approved doctors, clinics and hospitals for my service injury related care. Wouldn't turn my nose up on nursing home/assisted home care services like many other civilian programs and certainly don't want to be on a lengthy wait list for services I earned by bleeding on foreign shores.

Eliminating the VA overhead, getting vet care integrated into the DoD (maybe a push), and opening up an already existing health care system to serve vets all seems a step forward. I know many smaller hospitals would welcome VA money by serving vet patients on routine medical care.

Not a Dr. Carson fan by any means, but like the plan so far... :peace
 
radcen said:
Ben Carson: ‘We Don’t Need a Department of Veterans Affairs’

Ben Carson: ?We Don?t Need a Department of Veterans Affairs?
Click to expand...

If you read the article and Carson's comments, he actually makes a lot of sense. Perhaps if Veterans Affairs was part of the Department of Defense, they'd have better advocates and better treatment as Carson says, from day one.

Carson is a small government conservative. It's not illogical that he would look to reduce and rationalize the size of government. The only problem here is that too many people have a knee jerk reaction to any suggestion of change. There's nothing in his comments that even remotely suggest he doesn't have complete respect for those who serve America in the armed forces.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you read the article and Carson's comments, he actually makes a lot of sense. Perhaps if Veterans Affairs was part of the Department of Defense, they'd have better advocates and better treatment as Carson says, from day one.

Carson is a small government conservative. It's not illogical that he would look to reduce and rationalize the size of government. The only problem here is that too many people have a knee jerk reaction to any suggestion of change. There's nothing in his comments that even remotely suggest he doesn't have complete respect for those who serve America in the armed forces.
Click to expand...

Evening CJ.
The US taking care of their veterans can be traced back to 1636, when the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony were at war with the Pequot Indians. The Pilgrims passed a law that stated that disabled soldiers would be supported by the colony.

Then the Continental Congress of 1776 whose members campaigned and encouraged men to enlist during the Revolutionary War, also provided pensions to disabled soldiers. But it was individual states and communities that provided direct medical care to veterans. I know personally my ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war were provided with allotments of land in the Ohio territory for their service but it was individual states and communities that provided direct medical and hospital care to Veterans.

Following the Civil War, many state Veterans homes were established where medical and hospital treatment was provided for all injuries and diseases, whether or not they were the result of an injury from war. The key word here is "state". All veterans from all wars whether Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, etc., received care at these homes while the federal government expanded disability pensions to include spouses and children. My ggg grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War in the Virginia Militia. He received an allotment of land in the Ohio territory. Later three of his four sons fought in the Civil War and all received allotments of land for service in the state of Ohio. My gg grandfather was wounded in battle and I know exactly what the government pensioned him including wife and children. His farm is still operating in Southern Ohio by a family descendant just outside of Portsmouth on the Ohio River and he and his wife/children are buried just up the road. The old homestead has been well preserved.

When big government progressive Woodrow Wilson was in office, and WW1 was upon us, he and Congress established a new system of Veterans benefits, including programs for disability compensation, insurance for service personnel and Veterans, and vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. The key point here is "states" were no longer in control of the medical. By 1921 all WW 1 vets were under fed programs that created the Veteras Bureau. All public health services to veterans were transferred to the bureau.

The second consolidation of federal Veterans programs took place around 1930, when President Hoover elevated the Veterans Bureau to a federal administration that created the Veterans Administration. At that time, the National Homes and Pension Bureau also joined the VA.

What I am trying to get at is when states cared for immediate medical needs of vets whether war related or not, it was more efficient for the vet. But thanks to Wilson and then Hoover it evolved into an overbloated, inefficient federal bureaucracy that is not serving the vets today well at all. Let the feds focus on the pensions etc and let the states focus on the medical needs of the vets. It seemed to work quite well till folks during the Progressive Era started tinkering with it.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
Evening CJ.
The US taking care of their veterans can be traced back to 1636, when the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony were at war with the Pequot Indians. The Pilgrims passed a law that stated that disabled soldiers would be supported by the colony.

Then the Continental Congress of 1776 whose members campaigned and encouraged men to enlist during the Revolutionary War, also provided pensions to disabled soldiers. But it was individual states and communities that provided direct medical care to veterans. I know personally my ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war were provided with allotments of land in the Ohio territory for their service but it was individual states and communities that provided direct medical and hospital care to Veterans.

Following the Civil War, many state Veterans homes were established where medical and hospital treatment was provided for all injuries and diseases, whether or not they were the result of an injury from war. The key word here is "state". All veterans from all wars whether Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, etc., received care at these homes while the federal government expanded disability pensions to include spouses and children. My ggg grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War in the Virginia Militia. He received an allotment of land in the Ohio territory. Later three of his four sons fought in the Civil War and all received allotments of land for service in the state of Ohio. My gg grandfather was wounded in battle and I know exactly what the government pensioned him including wife and children. His farm is still operating in Southern Ohio by a family descendant just outside of Portsmouth on the Ohio River and he and his wife/children are buried just up the road. The old homestead has been well preserved.

When big government progressive Woodrow Wilson was in office, and WW1 was upon us, he and Congress established a new system of Veterans benefits, including programs for disability compensation, insurance for service personnel and Veterans, and vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. The key point here is "states" were no longer in control of the medical. By 1921 all WW 1 vets were under fed programs that created the Veteras Bureau. All public health services to veterans were transferred to the bureau.

The second consolidation of federal Veterans programs took place around 1930, when President Hoover elevated the Veterans Bureau to a federal administration that created the Veterans Administration. At that time, the National Homes and Pension Bureau also joined the VA.

What I am trying to get at is when states cared for immediate medical needs of vets whether war related or not, it was more efficient for the vet. But thanks to Wilson and then Hoover it evolved into an overbloated, inefficient federal bureaucracy that is not serving the vets today well at all. Let the feds focus on the pensions etc and let the states focus on the medical needs of the vets. It seemed to work quite well till folks during the Progressive Era started tinkering with it.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Reading your posts is like reading a history book - only far more interesting, and I like history! :thumbs: My family didn't get here until the early part of the 1900s, and they came through Ellis Island like so many others from Europe. No one is alive now who can tell me anything about them, unfortunately. My grandfather used to tell me about his early days here, but I don't know anything more. My native Texan SIL has traced his ancestors back to fighting in the Civil War, but that's as much as he knows so far. I don't even know if my grandma had siblings! Big gaps in my ancestry! :sigh:
 
vesper said:
Evening CJ.
The US taking care of their veterans can be traced back to 1636, when the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony were at war with the Pequot Indians. The Pilgrims passed a law that stated that disabled soldiers would be supported by the colony.

Then the Continental Congress of 1776 whose members campaigned and encouraged men to enlist during the Revolutionary War, also provided pensions to disabled soldiers. But it was individual states and communities that provided direct medical care to veterans. I know personally my ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary war were provided with allotments of land in the Ohio territory for their service but it was individual states and communities that provided direct medical and hospital care to Veterans.

Following the Civil War, many state Veterans homes were established where medical and hospital treatment was provided for all injuries and diseases, whether or not they were the result of an injury from war. The key word here is "state". All veterans from all wars whether Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, etc., received care at these homes while the federal government expanded disability pensions to include spouses and children. My ggg grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War in the Virginia Militia. He received an allotment of land in the Ohio territory. Later three of his four sons fought in the Civil War and all received allotments of land for service in the state of Ohio. My gg grandfather was wounded in battle and I know exactly what the government pensioned him including wife and children. His farm is still operating in Southern Ohio by a family descendant just outside of Portsmouth on the Ohio River and he and his wife/children are buried just up the road. The old homestead has been well preserved.

When big government progressive Woodrow Wilson was in office, and WW1 was upon us, he and Congress established a new system of Veterans benefits, including programs for disability compensation, insurance for service personnel and Veterans, and vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. The key point here is "states" were no longer in control of the medical. By 1921 all WW 1 vets were under fed programs that created the Veteras Bureau. All public health services to veterans were transferred to the bureau.

The second consolidation of federal Veterans programs took place around 1930, when President Hoover elevated the Veterans Bureau to a federal administration that created the Veterans Administration. At that time, the National Homes and Pension Bureau also joined the VA.

What I am trying to get at is when states cared for immediate medical needs of vets whether war related or not, it was more efficient for the vet. But thanks to Wilson and then Hoover it evolved into an overbloated, inefficient federal bureaucracy that is not serving the vets today well at all. Let the feds focus on the pensions etc and let the states focus on the medical needs of the vets. It seemed to work quite well till folks during the Progressive Era started tinkering with it.
Click to expand...

Good morning Vesper,

Thanks very much for that summary of how things developed. I think most conservatives prefer smaller government that is as close to the people as is practical. A sense of community and the wellbeing of the community's citizens is strongest when it's close to home. Here in Canada, the federal government does a lot that can only be accomplished at the national level or that needs to be coordinated for consistency at the national level but much is also delegated to the provinces even though the federal government provides much of the funding. Healthcare is an example, where the provinces are responsible but the federal government sets base standards for coverage and provides funding and the provinces decided the details based on their local needs. Our Veterans Affairs is like yours and has similar large bureaucracy problems and inefficiencies and is difficult for veterans to access. I agree it would be better if more control was at the local level.
 
I agree with him. And I am a retired veteran.
Not in favor of redundancies. What is wrong with simply ensuring that veterans have the same quality access to health care as others and not in some separate but unequal system that we currently have?
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Reading your posts is like reading a history book - only far more interesting, and I like history! :thumbs: My family didn't get here until the early part of the 1900s, and they came through Ellis Island like so many others from Europe. No one is alive now who can tell me anything about them, unfortunately. My grandfather used to tell me about his early days here, but I don't know anything more. My native Texan SIL has traced his ancestors back to fighting in the Civil War, but that's as much as he knows so far. I don't even know if my grandma had siblings! Big gaps in my ancestry! :sigh:
Click to expand...

Morning Pol,
I have a set of grandparents that came through Ellis Island too.
When I did the genealogy of my mother's side, I learned a lot about the history of veterans from all the different wars family had served. I requested records from the government. It was really interesting going through all that information. It was also a lesson on how the VA evolved into what it is today. I have records from my gg grandpa during the Civil War showing where he received medical help when he became injured in battle. I even have a copy of the receipt for his rifle. And then later when the government expanded the pension programs a whole packet full of info. that turned out to be a great source for all the proper names of the children because I was working with nicknames of some. It was like with every major conflict new programs with different names emerged. It was a learning experience.
 
Emphatically agreed.

By all means, provide benefits for government employees, especially ones that risk their lives on executive command, give them long-term or even life-long benefits, whatever is needed to encourage folks to willingly take such a job, but we sure as **** don't need the government running hospitals.

The human resources functionality VA provides for DoD should just be the DoD doing its own HR.


There are so many entire executive departments that need to just be removed from our budget.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good morning Vesper,

Thanks very much for that summary of how things developed. I think most conservatives prefer smaller government that is as close to the people as is practical. A sense of community and the wellbeing of the community's citizens is strongest when it's close to home. Here in Canada, the federal government does a lot that can only be accomplished at the national level or that needs to be coordinated for consistency at the national level but much is also delegated to the provinces even though the federal government provides much of the funding. Healthcare is an example, where the provinces are responsible but the federal government sets base standards for coverage and provides funding and the provinces decided the details based on their local needs. Our Veterans Affairs is like yours and has similar large bureaucracy problems and inefficiencies and is difficult for veterans to access. I agree it would be better if more control was at the local level.
Click to expand...

In requesting military and pension records for genealogy, it was pretty evident from the Civil War to WW1 how much paperwork in forms etc. increased and became more complex. A disabled Civil war veteran still alive during WW1 would have seen a lot of changes to the system and I wonder if they too experienced frustration like vets today with backlogs and not getting proper care.

Some folks talk about privatizing the VA. I don't think that is the way to go. I thing all that needs to be done is for the federal government to relinquish some of its control and return it to the states much like pre WW1. They have become so inefficient due to size alone. Anyway, I think it is our sacred duty to provide for our servicemen and it is a shame how they are being denied needed treatment. The suicide rate among vets is terribly high. Something needs to be done.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of redundancies, the US has 17 Fed Intelligence agencies. SEVENTEEN! That's not counting state and locals(for instance NYC, the NYPD has it's own)... Let's see if any of the so called 'small government' conservatives mention any plans to consolidate any of them.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Speaking of redundancies, the US has 17 Fed Intelligence agencies. SEVENTEEN! That's not counting state and locals(for instance NYC, the NYPD has it's own)... Let's see if any of the so called 'small government' conservatives mention any plans to consolidate any of them.
Click to expand...

What are your suggestions and how would they work?

Small government conservatives are interested in getting things done not in protecting silos and redundancies.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Small government conservatives are interested in getting things done not in protecting silos and redundancies.
Click to expand...

Really? Small government conservatives constantly use fear mongering to increase budgets and the size of government all the time. Whether it's terrorism, immigration, whatever their hot topic is. They routinely defend the NSA tactics, The Patriot Act and Homeland security, etc. Even though the GOP has Congress, the TSA and DHS, nor any of the 17 intelligence agencies aren't going anywhere.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Really? Small government conservatives constantly use fear mongering to increase budgets and the size of government all the time. Whether it's terrorism, immigration, whatever their hot topic is. They routinely defend the NSA tactics, The Patriot Act and Homeland security, etc. Even though the GOP has Congress, the TSA and DHS, nor any of the 17 intelligence agencies aren't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

National security is one of the few responsibilities charged to the federal government - small government conservatives don't hate government, we just like government that does what it's mandated to do and not all the other crap.

I notice you conveniently didn't offer any suggestions, so I guess yours was an empty talking point.
 
CanadaJohn said:
National security is one of the few responsibilities charged to the federal government - small government conservatives don't hate government, we just like government that does what it's mandated to do and not all the other crap.

I notice you conveniently didn't offer any suggestions, so I guess yours was an empty talking point.
Click to expand...

I need to spell out suggestions? I used the word redundancy. Just that word should be enough to tell you that we should consolidate some of the agencies. 17 is too many.

There is a Defense Intelligence Agency, and there's also an Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine(even though the Marines are part of the Navy) intelligence agencies. And yep there's a Coast Guard Intelligence Agency too.
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
Morning Pol,
I have a set of grandparents that came through Ellis Island too.
When I did the genealogy of my mother's side, I learned a lot about the history of veterans from all the different wars family had served. I requested records from the government. It was really interesting going through all that information. It was also a lesson on how the VA evolved into what it is today. I have records from my gg grandpa during the Civil War showing where he received medical help when he became injured in battle. I even have a copy of the receipt for his rifle. And then later when the government expanded the pension programs a whole packet full of info. that turned out to be a great source for all the proper names of the children because I was working with nicknames of some. It was like with every major conflict new programs with different names emerged. It was a learning experience.
Click to expand...

I have been told that the Mormon Church has a very extensive genealogy department, and they're expanding and adding to it all the time. We have one of them fairly close to where I live, and I believe I may contact them to see what they may be able to find about my maternal grandmother's family. I don't even know what her maiden name was, but maybe they can trace her through my grandfather. I do know that he came here alone, got a job working at a brick making factory, saved his money, and after a few years went back to Europe, married my grandmother, then both of them came back over here for good. There should be a registry of marriages somewhere over there that the Mormon researchers might be able to find, which would sure be a good start to learning about her family. My brothers are both very interested, too, as are my children. We do know that she was the prettiest girl in her village, according to her friends that also came here - which was very nice to hear - and while I was growing up, I saw that she was very hard working, too! She did teach me how to cook and bake many of their favorite foods so the knowledge wouldn't be lost, and I in turn taught one of my daughters - my other daughter hates to cook to this day! :mrgreen: Those nut rolls we talked about earlier are one example! Yum!
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
Emphatically agreed.

By all means, provide benefits for government employees, especially ones that risk their lives on executive command, give them long-term or even life-long benefits, whatever is needed to encourage folks to willingly take such a job, but we sure as **** don't need the government running hospitals.

The human resources functionality VA provides for DoD should just be the DoD doing its own HR.

There are so many entire executive departments that need to just be removed from our budget.
Click to expand...
But but but... you people don't understand. Every President now has to create a "Department of <Something>" so they can show how concerned they are and how effective they can be at fixing things.

I'm being sarcastic... sorta.

But on a wholly serious note, I like the way you phrase that DoD HR could be done from within the DoD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom