CNN has a good story today about how "Wounded Warriors Face Homefront Battle with the VA." Click here for the link. CNN focused on some compelling examples to tell the tale: combat veterans whose extensive injuries were at first rejected as "not service-related"(!!!) or who had a hard time collecting reasonable benefits, despite incredibly grave and comprehensive injuries. The subtext in the story, though, is how when the individuals involved were able to "apply some pressure" or "put the heat on" the VA through, say, elected officials, or other prominent advocates, all of a sudden, things changed on a dime, and their cases were handled differently, overnight. An apologist for the VA, in the story, says, essentially, "oops, this just makes us want to do a better job," and someone else says, "gee, we really had no idea the system wasn't up to handling this volume of cases." Well, seriously, folks -- we're in a war. Actually, we're in several. And this shouldn't actually be "news" to a department called VETERANS affairs.
For even a casual reading of the news shows you, there's a lot of people getting injured, not just killed, in this war; and the injuries are more substantial than people used to even be able to survive. That was one of the first pieces of information that came out of this war, medically. And that was covered in the generic, popular media -- it was a cover story in Time or Newsweek, going back several years now. (The kevlar helmets, for example, are "saving lives" of those who earlier would certainly have been killed by explosive blasts; but now those surviving face extensive aftercare, etc., etc.) For every person killed, there are probably roughly 10 injured, and many of the injured, are injured severely. Is this another "Hurricane Katrina" situation? Where because we have political appointees in jobs that ought to call for skills and smarts and forward thinking, we get mowed down by catastrophes that firmly need plans in place to handle, before they happen? Or certainly the ability to snap into action once they happen?
Read the story, but get annoyed. It shouldn't take a 23 year old, with extensive burn injuries, and a heavily compromised future quality of life, plus pressure from his senator -- we're going to use that example generically, not about one person in particular -- to get the VA off its ass and responsive to his particular case. We've seen this time and time again -- media coverage, 11th hour, about some very deserving veteran's case, FINALLY gets someone "in the system" spurred into action, to resolve THEIR case -- not all the cases, in general -- or revamp the system. What's wrong with this picture? The problem is widespread, the need for care is compelling, and EVERYONE'S CASE COUNTS -- not just the ones who've had (thankfully for them) media attention (the spotlight) turned on them. Get with it -- these are our veterans, and they deserve care. Not one at a time, as a GROUP. Seriously.
Because -- and here's another thing, while we're on the subject -- for every young veteran who gets incensed and motivated to wrangle with the system, and INSIST on better treatment -- how many others give up, or give in -- or worse, end up harming themselves because they just don't have that same will to fight. You know how human nature is. How many people, who've been traumatically injured, should be expected to fight for their own care? Isn't it overwhelming enough to be seriously injured? Or have a family member who is? Those are situations that take plenty of care and attention and backbone just to endure -- let alone, fighting with the VA for the care that's deserved. (Not to mention, now we have veterans of previous wars, such as Vietnam, coming out of the woodwork and saying, "crap, now I realize what I have -- PTSD," many years later -- and they're putting an additional demand on the VA's service -- but deservedly so. Some injuries take a while to manifest, and some people take a while to realize they need care. That's just common sense; and completely understandable. Which is a kissing cousin to "forseeable" -- as in, the things you PLAN for, when your job is anticipating or delivering care. In business, something getting "popular" (the analogy here is injuries) causes the business to ramp up production so they can fill the orders and supply more. Supply and demand, baby -- it's basic. A lot of veterans getting injured -- demand for services just increased. Supply of care -- that's the VA system -- needs to ramp up on a par, and fast. What's the old adage in business? You can have things 'good,' 'fast,' or 'cheap' -- so long as you just want two of those, and it can be any two. With the VA and healthcare for combat veterans -- are they getting even two of the above? Or just one -- "cheap," which ends up costing dearly in the long run...both to veterans, and to the country, when the system has to eventually be fixed.)
In summary, combat veterans and their families having to combat the VA for their care? How about if we let combat happen in the field; and service in the VA, instead, for those who've already served.
