The nation's flagship military hospital is in shambles. The rest of the military veteran medical field turns out to be, appropriately enough, no better. Who to blame? Why not try twelve years of Republican purse string holding?
Since 1995 up until recently, the Republican Party has held an overall majority in Congress. And since then, American social services have been under the blade. What makes their loyal sheep think that veterans services were somehow exempt from Republican manhandling?
Telling letters to the Florida Times-Union paint a picture of cranky staff, shoddy conditions, indifference, disrepair. Why might this be? Why might a military-run hospital be staffed with people indifferent to the plight of the military's own veterans? Perhaps because "military-run" doesn't necessarily mean "military-operated" or "military-staffed". In fact, it doesn't.
"Return medical facility care to the military and not to civilian hires who get contracts by cheapest bids and are not accountable to the facility or medical staff" says one poster named "Been there," who notes that the conditions at Walter Reed are par for the course at other facilities. Their last solution is more of a thinly veiled accusation: "Remember that you are part of the military and governmental bureaucracy at the mercy of the whims of congressional budgets...." And just which party has been in control of those congressional budgets for the past twelve years? Not those pork-barrel tax-and-spend Democrats who do nothing but throw money away, but the Republicans who are smart with money.
Smart, as in, selling out government services to cheap civilian contractors. Why is lowest bidder so cheap? Often, because they cut corners as much as they can get away with. Even Republicrat Lieberman identifies the symptoms:
"Soldiers with brain injuries have gone weeks without being able to get doctors' appointments," Lieberman said. "There is not enough staff with the right skills to treat and care for the severely injured troops."
Gee, I wonder why. When you cut costs, you do things like cut staff, and hire barely skilled labor for the rest, because well-skilled labor won't work for the low wages you pay in order to keep costs in the bargain sub-basement. Is it your fault? Hard to say, because it's also the fault of the people who hired you because you were their cheap labor. And it sure wasn't because they were underpaid.
These are the same people who held the minimum wage stable for the past 10 years while the economy went on a roller-coaster. Their skinflintness knows no bounds.