|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
 Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:46 am
|
 |
|
So glad you liked it! We can always read at our leisure! I think I'll read every one of those wonderful gems! She has a great writing style too, don't ya think?
I wouldn't doubt if she ends up compiling everything and putting it in book form as well!
Who wouldn't want to publish it after O'Neill's taboo breaking book?! WhoopeeeEE!
bc  |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:49 am
|
|
|
Too funny Chicka! We're riding that same wave (as usual). I thought to myself that she comes across as very intelligent, level headed, and logical. I also LOVE her writing style and thought she should write a book as well! I certainly plan on reading all her articles. LOL! |
| |
|
|
Boomer Chick
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 407
Location: Colorado |
|
Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:17 am
|
|
|
Army’s suicide rate in Iraq higher than usual
By Matt Kelley
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Army's suicide rate in Iraq has been about a third higher than past rates for troops during peacetime, the Pentagon's top doctor said today.
Also, the military still has about 2,500 troops waiting for medical care after returning from overseas, said Dr. William Winkenwerder, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs. The Pentagon is preparing for even more soldiers on "medical extension" after tens of thousands of troops are rotated home from Iraq this spring, Winkenwerder said.
The issue of suicides so worried the military that the Army sent an assessment team to Iraq late last year to see if anything more could be done to prevent troops from killing themselves. The Army also began offering more counseling to returning troops after several soldiers at Fort Bragg, N.C., killed their wives and themselves after returning home from the war.
Winkenwerder said the military has documented 21 suicides during 2003 among troops involved in the Iraq war. Eighteen of those were Army soldiers, Winkenwerder said. That's a suicide rate for soldiers in Iraq of about 13.5 per 100,000, Winkenwerder said.
During recent peacetime years, that number for the Army has hovered around 10.5 to 11 per 100,000, Winkenwerder said.
"We don't see any trend there that tells us that there's more we might be doing," Winkenwerder told a breakfast meeting of Pentagon reporters.
The military has nine combat stress teams in Iraq to help treat troops' mental health problems, and each division has a psychiatrist, psychologist and social worker, Winkenwerder said. He said between 300 and 400 troops have been medically evacuated from Iraq for mental health problems.
The military prefers to treat mental health problems such as depression by keeping troops in their regular duties while they get counseling and possibly medication, Winkenwerder said. Less than one percent of the troops in Iraq are treated for mental issues during an average week, he said.
Winkenwerder said he had no specifics on the number of troops being treated for battlefield stress, although the military is focused on treating that problem.
"We believe they are being identified, they are being supported," Winkenwerder said.
The military also is working to solve the issue of soldiers awaiting medical care. Since November, about 1,900 of the 4,400 troops waiting for medical care have been treated, Winkenwerder said.
But the military expects more problems when tens of thousands of troops are rotated in and out of Iraq this spring, Winkenwerder said. Many of those troops may have to wait at various bases for medical treatment such as physical therapy for injuries, he said.
The Army is working to sign contracts with civilian medical providers and bringing in more staff from the Navy, Air Force and Department of Veterans Affairs to help, Winkenwerder said.
------------------------
|
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:40 am
|
|
|
Further proof that our Administration DOES NOT support our troops!
http://www.usavanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/01/28/401970abb42d7
This is how Bush supports our troops
By cutting benefits and health care for those putting their lives on the line in Iraq
by Kenneth Norris
Staff Writer
January 28, 2004
Do you support our troops? If so, prepare to be outraged that our commander in chief does not.
The Bush Administration's 2004 budget proposed gutting Veterans Administration (VA) services, including health care funding. Proposed cuts included: denying at least 360,000 veterans access to health care; $250 annual premiums; increased pharmacy co-payments; a 30 percent increased primary care co-payments; and increased waiting time for a first medical appointment.
Because of budgetary shortfalls, the VA suspended the enrollment of veterans not injured in service earning between $24,450 and $38,100 annually. VFW officials estimated the administration's VA budget is at least $2 billion short of meeting the demand for quality health care.
The FY 2004 budget approved by Congress calls for reducing VA funding over a 10-year period by $6.2 billion. Cuts are in the areas of veterans' health care and disability benefits.
The cuts affect VA discretionary funding, which could mean discontinuation of burial benefits for veterans or delays in the cost-of-living adjustment for disability benefits.
Some veterans must pay a new $250 annual enrollment fee to join the VA healthcare system. The VA believes 1.25 million veterans nationwide, already under the VA healthcare plan, may no longer be able to participate because of the new fee.
Veterans who can remain under the VA health-care system will pay increased co-payments for physician benefits and prescription drug cost, amounting to an estimated increase in out-of-pocket expenses of $347 each year.
The Bush Administration's budget proposal would have under-funded the VA by more than $2 billion. Bush's proposal would have cut the number of employees available to process disability claims, yet veterans already wait more than six months for a review of disability applications. The Bush plan for dealing with the waiting lists at VA clinics and hospitals is to reduce the number of veterans treated by the VA.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, disputed the credibility of Bush's budget proposal. He doubted reducing VA medical staff could meet the expanding needs at the Veterans Health Administration.
Rep. Bob Stump(R-AZ) noted the VA budget "identifies hundreds of millions of dollars needed for existing fixed costs, new advanced treatments and new initiatives to provide greater care for veterans. Unfortunately, the Administration hasn't included any new funding to address those needs."
Last March, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget that included a $28.8 billion 10-year reduction in funding for veterans. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Disabled American Veterans began a letter-writing campaign to protest the reduction, so a House-Senate conference committee reduced the cut to $6.2 billion. President Bush complained that Congress needed fiscal restraint.
An army of veterans twice the size of that involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom has lost health insurance benefits since Bush took office. As many as half a million vets are homeless. Seven VA hospitals are being closed as part of an effort to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. Meanwhile, veterans of the Iraq campaign can fall in line with over 250,000 veterans who are already waiting at least six months to see a doctor.
The General Accounting Office estimates that 20 percent of Army Reserve and National Guard personnel have no health insurance at all. Although Bush did not hesitate to send Reservists and National Guardsmen to face death in Iraq, he has consistently opposed any attempt to extend full benefits to them.
Bush tried to cut monthly imminent-danger pay and family separation allowance, and he called a proposed increase in the sum given to families of soldiers who die on active duty "wasteful and unnec- essary."
Additionally, Bush considered how much money the country would save (and how much more could be diverted to Bechtel and Halliburton contracts) if veterans could not even find out what their benefits are.
Disabled American Veterans (DAV), an organization that since 1920 has helped U.S. combat casualties learn about the benefits they have earned and how to apply for them, has been obstructed in its efforts by Bush.
The Pentagon has been severely limiting DAV access to wounded veterans on grounds of "security" and protecting "privacy." The Pentagon protects the veterans' privacy by not allowing them to speak with DAV representatives "unmonitored."
DAV Washington Headquarters Executive Director David W. Gorman wrote to the Secretary of Defense, complaining the Pentagon has severely restricted DAV's efforts to visit with wounded patients. The Walter Reed Army Medical Center headquarters office selects the patients DAV may visit, and DAV's representatives are escorted at all times. The escort closely monitors all contact with patients.
Gorman contended these broad restrictions on patient access inhibit the ability of DAV to help ensure that wounded service members have the necessary information to obtain the medical care and bene fits these veterans need.
Gorman warned, "The American public would be outraged if these restrictions became public knowledge."
So, are you "outraged?" Do you even care that Bush cynically pays lip service to "supporting our troops" while gutting programs created to help the troops who have made awesome sacrifices to protect America?
Does it piss you off that Bush would deny our troops information about how to get the benefits they need and have earned?
Wake up and see Bush for what he is. Bush is a liar who manipulated you into "supporting our troops" only insofar as it facilitated his agenda, but his actions prove he cares nothing about their welfare.
|
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:03 pm
|
|
|
This is WAY sad! The Gulf War vets are dropping the Gulf War Syndrome suit because there isn't enough "scientific evidence" to prove what caused their illness AND because they would have to prove that the Ministry of Defence was negligent. Ha! It's unfortunate that there is such a wide variety of possible reasons for their sickness. As if anyone is going to help them figure out what the true cause is anyway! Yeah right! 
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=487990
Veterans to abandon legal claims for 'Gulf war syndrome'
By Chris Bunting
05 February 2004
The legal battle to gain compensation for veterans suffering from "Gulf war syndrome" has been abandoned because of a lack of scientific evidence.
The Legal Services Commission, which is believed to have spent £4m on the case, is expected to withdraw legal aid this month after being told by veterans' lawyers the case had no realistic chance of success.
The legal team representing more than 2,000 veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf war are reported to have made the decision after 10 years of research failed to establish a specific cause for the range of health problems suffered. To have succeeded in their case, the veterans would have had to have proved not only that their illnesses were caused by their service during the war but that the Ministry of Defence had been negligent.
Many experts still believe there is a link between the conflict and ill health. British, American, Australian and Danish troops are reported to have about twice the incidence of illness than normal members of the public. They have reported headaches, depression, weakness, short-term memory loss, muscle pains, rashes and difficulty breathing. A wide range of causes have been suggested including depleted uranium fallout from allied munitions, vaccinations, tablets given to counter nerve agents, pesticides used to control flies, pollution from oil fires and undetected chemical attacks.
The lack of a consensus on the cause or sufficient evidence of negligence has scuppered the claim; 2,000 of the veterans have already been awarded discretionary war pensions.
Patrick Allen, a solicitor representing the victims, told The Guardian: "We hope that a cause will be found for Gulf war illnesses... and that effective treatment programmes can be instigated to help improve the health of the victims."
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 9:48 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
