Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Monday, May 19, 2014

Report: Obama Knew About VA Cooking Books In 2008 (So Did Bush)


Published by the the Washington Times this morning is a report the Obama administration received notice that the VA was cooking the books about waiting times during its 2008 transition to the White House, which raises the question why wasn't this fixed six years ago when he came into office? It also raises the question why didn't President Bush do anything about it when he was president?
Veterans Affairs officials warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the department shouldn’t trust the wait times that its facilities were reporting.

“This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data; it affects quality of care by delaying — and potentially denying — deserving veterans timely care,” the officials wrote.

The briefing materials, obtained by The Washington Times through the Freedom of Information Act, make clear that the problems existed well before Mr. Obama took office, dating back at least to the Bush administration. But the materials raise questions about what actions the department took since 2009 to remedy the problems.
Apparently reports of inaccurate reporting began to be reported in 2005, three years before Obama took office.
In particular, the 2008 transition report referred to a VA inspector general recommendation to test the accuracy of reported waiting times.

Such tests, the report noted, could prompt action if results reveal “questionable differences” between the dates shown in medical records and dates in the Veterans Health Administration’s scheduling system. It’s unclear whether that recommendation was adopted because VA officials have not responded to request for comment.
(...)  “Audits of outpatient scheduling and patient waiting times completed since 2005 have identified noncompliance with the policies and procedures for scheduling, inaccurate reporting of patient waiting times and errors in [electronic waiting lists],” the briefing papers state.
The briefing/transition reports are prepared by the career federal employees rather than political appointees. The VA report provided to the incoming Obama administration notes that little was done to address the problems surrounding scheduling and wait time accuracy during the George W. Bush administration.
“Although VHA has recognized the need to improve scheduling practices and the accuracy of wait times data, no meaningful action has been taken to achieve this goal today,” officials wrote.

In fact, officials added, nine recommendations arising from inspector general audits from 2005 to 2007 were not implemented by 2008 when officials prepared the report for the incoming administration.
(...)The briefing materials do not reveal any concerns about outright fraud in manipulating waiting times, but they make repeated references in summarizing past audits and reviews about data accuracy.
 This report shows that false reporting of wait times is a systemic problem within the VA, and that Bush had three years to address it, Obama had six years and no one did a damned thing about it.

We send our heroes overseas to protect our arses, and the very least we can do is give them the medical attention they need, it's what we promised, its what our last two presidents haven't delivered.

9 comments:

Jeff Dunetz said...

Interesting how at the end of the segment, the archivist says that “the US opened its doors to the extent that the law allowed.” That’s simply not true, but of course CBS just lets it go. I’m sure the thinking was something along the lines of, “well, yeah this looks pretty bad. But FDR was a Democrat, so we can’t leave everyone with the impression that he was a racist anti-Semitic douchebag (even though it’s true). That just doesn’t square with the ‘Democrats good, Republicans evil’ narrative we’ve worked so hard to build.”

Jeff Dunetz said...

I had linked your piece to a group of people on one of my Facebook accounts, getting some pushback by an individual GOP who didn't like it, because he's older & bows before the FDR legend.
Here is my response to him, didn't want it to go to waste. Basically, it's my analysis of your analysis. Quoting myself:
"The
author has several good points & facts. The tradition of lionizing
& worshiping FDR, the Liberal icon, is ridiculous.
Facts:
"...mismanaged the economy, enacted freedom-sapping policies which
never did get this country out of the Great Depression, and tried to
circumvent constitutional separation of powers..." is irrefutably true.
Argued against by those that avoid the facts on the ground &
decades of analysis.
However;
perspective needs to be kept in pointing out any anti-semitism, which
was pretty much a universal American mindset back then. It just wasn't
identified or bothered with. Things are different now.
As
far as what he didn't do to save the Jews; that's a hypothetical &
is the actual point of the blogger. Bloggers do this. He's posing a
question, whether it's popular or not. That's his opinion. I don't
necessarily believe it, but I'm not going to tell him to shut up or
insult people who have this opinion. It's a valid opinion, based on
facts.
However
& further; the 1940's isn't the 2010's & while there may have
been some intelligence (there was) that Jews were being hauled off to
their demise, the ability to stop or hinder something of this nature
just wasn't a possibility. There were other priorities, preparations
for war, building the US war machine & several other factors that
aren't being taken into account.
The
author's opinion isn't unusual. Many people, of lesser analytic
ability & severe biases towards issues such as "why didn't anyone do
anything, etc."; have a habit of not "seeing the forest for the trees".
But they have other points & they have agendas.
The
Lid blogger has his own abilities, opinion & agenda. He is a
conservative & there isn't just one kind of conservative.
Our
establishment Republicans, like Charles, do not like that there is a
movement of conservatives & that the Establishment isn't the only
sheriff in town."
End quote. I follow your blog via RSS & consider you one of the more capable conservative bloggers. No intent to demean you, on my part. Carry on!

Jeff Dunetz said...

I was too young to have an opinion at the time (I was six when he died) but as I grew up and began to try to understand my world, I early on disliked him on economic, political and philosophical grounds. (It would be nice to be able to say he started us down the slippery slope, but I think that has to reserved for the people that elected Woodrow Wilson.)

His obviously virulent antisemitism is no surprise. What IS a puzzle continuing to this very day is the way self-identified Jews slavishly adore him and all of his descendant-democrats.

To me, a non-Jew as near as I can tell, the Jewish support for the Democrats is bizarre and inexplicable behavior.

Jeff Dunetz said...

I reading this article through again, it struck me that the recitation of FDR's behavior regarding the Jews in Europe is remarkably similar to BHO's behavior toward the Christians in Africa, with his actions toward Israel being more like a simple war for territory without (maybe) the emotional commitment of antisemitism.

A side issue that has bothered me for years is this:

How can a person be "pro-Arab' and "anti-Semetic".

Jeff Dunetz said...

The term anti-semitic was invented for the Jews. The term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more clinical term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred").

Jeff Dunetz said...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semitic

"

Semitic






Se·mit·ic [suh-mit-ik] Show IPA



noun

1.

a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, hebrew, and Phoenician.

adjective

2.

of or pertaining to the Semites or their languages, especially of or pertaining to the Jews.


Origin:
< Neo-Latin sēmīticus, equivalent to sēmīt ( a ) Semite + -icus -ic"

Jeff Dunetz said...

Larry I didn't need the definition. The term was invented by the Germans as a nicer way to say Jew hatred. Thats why it applies to Jews. I've researched it...feel free to research it also

Jeff Dunetz said...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemitic?s=t



an·ti-Sem·ite [an-tee-sem-ahyt, an-tahy- or, esp. British, -see-mahyt] Show IPA

noun
a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Nothing is more anti Semitic than Zionism