It was reported yesterday that an out patient clinic which is part of the Walter Reed military hospital is falling apart.  My new Congressman, Peter Welsh, has called for an investigation.  It was also reported that Bush's budget proposal calls for a 3% reduction in the VA budget for next year, and level funding after that.  Its called supporting our troops.

It was reported yesterday that an out patient clinic which is part of the Walter Reed military hospital is falling apart.  My new Congressman, Peter Welsh, has called for an investigation.  It was also reported that Bush's budget proposal calls for a 3% reduction in the VA budget for next year, and level funding after that.  Its called supporting our troops.


A reduction?  That's just criminal.  >:(

No surprise here.  He would be inclined, I'm sure, to provide the funds if the contractor of his choosing got the work.

My right-wing friends liked to say: "Money talks, bullzhit walks!"  So follow the money and find out what this administration values.

Pentagon weapons contractors?  Yes!
Veterans? No!

How does this government regard veterans?  Look at Walter Reed and ask yourself, "How many nice junkyards have been to?"

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

It is criminal, and with thousands of wounded troops coming back all the time.  As Bernie put it, Bush's budget is mostly garbage, and he's on the Vetrans Affairs committee, so hopefully this  will change.

yeah I saw something about it on the news, that's just terrible!

The Veterans hospital that we go to for my hubby's doctor is actually pretty nice, it's one of the oldest in existance here, and they've upkept it pretty nicely.  Although there are some really old buildings/houses on the VA campus from the 1800s that are so beautiful but look like they are about to fall over.

It was reported yesterday that an out patient clinic which is part of the Walter Reed military hospital is falling apart.  My new Congressman, Peter Welsh, has called for an investigation.  It was also reported that Bush's budget proposal calls for a 3% reduction in the VA budget for next year, and level funding after that.  Its called supporting our troops.


And this is news in what way?  Ask anybody in the military, and you will find out this is normal.

And BTW, Walter Reed is a Army medical center.  It is not a part of the VA.  The VA budget could be cut 99%, or trippled, it will have no impact on WRAMC.

In most military bases, service members are used to living in horrible conditions.  When I was in Boot Camp, we spent a month living in "Tempory Buildings" that were erected during the Korean War.  When I was at Mare Island, our Barracks for 2 years was a dilapidated office building that was "temporarily" built for WWII.  We had no heat, no hot water, and all kinds of vermin.  But there was simply no money for a new building (the base was slated to be closed).  Who cares that it actually took 6 more years to close the base, Congress was simply not going to authorize money to be spent on a base on the closure list.

Although we did eventually get new quarters.  They "refurbished" the old Naval Hospital, which was built to treat sailors and Marines returning from World War I.  The rooms had radiators for heating, so we either sweltered in the summer (could not turn them off) or froze in the winter (not enough water to heat the entire building). 

There are over 2.5 million service members in this country.  Most housing and buildings date from the time between WWII and Viet Nam.  In my 10 years in (encompasing 7 bases in 3 countries), the newest barracks dated from the early 1970's.  The oldest dated to the early 1900's.  On average, the buildings dated to the 1960's.  And I will not even begin to describe what berthing was like when I was aboard ship.

And the expense of the "Facilities Budget" is huge.  In fact, it is second only to the budget for Pay and Benefits (Weapons is actually 4th, and 3rd is "consumeables", IE Bullets, gasoline, maintenance).  Every base has a set budget they have to work off of, and any appropriations for new buildings must be approved by Congress.  It normally takes 10+ years for a new building to actually be built, with frequent delays and cancellations along the way.

So to be honest, the situation at WRAMC does not surprise me.  And it is hardly unique.  I have lived in everything from falling apart wood offices, to railroad cars (our barracks were being cleared of asbestos, we lived in rail cars for 3 months), to a 1930's era building that had no windows (there were window panes - just no glass in the panes).

And this is largely done by Congress.  The President really has nothing to do with Military Facilities.  In fact, probably the last time a President got involved in this kind of situation was in 1962, when JFK ordered the construction of the "Army Special Warfare School".  And at the USASWS, most of the buildings date back to that era.

And a lot of bases currently are struggeling to keep up with a military that is larger then it has been at any time since Vietnam.  Many bases are stuffed to capacity, and are fighting hard to find places to put everybody.  And WRAMC currently has more patients then it has had at any time since the early 1970's.  Medics have had their barracks shifted, being moved to older non-barracks buildings that were hastily converted in order to make room for more patients.  Buildings that were slated to be demolished have been converted to other uses (like Outpatient facilities) because there is nowhere else to put them.

If anything, I place the blame for this on the trend of "Demolishing" old military bases, instead of "Mothballing" them.  When Congress went through the flury of "Base Closure" in the 1990's, nobody seemed to think what would happen if these facilities were suddenly needed again.  2 Military Hospitals were closed in the San Francisco area, 1 in the LA area, and 2 more in just California alone.  This means that the facilities that are still open have to absorb that many more patients which could have been spread out 15 years before.

I have never been a supporter of "Base Closure", having always felt that "Mothballing" was more practacle.  If that had been done, we could see facilities like Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, San Francisco Army Medical Center, and Santa Anita Naval Hospital reopened, to help spread out the care and treatment of wounded and injured service members.  But Oak Knoll is now a housing development, Santa Anita is now a shopping center, and San Francisco is an office building.  And even Mare Island Naval Hospital could be reopened, but it has been sitting vacant for the last 12 years, the base closed and most of it either demolished or converted to civilian use.

I notice congressional reps want military bases closed...just not the ones in their own districts
;)

But what you're saying is it's up to congress to increase or decrease funding for military hospitals such as Walter Reed, not the executive branch, and from what you describe of living conditions in the military, the decent quartering for soldiers is not a big priority either.

I wouldn't know.  I've never been in the service.  I guess deplorable living conditions for troops doesn't get much attention in peacetime.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

Not surprised at all.

And BTW, Walter Reed is a Army medical center.  It is not a part of the VA.  The VA budget could be cut 99%, or trippled, it will have no impact on WRAMC.


Sorry I should have done some research before I opened my mouth  :-[

Sorry I should have done some research before I opened my mouth  :-[


The bigger question is about veterans.  There will be hundreds of thousands of vets from this war, many of the partially or totally disabled either physically, psychologically, or both.

Little weird historical note.  The Walter Reed Medical Center has Civil War Union General Daniel Sickles leg bone on display.  :P

But what you're saying is it's up to congress to increase or decrease funding for military hospitals such as Walter Reed, not the executive branch, and from what you describe of living conditions in the military, the decent quartering for soldiers is not a big priority either.

I wouldn't know.  I've never been in the service.  I guess deplorable living conditions for troops doesn't get much attention in peacetime.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif


Horrible conditions for the military is "par for the course", and it never gets much attention.  Oh, it is getting some now, but that will eventually die down.  I bet that within 3 months, nobody will care anymore.  And within 6 months, people will have totally forgotten what it was all about.

You have to realize that 99% of the military budget comes from Congress.  The President simply gives some broad guidelines, Congress actually decides how much money is given, and for what purposes.  "Facilities Maintenance" is often little more then keeping what buildings that currently exist from crumbling away.  And because the military is very experienced in having to live through "lean times", they never throw anything away.

Go look around any mliitary base, and you will see hundreds of vacant and abandoned buildings.  Some are in good shape, some are almost totally gutted.  But they are at least basically maintained, in the event that they are "someday needed".  And the budget to maintain existing structures is huge.

Remember, we currently have the largest military since the late 1960's.  We are also involved in our largest conflict since then.  During that time we have had 2 lean periods (post-Vietnam and Post-Gulf War) in which budgets were largely cut.  And for anybody in Congress, a good way to make points is to cut the Military Budget.

Some projects (like weapons) can't be cut.  Those normally are long-term contracts that run over years or decades.  However, projects that can be quickly cut are things like new sewer lines, new barracks, new gym equipment, remodeling the mess hall.  These are quick short-term expenditures, normally only taking a few months to a year.  So things like this remain the same, and your Congressman goes and tells the voters how he cut the military budget.

And the large number of "base closures" has started to affect things as well.  Just in California alone, over 10 major bases have been closed in the last 15 years.  That means that all the military normally stationed there are then crammed into other bases, causing them to become more crowded.

SInce 1991, there have been 81 major bases closed.  Each one of those had it's own Base Hospital.  That means 81 less hospitals to send injured veterans to for treatment.  This means that the remaining hospitals have to "take up the slack".  In addition, there are 81 less hospitals to assign Doctors and medical personal to, resulting in even more crowding.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm

And this should give you a good idea of how old some of these buildings are.  The first photo is of the Marine Barracks, taken in 1902.  This was 2 years after the "New Barracks" were built.

http://www.marinebarracks.com/marbar_phodur_old.htm

Here it is in 1921:

http://www.marinebarracks.com/marbar_phodur_old3.htm

ANd here it is in 1996, after the base was closed:

http://www.marinebarracks.com/marbar_barracks01.htm

Most of the buildings on that base date from 1880-1950.  And WRAMC is even older then Mare Island was.

And btw, I would rarely use the term "deplorable" to describe most military facilities.  Of course, we were not "spoiled civilians", and did not assume that we were going to be living at Club Med.  For the most part, the quality is on par with an older Motel 6 (unless you are living in "Open Squadbay" conditions).

But they are clean (we clean them all the time), cheap (free), and very close to work (normally a 5 minute walk).  And while the situation we had in the "Temporary Office" at Mare Island was bad, consider how much people in the area were willing to pay for housing even worse then that.  The cheapest apartment I was able to find in the area was over $800 a month, and I did not live there long because I could live the same way for free on base.  In San Francisco itself, similar living conditions surely ran over $1,500 a month.  ::)

Little weird historical note.  The Walter Reed Medical Center has Civil War Union General Daniel Sickles leg bone on display.  :P



After the war, he used to go to visit his leg.  ???




Cat

After the war, he used to go to visit his leg.  ???




Cat


Well this was the first man ever to use the Insanity Plea correctly in a court of law.  I'm guessing the amputee ghost pain was a bit too much for him.

Well this was the first man ever to use the Insanity Plea correctly in a court of law.  I'm guessing the amputee ghost pain was a bit too much for him.


Sickles!!!  Man he was one for the books, shot his wifes lover(though he had lots) who just happened to be the son of Francis Scott Key, went to London and was presented to Queen Victoria, but instead of bringing his wife brought a prostitute(though the queen and co didn't know that)  Lost his leg at Gettysburg after disobeying orders and, rumor has it, have had an affair with Queen Isabella II of Spain. 

Horrible conditions for the military is "par for the course", and it never gets much attention.  Oh, it is getting some now, but that will eventually die down.  I bet that within 3 months, nobody will care anymore.  And within 6 months, people will have totally forgotten what it was all about.




Yeah, I remember when the closed Fort Devens (MA) and Pease Air Force base (NH). 

They even changed the signs on Rte. 2 from "Fort Devens" to just "Devens."

The complaint I'm hearing against the government now is they always seem to be able to allocate scads of money to weapons contractors in the private sector, but leave services for soldiers and vets at a bare minimum.  I knew a bunch of bases closed since the '80s.  I didn't know it was quite so many.  So now that we're in the biggest conlict since Vietnam, the lack of infrastructure hurts like hell.  I don't know that people will just forget about it in six months because there will be a tsunami of personnel returning. 

"I decide, I'm the decider!"
--George Bush 

I mean, is it any wonder the citizens get the impression the executive branch is running this war?  It seems to me the Congress handed the car keys over to the executive branch in 2002, and the Republican congress wasn't going to say NO to anything.  Now that the Dems are making overtures toward scaling back the war, they're being charged with undermining our troops and emboldening our enemy....

I knew when I started this thread that W Reed was an army hospital, and not part of the VA, but there certainly is a link between how we treat (pun intended) our returning injured troops and the way we treat our vets.  There should be a seamless transition from excellant care for wounded troops into excellant care for them as vets.

And yes, Congress appropriates $$$ for both the Pentagon (w. Reed) and the VA, but it is the president who requests the funding.  Both my new Congressman, Peter Welsh, and my new Senator, Bernie Sanders, and demanding increased funding for the VA and investigations into what some have called systemic problems at military hospitals.  If Li'l Georgie really cared he would be demanding accountability from the Pentagon and requesting big increases for the VA. but he is silent on both fronts.

I totally agree with ya Carlos.

The complaint I'm hearing against the government now is they always seem to be able to allocate scads of money to weapons contractors in the private sector, but leave services for soldiers and vets at a bare minimum.   I knew a bunch of bases closed since the '80s.  I didn't know it was quite so many.  So now that we're in the biggest conlict since Vietnam, the lack of infrastructure hurts like hell.  I don't know that people will just forget about it in six months because there will be a tsunami of personnel returning. 


And like I said, this is nothing new.

Contracts for equipment is normally for several years.  Contracts for new housing is only a few months to a year.  So if a contract is going to be cut, which one gets the axe?  Why, the one with the lowest penalty of course.  And of course it is a circular arguement.  Without the equipment, what will the Soldiers do?  Sit around in the barracks, cause there are no tanks or aircraft to maintain?

I have long been an opponant of "Base Closure".  I was against it in the 1980's, and again in the 1990's.  I am against it today.  And most people really have no idea how badly we have hurt ourselves by the closures of the last 15 years.  Every naval base between San Diego and Northern Washington has been closed.  The structures have been demolished, and the land turned over to "Civilian use".  Even Terminal Island was closed, the only Naval Base to show a profit (it made billions of dollars a year working not only on US Naval vessels, but on civilian and Foreign Navy vessils as well).

And this land will never be returned.  If someday WWIII ever broke out, we have nothing to protect the central part of the US West Coast.  Because not only are the Naval bases gone, but so are the Army and Air Force bases.  If these had been simply "mothballed" as was done in the past, they could have been reactivated if the need arose.

And the "Tsunami" that you mention would be short-term.  Any time there is a mass-transfer of personel, you end up with a vacuume in one area, and a surplus of troops in another.  In 1990, Camp Lejeune went from a bustling Marine base to a Ghost Town almost overnight.  This is because the majority of Marines were suddenly sent to Saudi Arabia, where they had the reverse problem of suddenly having to find homes for tens of thousands of personnel.  People were brought in to take their place, and it then bloated up again in 1991 when they came back.  But within 5 months, they were back to the level they were at the year before.


I knew when I started this thread that W Reed was an army hospital, and not part of the VA, but there certainly is a link between how we treat (pun intended) our returning injured troops and the way we treat our vets.  There should be a seamless transition from excellant care for wounded troops into excellant care for them as vets.

And yes, Congress appropriates $$$ for both the Pentagon (w. Reed) and the VA, but it is the president who requests the funding.  Both my new Congressman, Peter Welsh, and my new Senator, Bernie Sanders, and demanding increased funding for the VA and investigations into what some have called systemic problems at military hospitals.  If Li'l Georgie really cared he would be demanding accountability from the Pentagon and requesting big increases for the VA. but he is silent on both fronts.


This mostly boils down to one word:  Budget.

Hey, I know the VA sucks.  But where is the money going to come from to fix it?  Are we going to cut funding to HUD?  H&HS?  Education?  Homeland Security?  EPA?  SSA?  Because if we increase the Department of Veterans Affairs, the money has to come from somewhere.

The VA has the smallest "constituancy" of any Cabinet Level post.  That is why they get the proverbial "dirty end of the stick".  If the budget was cut from SSA, could you imagine the screams from AARP and everybody else?  If Education was cut, then they would be saying that they were taking money away from children.  And the same goes for every other branch and department of Government.

And if we cut the budget for the Military, we do it at the expense of those who are now in uniform.  As much as I would like to see VA funding increased, I would not do it at the expense of those who are currently in harms way.  I would gladly deal with the care I have now (none), if it means that the people in uniform now are better taken care of.

And remember, the President only makes guidelines.  In reality, Congress has never paid much attention to what the President wants.  And don't forget, his budget proposal starts with a "wish list" from Congress, and they oversee it while it is made.  If the President made a budget that killed a lot of the pork projects and dumped it all into the VA, we all know that the VA would soon be cut to the bone.  This is because nobody in Congress wants their little "pork projects" cut.  How else will they get highways and the like named after them?

Everybody wants more money.  We can see it in here, by looking through the posts people make in support of their favorite causes.  More money for SSI, more money for HUD, more money for Education, more money for Homeland Defense.  They want money for AIDS research, recycling, energy independence, greenhouse gasses, a more efficient Internet, free college, free health care, lower taxes, and everything else under the sun.

However, that money always has to come from somewhere else.  A lot of the early cuts for the "Health Care" pilot projects in the 1990's came from the VA.  The famous 1993 Career Education Retraining program that retrained laid off Aerospace workers came at the expense of a program of the VA, which was designed to retrain Veterans.  The budget for 2 fiscal years was blown in less then 3 months.  The result was that you had Machinsts retrained as Metal Fabricators, while Veterans who specialized in Infantry had to get minimum wage jobs, because they had no other skills, and the VA project that was in place was suddenly broke (and shortly afterwards cancelled - because the budget was so badly blown).

Yes yes yes, the money has to come from somewhere, like maybe recinding all those tax cuts to multi billionairs.

Yes yes yes, the money has to come from somewhere, like maybe recinding all those tax cuts to multi billionairs.


Then the money will go to SSA, HUD, H&HS, and a lot of "Pork Projects", because Congress simply can't stop spending.  And the VA will still get the dirty end of the stick, because they have the softest voice.  Even if milti-millionaires were taxed 80%, you might see a 1-2% increase in VA funding.  Congress would simply throw the excess money into a new cafeteria, a Congressional Suite at the Greenbriar, and a new highway between Mississippi and Alaska (to be named after some Congressman in Wyoming, who will insist it goes through his state).

BTW, welcome back Don Carlos.  Have missed our intellectual debates in here.  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/love7.gif

The only portion of government that never seems to hurt for funds is the Pentagon.

I had a feeling last November we'd see what we are seeing.  Ed Schultz was just talking about it on his radio program.  The Democrats got congress, but nothing substantial is really going to change. 

I would put my money on 2008 being a replay of 2004.

Republicans attack.  Democrats cower.  If they don't stop cowering and start kicking ass, I will--I really will--withdraw my registration.  Will the Dems care?  Of course not!
::)

The only portion of government that never seems to hurt for funds is the Pentagon.


Uhhh, is it not the Pentagon's budget that we are talking about right now?

Out of the budget for the Pentagon, the lion's share goes to things like payroll, dependent health care & education, training, and facilites (like housing, mess halls, gyms, and the like).  Weapons is in reality something like 30-35% of the actual Military budget.

In fact, last year I was looking at the budget, and the money spent on Dependent Care was actually higher then Military Payroll.  And this is the kind of thing that can't be cut, no matter what.

I'm really surprised that no one mentioned this yet.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/walter_reed_14


I find it interesting that they fired Maj. Gen. George Weightman only after working in that position 6 months-as if that is enough time to fix the problems that took a long time to create. Also, the next chapter in the saga...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070303/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/walter_reed_40


I have seen conflicting reports. Some say Secretary Francis J. Harvey was fired, too and others said that he resigned.

The plot thickens.



Cat

Uhhh, is it not the Pentagon's budget that we are talking about right now?

Out of the budget for the Pentagon, the lion's share goes to things like payroll, dependent health care & education, training, and facilites (like housing, mess halls, gyms, and the like).  Weapons is in reality something like 30-35% of the actual Military budget.

In fact, last year I was looking at the budget, and the money spent on Dependent Care was actually higher then Military Payroll.  And this is the kind of thing that can't be cut, no matter what.

Yes, that's why I said Pentagon rather than military, but never mind that now.

I don't see why it follows we should shrug at deplorable conditions for recovering combat vets because the military quarters in soldiers in crummy digs in general.

This story really pisses me off.  The members of our armed forces put their lives on the line for this country and this is how they are treated.  This country should bend over backwards for them, not forget about them.

And on a similar topic...if you have time and want to get really pissed off, read this:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17316437/site/newsweek/

I'm really surprised that no one mentioned this yet.

I find it interesting that they fired Maj. Gen. George Weightman only after working in that position 6 months-as if that is enough time to fix the problems that took a long time to create. Also, the next chapter in the saga...

I have seen conflicting reports. Some say Secretary Francis J. Harvey was fired, too and others said that he resigned.

The plot thickens.

Cat


I am not surprised.  After all, this has now become politicized.  We have both Congressional and Presidential investigations going on over this issue.

And I can tell you exactly what will happen.  Bumpkis.  Oh, WRAMC will get a few million for "Emergency Maintenance".  They may even get a few new buildings built.  And more then likely, at the expense of a new Gym for the High School on Fort Ritchie in Alaska.

And within a few months, things will simply go back to normal.

CGs are largely figureheads.  Much like an old tenured professor.  Maj. Gen. George Weightman already has his full pension.  He can retire tomorrow, and still collect over $80k a year.  And being the CG of WRAMC is the type of bone that is typically thrown to somebody for their "Twilight Command".

In reality, nobody could have fixed the problem at WRAMC.  In fact, if there was a problem at all.  I have seen TV footage of the "deplorable living conditions".  And to be honest, I laughed.  The barracks they showed were nicer then any that I lived in during my 10 year military career!

Here is the reality folks:  the military lives in horrible conditions almost every day.  However, most of them are used to it.  And their husbands and wives are used to it as well.  Why do you think so many married servicemembers choose to live off-base, even when housing is available?

And why do most single Staff NCOs and Officers choose to have a seperate "unofficial" apartment off-base?  Why, because living on-base sucks.  That has largely been the case since 1776, and it will likely be that way in 2276.  Because nobody really cares how our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Arimen live.  It is that plain and simple.  The budgets set aside for "Base Rehabilitation" are commonly targeted for other projects, like counting wild turkeys in Arkansas, or building a swimming pool for lepers in Timbuktu.  And most of the "Base Rehabilitation" projects are at least 10 years behind, because of "Budget Constraints".

So they fired a General, and the Army Secretary resigned.  And a bunch of blow-hard politicians will go around, pontification on camera, saying what a crime it all is.  And in 6 months, the same politicians will shoot down a proposal to replace a barracks on Lackland AFB, saying it is "unnessicary".  And 600 Airmen will continue to live in a building built before their grandfathers were born.

Much like they are flying planes that were flown by their grandfathers.

And life goes on.

Yes, that's why I said Pentagon rather than military, but never mind that now.

I don't see why it follows we should shrug at deplorable conditions for recovering combat vets because the military quarters in soldiers in crummy digs in general.


In general, but not always. Due to the aforementioned base closures, the military is forced to use hotels as "bases". Yes, the military is spending 1 million dollars a month to house 400 personnel at the hotel I work for right now. We have had 4-5 of these 1-month contracts per year for three years now. There will be three more groups after this one leaves.

That's 83$ a day per person, when housing here would run less than half that figure.

Of course, trying to muster 400+ people a day from private housing to a central area would be close to impossible...

In reality, nobody could have fixed the problem at WRAMC.  In fact, if there was a problem at all.  I have seen TV footage of the "deplorable living conditions".  And to be honest, I laughed.  The barracks they showed were nicer then any that I lived in during my 10 year military career!

Here is the reality folks:  the military lives in horrible conditions almost every day.  However, most of them are used to it.  And their husbands and wives are used to it as well.  Why do you think so many married servicemembers choose to live off-base, even when housing is available?


I'm not talking about housing, I'm talking about hospitals and rehab--Walter Reed, Building 18, and so forth,.  I don't know that you were ever in combat much less had two limbs and a big piece of your skull sheered off.  There's a difference between living in deplorable conditions as a healthy soldier.  It's another to be living in deplorable conditions as a wounded vet.  Aside from moldy and vermin invested quarters being bad for morale, they are are also hazardous to the fragile health of vets whose bodies have been severely compromised by injury.  These men and women are more susceptible to infection via bacteria born by air, water, and/or insect vectors.  Wounds remove a barrier of protection unwounded people have, and trauma compromises ones immune system.  It was not merely the scummy conditions.  It was negligence.  You had disabled soldiers lying in there own bodily discharge.  I'm also not convinced the hospital was not using unsterile and substandard medical instruments. 

I think you are using subterfuge, and of course, you'll deny all of this is really a problem, and the only people complaining are naive bleeding-heart liberals who know nothing about the military.
::)

Here is the latest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070306/ap_on_go_co/walter_reed_37

Here is a great article by Paul Krugman. Since his article was in the NY Times-I found another site that posted it so everyone can read it (without having to subscribe to the Times).


http://groups.google.com/group/Notmypolicy/browse_thread/thread/63aa04f234e96c30/b7212ca6f5c4f878%23b7212ca6f5c4f878


Cat

I think you are using subterfuge, and of course, you'll deny all of this is really a problem, and the only people complaining are naive bleeding-heart liberals who know nothing about the military.
::)


No, you really are missing my point Max.

What I am saying is that military always lives in "deplorable conditions", as least as far as civilians are concerned.

This is a reality.  In most cases, "Military Barracks" would be condemned if they were Civilian housing.  They are old, run-down, and frequently overcrowded.  And I do not say this is good.  However, it is the general rule.

And remember, WRAMC is in Maryland.  I know that most of the barracks in Camp Lejeune suffer from mold.  In such a humic climate, it is a constant battle.  When you have 4 people living permanently in a room smaller then your average Motel 6 room, these things are bound to happen.  But I see nobody complaining about their "deplorable living conditions".

And I am not even going to talk about what living in an "open squad bay" is like.  Imagine cramming 30-50 people in a room, roughly 30'x80'.  Maybe half the time you have office partitions seperating every 2 bunks, giving an illusion of "privacy".  Tens of thousands of our military lives like that every day.  Some of them in bases like Camp Pendleton even live in "Quanset Huts", little more then a half-circle of steel over a slab cement floor.

The main thing is though, that nobody cares.  I remember people bitching about these conditions 25 years ago, and nobody cared.  People bitched about it 15 years ago, and nobody cared.  In short, nobody cares how the military is forced to live.

And I say yet again, in 3-6 months, nobody will care again.  Congress will continue to shoot down proposals for "Base Rehabilitation".  And our military will continue to live in horrible conditions.  And I simply never see this as changing.

But do you want to know 1 base that will probably never have deplorable conditions?  Bethesda Naval Hospital.  But that is a special case, since it is the medical center that all members of Congress (and other high Government Officials) go to.  I can't see them ever living under the conditions that they make those in the military put up with.

In short, I would love to see Congress stop cutting funding, and improve the facilities at all military bases.  But I do not see that ever happening.  In short, because other then when it comes into the news (like now), nobody really gives a damn.  And they do not realize (nor care) that the living conditions at WRAMC are not an exception, but the norm in military housing.


In general, but not always. Due to the aforementioned base closures, the military is forced to use hotels as "bases". Yes, the military is spending 1 million dollars a month to house 400 personnel at the hotel I work for right now. We have had 4-5 of these 1-month contracts per year for three years now. There will be three more groups after this one leaves.

That's 83$ a day per person, when housing here would run less than half that figure.

Of course, trying to muster 400+ people a day from private housing to a central area would be close to impossible...



Odds are, these are "Transient Personel".  In other words, they are only assigned to a base for 3 months or less.  And also they are more then likely either Senior NCOS (Staff Sergeant or higher), or Officers.

A lot of bases have very little room for "Transient quarters".  And while you can take a PFC or Corporal and just stick him in a barracks, Officers and Staff NCOs expect much beter living conditions.

You see the same type of contracts at MEPS (enlistment) stations.  I know that when I first enlisted, I spent 3 days at a Hotel across the street from the LA Forum.  And when I took my enlistment physical last year, I spent 2 days in a Holiday Inn in Montgomery.

But even so, this is also fairly normal.  It is hard to get Congress to authorize $5 million to build a new barracks on a military base (and fund the $100,000 per year to maintain it).  But it is easier to get them to authorize spending in civilian hotels, because it "improves the economy" in their home districts.  In fact, I bet some politician in the area is going around saying how they got that contract, and how it improves the local economy to the tune of $1 million+ a year.

And considering what conditions are like on base, the people who live there are very grateful.

No, you really are missing my point Max.

What I am saying is that military always lives in "deplorable conditions", as least as far as civilians are concerned.


I think you're also missing HIS point.  He's not denying that "living conditions" on bases are substandard.  What he's saying (at least what I'm getting from it) is that the conditions in a hospital need to (not should) be sterile.  Unsanitary living conditions are undesirable for a healthy person....for someone who is ill or has an open wound, it is not only undesirable, it can be deadly.  Take smoking for example:  it's not healthy in any case, but it can literally kill someone with asthma or an allergy to smoke.

I think you're also missing HIS point.  He's not denying that "living conditions" on bases are substandard.  What he's saying (at least what I'm getting from it) is that the conditions in a hospital need to (not should) be sterile.  Unsanitary living conditions are undesirable for a healthy person....for someone who is ill or has an open wound, it is not only undesirable, it can be deadly.  Take smoking for example:  it's not healthy in any case, but it can literally kill someone with asthma or an allergy to smoke.


Oh I get that.  And you are right, things should be better.

But I do not expect it to ever change.  It never does.  In this case, you will have some "rock painting", and things will appear to be better.  But in the end, nothing will really change.

Oh I get that.  And you are right, things should be better.

But I do not expect it to ever change.  It never does.  In this case, you will have some "rock painting", and things will appear to be better.  But in the end, nothing will really change.
Oh, I agree....that's the sad part :(

Some dope called Washington Journal yesterday and said it would be a good rehabilitation exercise for the injured vets to "paint their own rooms."  Stephen Colbert oughta give that guy a job writing for his show!

"But, sir, both my hands got blown off and I'm blind!"
"What are you, a wuss or something?  Get to work! Move! Move! Move!"

:D

The old WWII era movies depicted military hospitals as clean, cheerful places with pretty nurses.  "Born on the Fourth of July" might have been the first movie that showed a grimy, gritty military hospital with thuggish attendents who could care less.

"But, sir, both my hands got blown off and I'm blind!"
"What are you, a wuss or something?  Get to work! Move! Move! Move!"


Actually, the vast majority of patients are actually there for other things.  At the moment, WRAMC is taking care of over 6,000 veterans on an inpatient and outpatient basis.

And the vast majority are there for the usual thing.  Apendacitis, pregnancy, accidents, and the like.  The time I spent in a military hospital was the result of a motorcycle accident (a drunk made a left turn in front of me).  Although this did occur during the first Gulf War.

In fact, the rate of injury and death in Iraq is vastly "non-combat" related.  By a roughly 3:1 ratio.  These are things like auto accidents, trips and falls, training accidents, and the normall illness that people get.

So do not think that WRAMC is full of "Combat Casualties".  The vast majority are still veterans stationed stateside, being treated for the things that normally happen.  And the same things in those comming from the "Theaters of Operation".  Routine auto accidents are still the leading cause of injury in Iraq and Afganistan.

However, if playing on the "Wounded Combat Soldier" gets them more attention, more power to them.