Military Veterans who died while waiting to schedule medical appointments, what might have caused this situation.

Seems strange that there always seems to be a controversy regarding veteran medical care. During the Bush Jr. administration, squalid conditions were reported in veterans hospitals. Apparently they were then cleaned up.  

Now in Barack Obama's term, we hear reports that dozens or perhaps hundreds or maybe even thousands of veterans were delayed before being able to set an appointment. Apparently significant numbers of veterans died while waiting to either set an appointment, or to be seen after making an appointment.

I was watching David Letterman a night or two ago as he interviewed a highly decorated medal of valor when suddenly the reason hit me as to why these ongoing Veteran Medical care problems may exist. The Letterman medal of valor guest had dived on a grenade to save the soldiers around him. Mission accomplished, except for himself.

I do not recall how many surgeries this soldier went through, but it was around a 100 at the very least. Suddenly I understood the conundrum the military hospitals face on a daily basis. Intake one soldier who gave up so much, and the instinct to give them back their life as much as possible takes over.

Here is where it gets twisted. No matter how one does a military hospital budget, it may be inevitable that 2% of the patients will require 50% or more of the hospital resources. It's very difficult for that fact to be acknowledged by the bean counters and number crunchers and the result is what we get, delays for the many so the deserving few get a chance to live a semi normal life again.

Even if military hospital budgets were doubled, it still could mean that 5% of the patients require 50% of the hospital's resources, which could still mean a waiting period for others who have not been "intaked" yet.

I am very curious if the war profiteer companies ever step up and donate any of their dozens of billions of dollars in profits to help out the military hospitals in the U.S.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Is it too simplistic to correlate a solid U.S. Economy with reduced war activity?

Just going back over the past few presidencies, Is there a correlation between reduced war activity and the U.S. economy? 

Most would agree the economy was the healthiest during Bill Clinton's presidency, and for the most part, Bill Clinton stayed away from war other than the final couple of years of his presidency, and ironically, that is when his economy started to show signs of stalling.

Neither George Bush Senior or Jr. led a sustained economic growth other than having economic indicators drop so low that the rebound could be made to look like a solid economic recovery. The only perceived improvement during the Obama years seems to coincide with reduced troop sizes in war zones.

Then we have way too may wall street investment firms coming up with way too many investment schemes that add nothing to the economy but do allow them to take their cut up front. Ironically Wall Street may re-invest their undeserved profit in ways that can actually ruin the prior investment which still has to run its course, oh the irony of that.

What the media calls an improved economy and what I see as an improved economy are two different things. I see the reduction of non-renewable energy in conjunction with sustained economic activity the ideal goal. The media tends to simply view it as how much stuff got consumed and whether or not the numbers can be spun that increased consumer debt is a good thing because it is based on "consumer confidence".

Imagine if all that war money were here at home, being used for excellent health care for veterans, and perhaps several hundred thousand jobs in renewable energy creation, observation (where to place wind energy and solar cells, and installation.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

Republican Impeachment Buzzards keep U.S. imperiled.

The latest conservative impeachment talk concerns the recent five for one prisoner trade with the taliban. Isn't it possible the five for one trade was tied into the upcoming reduction of american troops from Afghanistan? Is it possible the purpose of the prisoner trade was to warn the Taliban via their own returned prisoners that lower american troop totals in Afghanistan could mean more aggressive air and drone attacks, not less?

I don't pretend to know, but isn't it possible that whenever prisoner "trades" are made it is to further some type of line of communication that may benefit all in the future? It's possible right? 

If so, then why is it acceptable for republican blowhard politicians to immediately undermine any military move made by the present democrat administration? The automatic and instant undermining of the administrations actions is the very definition of a terrorist, no?

Maybe if the Republicans weren't still diverting much needed attention elsewhere back to Benghazi, they would have been included in the hostage discussion before it happened. Clearly Republican politicians have become so untrustworthy the president can't confide in them on most issues, and that is the real story behind Benghazi and the five for one prison trade.

And this repetitive cycle just means the next important issue in which republican politicians should be consulted with, will be the next important issue in which they are not consulted with. And the non-visionary republican politicians seem to like it that way since they can simply stay on the sidelines, have no real perspective, then bitch and moan whenever President Obama makes a military decision.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.