A 50 year plan: Military and veterans’ affairs

The Cabinet-level Department of Veterans’ Affairs is a relatively recent creation, authorized by President Reagan in 1988. What I’m going to touch on in this installment of the 50 year plan is more aligned with the direction and function of that Department than the actual global military strategy necessary during those times. Some of that I discussed in my chapter of the 50 year plan about the Long War. Insofar as the rest of military strategy goes, I subscribe to the Reagan-era doctrine of “peace through strength” with an emphasis on forward deployment. This is why I advocate not completely retreating from Iraq when our job there is through (assuming the permission of the Iraqi government of course.)

What has placed this particular facet of veterans’ affairs at the forefront is the continuing saga at the Walter Reed veterans medical complex. Building 18, a moldy, rat-infested firetrap slated to be closed in a few years, has become yet another avenue for Congressional Democrats to continue their mantra of “it’s Bush’s fault” when problems occur and need to be addressed. Yes, there are problems in the veterans’ healthcare system – but they go far beyond the bricks and mortar of decrepit facilities and even beyond the lack of oversight and maintenance that placed Building 18 in such atrocious condition. Like most Americans, I feel that veterans deserve better.

In many areas of life, veterans get preferential treatment. This dates back to Revolutionary War days when pensions for war veterans and land grants were established. Sponsored medical care for disabled veterans also dates back close to two centuries. Outside the realm of financial and medical care, the original GI Bill enabled World War II veterans to buy homes and helped pave the way toward the postwar prosperity of the 1950’s. The neighborhood I live in is among the thousands that were created during this era, with reasonably-sized homes built for newly financially empowered veterans and their young families.

As things stand now, there are a great number of benefits to joining the military, including recruitment bonuses and college assistance. Beyond service years, veterans get assistance in job training, finding housing, preference for civil service work, and many other benefits not generally available to those who chose not to serve in the military. (Obviously there’s a risk factor involved which makes the perks necessary.) In most cases I don’t have a problem with these and they actually benefit and supplement things available to the public at-large. Anyone can train for a different job, buy a house, or apply for a civil service job whether they served in the military or not. But only veterans, their surviving spouses, and dependents are eligible for VA medical assistance.

To me, there’s a solution that can help eliminate a lot of the government red tape that has bogged down the veterans’ health care system and created situations that allowed problems like Building 18 to fester. This solution is a two-part solution.

The first portion is to allow choice for current veterans as to the location where they’ll receive their health care. Many veterans (particularly the few WW2 and Korean War vets remaining) would probably feel most comfortable with continuing to deal with the VA health care system as it is now. But I think newer veterans should be given a choice whether they wish to continue in the VA or be given vouchers by the federal government that can be used in one of two areas:

  • Payment for care at a hospital not affiliated with the VA when required, and/or;
  • Establishing a Health Savings Account, with the high-deductable insurance policy required as part of that through a qualified private insurer.

Meanwhile, future military personnel would be given the vouchers and allowed to choose the method and delivery of health care services.

Eventually this would lead to the closing of VA facilities, but what would likely happen is that existing non-VA facilities would begin to cater to the needs of the veteran population in an effort to secure their voucher dollars. It would eliminate a situation where services are (more or less) duplicated for two separate but comingled populations: the 60 million or so people eligible for VA services of some sort and the rest of us.

Taking care of veterans through pensions, benefits, and the like is one of the few areas not specifically addressed in the Constitution where I feel the federal government has a legitimate stake in regulating day-to-day needs. It is because these men and women have sacrified in service to our country that this is so. But as Rush Limbaugh has noted, the purpose of the military is to “kill people and break things”, so having the military running a health-care system doesn’t meld well with that particular skill set.

By allowing the private sector to bring better competition to the market, it gives veterans opportunities to select the health care they feel is best for their needs, rather than the one-size-fits-all solution government bureaucracy seems to come up with.

Just as an aside, if and when Hillary Clinton tries to introduce the single-payer health system she favors, think of being housed in Building 18 – because that’s the sort of treatment we’ll all get if we put the federal government solely in charge of our health care.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.