Discussion for article #223311
I could not agree more with this editorial. It drives me crazy that when something in government goes wrong, the reflex action of Washington (politicians and pundits both) seems to be to call for someone to be fired. It doesn’t matter whether that person had anything to do with the cause of the problem, you are just supposed to start firing people immediately. Investigating to discover the source of the problem is dismissed as wimpy and a waste of time.
Even if Shinseki bears some of the blame in this, Burke is absolutely right that it may not be the best thing to do to fire him now. I would imagine the continuity consideration was one of the reasons Obama retained Kathleen Sibelius at HHS until after the problems that surfaced during the signup period on the exchanges had been put to bed.
And while I agree that the larger problem here is almost certainly systemic, I do fault Shinseki for setting performance standards without being sure that actually meeting those standards was a good possibility. But that’s part of the overall corporate-think abroad in large organizations today. It demands the setting of goals and never questions whether the goals actually make any sense or are reasonably achievable. That’s part of the problem that NCLB has run into. Somehow, people were surprised to discover several years down the road that having 100% of all of the children in a school performing up to grade level was just not a reasonable possibility without cooking the books.
8 Likes
If I may be serious for a moment, is there any news website (or even nonprofit organization) that consistently monitors federal (and even state) government efficiency across the board, that is an honest broker on the extent that administrations and legislatures are capable, that scorecards performance? And, when reforms are made, is there any news website that, say, a year later reviews the extent to which government action has resolved the original government-related problem (such as actions taken after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010)? Is there anyone interested in following government efficiency the way sports fans follow teams? I would welcome your suggestions for links. Thank you.
1 Like
All of this presumes that the primary goal, or really a goal at all here is to improve the VA. If the goals were to, say, score cheap political points and perhaps privatize the VA system to add some tasty, tasty profit for some lucky companies, then pushing for a resignation is absolutely the way to go. You get a “head” to rally the troops, guaranteed fun in any confirmation hearings where we get some prime grandstanding opportunities, and all the while the dysfunction at the VA continues since you have a leadership vacuum at the top.
3 Likes
Sounds like the fundamental problem was the 14-day standard for an appointment. Given the resources apparently available and the number of veterans seeking appointments that standard obviously was unrealistic. Who set that standard and why? Was it arbitrary? Was it calculated to be an ideal? To stave off congressional critics? To placate veterans organizations?
If there were no numerical standard but a standard of ASAP and data showed that long wait times were the custom, then there would be no incentives to cheat and every incentive to accurately diagnose what problems were causing long wait times and then address those problems.
If one problem – or THE problem – was lack of resources, then that problem could be laid at the feet of Congress. Congress could avoid blame, of course, by holding hearings and identifying credible cases of waste and insisting that the VA manage its money better. But that’s not happening. So the VA evidently simply set an unrealistic 14-day standard and is now being hoist by its own petard.
1 Like
It makes me angry to hear the blowhards in Congress calling for Shinseki’s resignation—as if that will solve all the problems that Congress has been unwilling to deal with for at least 15 years. General Shinseki has served honorably, which is more that I can say for most of the congressmen that have been polluting the airways on this topic (Eric Cantor?) By dishonorable service, I am referring to their service to the people of the US; I’m not even thinking about their military service. or lack of it. Thanks for printing Ms. Burke’s sensible discussion.
2 Likes
Sacking Shinseki will only make matters worse. First it give the illusion that something is being done when infact it will delay the needed changes. Second, finding his replacement will creat a political circus we have not seen in decades especially during a election year. Even some sensible members have got up on their back leg and have started braying for his removal.
Lose-Lose!
3 Likes
“…Shinseki is not the problem…”
No, but firing him will go a long way toward bolstering the Republican’s Iraq myth.
1 Like
In 1994 I had a quadriplegic veteran friend Andrew. My wife and I were his landlords and lived above him.
I can not tell you how many times he was treated like human garbage by the VA down in Menlo Park CA area. They would come 5 hours late to bring him home in para vans and many other things. Just to put it in perspective, his sister was a U.S. attorney in S.F. (like Chris Christie used to be before NJ Governor)on many separate occasions she would call and get the top guy in the building to talk to her. She would threaten him personally with either a criminal and/or a civil lawsuit, she was not kidding. It had no effect on how Andrew was treated or his wait times for the van.
I saw on the news that Gen. Shinseki has no power to even FIRE people in the VA! If Andrews sister had 0 effect on his treatment how can we expect Shinseki to fix a organization which teaches you how to cheat, as a part of your training!
We need to go to war on this problem, step 1 offer to pay off any new doctors student loans who work at the VA for 10 years.
Most frustrating is that Andrew my friend got the best care when he finally got into that hospital. Regular doctors in the area did not know shit about working with a guy with his problems.
Please call your congressman or Senator so we can make it universally understood we support the troops, even with lots of money.
3 Likes
I concur with nearly everything this piece touches on. And the knee-jerk calls of the Secretary to resign are almost entirely born out of political posturing, positioning for purely political point scoring or playing political prevent defense. And I point at numerous people as reported in the media who have made such calls, both Democratic and Republican.
3 Likes
I am not aware of any I could point you to (though there may be some). This actually touches some aspects of a pet-project I have been noodling (and tinkering on) for a little over two years now, which I may be looking for individuals in online communities like the one here at TPM to participate in in the not too distant future.
(ping me if anyone is mildly curious)
1 Like
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html
This is not the same VA as 1994. The is not about the quality of care but the access to care. The VA is facing a double whammy a million plus Iraq and Afghanistan vet and a huge influx Viet Nam vet retiring. In spite of this the VA has been improving care steadily .
1 Like
There is no constraint other than policial for there to be insufficient funding for Veteran’s medical needs … from computerized records to any medical procedure, medication, service of any kind, etc. Funding is not a problem for a nation issuing its own currency and borrowing in its own currency.
Because Congress and the Administration believe the lie that a nation issuing its own currency can run out of that currency, there will always be a significant shortfall in funding to serve public purpose. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_778.pdf
We are no longer bound by gold standard principles. They were abandoned 43 years ago and yet our elected nitwits continue to impose upon us debt ceiling nonsense.
Leon Panetta had it right, as do most people who understand modern economics; a monetarily sovereign government can afford to spend until the economy reaches full employment. His former colleagues need to understand monetary sovereignty which will make them economic geniuses.
1 Like
This VA thing has been going on for 40 years. The VA was bad when I got out and it still is but thats because it’s a political tool for mostly Republicans. Firing this general isn’t going to fix a thing. It’s a political ploy to tell the dumb ass voters who believe their politicians when he tells them he did something.
Voter apathy and in bread ignorance won’t fix the VA and won’t fix congress.
1 Like
So why doesn’t that result in the politicians that created/caused the problem to get fired? When it even looks like they’re the real problem??
2 Likes
Firing Shinseki, a tired 71-year-old with too much respect for the chain of command to do what needs to be done, would establish accountability. The professor blames the system. That’s a mistake. The system is made up of people, and is administered by people. If the man at the top is not held accountable for the sins of the system, no one will be held accountable, and nothing will change. The sinners won’t fear the head honcho, and the safety first careerists who might favor reform will have no incentive to step forward and do their duty.
The best solution, of course, is an everyone covered for everything from cradle to grave federal single payer system financed by progressive taxes, but until that Happy Day arrives, the VA needs a vigorous shake-up. Fire Shinseki. Replace him with a younger, two fisted bureaucratic brawler who will knock heads and bust up the complacency that’s at the bottom of this.
If Obama lets Shinseki stay, he blesses the status quo.
I think the root cause of long wait times is clearly too few resources chasing too many wounded. General Shinseki is uniquely qualified to testify both points, before Republicans who won’t want to hear it.
1 Like
All the estimates of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan said that the VA would need roughly $50 billion a year in additional funding ($2 trillion = 50 billion a year x 40 years) to cope with the casualties and the long-term damage to nominally-uninjured personnel. Have we seen that $50 billion a year? Nerp.
Some of us may recall that just this spring the GOP filibustered a bill to add a temporary increase of half that amount to the VA budget.
3 Likes
And who would you bring in that could be brought up to speed immediately that could fix a problem that starts in Congress, and then works it’s way through bureaucracy filled with folks that cannot be fired and more patients, thanks to two never ending wars, than it can handle?
2 Likes