Desperate Democrats are trying to hold down Republican gains in this November’s elections by questioning their loyalty to the nation’s veterans. 

Though taxes, spending and the economic slump have been the focus during this election year, several Republicans have piggy-backed on the small-government themes made popular by the Tea Party movement by suggesting veterans be allowed to seek a portion of their medical care through the private system. In some cases, they’ve hinted at it; in others, they’ve outright proposed it. 

Democrats are refusing to campaign on their disastrous destruction of the American Health Care system, which will eventually provide millions in government subsidies.  However, they’ve been more eager to label any Republican as heartless and irresponsible for proposing plans to “privatize” the veterans health system, if not the Department of Veterans Affairs altogether. 

The issue is front-and-center in the 17th Congressional District race in Texas, where Rep. Chet Edwards, a Democrat, is battling Republican challenger Bill Flores. 

Edwards is hammering Flores over a comment he made during a debate in January in which he rightfully said veterans would be “much better off” if they could see doctors in the private system and then have the government pay for it. 

Flores said:

Typically the care in the private sector is better than the government sector.  So they need to go into the private system. 

Flores is not backing off from his proposal. His website explains that under his plan, veterans would have a choice. The campaign said the private option could be useful for veterans who don’t live near a VA facility. 

But in August Edwards convened a press conference with local Texas veterans where he called Flores’ idea a “radical and dangerous plan that would destroy the VA health care system as we know it.” 

Edwards has issued a series of ads about the issue, including one in which Gen. Paul Funk, the former Fort Hood commander, says Flores’ plan to “privatize” veterans’ care “would hurt our nation’s veterans badly.” 

Edwards also had another ad featuring the Disabled American Veterans, an advocacy group that ludicrously claims the private sector would not want to treat ill and disabled veterans, and that lawmakers should concentrate instead on improving the VA medical system. 

In this political war, Flores has pulled out a big gun, Arizona Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, to join the fight. McCain, in an ad, called Flores a “patriotic American who’s proven he’s devoted to taking care of our veterans.” He said Flores’ proposal mirrored his. 

In Delaware, Democratic Senate nominee and former(?) bearded Marxist Chris Coons has seized on a paraphrased section of a New York Times story from last month in which Republican Christine O’Donnell said she would make health care vouchers for veterans a priority if elected. 

According to Coons, that’s a “terrible idea”:

Her voucher scheme would seriously undercut the health care provided to our veterans.

O’Donnell’s campaign held an event Friday in which she laid out her plan for veterans health benefits.

The Veterans Affairs Department budget in 2010 was $114 billion, with about $58 billion going to mandatory benefits and about $47 billion going to medical programs. Obama touted legislation in October 2009 announcing that the VA budget had increased by its highest amount in 30 years. The 2011 budget request is for $125 billion.

But, hey, we all know how efficient Government-run programs are, don’t we?  Well, maybe not:

There is a long history of  backlogs in the treatment of veterans at the VA hospitals as well as sub-standard conditions at several vets hospitals. Most recently, the VA sent letters to 1,800 veterans warning them of possible exposure to HIV during dental work at a St. Louis-area hospital.

Despite calls for reforms on several fronts, in the face of criticism from their Democratic opponents, some GOP candidates have backed down from their initial ideas for changing the system. 

Nevada Senate GOP nominee Sharron Angle suggested in a May radio interview that Veterans Affairs edge toward a private program. In the interview, she explained how her father was paying hundreds every month on prescription drugs that he couldn’t get through the VA. Asked if the government should cover those things, she said:

No, not if you’re working toward a privatized system. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has since made that a centerpiece in his campaign’s effort to cast Angle as the “extreme “candidate.   Self-realization does not seem to be one of Harry’s strong points.

He and his aides hammered Angle for months on the comment, and in an ad last month the Reid campaign accused Angle of wanting to “end the VA as we know it.” 

After steering away from the issue, Angle’s campaign directly responded to Reid’s ad, calling it “desperate and dishonest.” 

According to her campaign:

Never has Sharron Angle called for privatizing Veterans Affairs and never has Sharron called for the end of Veterans Affairs.

A similar situation happened in the Colorado Senate race between Tea Party favorite Ken Buck and incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. The liberal website ThinkProgress (think Soros)  last month released a video clip of Buck saying a private sector veterans hospital would “be better run” than a public one. In the same clip, he noted that the funding for that would “have to come from the public sector and not from the injured veteran’s pocket.” 

Bennet subsequently pulled together a group of Colorado veterans to defend the current system. 

But Buck spokesman Owen Loftus told FoxNews.com Thursday that Buck “does not want to privatize veterans’ health care.” 

Loftus would not comment on what specific changes to the system Buck might consider, but said the GOP nominee just wants to look at “everything” to see how it can be improved. 

Loftus said:

He does want to make it better for veterans. They should not have to wait in long lines.

The Democrats have a problem.  It concerns people in glass houses.  Remember?

March 10, 2009 – Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

But the proposal would be “dead on arrival” if it’s sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in “third-party collections” estimated in the 2010 budget proposal — something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under “consideration.”

“A final decision hasn’t been made yet,” he said.

 

The Democrats have a history of using our Best and Brightest as political tools.  The Clintons used them as banquet staff at White House Events, having Marines in dress blues carry trays of munchies.   For the “smartest people in the room” to be feigning concern for our veterans in the ninth hour before the biggest political massacre in American history is disingenuous and laughable.  The men and women that they are using as political tools sacrificed their health and well-being to keep us all safe and free.  They deserve the finest medical help that we can give them.  Public or private.