Talk:United States Department of Veterans Affairs/Archive 1

DVA Funding

My mother works as a nursing supervisor for a VA hospital. She sees firsthand the funding problems that the DVA has. The hospital is badly understaffed, and increasing cutbacks are not only preventing the DVA from hiring new staff but also is resulting in many neccessary parts of the hospital being closed either during off hours or permanently. For example, recently they've taken to closing the pharmacy after I believe it's 6pm on weekdays. If a patient needs a specific medicine during off hours, the nursing supervisor has to search through four different medicine cabinets scattered across the hospital looking for it, then if they can't find it, call in a pharmacist from home (one of their pharmacists lives an hour from the hospital). Long story short, if a patient codes and is in dire need of a medicine, he or she is very likely SOL. I'll try to update this with more detailed information later, but if you could write to your senators and congressmen about this issue before it gets any worse.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.87 (talk • contribs) November 21, 2005

Not sure about some of this info.

I am 20% disabled and am not charged a penny for my medical care or prescriptions (what the VA asks of my private insurer, I don't know). I receive splendid treatment at the VA Medical Center, and am grateful to them -- and to my fellow taxpayers! -- for it!

Treatment is not just based on service-related disability as in my case, it is also provided to low-income Vets. Based on nothing more than a hunch, I think these form the bulk of VA healthcare recipients.

I think this article needs to be redone completely, with more verification of information.LTUSN 10:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a service connected disability (hearing loss) rated at 0%, no compensation. My hearing aids and batteries are free, as are any services such as hearing tests. Currently, I'm living on Social Security benefits only, meaning that I'm considered to have a low enough income that I'm not charged a copay and I'm entitled to travel expenses for my visits. Back when I was still working, and before my hearing loss showed up, I used the VA, but there was a copay and no travel expenses. This doesn't belong in the article itself, but I'm putting it here because people studying the issue will (or should) check the talk page as well and it might be of help.JDZeff (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Headstones and graves

What about the headstones and graves functions of the VA? I think it needs to be expanded past the link to United States National Cemetery.

• Burial and Memorial Benefits

--evrik 14:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

History

I came here hoping to learn about the VA's turnaround, from denigrated to admired. The VA's own site certainly isn't going to offer a balanced view of it's history. But the VA's entire 76-year history only gets three little paragraphs here. Can somebody fill this out better? Tysto 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, especially detail the importance of a person's wrist size. What conceivable difference could a veteran's wrist size do with VA treatment? Does wrist size determine the quality of care that a veteran can expect to receive at a VA facility? A real question at VAs, it's not farcical or rhetorical. These are VA hospitals, the doctors aren't on active duty, they don't need to amputate everything. Wrist size is thereby unimportant, isn't it? The VA sure isn't denigrated anymore, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.157.39 (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Security breach

While not objecting to the coverage of the security breach in general, it is disproportionately covered in the article compared to the overall history of Veterans Affairs.Cander0000 22:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your comment on the United States Department of Veterans Affairs page about the laptop theft, why do you think that it is disproportionately large? It is a recent occurrence, one that could have jeopardized who knows how many veterans. And what kind of jeopardy are we talking about, just compromising credit card records? No, maybe more than that, maybe causing veterans to lose their jobs and residences. That should be avoided.

Now that we're in the electronic age, security breaches can get far worse than just stealing records out of filing cabinets. This one is worthy of comment, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.153.128 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Yes, I agree worthy of comment. In the overall scope of the topic, realize, this recent breach (on a word count basis) exceeds or roughly equals the "History", "Function" and "Organization" sections. It seems to be given undue weight. Cander0000 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the laptop theft was a terrible thing to happen. Enough cannot be said about the laxness of the VA. The word count of the veteran information contained on the laptop justifies its inclusion in this article.--76.244.163.160 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this section belongs in some other article entirely. It's no longer fresh news, and it doesn't fit in with an encyclopedia entry on the VA. Maybe it could get a single line in the history section, but certainly no more. It also reflects the Wikipedia preoccupation with all things IT-related. The extension of the Walter Reed scandal to the VA medical system is arguably much more important to the central mission of the department, but it's not mentioned here because it's not about computers.Prodes111 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've pared down the breach information a bit and took out redundancy in a way that I believe does not compromise the content. In regard to Walter Reed ... that was the Army, it has absolutely nothing to do with VA. The DoD and VA are two totally distinct entities and unless you can prove that there is some sort of ripple effect it should stay out of this article. I think we're approaching the point where we can remove the "limited" tag from the article. Comments?152.132.10.128 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No comments? I'm taking the "limited" tag out in a week unless someone objects152.132.10.128 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No dissent was voiced and I've been asking for comments for several weeks now. I took out the "limited" tag. 152.132.10.128 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of medical care - wrong

Another user had written "Medical care, which is among free U.S. services for veterans, is not among the benefits in the first screen on the agency's home page." Well yes, but in the left-hand column, "Health Care" has its very own tab, and it is listed separately -above- "Benefits." Hence my removal of a misleading statement.

(the page in question is http://www.va.gov/landing_vba.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.9.18 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Largest?

By what measure is DVA the second largest executive department? By budget, it's the fourth largest. JDS2005 (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By employee count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.23.148 (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Numbers covered

Somewhere the page should give the numbers covered: 7.8 million enrolled in the health care system, 2.9m. receiving a disability pension. See VA website here.

--JamesWim (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Question- Pentagon Equivalent of the Head of the VA?

Can anyone answer this question and add it to the page? I'd like to know more about which one person/position, (IF just one position exists,) that future VA Secretary Shinseki, will have to deal with on a day-to-day basis within the active Civilian and Military roles at the Pentagon. LP-mn (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

His coequal would be the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, since both men would be part of the Cabinet and be in the line of succession. In turn, all of VA reports to Shinseki and all of DoD reports to Gates, and then both men report to President Obama. That's how the executive branch works; the Constitution concentrates all day-to-day executive power in the President, who obviously cannot operate the entire government by himself, so he delegates power to each of the Cabinet members, and they in turn delegate downward. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated links needed

VA has updated its site. Links need to be revised on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.89.131 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Single-payer it ain't

I realize the information was cited, but the reporter in the cited article got it wrong. A single-payer system is one in which a government-run health insurance plan pays private health care providers. Wikipedia's own Single-payer health care article explicitly states that the VA isn't a single-payer system (Medicare is). The VA is closer to the British socialized medicine model, in which health care providers are themselves government employees.

I've changed to a different cite, which probably isn't ideal; anyone who knows of a better one is welcome to add it. --Jfruh (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

These numbers do not add up.

From the lede: "With a total 2009 budget of about $87.6 billion," From "Costs for Care" section: "President George W. Bush requested $38.7 billion - or 86.5% of the total Veterans Affairs budget" By my count, $38.7Bn is ~44.2% of $87.6Bn. So at least one of the above three numbers must be wrong.DewiMorgan (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Apportionments?

What are "apportionments?" Mikedelsol (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

where is the apostrophe?

Why isn't it the "Department of Veterans' Affairs"? Mikedelsol (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering, too. I checked the VA homepage, and the name appears there with no apostrophe. I think that's all the verification we need, though it might be worth a mention somewhere on the page. --Thnidu (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda

Sad wiki government propaganda.

no proper section on future plans.

present mention of plans for restructuring completely left ambiguously to hid the fact that it is failing most of those its creation was to help.

No mention that VA is fighting a media battle to hid the truth to preserve public opinion.

very little organization hierarchy offered furthers the VA,s compartmentalization policies.

VA is a cabinet level .gov no mention of the current administrations policies or mission statement.

no serious data showing the actual state of anarchy that exist within the organization i.e patient complaints vs vaoig obviously myopic scoped investigation patient right violations prosecuted personal prosecutions human resources violations brake down in budget congressional committee spending , oig spending , health care spending, admin spending........

This is a white washed government prop page that only insults readers. It has been edited in ways that hasn't promoted the true values of wiki but has promoted suppression of intellectual examination of a social economic front row subject. Wiki pages build upon miss information by correcting it this page only omits it. wiki pages build upon subject matter by adopting opinion and rhetoric into section and applied information by proving or disproving intellectually this page just is pearly intellectual subduction of reality for propaganda sakes.

Im Jade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.187.205 (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Benefits

The information in the Benefits section is

A. Too small - It over-simplifies the complexities of the VA benefits system into a list.

B. Incomplete -

1. Does not discuss the current, ongoing VA benefit claims backlog.

2. History of benefits

3. Budget for benefits

C. Biased - "The VA currently breaks down benefits in an easy to understand benefits booklet." Since when is an entire booklet (of which I have a copy for 2013) consisting of more than 170 pages "easy to understand"? I agree, in part, with Im Jade's assessment of this being propaganda-like.

Given this, the entire section should either be completely deleted or rewritten.

Conchaga (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sad that the number one story about veterans affairs the medical corruption and miss management that has plagued the institution that is charged with taking care of those that stud up has been omitted several times. no attempted has been made to defend or bring even a hint of literation to this obviously inadequacy. medication over prescribe, under prescribed, miss prescribed, unqualified doctors, no continuity in healthcare , little if any pear oversight, wasteful congressional spending , conflict of interest well documented and well deserving to be written about but omitted and deleted without even an hint of ornate educated concern. make one thing who is writing this and who is editing it. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.187.141 (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical statistics

It would be interesting to have basic historical numbers on budget and number of service members served each year. From a public policy perspective, it would also be interesting to see charts on the benefit claim backlog and appointment wait time over the years, if those numbers are available. -- Beland (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Related Legislation

It would be helpful if this section were updated with Public Law 113-146, The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014.

Here's one reference that I hope is of use: https://washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/113_PL_113-146.html Dick Kimball (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Subsidiary agency" for benefits is local private organization

In § Benefits, the "New Opportunities" agency whose services are described at some length is actually a local private agency, "New Opportunities Inc. of CT (Connecticut)", that also serves non-veterans over 55, and only in a small area of the state, "Greater Waterbury and Greater Torrington depending on volunteer availability" according to the web page. This information is therefore irrelevant and useless to the vast majority of US veterans and other interested readers. I have deleted it, leaving a link to the web page as an example, which reduces the word count from ~311 to ~61. Now it would benefit (ha!) from valid general information about veterans' benefits.

Linking to this comment from WikiProject United States and WikiProject Military history.

--Thnidu (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How many employees?

There are three statements in the article that directly contradict each other in regards to the number of employees the VA employs.

In the lead section, it says: "With a total 2009 budget of about $87.6 billion, [the] VA employs nearly 345,000 people..." whereas in the Labor Force section, it states: "The VA employs nearly 280,000 people who serve 21.6 million U.S. veterans.^{[citation needed]}" The infobox in the article says that the VA employs 312,841 people as of 2013.

Only one of these could be true, so which one? Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I corrected these errors (diff). Thanks for the heads up Radioactive Pixie Dust. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014

Add “Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection” paragraph?

I suggest to add a paragraph about the “Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection”? A significant amount of veterans and VA employees were affected by it. How about the draft paragraph below? With both media and official sources.

In response, on April 27, 2017 President Trump signed executive order 13793. Which is titled VA “Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection” Act. To ensure that veterans receive the highest level of services, and that all VA whistleblower employees are protected against retaliation if they come forth and expose alleged wrongdoing. On November 11, 2017 Vice President Pence stated that the successful Act resulted so far in over 1,500 employees fired or suspended for negligent behavior.

References

Francewhoa (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Would need better sourcing - independent of the white house. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog - needs far stronger sourcing, not just press releases from the White House and one random op-ed from The Hill. Neutrality^talk 07:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog and Neutrality, although I did edit the sentence slightly to: "In response, on April 27, 2017 President Trump signed an executive order creating an Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection." The EO number is not needed in the body of the article, and the gist of the order--the creation of the new Office--should be in the body.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912150824/http://www.va.gov/landing_vba.htm to http://www.va.gov/landing_vba.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)