Trump, Clinton and Lauer: Military Pandering
It was appalling to watch the candidates pander to the military during their Military Forum and it is asserted here that consumers need to draw a line, between recognition and support of our military federal employees and the obscenely immoral pandering to one group over the rest of America's citizens.
The questions that SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED:
1- GIVEN THAT TODAY WE HAVE A VOLUNTARY MILITARY, SHOULD WE BE REWARDING THAT EMPLOYENT AND OTHER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR PERKS AND SECURITIES UNAVAILABLE TO OTHER AMERICANS SUCH AS JOB SECURITY, PENSIONS, FREE HEALTH INSURANCE AND OFTENTIMES FREE HEALTH CARE, FREE EDUCATIONAL AND PREFERENTIAL EMPLOYMENT TREATMENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR?
In an age where we're slashing food stamps, unemployment benefits, pensions, health benefits and Medicare and Medicaid are always on the chopping block, as entitlements, it's old-fashioned and overdue to omit adjusting federal government treatment of federal employees at taxpayer expense and to largely omit veterans' benefits from the "entitlement" hit list.
“The government provides its employees with a first-class benefits package. In fact, studies conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that the gap concerning benefits between the private and public sectors has been growing-in favor of the public sector,” http://gogovernment.org/government_101/benefits.php. This is according to the government.
During their forum both candidates were asked what they'd do, what more they'd do for veterans. Specifically the suicide rate among veterans left a very serious question unanswered:
2-MS. CLINTON, YOUR GUN CONTROL PLANS INCLUDE ERODING DR. PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY BY ENCOURAGING MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS TO INFORM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABOUT THEIR PATIENTS' SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING GUN PERMITS.
HOW WOULD THE CLINTON GUN CONTROL POLICY APPLY TO THOSE VETERANS WITH DOCUMENTED SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS AND WHO ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS IN THE FORM OF DISABILILTY COMPLY WITH YOUR MENTAL HEALTH POLICY?
DOES YOUR PLAN INCLUDE AUTOMATIC FORFEITURE OF WEAPONS AND INELIGIBILTY TO ACQUIRE MORE WEAPONS AS PART OF YOUR KEEPING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL, OR ARE MENTALLY ILL SOLDIERS, RECEIVING FUNDING FROM TAXPAYERS FOR THEIR DISABILITY HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD WHEN IT COMES TO GUN OWNERSHIP?
The question for Mr. Trump, who addressed wait times and was outraged that veterans sometimes have to wait five days to see a provider under their totally free entitlement health benefits leaves another serious question for consumers. Mr. Trump lamented: "They’re waiting five days and six days," and a moment later, "…when you’re waiting in line for six, seven days, you should never be in a position like that. You go out, you see the doctor, you get yourself taken care of."
3-MR. TRUMP YOU HAVE TWICE STATED THAT FIVE DAYS IS TOO LONG FOR A VETERAN RECEIVING FREE HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO WAIT TO SEE A PROVIDER. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE 'REASONABLE' WAIT TIME TO SEE A PROVIDER SHOULD BE UP TO FIVE DAYS AND NO LONGER' AND IF SO ARE YOU RECOMMENDING AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE TO THE STANDARDS SET OUT BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT ALL PLANS DEFINE 'REASONALBE' IN THAT WAY OR THAT CONSUMERS TOO CAN GO SEE ANY PROVIDER AND HAVE THE SERVICES COVERED?
After all, if five days' wait is too long, if that's the standard, then Obamacare should now require all qualified health plans to provide that definition of "reasonable wait times," is FEWERE THAN FIVE DAYS, otherwise, not only are military personnel getting free healthcare for life as an entitlement paid for with our tax dollars, but they're getting SUPERIOR benefits.
4-Another question unasked and unanswered: BOTH CANDIDATES DISCUSS INCREASED PREFERENCES IN HIRING FOR VETERANS OVER THE REST OF THE POPULATION, SINCE VETERAN UNEMPLOYMENT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN OTHER UNEMPLOYED GROUPS, SUCH AS YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT WHICH STANDS AT 11.4 percent VERSUS THE 4.6 percent of veterans, HOW WOULD YOU EXPAND PREFERENCES SUCH AS THOSE FOR VETERAN HIRING TO OTHER GROUPS SUFFERING UNEMPLOYMENT?
(Veteran unemployment is also lower than for others in the country, "BLS estimates that 4.6 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans seeking work in October could not find employment, the lowest mark since the agency began tracking that population in 2008," http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2015/11/06/veterans-unemployment-october-2015/75286676/. In a world of scarcity where the youth unemployment rate is 11.5 percent, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm.)
Finally, two questions for Mr. Trump on illegal immigrants:
5-MR. TRUMP WHY WOULD YOU NOT REPEAL THE PRESIDENT'S 2014 CREATION OF A PROVISION ALLOWING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY? Military to allow undocumented immigrants to serve, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/25/policy-to-allow-undocumented-immigrants-in-military/16225135/.
5A-MR. TRUMP, WHY WOULD YOU ALLOW LAWBREAKING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO SERVE IN THE US MILITARY AND BE EXEMPT FROM YOUR DEPORTATION POLICY? After all, Mr. Trump illogically asserted: "If they plan on serving, if they get in, I would absolutely hold those people — now, we have to be very careful. We have to vet very carefully. Everybody would agree with that. But the answer is, it would be a very special circumstance, yes."
For most Americans, the 21st century indicates a prime time to stop the special legislation that omits, discounts and sacrifices the majority of Americans for pet projects, special legislation and special deals. Disappointingly, modernization was absent in the obscene pandering of the candidates to the military ignoring the scarcity arguments that have been shoved down our collective citizen throats. Federal employees military and non-military must live with the laws the rest of the citizenry does.
Sadly, veterans as entitlement recipients must be part of this new America, the America where seniors have received no social security cost of living increase (three times in history all under Obama), when food stamps have been slashed (one in six Americans face hunger), when what we pay for health insurance, which we're forced to buy is more than ever in terms of an ever increasing out of pocket maximum, copays and coinsurance, deductibles on top of premiums, where unemployment benefits eligibility has been slashed.
The pandering is obscene when you look at what we're living with and it's past time for change and for modernizing federal employment removing what's gone for most Americans--job security, pay raises, rich pensions, paid-for health benefits.
The questions that SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED:
1- GIVEN THAT TODAY WE HAVE A VOLUNTARY MILITARY, SHOULD WE BE REWARDING THAT EMPLOYENT AND OTHER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR PERKS AND SECURITIES UNAVAILABLE TO OTHER AMERICANS SUCH AS JOB SECURITY, PENSIONS, FREE HEALTH INSURANCE AND OFTENTIMES FREE HEALTH CARE, FREE EDUCATIONAL AND PREFERENTIAL EMPLOYMENT TREATMENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR?
In an age where we're slashing food stamps, unemployment benefits, pensions, health benefits and Medicare and Medicaid are always on the chopping block, as entitlements, it's old-fashioned and overdue to omit adjusting federal government treatment of federal employees at taxpayer expense and to largely omit veterans' benefits from the "entitlement" hit list.
“The government provides its employees with a first-class benefits package. In fact, studies conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that the gap concerning benefits between the private and public sectors has been growing-in favor of the public sector,” http://gogovernment.org/government_101/benefits.php. This is according to the government.
During their forum both candidates were asked what they'd do, what more they'd do for veterans. Specifically the suicide rate among veterans left a very serious question unanswered:
2-MS. CLINTON, YOUR GUN CONTROL PLANS INCLUDE ERODING DR. PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY BY ENCOURAGING MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS TO INFORM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ABOUT THEIR PATIENTS' SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING GUN PERMITS.
HOW WOULD THE CLINTON GUN CONTROL POLICY APPLY TO THOSE VETERANS WITH DOCUMENTED SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS AND WHO ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS IN THE FORM OF DISABILILTY COMPLY WITH YOUR MENTAL HEALTH POLICY?
DOES YOUR PLAN INCLUDE AUTOMATIC FORFEITURE OF WEAPONS AND INELIGIBILTY TO ACQUIRE MORE WEAPONS AS PART OF YOUR KEEPING GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL, OR ARE MENTALLY ILL SOLDIERS, RECEIVING FUNDING FROM TAXPAYERS FOR THEIR DISABILITY HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD WHEN IT COMES TO GUN OWNERSHIP?
The question for Mr. Trump, who addressed wait times and was outraged that veterans sometimes have to wait five days to see a provider under their totally free entitlement health benefits leaves another serious question for consumers. Mr. Trump lamented: "They’re waiting five days and six days," and a moment later, "…when you’re waiting in line for six, seven days, you should never be in a position like that. You go out, you see the doctor, you get yourself taken care of."
3-MR. TRUMP YOU HAVE TWICE STATED THAT FIVE DAYS IS TOO LONG FOR A VETERAN RECEIVING FREE HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO WAIT TO SEE A PROVIDER. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE 'REASONABLE' WAIT TIME TO SEE A PROVIDER SHOULD BE UP TO FIVE DAYS AND NO LONGER' AND IF SO ARE YOU RECOMMENDING AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE TO THE STANDARDS SET OUT BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT THAT ALL PLANS DEFINE 'REASONALBE' IN THAT WAY OR THAT CONSUMERS TOO CAN GO SEE ANY PROVIDER AND HAVE THE SERVICES COVERED?
After all, if five days' wait is too long, if that's the standard, then Obamacare should now require all qualified health plans to provide that definition of "reasonable wait times," is FEWERE THAN FIVE DAYS, otherwise, not only are military personnel getting free healthcare for life as an entitlement paid for with our tax dollars, but they're getting SUPERIOR benefits.
4-Another question unasked and unanswered: BOTH CANDIDATES DISCUSS INCREASED PREFERENCES IN HIRING FOR VETERANS OVER THE REST OF THE POPULATION, SINCE VETERAN UNEMPLOYMENT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN OTHER UNEMPLOYED GROUPS, SUCH AS YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT WHICH STANDS AT 11.4 percent VERSUS THE 4.6 percent of veterans, HOW WOULD YOU EXPAND PREFERENCES SUCH AS THOSE FOR VETERAN HIRING TO OTHER GROUPS SUFFERING UNEMPLOYMENT?
(Veteran unemployment is also lower than for others in the country, "BLS estimates that 4.6 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan-era veterans seeking work in October could not find employment, the lowest mark since the agency began tracking that population in 2008," http://www.militarytimes.com/story/veterans/2015/11/06/veterans-unemployment-october-2015/75286676/. In a world of scarcity where the youth unemployment rate is 11.5 percent, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm.)
Finally, two questions for Mr. Trump on illegal immigrants:
5-MR. TRUMP WHY WOULD YOU NOT REPEAL THE PRESIDENT'S 2014 CREATION OF A PROVISION ALLOWING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY? Military to allow undocumented immigrants to serve, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/25/policy-to-allow-undocumented-immigrants-in-military/16225135/.
5A-MR. TRUMP, WHY WOULD YOU ALLOW LAWBREAKING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO SERVE IN THE US MILITARY AND BE EXEMPT FROM YOUR DEPORTATION POLICY? After all, Mr. Trump illogically asserted: "If they plan on serving, if they get in, I would absolutely hold those people — now, we have to be very careful. We have to vet very carefully. Everybody would agree with that. But the answer is, it would be a very special circumstance, yes."
For most Americans, the 21st century indicates a prime time to stop the special legislation that omits, discounts and sacrifices the majority of Americans for pet projects, special legislation and special deals. Disappointingly, modernization was absent in the obscene pandering of the candidates to the military ignoring the scarcity arguments that have been shoved down our collective citizen throats. Federal employees military and non-military must live with the laws the rest of the citizenry does.
Sadly, veterans as entitlement recipients must be part of this new America, the America where seniors have received no social security cost of living increase (three times in history all under Obama), when food stamps have been slashed (one in six Americans face hunger), when what we pay for health insurance, which we're forced to buy is more than ever in terms of an ever increasing out of pocket maximum, copays and coinsurance, deductibles on top of premiums, where unemployment benefits eligibility has been slashed.
The pandering is obscene when you look at what we're living with and it's past time for change and for modernizing federal employment removing what's gone for most Americans--job security, pay raises, rich pensions, paid-for health benefits.
0 Response to "Trump, Clinton and Lauer: Military Pandering"
Posting Komentar