O'Reilly inconsistent on role of government in addressing vets' homelessness
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly took inconsistent positions during the January 17 edition of The O'Reilly Factor on the role of the government in addressing the problem of homelessness among veterans, highlighted by John Edwards. O'Reilly said, "Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it's not because of the economy. It's mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about." But when National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse president Joseph Califano later told O'Reilly that "the real tragedy here is most of those veterans have had combat experience that are suffering from drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems. And we are not taking care of them," O'Reilly replied: "And that is something that should be addressed."
While again attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for his reference to the approximately 200,000 U.S. military veterans who are homeless, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly took inconsistent positions during the January 17 edition of The O'Reilly Factor on the role of the government in addressing the problem of homelessness among military veterans, which Edwards highlighted. After acknowledging that a previous comment that "we will pay for homeless veterans to be taken to the Edwards mansion in North Carolina for shelter" was "an immature remark," O'Reilly added: "[B]ut there's a reason I'm saying it. Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it's not because of the economy. It's mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about." Yet moments later, when National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse president Joseph Califano told O'Reilly that "the real tragedy here is most of those veterans have had combat experience that are suffering from drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems. And we are not taking care of them," O'Reilly replied: "And that is something that should be addressed."
When Califano added that the "Veterans Administration spends about half a billion dollars a year in substance abuse treatment and methadone maintenance for the heroin addicts. But that's not enough," O'Reilly replied: "Nobody is arguing that, Mr. Califano." Funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs is appropriated by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the president.
From the January 17 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, I've said on this program that we will pay for homeless veterans to be taken to the Edwards mansion in North Carolina for shelter. Of course, that's an immature remark, I know that, but there's a reason I'm saying it. Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it's not because of the economy. It's mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about. But if Edwards admits the truth, it takes away the class warfare issue, which is his only issue.
[...]
CALIFANO: Now one fact, a very important fact about the veterans. I mean, the veterans are -- the real tragedy here is most of those veterans have had combat experience that are suffering from drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems. And we are not taking care of them.
O'REILLY: And that is something that should be addressed.
CALIFANO: The Veterans Administration spends about half a billion dollars a year in substance abuse treatment and methadone maintenance for the heroin addicts. But that's not enough.
O'REILLY: OK.
CALIFANO: And it's not a --
O'REILLY: Nobody is arguing that, Mr. Califano.
CALIFANO: OK.
O'REILLY: What we're arguing about is this is being demagogued by a guy who's trying to put up a phony scenario, Ms. Beversdorf, that it's poverty driving the people who are in trouble out on the street. It isn't poverty. It is, as Mr. Califano defined, abuse of substance and mental health problems, which I think everyone agrees, particularly with combat veterans, should be addressed in a very urgent and aggressive way. But that's not what Edwards is saying, madam.
O'Reilly also declared that Edwards was "lying" and "demagogu[ing]" the issue of homeless veterans by "trying to put up a phony scenario ... that it's poverty driving the people who are in trouble out on the street. It isn't poverty. It is, as Mr. Califano defined, abuse of substance and mental health problems, which I think everyone agrees, particularly with combat veterans, should be addressed in a very urgent and aggressive way. But that's not what Edwards is saying." Later, during the weekly "Dhue Point" segment with Fox News contributor Laurie Dhue, O'Reilly responded to criticism that he is "too hard on" and "mean" to Edwards, asserting: "I hope I'm not mean to him, but I mean, the guy is just distorting stuff like crazy. I don't know how else to handle it." O'Reilly asked Dhue: "So how would you handle it?" Dhue replied: "Well, here's what you've called him. OK? I would not call him the following, which you have called him: phony; a liar; self-indulgent, a pinhead -- your favorite; a charlatan, which you did tonight; a crazed ideologue and a loon, and then you said he doesn't have a clue." Dhue later added: "Well, listen, I mean, you're over -- I mean, you can't call him this stuff."
As Media Matters for America has documented, in response to Edwards' January 3 claim that "200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates," O'Reilly declared the next day that Edwards "has no clue" and added: "I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe." O'Reilly returned to the subject during a January 15 O'Reilly Factor discussion with radio host Ed Schultz, stating: "[W]e're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. ... They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK? So if you know where one is, Ed ... if you know where there's a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it, is not there."
From the January 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: John Edwards says he can stop that immorality. He says it's about the economy. He is not telling the truth.
[...]
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. More dishonesty in politics and in the media, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
In just a few moments, we'll analyze a front page New York Times story that says combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan are committing murders here in the USA at an alarming rate. Sounds dire, doesn't it? Stay tuned.
But first, let's look at our pal John Edwards, who's running for president. Edwards contends there are two Americas, one for the rich and the other for everybody else, and that everybody else is getting hosed. The fix is in, the economy's rigged. "Talking Points" doesn't believe that. Of course the rich do have advantages, but I am living proof that you can start with very little and prosper economically if you work hard and keep it honest. To hype up this class warfare, Edwards is now bringing in homeless veterans.
EDWARDS [video clip]: Tonight, across this country, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform and can serve this country patriotically, veterans, will go to sleep under bridges and on grates.
O'REILLY: Now, I've said on this program that we will pay for homeless veterans to be taken to the Edwards mansion in North Carolina for shelter. Of course, that's an immature remark, I know that, but there's a reason I'm saying it. Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it's not because of the economy. It's mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about. But if Edwards admits the truth, it takes away the class warfare issue, which is his only issue. My criticism of Edwards has reached his own ears.
EDWARDS [video clip]: I heard that last night Bill O'Reilly, who's a talk show host, just heard that I had said this about hundreds of thousands of veterans who don't have a place to live and were homeless. And he challenged me about whether that's true or not, whether in fact we have that many veterans who don't have a place to live, and some of them are sleeping under bridges. Well, he ought to start by coming to Las Vegas.
O'REILLY: Fine. Here's the truth about poverty in America, Mr. Edwards. Listen up. You might learn something. And you need the lesson.
If you earn less than $10,000, you are poor. If a family of four earns less than $21,000, they are poor. Yet according to the government census, poor households in America have lots of stuff: 97 percent have a color TV, 78 percent a DVD player, 80 percent an air conditioner, 73 percent a car or truck, 63 percent cable or satellite TV, and 43 percent of poor households in the USA own the home they are living in.
So if the poor are not destitute in America, and they obviously are not, why are so many veterans sleeping under bridges, John Edwards? The answer again: They're mostly addicted or mentally ill. It has nothing to do with the economy.
Edwards is a charlatan, a man either too uninformed or too dishonest to be elected to anything. I am tired of hearing this nonsense from him and other callow politicians. We deal with facts here on The Factor, not fiction. John Edwards owes us an apology. And that's the "Memo."
Now for the top story tonight, reaction to this. Joining us from Washington, Cheryl Beversdorf, the CEO of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Here in New York City, our pal Joseph Califano, the president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, and author of the very fine book High Society: How Substance Abuse Ravages America and What to Do About It. All right, am I out of line here?
CALIFANO: Without dealing with Edwards directly at this point --
O'REILLY: Oh, you're a Democrat. You don't want to -- aw, look at this --
CALIFANO: Now, wait a minute. But let me give you the facts on substance abuse. Our work and most of the research will show that about 90 percent of the homeless in this country have drug problems or alcohol problems or both. And most of those people also have mental health problems of one kind of another --
O'REILLY: OK, so that includes the veterans, too.
CALIFANO: The veterans -- the veterans -- we have 200,000 veterans who are homeless.
O'REILLY: Right.
CALIFANO: We have about 754,000 people who are out on the streets on any given night in the United States.
O'REILLY: OK, so 90 percent, you're saying.
CALIFANO: Now one fact, a very important fact about the veterans. I mean, the veterans are -- the real tragedy here is most of those veterans have had combat experience that are suffering from drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems. And we are not taking care of them.
O'REILLY: And that is something that should be addressed.
CALIFANO: The Veterans Administration spends about half a billion dollars a year in substance abuse treatment and methadone maintenance for the heroin addicts. But that's not enough.
O'REILLY: OK.
CALIFANO: And it's not a holistic kind of treatment --
O'REILLY: Nobody is arguing that, Mr. Califano.
CALIFANO: OK.
O'REILLY: What we're arguing about is this is being demagogued by a guy who's trying to put up a phony scenario, Ms. Beversdorf, that it's poverty driving the people who are in trouble out on the street. It isn't poverty. It is, as Mr. Califano defined, abuse of substance and mental health problems, which I think everyone agrees, particularly with combat veterans, should be addressed in a very urgent and aggressive way. But that's not what Edwards is saying, madam.
BEVERSDORF: Well, I think that's true. I mean, there's a number of things that I want to comment on. First of all, using the figure of 200,000, I keep hearing about the fact that they're on the street. A homeless veteran may not necessarily be on the street. A homeless veteran could be in a community-based organization, which is the kinds of organizations that we represent, that provide supportive services and housing for these individuals. They could be living with relatives. They could be --
O'REILLY: OK, but that's not what John Edwards is saying. He's clearly saying they're on the street.
BEVERSDORF: Well --
O'REILLY: Nobody will help them. The reason it is because the economy's terrible, because the rich people are taking stuff. We have a military analyst named Colonel David Hunt. He works with veterans who are in trouble up in Boston. And just as you said -- just as you said, madam -- there are places for them to go. There are services. We know they need more.
But here's what I want to get into with both of you. And I know you don't want to assassinate any characters, Joe. I know that. But this is wrong for a major presidential candidate to demagogue this issue and try to tell the people it's America's economic system that's causing this problem. It's a lie, it's wrong, he should be called on it. And the resources should be put into the -- where you want them to try to make these people better.
CALIFANO: That's where the resources should go, but this is not the only issue that happens to, Bill. Let me just make -- there's -- there is enormous denial about this.
O'REILLY: By whom? I'm not in denial. I don't think any --
CALIFANO: No, no, no. Wait a minute. They talk about crime, they're going to do something about crime. They're going to do something about -- all right, most of the crime in this country is related to drugs and alcohol.
O'REILLY: Yeah. Seventy-five percent.
CALIFANO: OK. Number two, they talk about teen pregnancy, they talk about child abuse --
O'REILLY: Same thing.
CALIFANO: Yeah, but that's not the way the politicians talk about it.
O'REILLY: Because if you do that, then you put the onus on individual behavior. And they don't want to do that. It's America's fault that the veterans are there. They don't want to do the individual behavior. You know that, Joe.
CALIFANO: I -- well, they don't want -- they don't want to -- they don't recognize that substance abuse --
O'REILLY: They recognize --
CALIFANO: -- drives all our social ills.
O'REILLY: Edwards knows this. He's lying! He's lying! He knows it! And everybody knows it!
CALIFANO: I don't believe that John Edwards is lying. OK?
O'REILLY: Oh, man! That is dumb.
CALIFANO: No, he's not --
O'REILLY: One or the other. It has to be! Did he read your book? No.
CALIFANO: No -- well, I hope he will --
O'REILLY: If he did, then he would know he's not telling the truth.
CALIFANO: I hope they all will. I hope they all will.
O'REILLY: All right, let's give Cheryl the last word. Ms. Beversdorf, you take it where you want to take it, but I hope you understand my anger. It's an anger that if you want to solve the problem for the veterans, let's be honest about it. Let's not demagogue it like Edwards is doing. Go.
BEVERSDORF: Well, what I wanted to say is that, first of all, at least at the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and for those people who care for homeless veterans, we look at homelessness as more of a result rather than a condition. And what we'd like to also stress that it's not just the substance abuse issue. It's -- first of all, we look at it in terms of health issues, like result of post-traumatic stress disorder --
O'REILLY: All right, we get it. We get it, Ms. Beversdorf.
BEVERSDORF: OK, well, and I think it's --
O'REILLY: It's all of those things, but it's not the economy.
BEVERSDORF: And employment. And -- that's exactly right.
O'REILLY: Right.
BEVERSDORF: It's the employment, and it's also housing.
CALIFANO: And that's -- Bill, one word --
O'REILLY: Real quick.
CALIFANO: That's true of virtually every social ill we have. Substance abuse and addiction is there. And we're not facing up to it.
O'REILLY: You're absolutely right. That's very true.
BEVERSDORF: But I think it's -- but it's the broader issues --
O'REILLY: All right.
BEVERSDORF: -- that we need to address in order to end homelessness.
O'REILLY: I got to go. Thank you both. We appreciate it.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. I want to play both of you my pal John Edwards, another sound bite from him. Talk about dishonesty. Roll the tape.
EDWARDS [video clip]: Tonight, a man or a woman whose name is unknown, who served this country patriotically and wore the uniform of the United States of America, will go to sleep under a bridge or on a grate, homeless.
O'REILLY: Again, the two Americas, the economy stacked against -- and it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with addiction. Bernie.
BERNARD GOLDBERG (author, Fox News contributor): This is a media segment, so let me answer it in that sense. Journalists should jump all over that statement, because as previous guests have said -- and I've written about this extensively in books that I've written, starting with Bias, the overwhelming percentage of homeless people are either drug addicts, alcoholics, or mentally ill, or some combination of that. It has nothing to do with being poor, or very little. The ones on the street are almost 100 percent in that group of addicted or mentally ill. That Edwards is doing this, I'm not surprised. He's -- this is the populist stuff that I'm sick of. But that journalists don't jump all over it --
O'REILLY: Nobody but us. Everybody else gives him a pass, and because that's what they -- you know, that's what they want people to think. It's a bad country, the economy is stacked. Jane, I'm giving you the last word --
GOLDBERG: It's because -- it's because it's what journalists also think.
O'REILLY: That's right. Jane, God help me, I'm giving you the last word. Jane, go.
JANE HALL (Fox News contributor): Thank you. And I won't be nice to you. A hundred and ninety-five thousand homeless veterans is a statistic that was checked out by The Washington Post. It comes from the Veterans Administration. Now, it may be being twisted, but the statistic is a valid statistic from what I've been able to ascertain.
O'REILLY: It has nothing do with the economy, Jane, and that was our -- our point of view from the jump. Bernie, Jane, everybody. Give them a big round of applause.
[...]
DHUE: Question three, we have gotten a lot of emails on you-know-who, John Edwards, that not only are you too hard on him --
O'REILLY: Yeah.
DHUE: -- you're mean to him.
O'REILLY: I hope I'm not mean to him, but I mean, the guy is just distorting stuff like crazy. I don't know how else to handle it. How would you -- look, you saw what he did tonight. I mean, he's obviously distorting a very serious issue, and that's addiction and mental illness among veterans.
DHUE: OK, but --
O'REILLY: Trying to say America's economy is rigged, and it's not true what he's doing. So how would you handle it?
DHUE: Well, here's what you've called him, OK? I would not call him the following, which you have called him: phony; a liar; self-indulgent; a pinhead -- your favorite; a charlatan, which you did tonight --
O'REILLY: Yeah.
DHUE: -- a crazed ideologue and a loon, and then you said he doesn't have a clue.
O'REILLY: But that was over a 17-year period that I called him all that.
DHUE: No, it wasn't.
O'REILLY: Oh, it wasn't?
DHUE: It was, like, in the last five minutes. You know, you can make the argument that --
O'REILLY: That might be overstating it.
DHUE: Well, listen, I mean, you're over -- I mean, you can't call him this stuff.
O'REILLY: Edwards was on this program. He was at the network. He was treated well.
DHUE: He was on the program four years ago, and you were fair to him when he came on.
O'REILLY: Absolutely. And then all of a sudden, he's running around saying this absurd stuff. But my question to you is, Dhue, how would you treat him if he's exploiting these poor people, who have mental illness and addiction, veterans?
DHUE: I would hold him to it, but I wouldn't call him those names, 'cause it just doesn't make you --
O'REILLY: No? You don't think he's a charlatan?
DHUE: Charlatan? That's such an old-fashioned word.
O'REILLY: I'm an old-fashioned guy.
This is dishonest. Bill O'Reilly was pointing out that John Edwards was lying.
Edwards is a pathetic Demagogue Plain and Simple.
LYING??? Please point it out and I will agree with you. Till then, back to the future.
Actually O'Reilly is the one doing the lying when he told the folks that there's only a few homeless vets out there. He accused Edwards of being dishonest with the numbers when he himself was the one being dishonest.
And now, being that O'Reilly has been shown to be totally wrong with regards to the number of homeless vets, he's turning it into an argument over addiction. Has O'Reilly apologized to the folks and to Edwards for his dishonesty and lack of knowledge on the homeless vets? No, he hasn't apologized or even admitted that he was wrong. Instead he ignores his mistakes and spins the debate another direction hoping no one will notice.
How this lying hypocrite gets away with saying he cares about those who are willing to risk their lives for all of us is beyond me.
Those vets are the reason O'Reilly gets to pontificate on radio and tv and sell his junk on his web site.
The more I think about it, the more this makes me sicker than anything O'Reilly has ever said.
Do you just hang out here, trying to be the first to make a comment so you can say something dumb where everyone will see it?
You are a waste of space.
COPIOUS,
You can't be serious? John Edwards uses a number from a report giving out by a Bush appointed run VA that says that there are 200,000 homeless vets at any given time......
BillO and many of the other right-wing spew-meister claim this as a lie, as do you now.......
Ok, lets break this down:
1) John Edwards uses a number provided by a Bush appointed VA
2) Right-wing blowhards claim this an Edwards lie
Conclusion: The right-wing is saying that the Bush regime are the real liars! Since they were the ones that provided the number that Edwards then used in a speech.
Or did I get my facts wrong? Or should Edwards have used say, 199.347 homeless vets or perhaps 201,045 homeless vets?
Regardless of the number, what kind of a society are we to allow even one VET to go homeless even for a day let alone years!
Say what you will but this is an absolute disgrace that our government and some average Joe/Jane citizen can send young men and women to war (needed or not) and upon their return from defending our freedoms, turn their backs on the vets and then do their best to ignore them!
Anyone that defends this in even the most mundane way, is in my mind guily of treason! PERIOD. End of story!
This is a classic of "CHANGE THE SUBJECT". (i.e. STRAW MAN ALERT)
Edwards claimed 200,000 homeless vets, a figure supported (PROVIDED!) by the current VA records. Edwards' figure was CORRECT.
O'Reilly uses a dozen insulting namecalling terms to say that Edwards is INCORRECT.
The figures are researched; Edwards is CORRECT, O'Reilly is WRONG.
What to do?
Change the subject. Claim Edwards was saying these vets were homeless due to POVERTY. Edwards said no such thing, so this is a LIE on O'Reilly's part, but it's the subject change he needs to then claim it's not POVERTY, but drug use/mental illness which has these vets homeless.
Edwards only said there WERE 200,000 homeless vets, and it was THIS claim O'Reilly initially both denied and ridiculed.
O'Reilly is a LIAR, and cannot admit when he is WRONG.
He changes the subject to another issue, which he then attempts to argue as a straw man, and says he has shown Edwards to be wrong. Except for one thing: Edwards never said what O'Reilly CLAIMS (now) that he said.
As a kind of WPA project we should build a time machine to send Bill and anyone else pinning for the 50's back there.
My reading of the physics involved would have this act create a separate universe unable to communicate with ours. The time travelors would I think find many of their number in various mental institutions. This is when the CIA was experimenting with LSD in some of these institutions. Then later Reagan could throw them out into the cruel world.
As a kind of WPA project we should build a time machine to send Bill and anyone else pinning for the 50's back there.
And there'd still be homeless vets around.
Sounds like your up for it CD. Best of luck with your delusions.
I know of one instance where Edwards hasn't walked the walk, but I ain't gonna tell you. Nyah nah ni nana!
To listen to this interview you’d think it was a settled issue that there is a one way cause and effect situation here, i.e. substance abuse leads to poverty. It seems to me that poverty is probably the biggest cause for substance abuse as a way of escaping the conditions of poverty (and not just realized poverty, but also the things one has to do to avoid poverty), at least mentally for a short time. Groups, which are statistically the poorest, usually also have the highest rates of substance abuse. But even Califano, the Dem, seems to be go along with the dogma that it is the substance abuse that causes the poverty.
Similarly, they seem to accept as established fact that mental illness leads to poverty. I would argue that often fully formed mental illness is a result of the various pressures of poverty (and the pressures that come from avoiding poverty) upon the individual.
Whatever the causes O'Reilly and Goldberg come off as two callous SOBs.
Excellent catch, Johnney.
O'Lielley made the demonstrably false claim that Edwards was lying when he asserted that there were around 200,000 vets who were homeless on any given night. Not content to let the matter drop, O'Lielly then compounded this... to be generous... misstatement by repeating it several more times. Rather than owning up to the ignorance of his own position when he was quickly proven wrong, O'Lielley simply moved the goal posts, now claiming that Edwards had said that veteran homelessness was a result of the economy. Nowhere, however, does Edwards make this claim on the video provided by O'Lielley. And nowhere does O'Lielley acknowledge his own errors.
In other words, O'Lielley attempted to cover up his first lie by telling a second one.
What an assh*le.
Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain:
copiousdissent,
"This is dishonest. Bill O'Reilly was pointing out that John Edwards was lying. Edwards is a pathetic Demagogue Plain and Simple."
Edwards was lying when he said 200,000 vets are homeless?
Can we all at least agree that vets deserve better than they are getting now? I think we can - for the Fox interns typing away on this site, trying to defend O'Reilley - go straight to hell - do not collect a cheque from Roger Ailles, do not pass go - straight to hell.
O'Reilly is a moronic, uninformed, intellectually lazy, dishonest hack (and a sexual predator to boot - ask Andrea Mackris.)
That there are paople out there barracking for him is sickening - to these types, vets, their service and sacrifice mean nothing more than an opportunity to trumpet their own twisted, cowardly version of patriotism.
I predict that within 3 years, O'Reilly's mental illness will ensure the destruction of his career - bring it on.
Although I don't agree with the above, O'Reilly would be entitled to his opinion.
But O'Reilly could have also said, regardless of his feelings towards the candidate, that his claim, backed up by the VA, backed up by The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, has merit.
He could also say that this issue is too important to be used to attack a candidate. He could use his pulpit to reach common ground. He could actually make a difference.
Instead he chooses to make the tragedy of homeless vets a political baseball bat to beat down the only candidate on either side bringing attention to a national disgrace.
O'Reilly poses as a tough guy today. When he had the opportunity to step up and serve, he chose deferments. He easily could have been one of those we're discussing today. At least it would have given him a different perspective.
How does a man become so cold?
Hi Mr King!
Step one, You join the NeoCon wing of Conservative Republicans.
Step two, You sell your soul to the Devil and promise not to be compassionate in any way.
Step three, You trade in all your bottles of Conservative GaterAid for a much stronger beverage that I call Republican HaterAid. This allows O'Really to be the Hateful, Cold man that he truly is.
I have personally learned a basic fact of our society. Most people don’t want to deal with someone who is chronically ill. The easiest excuse of course is to simply deny the extent or severity of such illness, or worse yet (as BillO’s attitude represents) to deny that the problem even exists.
Any patient who does not fit into the mold of the assembly line mentality of the American health care system is rejected or ignored. Physicians herd patients through examination rooms with a prescription pad in one hand and a referral pad in the other. For most medical problems, prescription care lasts for the length of time it takes for the pill bottle to be emptied, usually without scheduling a follow-up visit or even a simple call from the physician’s office to inquire about the effectiveness of the prescription. Referrals usually lead to months of neglect while the patient waits for the appointment to see the specialist. Then the first visit to the specialist is usually nothing more than an introduction, with no further tests or real treatment beginning until follow-up visit months later. Each day of confusion, anxiety, and frustration experienced by the patient while waiting for, and expecting, answers represents a blossoming of mental illness that is seeded in their minds. And when a standard diagnostic test or prescription treatment does not prove to be the “magic bullet” to cure the patient’s woes, the frustration of both patient and physician is only magnified - and the trust and separation between the two grows exponentially with each visit.
While most physicians are greedily stuffing their pockets with the dollars of the majority of patients who DO fit the mold, those patients don’t are left searching for a physician who will take more than the 7.5 minutes allotment on the assembly line that is designated to each patient to diagnose their needs. For patients whose condition does not fit the mold, the diagnosis and treatment becomes a horror story. For example, I recently moved from a large city to a small town and after months of searching for even one primary care physician who was familiar with my condition – I was denied treatment my the ONE doctor I could find who was because the physician “was no longer taking new Medicare patients”. I understand the anger and frustration vets must feel, and anyone people like Bill O’Reilly who have never experienced these horrors should be ashamed of themselves for their lack of understanding and compassion.
The ramifications go much deeper than the personal physical medical experiences of these individuals themselves. Every unmarried single veteran who has been made incapable of a healthy relationship now represents the loss of development of a potential family, the nucleolus of stability and growth of our society. For those who are married, the stress of a chronic illness changes their life - possibly forever, leaving them only with lost dreams, broken marriages, and devastated families. The conventional safety net of alimony and child support is then riddled with gaping holes because of the incapacity of such vets to support their family. The guilt that this brings upon such vets only adds to their depression and resulting mental illnesses and the downward spiral continues, not only for the individual himself, but for their children and family - not to mention the ramifications that the loss and inability to contribute to the workforce because of their illness represents.
If our men and women in uniform were not stretched to the limits of physical durability and sanity because of repeated redeployments and multiple tours of duty, the condition and prevalence of such illnesses as Posttraumatic Stress Disorder or GWS would be but a fraction of the problem it is today.
I cannot completely fault Bill O’Reilly for buying into the idea that such conditions are “mental illnesses” – the debate is as strong amongst physicians themselves as it is the general public. It is a chicken or egg question – did the stress bring on the physical symptoms and breakdown of immune system defenses, or are there predisposed genetic or environmental factors that trigger such illnesses? Regardless the reason, I see this as an example of the mind of a typical conservative Republican. Their denial and argument is much the same as global warming issue with their biggest “arguments” rooted in ignorance, selfishness, and lack of compassion. They then mask their guilt with arguments of “personal responsibility” and the need for such patients to just “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”.
I used to say that I wouldn’t wish my condition on my worst enemy, but lately I am so enraged with disgust that I have been wishing it on anyone, or the families of anyone, who preaches and propagates the ignorant attitudes of the likes of Bill O’Reilly.
Hang in there, & hope you get the help you need. Sometimes allopathic treatment is necessary, and a doctor's sympathy and compassion go a long way.
Here in the Portland, OR area we have a school of Oriental Medicine as well as a Naturpathic College & Western States Chiropractic College. All these have clinics where their doctors in training can see patients. They take much more time with patients, and the charge is less. My husband and I have taken this route several times.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Do you feel as sickened by this man's enfluenance in our culture, our national conscience as I do? He's like the insane uncle that inherited the family business and wants to change a successfull company into a business model that came to him while he was medicated at the state hospital.
Let's all just fall in line, don't worry he's insane.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Update, that might have been posted about already in other threads but I didn't catch it or them:
Who would have thought that all this started with BillO's idiotic mouth flapping yet again but in the presence of Ed Schultz that, as of Sat, Jan 19th, 2008 that Jones Radio and AirAmerica Radio are going to team up (which they should have from the begining) and are asking every single listener of theirs to go out to every bridge, gas station or alley looking for every single homeless vet they can find, verify their story as best they can and then email that info to any one of the radio personalities so that they can get in contact with a group called MarineMoms, where their network can get as many vets in off the streets!
It gets better, they also intend on sending these names to BillO so that he can put his money where his mouth is, since at least one homeless vet (Keith Sullivan) has been found and verified...... it's the very least that BillO can do!
As I've said before.... the fact that there is even one homeless vet, let alone homeless in general in the USA, is in my mind, not only a high crime but is borderline treasonous!!
It's one thing to know of it, its another to know of it, be in a possition to do something about and still do nothing about it! This goes for any politician from any given aisle!
If you're a Veteran I can recommend the VA Healthcare at the VA Hospitals. They are doing a great job administering to my healthcare needs. If not, you must assert your rights to go beyond that 7.5 minutes with a prepared list off all you questions and demand that you get them all answered.
One day at my VA Hospital appointment I had serious pain in my back. After 30 minutes of checking other things I was told my 30 minutes was up...Bye Bye Sam!? I said, but I came in today because of my back? She said, "You'll have to make another appointment for that."
When I got home I called the VA and reported what happened and they assigned me to the best primary care provider I could ever dream of having. Now I'm in Healthcare Heaven.