Reasons veterans are especially hard-hit by federal cuts | Hacker News Reader

Reasons veterans are especially hard-hit by federal cuts

theconversation.com

25 pointsrntn13 comments

What's interesting to me is that these budget cuts are coming at a time when the VA is also trying to implement a new Electronic Health Record (EHR) system (Oracle CERNER) which is having substantial issues with rollouts (see the Google News page for Oracle CERNER or read the transcripts from the congressional hearings about it).

This could become a two pronged problem where you have fewer people to provide care while they are trying to implement a new EHR which results in a decrease in productivity because of the need of learning a new system.

The real reason is because Trump thinks they're suckers [1]

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-a...

Turns out he’s only in office to inflict pain. He has zero interest in making anything better.

The US government has been spending $4 for every $3 it takes in.

It has to change, it’s not sustainable.

This same government is proposing trillions in tax cuts.

It's not sustainable, and Trump isn't going to help on the solution.

So take in more dollars.

Ah, because the VA has been widely regarded as providing great care up to this point. Surely cutting out the bloated and inefficient administrative class will lead to short term reductions, but it also provides the vacuum for better processes to grow back into.

I often hear this from non-veterans, much older veterans, or individuals using it as a political talking point.

As a veteran married to a disabled veteran, the VA has gotten significantly better over the years to the point where I use it over other options provided by my employer. I maintain a pretty large network of friends from the military spread around the country and it’s more common than not.

Anecdotal of course and I’m sure some areas are worse than others but at this point the VA does provide great care. Ten years ago I wouldn’t say the same.

This is more concerning than anything as there are many who rely on the VA for care - of all types.

> provides the vacuum for better processes to grow back into

Or worse. Or no services at all.

So “repeal and replace” with no plan for the “replace”. Sounds familiar.

Reforming the government to be more efficient is great. Simply killing off large swaths of programs that real people benefit from and rely on with no plan for those people simply because it wasn’t efficient enough is bad governance and just plain cruel.

Leaving a “vacuum” behind you and expecting someone else to come clean up after your mess is not good governance. The people that will eventually do the work to fill that vacuum are the heroes here, and I don’t think anyone on either side of the aisle thinks it’ll be the current administration who fills said vacuum.

1. Doing things like randomly firing the staff who were hired recently to address gaps in care is NOT the way to improve things. And it takes staff, time and money to make new processes.

2. The article points out ways, besides VA cuts, that veterans are being harmed. For instance, many of those government workers fired without cause are veterans, and the veterans' suicide hotline (already understaffed) is going to hemorrhage more staff when the edict against remote work goes into effect.

Definitely by randomly cutting large swaths of the support of a service you’ll end up with a better service. Like if Microsoft cut 30,000 people randomly, you’d definitely get a better company. And everyone who relies on Microsoft products would be great in the meantime.

Again… randomly. There is no method being applied here of need or capability/skill. Clearly the best way. So smart. Definitely not trying to make something so bad people don’t care when you get rid of it. Like someone being sarcastic about it being bad instead of realizing one side has been trying to starve it to make it bad. See the USPS for similar examples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com