Clinton Campaign Backtracks On VA Claim After Widespread Criticism - CNN

[WillyT]

Clinton campaign backtracks on VA claim after widespread criticism
By Dan Merica and Ashley Killough, CNN
Updated 8:17 AM ET, Wed October 28, 2015

<snip>

(CNN)—Hillary Clinton's campaign on Tuesday backed away from the candidate's claim that issues with the Veterans Health Administration were not "widespread."

Brian Fallon, Clinton's press secretary, acknowledged to CNN wait times and other mismanagement of care by the Department of Veterans Affairs were indeed "systemic" and that Clinton will roll out her plan to reform the VA in November.

"Even now, too many of our veterans are still waiting an unacceptably long time to see a doctor, or to process disability claims and appeals," Fallon said in a statement to CNN.

Fallon said that when Clinton is president she "will work to further reform the VA to make sure it truly works for our veterans, and will demand accountability and performance from VA leadership."

But Clinton told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Friday that issues within the VA have "not been as widespread as it has been made out to be."

Veterans groups fired back at Clinton earlier this week.

Fallon said Clinton's comment on MSNBC is being "misinterpreted" and that he hopes to clarify her position.

&quot Hillary Clinton) will work to further reform the VA to make sure it truly works for our veterans, and will demand accountability and performance from VA leadership," he said.

But Paul Rieckhoff, founder and CEO of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, or IAVA, called her comments a "head-scratcher."

"That is not a winning argument -- or factually correct," he tweeted.

<snip>

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/27/politics/hillary-clinton-veterans-affairs-gop/

[hootinholler]

1. Vets know who has their back

It ain't Hillary.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. No, it ain't-- it's this guy

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/socialist-sanders-legislates-va-healthcare-deal/

[Android3.14]

2. More evolving... <cough> camouflage <cough-cough>

Now why do her supporters trust her?

[JaneyVee]

3. If only there was some senator who sat on a certain committee for years could help.

[randome]

4. I call BS!

Bernie Sanders, that is. Huh. Guess he wasn't able to get much done with Republicans in the majority.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[hootinholler]

12. Do you snicker when you use Bernie's initials that way?

Oh, and BTW:

Just before Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders excoriated Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s record to a cheering crowd of 10,000 at a Madison arena on Wednesday night, Walker’s staff tweeted: “Thousands of veterans suffered in VA scandal yet @BernieSanders downplayed it & attacked those who exposed it.”

The tweet, to say the least, was misleading. The Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has long supported our veterans—even if he doesn’t support all our wars. And in 2014 he accomplished the last thing you might expect from a candidate whose campaign brand is firebrand: He negotiated a major bipartisan agreement with two conservatives to deal with the veterans health care crisis.

It would seem that you are repeating Scott Walker's talking point.

[karynnj]

10. well, HRC sat on the Armed Services Committee

during her years in the Senate and was part of the Obama National Security team when Veteran's issues were prominently raised. Here is a Washington Post article that gives a lot of history that shows that this has been a long term issue that anyone in either position would have been involved with.

As to Bernie Sanders, he did repeatedly work on this issue on the Veteran's committee -- and yes, he did things that helped. That does not mean that what he and McCain did corrected everything.

[FlatBaroque]

5. But HaveIMentionedImAGirl?

[tularetom]

6. She'll roll out her plan as soon as somebody tells her what it is

She'll need to check the polls and focus groups and consult with her media guru before she ventures an opinion.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Not sure why or how she stepped in this. Perplexing.

The Obama administration acknowledged that the VA scandal was systemic--majority of facilities were involved.

[askew]

8. She is a mediocre politician playing way above her skill level.

That's all she stepped in it. She did this throughout the 2007-08 campaign as well. This is going to continue through election day. She has horrible political instincts.

[TwilightGardener]

9. She does say some stupid things: we were dead broke, like with a cloth?, Bosnia sniper fire,

etc. But usually it's not an issues/policy matter where she blows it--she's got that down pretty good. Usually it's her running at the mouth on a personal tangent during interviews, where she steps in it. This was a rare slip in discipline.

[JDPriestly]

23. She does not understand the VA issues or the history of the work of the VA committee at all.

She really should stick to what she understands -- whatever that is. I haven't figured that out yet.

[Fawke Em]

45. She knows how to woo corporate money!

[JDPriestly]

46. You got it, and the reason so many Democrats are endorsing her is that they want some of it.

That's what it is all about at this point.

That will change.

[Doctor_J]

13. Her speech writers might be the end of her campaign. Last week she lied about DOMA and had to walk

it back. This week it's the VA. It's a shame she

a) Is being mishandled to an extreme degree
b) Doesn't have some actual core principles to fall back on.

[jwirr]

18. Hillary is not really in touch with a lot of the population even

with her weathervane. And that is what is going to get her in the end like it did the last time. And I personally think a lot of her advisers are also one issue voters - we need a woman president.

In the world today that is about the last issue that is of vital consideration. I would be proud of a woman president if that woman had a real hold on the issues. But I do not want to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. I did not vote for President Obama twice because he was black - I voted for him because what he was saying sounded like a good plan for the USA.

[sabrina 1]

14. This is why Bernie has the support of Veterans. They know who fought for them all these years.

I can't believe her campaign said that.

[NuclearDem]

30. You might want to check on what groups like IAVA have criticized Sanders for

before declaring them your best buddies.

[Fearless]

15. In other words... she lied. n/t

[arcane1]

16. Again n/t

[840high]

20. I'm losing count of her lies.

[NuclearDem]

31. No, she didn't. Like every other candidate in this race, she just doesn't understand veterans issues

as well as she should.

[Fearless]

34. Is that better or worse?

[NuclearDem]

35. It's terrible because veterans are being ignored by all candidates.

One question with zero follow up in all debates so far, Democratic and Republican, and weak policy proposals, if those proposals exist at all.

[SoapBox]

17. Trust....she ain't got it.

Good gawd...flip-flopping...Weathervane decision making...

What a mess.

Trust her?

You've got to be kidding...not!

[AlbertCat]

21. This Rieckhoff guy is a tool, though...

He's been a guest on Rachel's show since it started.

I've seen him over and over talk on several subjects and issues. He doesn't seem like a tool. He seems focused on Vet affairs....period.

[NuclearDem]

32. Paul Rieckhoff is many things. "Tool" is not one of them.

[mak3cats]

48. You and AlbertCat are both right...

...I was thinking of someone else entirely. (I was having a bad day yesterday.) I deleted my post.

[NuclearDem]

51. No worries, it happens.

[JDPriestly]

22. Here we go again. Clinton's campaign self-implodes as she tries to out-nasty even the

Republicans.

Hillary is a refugee from the wars against the Clintons of the 1990s.

She sees herself as a victim needing to get even with her tormentors.

This is the beginning of the implosion of her campaign.

Just watch how this unfolds.

Feel the Bern!

It's good to be a fighter, but it isn't good to create your own fights.

The VA is going through a process of restructuring. The laws are in place. The improvements are gradually being implemented by hospitals short on money and doctors and nurses short on time.

This attempt at negative campaigning against Bernie via the work he did on the Veteran's Committee is really feeble

POOR HILLARY!

[Babel_17]

29. One of the risks of such a large campaign is having to shuffle people around

They can all be great but sometimes it's a matter of turf wars or personality clashes. (So my viewing of VEEP tells me)

Journalists pounce on this as it's a great opportunity to get people to get payback for slights. And there's those who are let go from a campaign or, even worse, kept on because there's repercussions to ditching them even though they've become a detriment.

Really big campaign staffs are a huge asset for making things happen, but they have their costs. This is another reason why Senator Sanders is doing better than most predicted. He's supported by lots of "Happy Warriors" who, on the whole, are less concerned by motives involving ego and future career opportunities. His campaign has enough seasoned pros to make it work, but the Sanders campaign is fairly revolutionary in how it dealt itself into this high staked game.

[Unknown Beatle]

24. "Fallon said Clinton's comment on MSNBC is being "misinterpreted" and

that he hopes to clarify her position."

So now she's being "misinterpreted" when it backfires on her. She certainly is not being "misinterpreted", she meant what she said. Damage control is in effect right now by her handlers. Watch her come out and change her position and say she will help our veterans by making the VA a better place for them to go get help.

The Hillary weather vane strikes again.

It would be better if she said she blew it but that she's learning from her mistakes.

[bigdarryl]

25. Sanders supporters better not get to gleeful a republican was on CNN saying Sanders said the same

Thing a couple of years ago.The Clinton camp said Mrs. Clinton will come out next month with her VA plan. She better change that to as soon aspossible get in front of this before the republicans define her on Veterans

[Doctor_J]

28. Can you link to a gleeful post in this thread?

I can't find one.

[bigdarryl]

36. He was on Wolf Blitz show at 1:00pm I don't have a link on it

The bottom line I was trying to say is who ever the nominee is on the dems side this is going to be used against them

[Doctor_J]

39. your post before this said "Sanders supporters best not get too gleeful"

Where is there a post from a Sanders supporter expressing glee over this?

[Babel_17]

26. It was an unforced error but her team was quick to respond

Going forward, we'll see if there's a persistent fallout from this, and if Secretary Clinton can adeptly deal with the follow up questions. This can be one of those tough questions, when your under the lights and you have to answer comprehensively. Senator Sanders will get the same treatment on his issues as well. Paying for his programs, gun control, etc.

Dealing with having misspoken (that is one way of looking at it) on a very important issue is however a bit different than defending a nuanced position. So it will be interesting to see if this gets asked at the next debate, at what the prepared response is. This might be a non-story by then, or the Clinton team might not have assuaged the concerns of a lot of veterans, and their groups, regarding this.

It's hard to tell what's a serious stumble, or a great opportunity seized like her handling of the Benghazi committee, until things play out a bit. But I find it hard to imagine that there won't be an effort here to meet with some leaders of veterans groups and reassure them. If that fails, then this really is a persistent story.

[bigdarryl]

27. To be honest Veterans as a whole support more republicans anyway plus

They don't determine Presidential elections and on top of that the rethugs have a lot of nerve they have cut more benefits for Veterans than democrats.

[Babel_17]

33. Well, brass tacks wise, it also comes down to income

And those really counting on the VA, and other programs, are usually in the income brackets that favor Democrats, who will vote to fund them. And it's those vet's in swing states who will carry extra weight.

And of course there's the double standard. Slash everything - but don't rub people's faces in the fact of what that means to those who served, and who are now in need of care. So it even matters to a large majority of voters when the horrible cost of slashing programs like the VA gets highlighted for having an unconscionable human price.

[red dog 1]

37. K&R...Thanks for posting, WillyT

Clinton told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Friday that issues within the VA have
"not been as widespread as it has been made out to be."??

Why would she say that?

[ieoeja]

38. What complete horseshit.

I used to work for the VA. They were extremely dedicated to the cause of helping veterans. The VA needs only two "reforms":

1. money, and
2. politicians letting them do their job.

It was amazing how many times we saw things we could take care of, even with our limited funds, only to be told that Congress or the President forbade us to do so. They literally would step in and just flat out tell us not to do things because they did not want the VA helping veterans in such a manner. It was sickening. And it pissed ALL OF US off.

Reform the VA, my ass. How about just giving them the tools to do the job then getting the fuck out of their way?

Politicians, aka popularity contest winners, have as much business reforming hospitals as they would have reforming schools.

Oh, that's right, they are in the process of fucking those up too.

[Gloria]

40. Living in a military town (near White Sands and Ft. Bliss) with many retired vets, too...

The VA services seem to be very well thought of. Many are people who are not victims of the "new warfare."

I think the influx of more survivors of military actions that don't kill, but damage in very crippling mental and physical ways
are new and depending on the population and facilities that are available, working with this new type of vet really hasn't been figured out yet...Throw in a few bureaucrats and you get some really bad places...

My thinking is....if you are a vet with out extreme issues...more the standard health issues we all have...then why do they need to go to the VA? Why not go via the Medicare system and reserve the VA for the really bad cases that have resulted from combat?? I buzzed this by an Iraq/Afghanistan vet and he thought it was a very good idea!

[WillyT]

42. Interesting... I'd Like To Hear Other Vets On This...

[Gloria]

43. I know one guy who has diabetes and kidney disease and he

gets top-notch care! I have a kidney issue, too, and he seems to be really getting what he needs...he loves the doctor, who is a young woman....He gets basic care here and travels about half an hour to El Paso for the some specialized checkups periodically.

But...that could be managed by regular doctors, not VA doctors.....the money that the VA has could really be focused on the mental health issues and very bad injuries and rehab for those who need it and should get it...The guy I know could go private very easily....
that is not a problem....they just need to be folded into Medicare if the benefits are still offered to them (he's not Medicare age yet)....And as seniors, there is no need for the VA if you have no combat injuries that are still debilitating...just do what all senior do...go to a regular doctor.

[TheKentuckian]

49. Why would an 80/20 plan with no max out of pocket and a very wonky drug plan be attractive?

It might be good politics for Medicare though, it would be a little harder to savage and/or kill by a thousand papercuts if it came with killing our honored veterans rhetoric if Democrats weren't too chumpish to go hard at cutters and weren't trying to themselves in too many cases be it by hook or by crook.

[Gloria]

50. No, what I'm suggesting is that if the care benefits remain, then Medicare would cover all costs

Not 80%...just that they just would no longer have to be separated into th VA...if they had no conditions post-service that needed specialized care specific to combat issues. I would want to gave them covered 100% by Medicare or Medigap paid for like pension retirement plans do or teachers in NJ, for example...but, ideally, 100% Medicare without the bullshit of the extra Medigap to vover the usual 20%.

Of course, if we had single payer for all, we could bag Medicaid, too! Just eliminate the hodge-podge of muliple systems...just keep the VA for the vets needing the special, intense care

[TheKentuckian]

52. I dig ya. Took it too literally and as is.

[HereSince1628]

47. What do you want to hear? The VA sometimes does well, sometimes it does less well...

Are more soldiers surviving horrendous injuries that in Vietnam would have killed more of them? Yes that's true. And because of the frequency of IED attacks on convoys there are a lot more spinal and head injuries.

Is the VA trying to come to grips with facilities and programs for those things? Maybe, it certainly is in Milwaukee where the VA has built a special facility to do imaging, surgery and rehab for vets with spinal injuries from across this service region. That facility is pretty much state-of-the-art.

Are there special efforts to deal with PTSD and Suicide among vets? Yes, those things are very high profile and they are getting attention. I'm pretty sure the results are mixed, because vets released from care here have completed suicides and even murder.


About the big scheduling problems, maybe lots of places have the problems with getting appointments that Phoenix had. BUT, at least one didn't have that problem with me. In Milwaukee getting an appointment to see a G.P. isn't a big deal, a vet can get seen in a 2-3 weeks...the recommendations for follow-up might take longer. Things like cardiac problems usually mean a few weeks wait. Getting a routine colonoscopy for screening will result in many months wait. It took six months for me to get a colonoscopy that was ordered on my first visit to a V.A. GP.

But, within 30 days I got an appointment for a routine cardiac stress test, which showed problems, and got scheduled for an angiogram that took place ~10 days later, which led to a triple by-pass surgery 2 days later and release back home 2 nights and a wake-up after that.

One could say that once a serious problem was noted there wasn't a whole lot of screwing around waiting on an opening in the schedule. Was the cardiac surgery great? I have nothing to compare to...nothing serious un-stitched itself and the wiring back together of my sternum had one minor problem.

And yet, the docs are humans and most of them are playing the protocols and probabilities. For me that ended up being prescribed way too much statin. They never pushed my cholesterol down to the half-normal range that cardiologists liked to think was the key to post-operative survival. What they succeeded at was wiping out my good cholesterol, leaving me tremendously weakened. After being miserable for a year the VA finally got around to making a new protocol rule that prohibited the dosage that I was prescribed. I felt much better after my dosage was cut by over 1/2.

[Teagan]

41. Too late. Clinton owns that error.

Vets will remember who helped get their health care at VA be more prompt.

[Fawke Em]

44. Proceed, Secretary.