VA’s legacy: Intolerable treatment |

VA’s legacy: Intolerable treatment

Scandalous headlines about outrageous waits for Department of Veterans Affairs health care are new — but the problem isn’t. The VA, veterans groups, the Government Accountability Office and Congress have known about deceptive, detestable VA waiting-list practices for years — which only makes this scandal worse.

The Associated Press reports “gaming strategies” aimed at making it appear that the VA was meeting its 30-day target for scheduling medical appointments were detailed by a VA deputy undersecretary in a 2010 memo. The fake appointments, false computerized records and real paper records it describes are all too familiar from news stories lately.

That memo ordered such practices to stop — but they didn’t. Nor did they stop after VA inspector general and GAO reports to Congress that go back a decade .

Veterans groups say there aren’t enough VA medical personnel to meet demand. But VA staffers falsifying appointment records to cover themselves in the eyes of top VA leaders in Washington is a response to that personnel shortage that betrays the agency’s sacred duty to veterans — too many of whom died awaiting care.

VA Secretary Eric Shinseki’s Friday resignation must mark the beginning of the thorough, top-to-bottom housecleaning necessary to remedy this outrage, which has persisted far too long. And ultimately, Congress must force the VA to do what it hasn’t for far too long: put veterans’ well-being first.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.