Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry.

<Update>

From Kelly Kennedy Twitter feed:

Kelly Kennedy - Twitter Feed

@POTUS will propose establishing presumption for rare respiratory cancers connected to #burnpits at the State of the Union address tonight, administration officials say.

:squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx and trachea, adenocarcinoma of the trachea, salivary gland-type tumors of the trachea and lung, adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung, large-cell carcinoma of the lung, sarcomatoid carcinoma of the lung, typical/atypical carcinoid of the lung.

Constrictive bronchiolitis is still going through the review process, a high-ranking administration official said.

@POTUS also supports legislative efforts for service-connected disabilities stemming from environmental exposures, the official said.

About 3.5 million veterans may have been exposed to particulate matter while deployed, the official said, so the administration is looking at potential costs of the new rule, as well as recent rules tying other respiratory symptoms, such as asthma, to service.

VA.gov | Veterans Affairs
 
Last edited:
pardus said:
Why did the republicans vote against this?
Click to expand...

There was apparently $400-billion in unrelated spending attached to the bill, some of it involving climate change. They support the bill but didn’t want to support the riders which they feel are fiscally irresponsible.

They’re getting tons of heat on this and no doubt will have to do serious damage control. Ultimately I think the bill will pass.
 
The problem is they voted 85-14 or something last month to pass the bill. Some changes were made, I don’t know what, and now they’ve overwhelmingly rejected the bill.

The optics on this are horrible and they have really screwed themselves by not explaining the Nay votes. Then you have things like Darth Scott’s tweet from the USO all the while knowing he was going to vote against the bill.

ETA: 84-something back on June 16th. Congress.gov doesn’t show any changes submitted after the 14th, so the bill was good then, but not 6 weeks later?
 
Last edited:
The Republicans wanted funding for the bill through annual appropriations, not mandatory spending. The vote was basically a protest Republicans wanted to get on record in case the bill with the riders blows up in the future.

So…when they have another vote—maybe Monday—the bill should pass. Hopefully. In the meantime, bad PR for GOP prior to midterms.
 
The 84-14 (really 12 because two didn't vote) record last month had dissenters because of the discretionary vs mandatory spending, but that was already in the original version. Nothing was changed in the bill when it went back to the house other than technical fixes.
It is the same bill, they basically just fixed typos/formatting.

The only viable reason 25 GOP members changed votes is because Manchin agreed to work on the build back better bill.

These shitbag Senators are using vets as a fucking protest vote because they don't like the spending that will come from an unrelated bill.

New benefits for burn pit victims in limbo after Senate Republicans block plan
 
I'm going to say there's more here than meets the eye. There is literally ZERO incentive for any Senator to vote against a bill like this one if you take it at face value. I guarantee there's something in the language of the bill or in the proposed markups that opens the door to some abuse cooked into it. I'll reserve judgment until the people that voted against it come out with their public reasoning.
 
Stop giving a pass to these politicians simply because they have a (R) next to their names.

Not a single thing has changed in this bill that would cause 25 people to jump ship. Why is it they care about fiscal responsibility when it comes to veterans healthcare?


Wednesday’s failed vote was rooted in the budgetary policy dispute that was first raised last month by Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), who objected to the way the bill would change the accounting of about $400 billion in preexisting veterans spending. That previously authorized spending had been designated as discretionary — that is, subject to yearly congressional appropriations. But the bill, known as the PACT Act, authorizes $280 billion of new mandatory spending — that is, not subject to yearly appropriations — and also converts the prior $400 billion in authorizations from discretionary to mandatory.
Click to expand...
The money argument is that the $400 billion already earmarked to go to the VA is money that has to be approved every year, and the bill would make it mandatory. It would also add that $280 billion to expand coverages for burn pit/cancer/Agent Orange exposure.


That, Toomey first argued last month, amounts to a budget “gimmick” that could facilitate massive amounts of new appropriated spending: “Why would they do a thing like that?” he said in a June 24 floor speech. “The reason is because that way you create a big gaping hole in the discretionary spending category, which can be filled with another $400 billion of totally unrelated spending — who knows on what.”
Click to expand...
His argument is "maybe they might possibly do a thing with the yearly budget bill where we all have to vote to pass it anyways".

You know what the GOP can do if the dems try to slide in $400 billion of new discretionary spending? Just not vote on the annual appropriation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/28/republicans-burn-pits-veterans/

IDK about anybody else on this board, but veteran's healthcare shouldn't be a yearly budget battle. Medicare and Medicaid are funded under mandatory spending, so why not the VA? We can spend ~$800 billion on the DOD but are willing to pinch pennies when it comes to vets?
 
I would urge you to read Hunter Seven Foundation's take on the PACT. You might have to find them on IG; they're good people (I know them personally, and have had some of them on the pod).

Aside from the issues already stated; the PACT did almost zero in terms of actually doing what it was supposed to do- provide legitimate resources for screening, testing, and entering service members into preventative programs for cancer awareness and detection. Furthermore- the money (the real money for those programs and not the VA budget) was underwhelming.

For instance- the PACT directed the VA to "Ask screening questions every 5 years"... so, legitimately, Jon Stewart is screaming in the streets for the VA to ask people, "Hey, any reason you think you might have cancer?" twice a decade. Is that the change we need?

They break it down much more than I can; they even included examples of tens (probably hundreds apply to this but are just unknown) of dead service members that the PACT would not have helped in any real way.

I understand everyone's need to breathlessly pick a side and throw your opinion out there. But, as you read this bill and actually line out the things it was supposed to accomplish and then bounce that off the money those things got, I have a hard time getting too worked up about it.

The Stewart performance art was fun and all, but all it does is find yet another wedge to drive politics into an issue where it really doesn't need to be. And that's not to demean Jon Stewart- I perceive him to care on some level about the cause.

But good thing no one here is falling for that! So, kudos to all with the well balanced and non-emotional takes.
 
Idk why this formatted weird, but you're talking about this post @amlove21?


HunterSeven Foundation on Instagram: "Before you go rioting and calling on senators to be hung for treason, read this post. The PACT Act was pushed to the Senate for a vote tonight, and failed to pass the 60-vote threshold. Now we will never claim to be “politicians” or “legislative subject matter experts”. We are medical providers, we provide healthcare for those in need, and we advocate for our patients. We've had many reach out and ask us about the #PACTact - the multi-billion dollar bill that has claimed to help 'save veteran lives', in reality, and from a medical perspective, we are sorely disappointed in the lack of actual lifesaving measures and methods that would be enacted by this bill. We were able to confirm no medical or subject matter experts were included in the formation of this bill. We also requested the medical diagnoses and included cancers be re-evaluated by the level of mortality and severity for inclusiveness and prioritization, but we were denied. We requested consideration for cancer screening and early identification be included through secondary prevention measures, unfortunately, it was denied also. In fact, in the full 150 page bill, we checked out how many of the following words were used: - Compensation: 20x - Benefit: 39x - Presumptive: 60x - Screening: 10x 🚩 - Prevention: ZERO TIMES 🚩 The #medical moral and ethics surround this bill are painful for us to bare witness. We need early identification of cancers, cancer screenings, not just within the VA but overall. This bill does not do that. The 44-year old Night stalker Pilot who passed from Leukemia, he wouldn’t be covered under this bill. And, if you ask his wife, and three young daughters if compensation would help ease their loss, what do you think they would say? No amount of money can fill the heartbreaking loss of a loved one. Cancer screening early on for those at risk saves lives. We care for these military #veterans suffering, struggling for screening, in pain, and some who we unfortunately couldn’t help in time and those who didn’t make it. The moral is - there are two sides to every story, there is a motive and a reason why people do what they do… ours is to prevent as many deaths as possible."
 
The bill has passed without any changes.

Three Ammendments were proposed:

The amendments offered on the legislation included one from Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who proposed that the bill be funded using mainly discretionary funds, the amount of which are determined and set by Congress each year, instead of mandatory spending, which would automatically have to be funded in every budget cycle.

A second was offered by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who sought to cover the cost of the bill by reducing funds to the U.S. Agency for International Development, while Sen. Marsha Blackburn, D-Ga., offered an amendment to allow veterans in the VA health system immediate access to community care.

All three failed.
Click to expand...

The Toomey argument was always bullshit (IMO). The only reason for this spending to be discretionary instead of mandatory is if you want to cut it later.
I firmly believe that VA Healthcare should be mandatory spending the same as Medicare/medicaid.

The Paul Ammendment was fine for trying to balance the checkbook, so to speak. I wouldn't have been upset if it passed.

It sucks the Blackburn Ammendment failed. That would have been a major help to people who needed it.

Here's a like to the Hunter Seven Foundation's take on the bill.

As @amlove21 mentioned, there's a lot of shortcomings in this bill.
There's still a lot of work to be done to get this right, but I think something in effect now is better than waiting years for a perfect bill.
 
Cookie_ said:
The Toomey argument was always bullshit (IMO). The only reason for this spending to be discretionary instead of mandatory is if you want to cut it later.
I firmly believe that VA Healthcare should be mandatory spending the same as Medicare/medicaid.
Click to expand...
That's not what his argument was. His argument was that by making the spending mandatory the way the bill is written creates up to a discretionary $400B over 10 years that doesn't go away.

Don't believe what the media (or John Stewart) are saying his motives are, here's his direct explanation to Congress
 
compforce said:
That's not what his argument was. His argument was that by making the spending mandatory the way the bill is written creates up to a discretionary $400B over 10 years that doesn't go away.

Don't believe what the media (or John Stewart) are saying his motives are, here's his direct explanation to Congress
Click to expand...
Yea, I understand his stated reason for that. I also think it's bullshit.

He could have proposed an Ammendment that moving this 400b from discretionary to mandatory would zero out (reduce overall discretionary by 400b), but he didn't.

This style of budget balancing is what the Paul Ammendment would have done. I can get behind that one, not Toomey's.

But again, I think the VA budget for care/facilities/providers (not administrators) should be higher. (We also need community care options expanded, amongst other things.)
 
So, I wonder what the first few pages of this discussion looks like, given the newer information and multiple sources we got to hear from...

It's almost like (and this is gonna be crazy, I know) the government consistently does shit like this (gluttonous bills chock full of bullshit, too long to read and actually internalize, that are intended to never sunset), and then average citizens with google and an opinion magically become experts on the topic and wait .0000000002 seconds to weigh in.

No one here is falling for that; you're all too smart. But there are a lot of people allowing themselves to get worked up about things they don't understand, powered by people they don't know. The "72 hour rule" should be mandatory, not a rule of thumb.
 

Similar threads

RackMaster
Behind the Uniform: When struck by moral injury
Replies
13
Views
2K
Deleted member 11415
D
DA SWO
Air Force Rescue Helicopters Raced To The Aid Of Special Operators In Somalia
Replies
11
Views
4K
Gunz
Gunz
TLDR20
Progress Report from Q Course
2 3
Replies
43
Views
83K
amlove21
amlove21
Johca
Origins of and Development of US Airborne and MFF
Replies
10
Views
3K
Johca
Johca
Ravage
Reeder assumes command of Special Warfare Center and School
Replies
0
Views
2K
Ravage
Ravage
Back
Top