Why did McCain vote against health care funding for troops/veterans?

This letter has not been edited

Leon Rodriguez, Vietnam Veteran, Denver

Published August 16, 2008 at 6 p.m.

Text size

Here in Denver the Hispanic Veterans of the GI Forum showed John McCain respect for being a US Senator and having survived as a POW. The Hispanic Veterans applauded McCain and presented McCain with a gift. In return John McCain did not allow questions from the Hispanic Veterans. We Hispanic Veterans want to know why McCain voted against health care funding for our troops and veterans in 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007. We want to know why John McCain did not vote for the new G.I. Bill for our troops and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. We Hispanic Veterans volunteer for the Combat Arms, such as the Infantry, Armor & Artillery. Statistics show that the Combat Arms Troops are at the highest risk of injury or death. Why doesn’t John McCain want our troops and veterans to have health care or the opportunity for education? John McCain gets his health care provided by the US taxpayer and his education was provided by the US taxpayer. Why doesn’t John McCain respect all of our troops and veterans, past, present and future? These are questions John McCain will not allow or give a straight answer to. John McCain likes to USE our Troops and Veterans as puppets and photos opportunities.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

August 17, 2008

12:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bullony writes:

McCain voted against the most recent bill because it basically gave the same benefits to someone who served 3 years and someone who served 20. He thought that those who gave the most time deserved more but the bill did not provide for that.

I have to say that I agree with this position.
August 17, 2008

7:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

The days of John McCain being a veteran are over. He is now a politician for the Republican party. Aiding veterans and citizens with their health care needs is a no no with the Republican party since the insurance lobby is one of their biggest contributors. It's really not that hard to figure it out Leon but thanks for pointing it out.
August 17, 2008

8:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

Is a "maverick" someone who can work with both sides of the aisle or neither side of the aisle?
August 17, 2008

8:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

John McCain POW=Strong on defense.
John McCain POW=Support for troops

Republic logic is flawless.
August 17, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

Senator McCain has been enjoying Nationalized health care since the day he was born.
First as a Navy brat.
Then as a student at Annopolis.
Then as a member of the arned forces.
Then as a Congressman
Then as a Senator.

But he doesn't want it for our Veterans ,or any other American.

A classic case of the Repiblican "I Got Mine Disorder" ...or IGMD.
Typical......plenty of money for War.......no money for Veterans, Americans or Peace.
August 17, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

davis_x_machina writes:

popo- your post does not mention that mcinane's a good manager. He managed to get rid of his disfigured, disabled first wife and then he managed to marry a rich beer heiress.
Mcinane's one of those,apparently, who figures nothing's too good for our veterans so nothing is what they'll get.
August 17, 2008

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

woodwose writes:

This kind of inane yelping on how a candidate votes in Congress is misleading baloney most of the time, and this time is no different. When someone starts yapping about how McCain "voted against veterans" 800 times, or Udall "voted against drilling 10 million times," it's time to stop listening.

Today's US Congress has turned in to a dysfuntional political playground where every bill is filled with traps that can be used later to beat members up over their "voting record."

For example, most of McCain's votes that Mr. Rodriguez whines were heartlessly against veterans benefits contained punitive taxes that Democrats wanted to impose to pay for the benefits as well as a slew of completely unrelated pork projects. So McCain ether votes against veterans or votes for raising taxes.

In either case, some partisan political hack wannabe can start writing letters to newspapers complaining that McCain is either a) a hypocrite for claiming to be for veterans and voting against veteran benefits or b) a hypocrite for claiming to be a fiscal conservative and voting for raising taxes.

Votes in Congress today are far too often analogous to asking someone, "Have you stopped beating up your wife every Saturday night?" and demanding a yes or no answer. "No" obviously means you are still beating your wife, while "yes" is a tacit admission that you used to. There's no winning these kinds of debates.

If you have to analyze a candidates voting record in the kindergarten level of public debate that our political institutions have degenerated to today, you need to do a lot more digging into the reasons why the candidate voted for or against each particular bill.

An alternative is to find a group that does the analysis of voting records for you and see what they have to say. Lots of political advocacy groups do Congressional scorecards (here's a list of some => http://www.truthandpolitics.org/congr...).

The nice thing about this is that you don't even have to agree with the group to use their analysis, for example, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees rated Barrack Obama at 100% and John McCain at 0% for their voting records in the first session of 2007.

My opinion is that I can not possibly agree with anything a corrupt labor union that represents a passel of overpaid, underworked, impossible-to-fire, government employees is advocating. So to me, the fact that they rate McCain at 0% and Obama at 100% is definitely a point in McCain's favor.

You do your own research and make up your own mind, but don't base your decision on who to vote for on the kind of kindergarten level finger-pointing that Mr. Rodriguez presents here.
August 17, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

You gotta love it. People always clamoring that senators don't support a certain group because they happened to vote against a bill that was "supposedly" going to help that group.

In many cases the actual wording of the bill (not the title) does less than what a senator may want for that group, or it may be worded in a bad way that will have unintended consequences.

Have any commenter's here (or even the letter writer) actually read the bill(s) in question? Highly doubtful, so here's what McCain said in regards to the most recent GI Bill:

"McCain said Webb's bill would be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called "the backbone of all the services."

"In my life, I have learned more from noncommissioned officers I have known and served with than anyone else outside my family," McCain said at a Memorial Day event in Albuquerque.

"They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly."

A former Navy officer, McCain was a prisoner of war during Vietnam.

McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, has introduced an alternative bill that would increase education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service. McCain argues his bill would have a smaller impact on retention rates than the legislation that the Senate passed."

So in reality, while people are trying to present McCain as being anit-GI, he was actually trying to get what he felt was a better Bill for the troops and our nation as a whole

Remember, just because a Bill has a pretty title doesn't make it a good Bill, whether for GI's OR just ordinary taxpayers.
August 17, 2008

1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

That's good information KW, except for one thing: How or why would Webb's bill create disincentives for non-commissioned officers (NCOs)?

The letter writer talks about two separate issue regarding veterans: (1) health care funding; (2) educational benefits. I don't see that anyone has offered an explanation for McCain's stance on the health care funding except popo's interesting idea that insurance didn't support it.
August 17, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

Anderson - My point was that you cannot claim voting against a Bill means you don't support the cause. In most cases "no" votes are more about the content of the Bill rather than the aim.

The writer here talks about 4 separate Bills he offers as evidence that McCain doesn't support veterans without getting into any specifics as to why McCain didn't support said Bills.

Simply claiming McCain "is against supporting vets" without getting into the details of why is rather, shall we say... far left bloggish in style.
August 17, 2008

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

Of course the right would never do that, right KW?

The fact of the matter is, he had the opportunity to help out the veterans with a pressing matter and chose not to. Make all the excuses you want.

By the way, have you read the bill?
August 17, 2008

6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

Just bring back the draft and we'll have Senators falling all over themselves to "support the troops" What are Repubs afraid of?
I know it wouldn't be a popular thing to do with thier Country-Club set friends and doners, but "We're at War".... And being the "good Americans" they are I'm sure they wouldn't mind sacrificing thier kids.

They could start with our "good friend" and Patriot ,Rush what's his name, since he did a good job of evading the draft when his country needed him.... also Cheney, Wolfowitz , O Reilly, and a host of other conservative chicken-hawks.

I know they're old and out of shape, but they could be used as sandbags around foxholes.
Especially Rush, as he wouldn't feel any bullets ripping into his soft flab because of all the Oxy-contin stored in said flab.
August 17, 2008

7:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

I'm sure that military veteran Obama holds different views, since he spent so much time in military uniform.

Oh wait..... he is just like 99% of his idiot supporters..... too cowardly to do what REAL veterans like McCain has done.

Obama has admitted he spent his younger years doing drugs instead of serving in the military.
August 17, 2008

8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sweetpickle writes:

"McCain argues his bill would have a smaller impact on retention rates than the legislation that the Senate passed."

You do understand that this is to discourage troops from leaving the armed forces? This is not to help troops, this is to withhold help in order to keep enlistments up.
August 17, 2008

8:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

rickg,

"Oh wait..... he is just like 99% of his idiot supporters..... too cowardly to do what REAL veterans like McCain has done."

False figures, faulty reasoning and typical Conservative BS.
August 17, 2008

9:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

"You do understand that this is to discourage troops from leaving the armed forces?" - sweetpickle

Ya think? Heaven forbid our government should reward those who put in the extra time and effort more, than versus those who only go in for a short term. It's called "incentive."

Apparently you think anyone who even approaches the recruiting office should get some reward, huh?

How do businesses reward employees best? Short term or long? Do they try and provide incentive's or just give the short AND long termers the same bennies regardless of years of service?

You make the call.
August 18, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Barron writes:

For those claiming that those who have served longer deserve more, consider that if you joined the military in the past 6 years or so, more than likely, because our resources are stretched so thin right now, you've seen some combat duty. Compare that with a long-term soldier who has been sitting at a desk for the past 20 years. I, for one, think the person who has been on the front line risking their life deserves as much as the desk-sitter. Longevity doesn't always compare, that is, if you bother to think about it.
August 18, 2008

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

KW: "Anderson - My point was that you cannot claim voting against a Bill means you don't support the cause. In most cases "no" votes are more about the content of the Bill rather than the aim."

I understand your point, and I agree. However, beyond the letter writer's insinuation that McCain isn't for veterans, he asks some legitimate questions. Why did McCain vote against these bills? I'm still looking for more information.
August 18, 2008

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

I don't see the legitimate questions anderson. Just accusations which was what I was addressing before.

Now if the writer had listed more specifically his disagreements with McCain's reasons to sponsor a separate GI Bill rather than go with Webb's, we might have some legitimate "questions."
August 18, 2008

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

KW,
Yeah, I think it's not unreasonalbe for McCain to support Universal health care for the American taxpayers who've been paying for HIS health care for his whole sorry-a** life
Just to be "fair and balanced" , if nothing else.
August 18, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

KW, this does not have to be difficult. The legitimate questions asked by the letter writer are: why did McCain vote against the educational benefits and health funding bills. Without passing judgment on McCain, I'm still looking for an answer. If you don't know for sure, that's fine.
August 18, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

anderson - In your earlier post you stated the writer "asks some legitimate questions." The only questioned he raised was disingenuous at best when asking why McCain voted "against" health care for vets.

McCain didn't. He just voted against Webb's bill.

You on the other hand are the one raising basically the same question only slightly reworded when you wrote: "why did McCain vote against the educational benefits and health funding bills?"

Again, he didn't. He just didn't support Webb's version. I posted you a link and partial transcript where McCain said he feels Webb's bill will do more harm than good relating to NCO retention.

If you want answers as to "why" McCain felt that way you should probably visit the senate websites or email McCain, Graham or Burr who helped cosponsor what they felt was the best route to go.

My search turned up mostly far left blogs and anti McCain sites. I did find this link about six pages deep in my search. Here Graham outlines the educational benefits and health care increases and ties benefit increases to those who stay in the service longer.

I myself find this to be a sensible and common practice approach considering it's used in virtually every job market (yes, going into the military is a career choice).

http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/inde...
August 18, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

KW, you're evading the legitimate question as to why McCain voted against health care funding for veterans (assuming this is true, and I see no reason not to).

I missed your link with McCain's explanation as to why Webb's bill on educ benefits would harm NCO retention.
August 18, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

I never gave you a link "explaining why" McCain feels Webb's bill was not the way to go.

I gave you a link to McCain making the statement that he feels NCO retention would be compromised and told you to email McCain if you want greater detail.

I also gave you a link to read the highlights of the McCain/Graham/Burr bill McCain prefers to Webb's.

Remember this in your future posts. And also remember McCain voted against WEBB'S GI bill, he did not vote against expanding GI benefits. Perhaps after you've read McCain's alternative bill you can argue something it contains you disagree with.
August 18, 2008

1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

BTW anderson - My opinion on why McCain feels NCO retention would be compromised is because Webb's bill gives the same benefits across the board without taking into consideration the persons years of personal commitment or sacrifice. The Webb version also seems to be rewriting an entire new bill rather than expanding on the already in place Montgomery GI bill.

Personally, I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel.
August 18, 2008

5:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

Tbone - Your funny.

If McCain had showed up to vote, would the results be any different? Everybody already knew the vote tally was far sufficient to pass. McCain made his point against this bill early on by joining with Graham and Burr to try and pass an alternative they believed was better.

Now how many votes has Obama (or Hillary) missed since they began campaigning?

And an even better question: Who's missed the largest percentage of votes over their career as a senator?

Don't worry, I won't say the answer to that out loud.

Don't need to.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Why did McCain vote against health care funding for troops/veterans?

This letter has not been edited

Leon Rodriguez, Vietnam Veteran, Denver

Published August 16, 2008 at 6 p.m.

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links