A DIFFERING VIEW: VA's plan continues to shortchange disabled vets

By Arthur Guerrero

Published August 21, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

In its July 22 editorial, "The VA wrangle/Why does new facility have to be a stand-alone hospital?" the Rocky Mountain News has missed the point.

The issue is not simply one of money. As Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. Ed Perlmutter pointed out in their July 26 Speakout, the Department of Veterans Affairs has not taken the best direction to save cost or deliver proper medical care ("Veterans deserve this long-promised hospital").

The VA's January plan was found to be too costly. But rather than explore a smaller alternative, the department decided to go in another direction entirely.

The rental of space at a private facility smacks of privatization of veterans' care, and that is not a cheaper alternative. There is no estimate of future lease costs and long-range plans for possible needed expansion. If cost were the real issue, why did Secretary James Peake not investigate a scaled-down version of the January plan?

The new plan also violates the VA's own requirements concerning specialized care for veterans who have suffered spinal cord injuries. Those rules mandate an in- patient facility of at least 30 beds. That number is the minimum necessary to assure that staff and equipment will be available for proper care. We have fought for more than 40 years to make sure these veterans are properly cared for.

As a disabled veteran wounded in combat on April 23, 1967, I'm ashamed of how the Department of Veterans Affairs is treating veterans in delivering proper care to those who earned it. The veterans community of the Rocky Mountain area will not accept this plan. We need and demand a stand-alone VA facility that follows all department construction and staffing regulations.

Arthur Guerrero is a resident of Golden.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News