"You just sentenced veterans to death" Democrats and veterans outraged as GOP senators block burn pits bill

‘You just sentenced veterans to death’: Democrats and veterans outraged as GOP senators block burn pits bill

Democrats and veterans outraged as GOP senators block burn pits bill | The Independent

Republican senators have been accused of “sentencing veterans to death” after they blocked the passage of a landmark bill that would finally give US service members sick and dying from toxic exposure to burn pits access to the healthcare that they need.

Democratic lawmakers, veterans and advocates including TV host Jon Stewart spoke out in a highly emotional press conference on Thursday morning as the bill that had been expected to become law by the end of the week was suddenly derailed by the Republican party.

“This is total bulls***,” shouted Senator Kristen Gillibrand. “They have just sentenced veterans to death.”

On Wednesday, the SFC Heath Robinson Honoring our PACT Act collapsed in the US Senate when dozens of Republicans who previously backed the bill unexpectedly changed their minds and decided to vote against it.

The bill received just 55 of the needed 60 votes to pass a cloture motion on Wednesday, as just eight Republicans voted to move it forward.

Back on 16 June, the Senate had overwhelmingly voted to pass the bill, with senators voting 84 to 14 in favour of expanding healthcare access to thousands of veterans who had served the US overseas.

But now, with the Senate scheduled to go on a month-long recess on 5 August, thousands of veterans in desperate need of healthcare and disability benefits have now been left high and dry for even longer.

But – between one month and the next – dozens of Republican senators decided that they no longer supported expanding healthcare and disability access to US servicemembers and decided to change their vote.

Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jon Tester slammed the move on the Senate floor on Wednesday night.

Wait is this all real? Is there another side to this that I'm not seeing that perhaps a conservative poster can cite for us? Because as explained in that article it seems purely nonsensical. This would seem like an easy win for both sides.

Yep. Saw that. Republicans are despicable people. Support the troops my ass. They lie.

i thought i mis read this. when it first pop up. but after digging deeper..

dam....

I guess Republicans only support the troops when they are invading and bombing foreign countries.

They did the same thing to 9/11 first responders. This from the 'pro-life' crowd.

If it doesn't benefit the wealthy, Republicans aren't going to support it. No one should be surprised by this.

The GOP are working harder than ever before at being assholes.

According to roll call, current GOP angst is in regards to the spending language in the bill.

Some conservatives have raised objections to the bill because it would reclassify nearly $400 billion in current-law VA spending from discretionary to mandatory accounts, thereby potentially freeing up more budget authority to increase discretionary spending on other domestic programs.

...

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the bill would need another fix before it can become law.

“What we're hoping for is there will be a negotiation to eliminate some of the mandatory spending in the bill,” he said. “And then the bill can pass. But this is a cloture vote to provoke a conversation … but I expect it ultimately will pass in some form or another."

As usual, entertaining to see the rabble rabble rabble though.

Evil pieces of shit.

I remember reading about "burn pits" a few months ago. Truly awful stuff. I understand the reasoning behind it, but my god...that's some really stupid shit to do, can't believe it's actually a formal process our military does.

Might seem like a big ask, but you'd think we'd have mobile incinerators or we would have these burn pits way out in the middle of nowhere.

Before anyone objects to the cost simply because the number seems too high, it should be noted that medical costs is responsible for the bankruptcy of over 2/3 of all Americans, and there are millions of veterans that were exposed to these burn pits.

Do you think they would actually support it even if it was a bit more fiscally conservative, though?

I don't really see an issue with making certain spending mandatory as veterans need that support, the questionable part to me is "other domestic programs"; would that include anything, or is this money solely for veteran support? Sounds like some of them think it would go to other programs outside veteran support.

It should be noted that this was a bipartisan effort and it looked like they were about to pass it, but Republicans made a last-minute effort to kill it:

A nearly identical bill, without the tax tweak [that GOP senators objected to in the original bill], passed the Senate on a lopsided 84-14 vote last month with strong bipartisan support. But Republicans mounted an 11th-hour challenge to the legislation and decided not to let the revised bill advance Wednesday.

Seems like they were already met halfway when they agreed to remove a "tax tweak", made a deal, then went back on that deal at the last minute.

Trying my best to suppress my "ARRRRRGH the GOP!" response, but this is a bad look.

I guess we'll see in a month and a half what happens.

I'm not sure tbh, haven't read the bill.

I think we need another Jon Stewart Goes to Washington moment. It worked for the 9/11 responders, maybe it will work for veterans.

Shame them, Stewart! SHAAAAAAAAAAAME THEMMMMMMMMMM!

*lol nevermind apparently he already did last year.

And he had some great things to say today about the bill being killed.

Ahhh good ol' Jon Stewart, just when I think you've turned into a rich white moderate, you remind me you still have liberal values. Although, let's be honest....hard to call "supporting the troops" a liberal value, that's just moderate, bipartisan, and common-sense.

Yeah, Stewart responded directly to the questionable GOP objections.

‘Veterans are going to die’: GOP Senators block burn pits legislation procedural vote - YouTube

I think he has a good point, their reasoning appears a bit off considering there was no issue with the same exact bill last month. According to Stewart, the funding just can't be used for anything unrelated and it has to be related to the bill. Directly says they are lying. Although I need better citation than Stewart to prove that as a fact (just as I need better citation than lol John Corny lol for the opposite).

But I also think this will pass in a month after all the backlash is said and done.

Republicans aren't worried about spending when they give trillions of taxpayer dollars to the rich, but somehow have a problem when it comes to caring for veterans with cancer, struggling to breathe. Funny how that works.

This is argument is based on the premise that this spending should be required to be renewed every year in the future rather than automatically renewed. With this argument the GOP is telling veterans that they want to reserve the right to strip their health care away in the future.

Democrats put something in the bill to move VA benefits to other social programs. ( slimy shit they always do)and Republicans denied it.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Yup. I knew without even reading that the actual objection would be to something snuck in, or vague wording etc, rather than actually wanting to deny veterans health care.

As an injured vet that is rated 100% all this bill is saying is that all "service related" illnesses from respiratory illness need to be proven to be war time or militarily related. This is the way it has always been. I am rated (and have full medical) for 2 respiratory illnesses that I suffer from chemical contact in Iraq. This isn't blocking aid.. it simply isn't paying for illnesses caused after military service that aren't linked to your time in. Do I agree? Well not really, because I think if you serve you should get medical for life, but this isn't nearly as bad as people are acting.

Documenting your injuries is important and there is a very lengthy process.. yes the VA is an absolute nightmare, but let's not pretend it hasn't been the Dems who blocked the path for decades. Trump promised if he got elected that tens of thousands of veterans dating back to the Vietnam war would get answers to their claims within 90 days. Mine were out there for around 13 years at the time and 46 days into his presidency I was finally awarded my benefits as were hundreds of other families I personally came to meet while dealing with the VA. I saw Vietnam vets that had been fighting for benefits for over 40 years break down on their knees crying for finally getting taken care of. Also Trump passed VA choice (the best thing that has been passed for veterans in over 100 years) meaning you can get health care in or OUT of a VA hospital if they are service related. Just like with anything else in life things need to be documented. Once again though, it isn't always so cut and dry, but acting as though this is something new or a Republican evil is foolish and playing with fire.

Unfortunately many people would take advantage of getting medical treatment without having them documented as military related and it would only plunge our country further into debt, recession, and inflation. Do I think all veterans deserve healthcare? Yes. Do I think that the few would ruin it for the many and cheat the system? Yes. You can't sue without proof, you can't purchase without ID, why should someone get undocumented healthcare while others don't?

Now... if we were talking about a bill trying to get passed to give all military members free healthcare. Sure, I'm onboard. However, demanding treatment for unrelated causes without something like that is illegal in any sector.. it's fraud.

Yes.. I do know that many people suffer from things that they incurred that were never documented, but unfortunately that is on the vet to take care of or at the very least ask someone to help them with.

Claims in the military aren't difficult to file and even if you are rated at a 0% (meaning health care professionals couldn't find a rate-able illness) you are STILL awarded healthcare for that ailment FOR LIFE. You might not get paid for it, but you can get healthcare for the illness.

I turned in two additional claims over 10 years after I retired and was awarded 10% and 0% for the two things. At the time I was only 70% overall, but those two ailments were taken care of at a 100% rate. Now that I'm at 100% I have Tricare for life.

I'm not saying that all cases are identical, but I had to fight like hell for my benefits and they are all properly documented and often times I had a lot of help getting them done. The VA has had professionals that their job is to literally work as a case manager for you and those people have been around for over 60 years.

Recap: All that a vet needs to do is file a claim and go through the process. Even if they are denied compensation and nothing is found conclusive on that particular ailment they are still given a 0% which ensures health care. However, undocumented, unclaimed, or spur of the moment ailments are not covered without going through the legal process first.

Agree or disagree with the system, that is everyone's right (and I strongly disagree in many areas), but pretending to have no avenue to healthcare is completely false. You can file a claim at any time.

GOP fist-bumping after killing it. Yeah, they have plans for the future, that's for sure. Funding today, gone next year...who knows.

When I saw the article title I was like "It's probably Cruz".

Guess what?

It was Cruz.

Was trying to be objective here, see both sides....but god damn, these jerks make a sport of it.

That is odd, as they voted for the same thing earlier:

Was something unrelated snuck in that 1 month. Link? Do you have citation on what non-related domestic funding was snuck in? Stewart said they are specifically lying about that and the funds can't be used this way.

Interesting.

That's false and a GOP talking point.

Yup. The current Republican bs excuse is that the health funding is mandatory spending. Republicans don't want that because they want to be able to use it against Democrats later, in case it's politically expedient for them to take health care away from veterans, again. Degenerates, every single Republican.

@LJS9502_basic: What's your definition of a "talking point", and how does it differ from making a point?

Schummer out in a gimmick in the bill that was not in the house version of the bill that would allow money to be spent on other thing other than veterans. After being called on it and the bill not passing Schummer has taken it out of the bill. The Democrats want to go on a spending spree on the back of a veteran bill and blame Republicans who would not go along with their cheap trick. Thankfully Schummer came to his senses and the bill can be passed and give the veterans the help they desperately need.

I believe the argument is that this bill is aimed at addressing a specific issue--and the money should be going to only that specific issue of toxic-exposed vets.

The money still goes to that specific issue. The difference in mandatory vs discretionary spending is:

"Mandatory spending is spending that has been predetermined by existing laws and must be done each year, while discretionary spending is what Congress decides each year how much to spend on different programs."

Then why are senators saying otherwise? Can you point to the provision in the bill which states the money shall ONLY be used for this?

Why are Republicans saying this? Would you admit to voting against vets?

If the bill has issues, why wouldn't you? But sure, you can also take the elementary sensational "voting against our vets! they want out vets to die!" Rabble rabble rabble! Lol, hilarious.

Things started going downhill for veterans when John McCain passed.

Just imagine trying to justify the vote against this for reasons stated as: 'I don't want to continue care for these veterans'. The original version was passed with 84 and the the House passed it with a vast majority too.

'Pro-life' crowd at it again. L O L

Same exact bill passed a month ago. Funny how issues suddenly sprung up.

Just imagine throwing a tantrum when a reconciliation bill is passed that REDUCES the deficit, so you turn around and refuse to fund treatment for veterans in response. You're likely going to see some republicans do the same with the same sex marriage bill too.

It's beyond petty.

I mean it's a politician, they'll say anything lol. They are known liar. Stewart has said they are straight up lying on this specific statement.

Not to say Stewarts word is greater than theirs. Maybe there is some more deep analysis or fact check on this someone was capable of finding so we can have a more clear picture for everyone ITT. I wasn't able to find much sadly, hence asking in the OP. We'll see.

That is accurate, much like any government spending not having caveats is sort of like a unicorn.

Who was throwing a tantrum? Please, for the class, tell us what you perceive to be a tantrum. Lol

This, the topic, the discussion we're having. DUH

Don't believe me? Susan Collins herself said that the passage of the reconciliation bill will be met with Republicans dumping good bipartisan legislation. The GOP tanked this after previously passing it, unsurprisingly after the news that Manchin was onboard with a slimmed down BBB.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/collins-anti-inflation-bill-may-190103543.html

Huh? What conduct, specifically? Don't be shy. lol Let's see that reeeeee mantra that's consistent with throwing a tantrum.

They shot down the bill ^^^ To think that you don't believe that qualifies as 'reeeeeeee'.

My god, its a wonder that you're able to disconnect yourself from reality with such ease.

Oh, disagreeing with a provision in a bill qualifies as "throwing a tantrum"? Interesting. lol!

Hilariously, I've seen a lot in my ~decade in law enforcement... tantrums from children and adults are a plenty; again, you know, the worst of people and the best of people acting their worst. Curiously, I'm hard pressed to weigh the disagreement of a bill provision and those acting out in temper tantrums being on the same level. But silly me, maybe I'm just not attached to reality anymore. Maybe my internet-esque mantra be escaping me! Dang it!

Must be exhausting.

Interesting, the fact that it cleared the house with the vast majority or Republicans backing it, along with a prior majority backing in the Senate, prior to the reconciliation rollout has no bearing!!! Absolute coincide that they're reneging on it! We can also ignore a Susan Collins admitting my exact point!

Oh, is this bill unique to make it to the Senate then after the house agreement? Maybe it's unique that amendments and provisions get scrutinized? But a las, I forgot, in the "reeeeeee" times ... Disagreement is akin to throwing a temper tantrum. Curse my failing internet-eyes. Lol

So exhausting I imagine. :) You'll be okay.

Read the bolded Stevo.

He knows but he's already starting the diversion dance he does. Best to just let it play out.

Jon Stewart Fires Back at Ted Cruz’s ‘Bullshit’ Excuses for Opposing PACT Act (thedailybeast.com)

Cruz was at an airport earlier in the day when a TMZ correspondent cornered him to ask about Stewart’s crusade. “He’s actually quite funny,” the Republican said of Stewart before claiming to support the PACT Act, even though he voted against it. With a Diet Dr. Pepper in his hand, Cruz went on to accuse the Democrats of playing a “budgetary trick” by taking “discretionary” spending and moving it to “mandatory.”

In response, Stewart called Cruz’s comments “inaccurate, not true, bullshit” before systematically breaking down why his argument makes no sense. “Now I’m not a big-city, Harvard-educated lawyer,” he said, “but I can read. It’s always been mandatory spending, so the government can’t just cut off their funding at any point. No trick, no gimmick, been there the whole fucking time.”

“This is bullshit,” Stewart reiterated, calling out Cruz for voting for the bill in June before joining a large block of Republicans who switched sides even though the text of the bill remained exactly the same.

The comedian and activist closed out his message with the juxtaposition of Cruz “praising to the heavens our nation’s fighting men and women” and a clip of him “fist-bumping his Senate colleagues after removing those same veterans’ benefits and healthcare for toxic wounds.”

“Motherfucker,” he concluded. (lol)

What diversion dance? Apparently you perceive any disagreement with a bill to be throwing a temper tantrum... Unless there's specifics I missed. Don't be shy. :)

I'll make this simple since you are ignoring horgen and the sentence he bolded. Typical, but we'll give this one more shot.

84 Senators voted for the bill in its original form. Now nearly all Republicans have dropped off. Please humor me with the reasoning as to THE CHANGE.

@HoolaHoopMan: Oh, weird, why didn't it get passed then? Was something changed? How bizarre. Maybe something which caused a temper tantrum? Don't be shy, explain for the class.

Nothing was changed.

I'm curious. Is this purely a bill about burn pits and veterans, or is there other stuff jammed in there. The US political system has a way of tying things together that have no reason to be linked. If so, then yes, those republicans are dog poop.

Exactly. The bill is exactly the same. Difference being that the GOP now knows the Manchin made a deal on reconciliation. I hope you enjoyed today's lesson on critical thinking, Stevie!