Is U.S. prepared to care for more casualties from troop buildup?

[unhappycamper]

Source: McClatchy

Is U.S. prepared to care for more casualties from troop buildup?
By David Goldstein | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Monday, December 7, 2009

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration ramps up the war in Afghanistan, veterans advocates say the government must develop a better plan to handle the wounded when they come home.

Eight years of war have overtaxed the health care systems that treat service members and veterans, several said, and President Barack Obama's decision to deploy 30,000 to 35,000 more troops in Afghanistan will compound the stress.

Treatment at medical facilities that the military and the Department of Veterans Affairs operate is viewed as world class despite its well-publicized lapses. However, both often struggle to care for large numbers of soldiers and Marines with devastating physical and mental injuries.

Coordination between the military and the VA is often slow, veterans groups say, and waiting times to see doctors and process benefit claims are long. A recent VA investigation found that 11,000 claims filed at offices around the country were still unresolved after more than a year.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/80093.html

[jtrockville]

1. Makes you wonder why we plan to close Walter Reed

[FBaggins]

2. Aren't they building a new & larger facility? n/t

[jtrockville]

4. I think they plan to use the Naval Medical Hospital.

I don't know off-hand whether or not that (existing) facility has been expanded as part of the BRAC plan or not.

It seems to me we ought to be building tons of facilities while keeping all the existing ones open.

[Fire1]

5. WOW!!! Walter Reed is closing????? What a shame!!!! n/t

[jtrockville]

7. Yep. They made the decision in 2005 and they're sticking to it.

http://www.wramc.army.mil/NewsAndEvents/media/Lists/wrnews/DispForm.aspx?Id=122&

It opened in 1909.

[FBaggins]

3. Is "more casualties" a given?

The "surge" in Iraq was certainly followed by much lower casualty rates.

Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do... but it doesn't imply necessarily higher casualties.

[TexasObserver]

6. Recommend