Military Health Care: The Walter Reed Medical Center - Essay Example

Military Health Care: The Walter Reed Medical Center I will campaign on two major issues. First, I want to focus on public education and its funding. Second, I want to focus on issues related to the medical care injured veterans receive when they return from Iraq. I am particularly concerned that the Department of Veteran's Affairs fails to give proper support to troops returning from combat. I want to focus on the Walter Reed scandal exposed by the Washington Post and by Judy Woodruff and campaign on obtaining better medical treatment for our wounded veterans when they return with injuries from combat. I will campaign as an independent. I realize that independents have less of a chance at winning an election. For the most part, the country is divided between Democrats and Republicans. Demographically, my constituents are essentially conservative Republicans, but this district also has a strong history of support for democrats. Sam Rayburn who was from this district (see below) was a Democrat. The political approach many people follow is either to vote for the member of their party or not to vote. That is, if they do not like the individual their party has chosen to represent them in the election, they just don't vote rather than voting for the opponent. While this is by no means what most people do, there are enough individuals who refuse to support anyone other than the candidate of their own party that it is certainly difficult for an independent to win. The same holds true for candidates representing minor political parties. Even so, I have chosen to run as an independent being fully aware as to how that might work against me. My district, the 4th Congressional District of Texas, is solidly white and conservative meaning that the candidate most likely to succeed will be a white conservative Republican. However, Texas is also the state of Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat and this District is the District of Sam Rayburn, a Democrat who represented this district from his first election in 1912 until his death 25 elections later in 1961. As an independent, I intend to reach out for the votes of Democrats and of conservative Republicans. I will remind my constituents that historically, this district has a strong background of voting issues. That may or may not be true, but it will be easy for me to demonstrate that this conservative community has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past, suggesting a trend towards voting issues rather than following partisan habits. As an independent, my job will be to point out that our community votes issues, not partisanship. I will seek endorsements from the Texas Cattleman's Association, The North Texas Oil and Gas Association, the Texas Association of Mexican American Chambers of Commerce, and other professional associations. Texas Association of School Administrators and related organizations. Some of these organizations my not have a strong presence in my district, but their endorsement may still be beneficial to my campaign. I will also seek the endorsement of black and Hispanic leaders in my district. I will seek endorsements from ranching and farming organizations and groups, religious organizations and groups, institutions of learning, teachers associations, academicians, Hispanic organizations and groups and black organizations and groups. I will campaign in the 4th Congressional District of Texas for the seat of Congressman Ralph Hall. Demographically, I will reach out to the white, middle class, to Latinos and to blacks. These individuals combine to compose 98% of those who reside in my District. My Congressional District is mostly Anglos, 79%, and 18% black and Hispanic. The district is strongly conservative, religious and family oriented with many people being involved with local churches and schools. It has a rich farming and ranching community and tries to maintain quality schools and universities. Therefore, for the most part, my political base will consist of religious Anglos involved in agriculture. It will consist of family oriented individuals who regularly attend church and whose life centers on church and school activities. The career base of my constituents will include individuals from a diverse number of professions ranging from medical, educational, agricultural, manufacturing and high technology. There will be a strong conservative outlook in my District and many individuals involved in the cattle industry and in the oil industry. The lifestyle of many of my constituents will be associated with wide open spaces. My district borders on and is northwest of Dallas-Ft. Worth, but there are no big cities in my district. Paris, Sherman and Denison are the largest cities in my district with populations of around fifty thousand, thirty-five thousand and twenty-two thousand respectively. The median income is about $46,000 making the average family middle class, but with an income a few thousand dollars below the national average. I have specific ideas as to how I would like to conduct my campaign. I intend to appeal to the patriotism of my constituents and remind them of the great history of our district and our state. Since I am an independent in a largely conservative district, I will remind them of Sam Rayburn, a Democratic Representative from our District who served 25 terms from 1912 until his death in 1961 and was a noted speaker of the House, and of Lyndon Johnson, also a Democrat who became President of the US. I will point out that General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower was born in this district. While I realize that has no bearing on the campaign, but it calls a sense of history and patriotism to my campaign. After paying attention to campaigns throughout the years, I've noticed two major points that I would totally avoid during my campaign. First, many campaigns ultimately turn into mud slinging. Although candidates often claim that they will not sling mud, many campaigns, perhaps even the majority of them ultimately do sling mud. Despite the effectiveness of mudslinging, (yes, apparently, it does work), most people following campaigns claim that the general tactics used in mudslinging turn them off. I agree! Mud slinging turns me off as well, but I recognize that those who sling mud often catch others up in their mud slinging tactics and sway voters in their direction end up; thus they gain votes. The unanswered question is, "Do they lose more votes than they gain" So, my first goal is to avoid slinging mud completely. My second method of conducting my campaign will assist me in sticking to my first. I will avoid any and all mention of my opponent-no names, no comparisons, no mention of my opponent at all, but I will answer any accusations my opponent makes against me without referring to that opponent. My reasoning is that I feel that many political candidates provide name recognition for their opponent by denigrating the opponent. Often, many voters are more likely to hear the name of candidates for the candidate's opponents than from other sources. I have seen campaign adds for a candidate where the candidate running the ad almost goes unmentioned while their opponent's name is mentioned over and over again in a negative vain. After hearing those ads, you know who not to vote for, but you are less certain who you should vote for. I will do absolutely nothing that will provide greater name recognition for my opponent or opponents. This means that I absolutely will not sling mud because slinging mud requires that my campaign mention the opponent by name, and I simply will not do that! If my opponent has not done enough to have gotten name recognition by election time, he or she will receive no help from me! It is impossible to sling mud at my opponent(s) without mentioning his/her/their name(s). Furthermore, voters say time and time again that they are turned off by dirty campaigns. Also, personally, I feel that individuals who are busy slinging mud do so because they have no constructive ideas of their own as to how to make the situation in their district/state or in the country better. So, rather than building their campaign around issues that they intend to pursue, they build it around dirt. I have no problem in debating any of my opponents, but other than greeting them in the debate, I will not mention or use the name of any of my opponents in any manner whatsoever at any time throughout my campaign. I intend to conduct an Internet campaign. Despite the fact that the Internet has been around for nearly two decades, using the Internet to assist during a campaign is still a rather novel approach to campaigning that has not been developed. I feel that it could prove to be an effective and economical campaign tool. I will also conduct community activities to promote my issues and my campaign. Finally, I will use radio and television spots to promote my issues and my campaign. Personally, I feel that such spots are not cost effective, but they do provide exposure and political candidates need as much exposure as they can get. However, I do not want to waste money by running an overly large number of radio and television spots. Although I have two campaign issues, once in Congress, I will champion improving the medical treatment our troops when they return to the US after serving their country in Iraq, or anywhere else where they might serve. Although I will campaign on the medical attention our troops receive at all military hospitals, I will focus on issues at Walter Reed Medical Center and use that as an example and a calling card for improving the medical attention wounded troops receive in general. Over the past few years, a number of reports on television and in the Washington Post have focused on the poor conditions and standards of medical care our troops get at Walter Reed. Since this issue has been the focus of widespread media coverage in the Washington Post and elsewhere, I will take advantage of that coverage and champion that issue, one that is dear to my heart as well. In Congress, I will champion providing better health care to our troops, beginning at the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. (actually, Bethesda, MD) and also elsewhere. I want to improve the healthcare conditions at the Walter Reed Medical Center. The Pentagon plans to close Walter Reed Medical Center in 2011 in favor of opening a new Walter Reed Medical Facility. I would like to resolve the problems at Walter Reed and allow it to continue to operate. As an alternative, I would support plans to build a replacement to Walter Reed if the conditions at the present facility prove to be too monumental to resolve in a reasonable manner and without and unreasonable financial burden. This is an option the Army now has on the table (discussed below). I feel that it is unconscionable for soldiers with serious brain injuries suffered in battle or in the course of fulfilling their voluntary military obligation to their country to sit for long periods of time for medical attention without help from medical staff. I am against building permanent military outposts in Arab and Muslim countries while closing Walter Reed and our bases at home. In fact, building permanent military outposts in Arab and Muslim countries lend support to assertions of Muslim terrorists that the U.S. chooses to wage war against Arabs and Muslims. I do not want the U.S. to do anything that lends support to this idea. Why did I choose my issues I was struck by the piece Judy Woodruff did on the conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center, the scandal at Walter Reed. The scandal revolved around allegations about outpatient neglect and the unsatisfactory conditions and management at Walter Reed reported as early as 2004. Subsequently, there have been a number of congressional and executive actions after an expos in the Washington Post. In her piece, Ms. Woodruff spoke of the difficulties in diagnosing the mental problems of soldiers, problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Some army officials have already lost their jobs over the situation. Her report mentions that the outgoing Army Chief of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker, believes that the shortcomings in medical care and the substandard medical care at Walter Reed are merely a symptom of a much larger military problem. Now, there is a move to close Walter Reed and military bases here in the U.S. while building bases in Arab and Muslim countries. I would like to forgo building more bases in foreign countries, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, and turn our attention keeping bases open here in the US and to improving conditions at Walter Reed and attending to other matters here at home. Closing US bases in the US will have a dramatic effect on the economy of the communities that will lose the bases. Military bases generally provide a tremendous economic boost to the communities that surround them. The loss of such bases could spell financial doom and disaster to the communities that lose the income realized from the presence of those bases. Why should we prop up the economy in foreign communities that don't want us there in the first place and deprive communities in the U.S. of the chance to benefit from the presence of military bases in their communities Part of Walter Reed was described as being infested with cockroaches and rodents. The carpets are stained, the mattresses are cheap and there is black mold. The entrance is not monitored and there are reports of drug dealers in front of the facility. These are issues that can be resolved. However, perhaps the military has determined that the cost of resolving the present problems are too great and that is why they have decided to close the present facility in favor of opening a new one. Will a new facility actually resolve these issues if we take the same attitude and approach as we now take Whatever the case, I will become intimately involved with the issues surrounding this matter and attend to them until this matter is resolved. Certainly, part of the problem may have nothing to do with the present facility, but rather, with issues of how the present facility is run. If that is the case, then building a new facility without making changes in how that facility is run will not go a long way in resolving the present problems. I want to solve the problems, not just move them to another location. I also want to get rid of some of the bureaucratic paperwork involved with medical care at Walter Reed and other military care facilities. The medical center does not properly keep track of soldiers being treated at Walter Reed. It appears that all too often, when patients are released or transferred to another hospital, the front desk managers did not know what happened to the patient. In the Army, the sergeants generally know everything about the soldiers under their charge, but at Walter Reed, those receiving medical attention encounter a menagerie of undesirable situations where the army has failed to keep track of injured soldiers and help them with appointments. Government investigators and soldiers complain that they are poorly trained and do not understand the system. I have also chosen to campaign on public education and its funding. I believe this issue is dear to the hearts of my constituency. Everyone desires a good quality of life, and we are taught that acquiring a good education is the cornerstone to having a good lifestyle and a good quality of life. Public education provides an affordable education for virtually everyone. I want to assure that the public education Texans in my district receive is sufficient to provide whatever is needed to successfully meet the challenges and situations of life. When elected, I will focus on this issue within my district, not so much in Congress. If I can draw money from Congress to support better public education within my district, I certain will do so. The issues at Walter Reed have not gone unnoticed by Congress or the White House. The Washington Post ran a series of articles regarding the unsatisfactory conditions as the Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. Within a week of those articles, Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Walter Reed and promised to act on the problems. Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey relieved the hospital Commander, Major General George W. Weightman on the grounds that the army had "lost trust and confidence" in his leadership at Walter Reed. Subsequently, Secretary Harvey was fired as well. Defense Secretary Gates felt that Secretary Harvey wasn't getting the army to move fast enough in making the changes necessary at Walter Reed. The scandal led to an extensive analysis of the soldiers' healthcare system managed by the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs. There have been accusations of mismanagement and excessive bureaucracy at Walter Reed and elsewhere. Indeed, a number of individuals involved in the situation at Walter Reed have been replaced ranging from Army staff at the medical center and going all the way to the Cabinet. Congress is aware of this matter and action has been taken by the Congress and the White House. Will improving the medical treatment of our injured troops win support in Congress Congress is sensitive to accusations that those serving their country in combat are mistreated when they return home, especially as concerns receiving treatment for battle wounds. The situation at Walter Reed certainly qualifies as a form of mistreatment, especially since it involves soldiers injured in combat while serving their country. If Walter Reed closes, I feel that the government will have to build some facility to replace it just as the Army plans, but funding for the facility will certainly be an issue. If it doesn't close, then the government will need to do something to improve the situation there. Either way, funding will be an issue. Walter Reed is the hospital that the President and all members of Congress use. So far, the Army has announced plans to build a new Walter Reed facility to replace the present one as part of the Base Realignment and Closure procedure of the Defense Department. My intention is to get intimately involved in this issue to see that it is properly handled and that our injured troops get proper medical attention, not just at Walter Reed, but at all government run medical facilities. The proposed site for the new Walter Reed Medical Center will be on the grounds of the National Naval Medical Center, also in Bethesda, MD, seven miles from the present location of Walter Reed. The new facility will be a joint military facility rather than an Army facility. Its staff will include Army, Navy and Air Force medical personnel and I will support this change. Nothing in politics is without obstacles. The obstacles facing this venture are those typical in politics and life. The major problems will involve bureaucracy, politics and funding issues. Joe Wilson, a clinical social worker at Walter Reed has stated that the funds needed to deal with some equipment problems at Walter Reed, were no longer available. Obviously, Congress will be required to act on some of the funding issues, but perhaps better management at Walter Reed would be of value too. Therefore, the problems that plague Walter Reed involve both politics and of funding concerns. Furthermore, wherever politics and/or funding are involved, bureaucracy is generally an issue. Joe Wilson ultimately resigned over the incompetence he encountered over funding issues and bureaucracy related to problems at Walter Reed. I believe that resolving the issues in a manner that will determine the actual budget needs may be the most significant obstacle. Then, getting the budget requirements through Congress will be next. Perhaps with the situation in Iraq and the need for medical facilities to treat troops returning from battle, the budget concerns at Walter Reed may not be as difficult to move through Congress. However, even if a new facility is built, it will still be necessary to improve the conditions at the present Walter Reed Medical Center in the interim, and that may be the greatest obstacle in the long run because that requires a number of changes that were not forthcoming in the past, and therefore may not be any more likely in the near-term future, especially if there are plans to build a new Walter Reed Facility. Then, it will be necessary to do what is necessary that the present conditions do not arise at the new facility. Until new facilities are completed, funding to improve conditions at Walter Reed and for building repairs of the Medical Center must come from somewhere, and that is the responsibility of Congress. In conclusion, I intend to focus my campaign on the issues of public education and its funding and on better medical treatment for our troops. Much of my focus will be on the treatment our troops receive at Walter Reed Medical Center because that is an issue that has received a great deal of media attention recently, but I will generalize this to the treatment our troops receive at all military medical facilities. I am certain that the constituents in my district will want better public education in as much as a good education is generally viewed as a stepping stone to a better life, but I am also sure that my conservative constituency will want to assure that the troops who are injured while serving their country do not return to receive substandard medical care for their injuries. I believe that my bill for better medical care at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities around the US can be passed in Congress since it is a matter presently under consideration and one in great need of attention and since we are embroiled in the conflict in Iraq. However, it is unlikely that merely throwing money at the Walter Reed problem will be enough. Whether a new facility is built or the present one is completely refurbished, it will be necessary to assure that the management of the facility will improve. I feel that the medical treatment our wounded troops receive and improving the quality of public education in my district are two issues that most of my constituents would endorse. References Apologies, Anger at Walter Reed Hearing: Army Chiefs Plead Ignorance, But Lawmakers Are Skeptical (The Washington Post, March 6, 2007, p. A1) Army Fires Commander of Walter Reed: Former Chief, Also Criticized in Troop-Care Scandal, Temporarily Takes Over (The Washington Post, March 2, 2007, p. A1) At Walter Reed, 'We're Going to Fix It': General Says He Will Oversee Repair of Soldiers' Lodging. (The Washington Post, 2007, February 22, p. A6. ) At Walter Reed, 'We're Going to Fix It': General Says He Will Oversee Repair of Soldiers' Lodging (The Washington Post, February 22, 2007, p. A6) 'It Is Just Not Walter Reed': Soldiers Share Troubling Stories of Military Health Care Across U.S. (The Washington Post, March 5, 2007, p. A1) Legislation Would Repeal Walter Reed Closure (The Washington Post, March 7, 2007, p. A5) Soldiers Detail Walter Reed Problems: Review Board Hears Testimony on Patient Treatment at Hospital (The Washington Post, March 14, 2007, Page A8) Read More