# Talk:2014 Veterans Health Administration controversy

The name of this article should reflect what it really is, a controversy, not a scandal. It's clear that the right wing is considering it a scandal because they just hate a black man in the white house, not to mention they were racist against an Asian-American when he ran the VA. It's just another phony scandal the right-wing made up because they hate the black president so much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B011:2CF1:225:FF:FE4F:3B8E (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 

I have a few responses to that.
So far as I have seen, there is nothing in reliable sources that call this situation a "controversy", but I have seen two of them say something like "growing public outrage".
None of the reliable sources that I have seen quote any racist comments.
There is nothing "controversial" about this situation that the reliable sources have mentioned. According to the sources, there are allegations of falsifying data, delaying care to those who are legally entitled to get it, and various other failings. This isn't like Benghazi where there are starkly different interpretations of where fault should be placed.
I have taken pains in this article to maintain a neutral point of view that is consistent with reliable sources. Personally, my impression is that Shinseki is an honorable person who had big problems happening underneath him that he didn't know about, and the only blame that can be placed on him might be that he was too trusting, which is what he has said in the quote in the article from a reliable source. Furthermore, the reliable sources indicate that legislation and investigations into this situation have bipartisan support and race is not part of the picture.
I should also point out that the United States Department of Justice, which seems likely to conduct a criminal investigation of this situation with the support of Congress, is led by Attorney General Eric Holder who happens to be African-American. If anti-minority racism was a motivation for politicians' interest in the misconduct at the Veterans Health Administration then I doubt the politicians would support the proposal that Holder's agency should have such a significant role.
So for all the reasons above, "scandal" is an appropriate word choice and "controversy" is not, at least not at this time. As the situation develops, if there is a controversy that is so significant that it overshadows the significant bipartisan agreements to date, we can re-think about how to title the article. --Pine✉ 07:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
_________

I agree with Pine on this issue. The anger is shared amongst the vast majority of political groups, no racist intentions exist, and this was a result of mismanagement. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Your nutty post doesn't even deserve a reply.--Cirrus Editor (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
_________

Wikipedia editors and contributors should always be sensitive to the use of subjective, value-charged language, including allegations of wrongdoing, clearly implied in the word "scandal" -- especially in titles and introductory paragraphs.  When in doubt, the term "controversy" is far more fair, balanced, and neutral (a key official standard for Wikipedia articles).
I did much of the early deep research, reporting and referencing (from official and major media sources) for this article, and Pine, I think, is correct -- this is probably best reported as a "scandal," given the prevailing nature, tone and sytle of coverage and discussion of the topic by ALL sides -- including President Obama, who has publicly expressed conspicuous outrage over the matter, firing people left and right over it (ultimately "accepting" the resignation of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
HOWEVER, that perjorative term, "scandal," is reasonably subject to debate, and the original post merits honest, open-minded discussion.  Cirrus's conspicuously disrespectful remark that "Your nutty post doesn't even deserve a reply" was quite unreasonable, completely out-of-line, and inappropriate for Wikipedia.
-- Zxtxtxz (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
_________

Information in this source could potentially be used here. Just a suggestion. --Philpill691 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Philpill691: thanks, I have added information from that source and others. --Pine✉ 08:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peaceray (talk · contribs) 01:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article qualifies as a Good Article.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
I think that this article does a great job in describing the scandal in layman's terms. Much of the government source material was generated by wiktionary:policy wonk's, & this article summarized those works well.To check for copyvios, I ran it through User:CorenSearchBot/manual. The result was that Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014, as of 05:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC), did not appear to be a copyright violation.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
It is well-cited & uses over seven dozen sources without over-citation. During the course of my review, I was bold in assuring improving the consistency of the citations by putting them in citation formats, adding parameters, & the like. There are no broken links at this time.
B. Citations to reliable sources: 
Links to a variety of news & government (executive & legislative) sources & at least one NGO source.
C. No original research: 
Everything is drawn from the sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
There are five images from Commons. Three are in the Public Domain; the remaining two are CC BY-SA 3.0.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Well done!
Peaceray (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Peaceray! --Pine✉ 07:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Some whistleblowers are getting restitution for the retaliation they got in the past, according to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VETERANS_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP - Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner congratulated the VA on correcting a couple dozen cases, the article said, while presently investigating 120 cases. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to say that the wait times in the private sector are usually longer than 14 days. 
This WP:RS says that most private health care systems have wait times longer than the V.A., and longer than 14 days. 
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/06/28/should-the-veterans-health-care-system-be-privatized
Room for Debate: Should the Veterans Health Care System be Privatized?
New York Times
June 28, 2016
Phillip Longman, author of "Best Care Anywhere: Why VA Care Would Work Better for Everyone." 
"Congressional grandstanding and sensational headlines notwithstanding, wait times at the V.A., for example, are generally in line with those experienced by patients in private health care systems." 
He cites this primary source: 
http://www.merritthawkins.com/2014-survey/patientwaittime.aspx
Physician Appointment Wait Times and
Medicaid and Medicare Acceptance Rates
2014 
Merritt Hawkins
http://www.merritthawkins.com/uploadedFiles/MerrittHawkings/Surveys/mha2014waitsurvPDF.pdf
--Nbauman (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The section, "Patient wait time data," looks like original research WP:OR. 
First, it's a primary source. 
It also seems to violate WP:MEDMOS "Extract the pertinent information rather than just dumping low-level facts in a big list." 
I don't see how this adds anything to the article. What does it mean? Are these wait times supposed to be good? Bad? Better than comparable private hospitals? Worse? 
Most significantly, Phillip Longman said that there is a great geographic variation in wait times. So some VA hospitals will have much longer wait times, and some will have much less, than this table. 
I propose deleting this section, unless there is any objection. --Nbauman (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there is no mention in this article of the Koch Brothers or Concerned Veterans for America. 
http://www.stripes.com/opinion/vets-should-be-wary-of-cva-pitchforks-and-torches-1.284769
Vets should be wary of CVA pitchforks and torches
By Tom Philpott
Stars and Stripes
May 23, 2014
In the thick of this is Concerned Veterans for America, posing as a vet advocacy group and being rewarded for it.  CVA press releases usually are partisan attacks.  Its spokesman, Pete Hegseth, an Iraq war vet and Republican who ran for a U.S. Senate in 2012, is quoted often by major news outlets without mention of press reports associating CVA with the Koch brothers, libertarian billionaires who create public interest groups to oppose big government.  That’s fine.  That’s protected speech.  A CVA spokesman told me last year it won't reveal donor information.  
https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/maraprmay-2016/the-va-isnt-broken-yet/
The VA Isn’t Broken, Yet
Inside the Koch brothers’ campaign to invent a scandal and dismantle the country’s most successful health care system.
March/April/May 2016
by Alicia Mundy
(Mundy says that the ulterior motive behind the wating-list scandal was the desire of the Koch brothers and Tea Party congressmen to privatize the VA system. The traditional veterans service organizations, including VFW, opposed privatization. So in 2012, conservatives funded by the Koch brothers created Concerned Veterans for America, to advocate market-based choices. The scandal was first announced by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), another Koch-funded politician, in the 2014 hearings of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Another one of their issues was arguing that it should be easier to fire VA employees.) 
Lots more WP:RSs with a Google search for Concerned Veterans for America, including a Rachel Maddow episode. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-va0QEipIk http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2016-01-22 
--Nbauman (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Calling this a "scandal of 2014" doesn't really fit the content.  The problems definitely emerged in 2014 but they were longstanding and the result of many prior decisions - including dramatic rise in number of veterans needing its services after the wars in afghanistan and iraq.  This is not a point event like 9/11.... am trying to think how we should name this page. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

agreed, i originally named the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkstar1st#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_User:Darkstar1st/VA_hospital_scandal_(May_21) and it was rejected 4 times, finally someone else submitted it under this name. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. "Scandal" is pejorative, implies that the charges are true, and violates WP:NPOV and MOS:WORDS. If a term violates those guidelines, it doesn't matter that it's commonly used in the media; we can't use it in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest that we change it to "Veterans Health Administration controversy". Even "charges" would be better. --Nbauman (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


### April 2017
#### Add “Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection” section?
I suggest to add a paragraph about the “Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection”? A significant amount of veterans and VA employees were affected by it. How about the draft paragraph below? With both media and official sources.

On April 27, 2017 President Trump signed executive order 13793. Which is titled VA “Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection” Act. To ensure that veterans receive the highest level of services, and that all VA whistleblower employees are protected against retaliation if they come forth and expose alleged wrongdoing. On November 11, 2017 Vice President Pence stated that the successful Act resulted so far in over 1,500 employees fired or suspended for negligent behavior.
  
Francewhoa (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Those are all official government sources. They should be quoted as such, not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Also, we need a WP:RS third party source for an independent judgment, and we have to comply with WP:NPOV. For example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/28/trumps-new-va-office-to-help-fire-feds-faster-also-could-hurt-not-protect-whistleblowers/
By Joe Davidson April 28, 2017
This rush to fire feds faster, first at VA, but with attempts to spread it across government, comes with a serious risk. Yes, due process rights can be slow and cumbersome. They protect, however, not just employees, but more importantly, also the public from a politicized system that favors citizens of one political party over another. Reforms must respect civil service protections. They should be acknowledged by government leaders and not be ignored as they were at the signing.
Furthermore, those protections protect whistleblowers.
While expedited firing has a certain appeal, allowing faster firing also could empower vengeful managers to more easily dismiss employees who report cases of agency waste, fraud and abuse.
--Nbauman (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a good source for criticizing privatization. 
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/3/30/david_shulkins_firing_at_the_va
David Shulkin’s Firing at the VA Is Latest Step in Trump-Koch Push to Privatize Veterans’ Healthcare
Democracy Now
March 30, 2018
Suzanne Gordon argues that the private sector doesn't have the capacity to handle veterans from the VA, charges more, and has worse outcomes. --Nbauman (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one:
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-trump-administration-goes-to-war-over-the-va
The Trump Administration Goes to War — With Itself — Over the VA
Even before a searing report put the job of Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin at risk, some White House staffers were pushing a health care agenda at odds with his. The infighting has left vets frustrated, Congress confused — and a key piece of legislation stalemated.
by Isaac Arnsdorf
Feb. 16, 2018
Shulkin is a technocratic Obama holdover. He not only participated in the past administration, but defends the VA’s much-maligned health care system. He seeks to keep the organization at the center of veterans’ health care.
But others in the administration want a much more drastic change: They seek to privatize vets’ health care.
Trump’s original policy proposals on veterans health, unveiled in October 2015, largely consisted of tweaks to the current system.
The ideas drew derisive responses from the Koch brothers-backed group Concerned Veterans for America (CVA). Pete Hegseth, its then-CEO, called the proposal “painfully thin” and “unserious.”
Trump then took a sharp turn toward CVA’s positions after clinching the Republican nomination.
--Nbauman (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-says-veterans-wait-too-long-for-health-care-vas-33000-vacancies-might-have-something-to-do-with-that/2018/04/10/d20bc890-3ccf-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html
Trump says veterans wait too long for health care. VA’s 33,000 vacancies might have something to do with that.
By Emily Wax-Thibodeaux 
Washington Post
April 10, 2018
The Department of Veterans Affairs, facing intense scrutiny amid reports of widespread dysfunction and a push by the Trump administration to outsource more medical care, has tens of thousands of full- and part-time vacancies nationwide, according to data compiled by veterans advocates, lawmakers and federal unions.
Max Stier, president and chief executive of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, said that when Trump took office, he put into place a federal hiring freeze that has been a particularproblem for VA as it looks to add staff. 
“Historically, one of the main benefits of working at the VA is stability. Unfortunately, people working in the health-care field are increasingly not viewing the VA as stable, and it is making recruitment more difficult because of that,” said Randy Erwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees.
--Nbauman (talk)

ProPublica had 2 stories on political influence of the Trump Administration on the VA, much of it involving privatization. 
https://www.propublica.org/article/ike-perlmutter-bruce-moskowitz-marc-sherman-shadow-rulers-of-the-va
The Shadow Rulers of the VA
How Marvel Entertainment chairman Ike Perlmutter and two other Mar-a-Lago cronies are secretly shaping the Trump administration’s veterans policies.
by Isaac Arnsdorf 
ProPublica
Aug. 7, 2018
During the campaign, Trump championed letting veterans see any doctor they choose, inside or outside the VA system. But Shulkin warned that such an approach was likely to result in poorer care at a higher cost. His preferred solution was integrating government-run VA care with a network of private providers.
...they proposed inviting private health care executives to tell the VA which services they should outsource to private providers like themselves. 
https://www.propublica.org/article/steve-cohen-privatized-ptsd-veterans-clinic
Steve Cohen Is Spending Millions to Help Veterans. Why Are People Angry?
The hedge fund billionaire’s efforts to assist veterans with PTSD have thrust him into the fight over privatizing the VA and led some people to question his motives.
by Isaac Arnsdorf 
ProPublica
Aug. 3, 2018
The Cohen Network has become a test case for both sides. It is either proof that the private sector can do the job better than the VA — or a template for diverting taxpayer dollars to unaccountable private groups.
--Nbauman (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Paul Krugman is a notorious socialist hack. In my opinion Wikipedia's inclusion in this article of Krugman's leftist apologia in defense of 'socialized' medicine is gratuitous, irrelevant and indicative of the pervasive liberal slant of this website. 2603:8001:C200:1637:65A5:867A:C9C9:4523 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Krugman's defense of 'socialized medicine' is especially ludicrous given that many if not most of the remedies for the long VA wait times and substandard care for veterans detailed in this article involved moving to private sector providers. 
As a totally disabled veteran (TDIU) I have personally benefited greatly from these legislative remedies. 
This IMO further undermines Wikipedia's unjustified and obviously agenda-driven inclusion of Krugman's socialist cheerleading. 2603:8001:C200:1637:65A5:867A:C9C9:4523 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)