ShareThis Page

Veterans Affairs shame: Clean this house

| Saturday, April 26, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Pittsburgh — where a Legionnaires' disease outbreak in Department of Veterans Affairs health-care facilities killed six veterans and sickened at least 22 — isn't the only place where the VA has betrayed its sacred mission. In Phoenix, top VA managers allegedly countenanced a scheme hiding year-plus waits for doctor's appointments; at least 40 veterans died awaiting care.

Internal VA emails and information from a newly retired 24-year VA physician detailing these appalling allegations were confirmed by other Phoenix VA staffers, according to CNN. Dr. Sam Foote says the Phoenix VA maintained both a sham waiting list sent to VA officials in Washington, showing veterans getting appointments within 14 to 30 days, and a real, hidden list compiled from computer printouts that then were shredded.

He estimates 1,400 to 1,600 veterans were on that hidden list. And emails show the Phoenix VA director even defended that list's use.

This is the latest of too many scandals for Veterans Affairs and its malfeasance worsens each time word of another breaks. That's indicative of an embedded culture at odds with the VA's mission, begging the question of what it will take to fix the agency.

Only a top-to-bottom overhaul — eradicating both disservice that threatens veterans' lives and pervasive aversion to accountability — can rectify the disgraceful, too often fatal, mess that is the Department of Veterans Affairs.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.