@SQUEEKY2 @cheebdragon, on a different but related thread, posted this answer:
“CBO estimates that fewer veterans would receive disability compensation under this version of the act than it did for the House-passed version. Costs are reduced primarily because the act would phase in the effective date of some presumptive conditions and reduce the number of people who receive retroactive benefits. Costs also are lower because the assumed enactment date is later for the current version. As a result, estimates for mandatory spending for compensation and other benefits are lower in this version”
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-06/hr3967_senate_version.pdf
That is from the Congressional Budget Office, not an opinion from Jon Stewart on MSNBC. And what it basically says is that this version of the bill will offer veterans less coverage than what was originally planned. Do you think that is fair? Do you believe that veterans should have to “settle” again because the bill got changed for the worse?
I am a vet and I take things like this very seriously. But I don’t jump down the rabbit hole because a celebrity screams. I want to know the facts before I get upset because I want to make sure I’m understanding things. If the bill was the same as before and and the Repubs just reneged on their support, I would have no problem lambasting them. You forget…I’m an Indy. But if I get mad at the Repubs and they are trying to do what is right, what does that really do?
So here’s a question: Would you be mad at the Democrats because the bill changed and they were trying to use that change as a political weapon instead of fixing the issue and getting the Veterans the medical help they deserve?