Ron Johnson thinks it’s too expensive to take care of our nation’s military veterans

Surprised? No. Disgusted? Yes!

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson was one of only three senators who voted against a bill that would make it easier for veterans to receive government-subsidized medical care outside the Veterans Affairs medical system if the VA cannot provide timely service.

The bill passed with the support of 93 senators Wednesday. But Johnson said he couldn’t support it because of its cost — $35 billion the first two years, and $50 billion per year after that, according to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Sen. Johnson’s vote against medical care for veterans is positively shameful, and I can’t wait until we have a chance to vote him out of office in 2016.


Related Articles

7 thoughts on “Ron Johnson thinks it’s too expensive to take care of our nation’s military veterans

  1. Money wasn’t the problem. Personal was. A blank check doesn’t fix the overall problems with Obama’s VA. They already receive over $500 billion, but you kind of left out those details.

    1. As we already have seen proof that you have no understanding of FACTS, kindly give us a link or two to support your beliefs. Your opinion is of little use to anyone. As little as I think of Obomba, he is attempting to end US military casualties from the wars begun by right wing criminals in 2003, by bringing most of the troops home. I’d say get them all out, immediately.

      1. Show us where throwing more money at this will fix anything Mr. Facts.

        What do overseas war casualties have to do with the VA? Let’s stay focused here and try and stay on topic.

        1. From ridiculous to absolutely ludicrous, are you a blood relative to dumb Sen Ron Johnson or did happy hour begin before noon?

          1) You made a claim, I’m supposed to disprove your claim that you seemingly cannot back with anything other than your belief?

          2) Duh!?!?!? Soldiers wounded in overseas conflicts needing life-long hospitalization through the VA are not casualties? Only soldiers killed are casualties to you?

          It appears to be a stretch for your comprehension to get it, that fewer casualties to our valiant military personnel would at least slow down the need for the VA to provide a growing array of services to more and more veterans for now and into the future. Veterans getting health care services through the VA (or not) is off topic?

          These are all rhetorical questions (which means you need not respond). Every other person reading here, aside from you, already knows the answers. That be all from me on this.

        2. Trademark,

          Why won’t you respond to nq, …. someone hacked my computer, I was drunk-typing…..?

          I really think “What do overseas war casualties have to do with the VA?” could be your




          OT, could you tell Sen. Sunspot (and Paul Ryan) to quit leading the efforts to INCREASE federal taxes?

          “(Federal) Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete”

          Thanks in advance.

Comments are closed.