Money is not an Issue.
The article under critique was written by Devin and Griffin, and it focuses on betterment of veteran affairs, especially in the health sector. In the article, the authors identify other issues that prevent attainment of crucial veteran affairs, and exclude money as the sole problem that hinders veterans from acquiring medical care. Therefore, this paper will address some of the issues noted by the authors, and examine the article in a methodical manner.
The authors note that billions of dollars have been spent to fix problems surrounding the veteran affairs, but still most of the problems still exist to date. The article also notes that the laxity detected during provision of healthcare to veterans is caused by several factors like flawed governance, inadequate facilities, insufficient stuff and employees and outdated IT programs. Notably, the article focuses on general problems that prevent provision of Medicare to veterans and gives light to the main causes of these problems, including the failures of the recommendations set to improve the veteran affairs. For example, Devin and Griffin note “the central problem is that these recommendations focus on primarily on fixing the existing VHA provider operations, rather than boldly transforming the overall veterans’ healthcare system”. Therefore, the article found out that there is need to reconstruct and improve leadership in the Veteran Affairs. More so, it was found out that the problems surrounding the Veteran Affairs increase healthcare expenses for veterans. Finally, it was discovered that the existing reforms and leadership requires urgent change as they contribute to most of the above problems.
The article has clearly captured most of the problems that affect the department of foreign affairs. Also, it has direct quotations from the leaders of the Veteran Affairs like Jeff Miller which clears it from biasness. The accuracy of the article is beyond measure because the information captured is from sources that are reliable and can be retracted for later use. However, the article falls short because it does not recommend the best cause of action for minimizing the noted problems. The readers do not get information about the necessary steps towards meeting the objectives set by the Veteran Affairs Committee. Furthermore, there is no evidence whether the report covered these said steps. For example, there are no directives provided concerning the selection of board directors that would implement the necessary change in VA healthcare. Also, the article only focuses on the content of the report. The author’s do not share the views regarding the problems or the recommendations of the commission, nor do they question the intent of the commission. In this case, it was necessary to share their point of view with readers. For example, they could address the worthiness of the recommendations towards a better Medicare.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article the article has covered several reasons for the laxity of veteran Medicare which include insufficient stuff, inadequate facilities and flawed governance among others. In my analysis, however, the article should have detailed solutions either from the authors or commission that would counter these problems. Still, the article is significant because gives light to some of the most ignored problems in the health sector and can be retracted for alter use.