Veterans Benefits

In the incidence of my bone marrow biopsy and their using this very large lab in California, it IS (or was). Inefficiency due to doing things on the low $$$ side.

A good solution: they need to contract to a few smaller regional labs not one massive one.

As to who I am, I'm a daughter of a full colonel and I don't expect v.a. benefits.

I'll agree, though I've no idea about the money part.


Well, to say what I usually think, we can spend trillions on wars and fail with snips at home.

Soldiers aren't fodder, even if they got to sit at desks.

Yes and no.

The lab sounds iffy to me from here, or some gimcrack re communication re both places.

Regional labs may not have the department expertise for reviewing some specimens. But, the good ones of those know who to consult with.

Ours was, at the time, one of the few places in the world for such and such, and I suppose such differentiation continues. This may be irrelevant in your situation., but we were fast once we got it.

This might even have been a problem re mail direction.

I'm not clear re blaming the v.a. or the lab, whatever it was, curious instead.
You may be right re money.

I'm wondering what JPB would say on all this. She knows a fair amount about labs.

A better source than wikipedia:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842


WWP is a great organization and serves my fellow Vets with distinction.

Just like FEMA cant be at every disaster, The Red Cross, a private organization, takes up the slack. The VA can not do it all. There are alamost 22 million Vets alive today, there are 153 VA hospitals, serving 5.7 million patients.

There are dozens of private Vet organizations such as Wounded Warriors Project and Vets for Warriors. Most of these organizations were started by Vets and are staffed with Vets. Even though most VA employees are caring, compassionate people, somethimes a Vet needs to talk to another Vet, especially one who has been in combat.

I donate to the WWP and I encourage others to do so as well. I dont give my money freely and checked them out before I did.

Yes, that's one of the sources cited in the Wikipedia excerpt I posted. Thanks for verifying it.

Your piece is misleading in that it states WWP rating falls

"somewhere in the middle (Charity Navigator)." Not true. Out of 100 points it scores 86.11.





The salient point is the Accountability & Transparency rating...4 stars


Accountability & Transparency Performance Metrics


Information Provided on the Form 990

Independent Voting Board Members

No Material diversion of assets

Audited financials prepared by independent accountant

Does Not Provide Loan(s) to or Receive Loan(s) From related parties

Documents Board Meeting Minutes

Provided copy of Form 990 to organization's governing body in advance of filing
Conflict of Interest Policy

Whistleblower Policy

Records Retention and Destruction Policy

CEO listed with salary

Process for determining CEO compensation

Board Listed / Board Members Not Compensated

Is the following information easily accessible on the charity's website?

No Donor Privacy

Board Members Listed

Audited Financials

Key staff listed

YES TO ALL

It's a very big organization and with that comes people who want to take pot shots at the big dog. 57% of donations go to the Vets...would i like to see more go? Yes. But in reality it takes money to make it. And I think close to 60% is pretty good.

That is a poor record. Your conclusion is not based on logic. If it were a college course grade, 57% is considered a failing grade.

I hope your surgeon scores 60%.

No, I'm sorry, you cant appliy your "logic" of the college course or narks doctor scenario to the issue of fund rasing...apples and oranges. 57% is not always a failing grade...most politicians would love to get 57% of the vote!

Also, the Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance Standards for Charity Accountability that allow up to 35 percent in overhead costs and still gives a favorable rating.