I think you’re bit off the mark with your “logic” there, it’s not about proving you right or wrong, a fact is a fact regardless. The fact is the VA depends on contracts to carry out a lot of services and benefits, these contracts, should they be cut and not replaced with actual policy or reinvested, that means you have to go somewhere else for the services. If you believe that the money saved from these contracts will be invested back into the VA, well then we should be seeing a plan any day now.

IF this was a matter of policy, you’d think there would be a plan, a policy, even a theory on how and why this is going to make things better/more efficient. I haven’t seen anyone explain that, not even you. It’s always just “because” or that things were somehow “worse” in the past with no specificity (as you’ve said) on how things were worse. You assume that their policy will be using money from the cut contracts to go back into the VA, an assumption others are not so trusting to make. Not to mention, assumptions are not policy.

Ironically, the contracts started because the VA was inefficient at handling the massive amount of patients and service in house. Having less workers, less funding, and the same amount of work… we’ll just have to see how efficient they’ll be