I wonder if that "number" of days waited is true. My son applied for his benefits and it was SIX YEARS before he got them. He had to submit paperwork four times, they "lost" everything that many times; how convenient for them, eh?
I have to defend the software industry, something Stewart probably knows nothing about. The two systems were probably installed at different times with different purposes by different departments and made by different companies. Possibly on different operating systems and, in particular, on different databases. I've been in the software industry for decades. What he describes is simply the result of different departments with different agendas and briefs going to vendors and having them build systems. Later they probably realized that it would be good if they communicated, but that didn't happen until it was too late. Stewart makes it seem like incompetent people were there, but that's not how this stuff happens.
DBK, Stewart made the point - valid, I think - that one system has to be able to talk with the other one to simplify the process. They have needed to reconcile or replace for too long.
I was wondering, about the number of vets all of a sudden hitting the system, could it be so many vets getting out? I mean, so many vets hitting the system at the same time?
Getting to see a doctor isn't the problem. The problem is with disability claims. Especially now that Agent Orange problems and Gulf War Syndrome are recognized as/assumed to be service-connected.
"DBK, Stewart made the point - valid, I think - that one system has to be able to talk with the other one to simplify the process. They have needed to reconcile or replace for too long."
I understand that. What I was talking about was the way in which the systems likely evolved to be unable to communicate. At no time was there an impetus to get them communicating. Nobody ordered an interface and it may be that no interface can be built. The problem isn't uncommon. The solution really isn't an interface generally anyway. I know about that. I've worked in interfaces and also at companies that had disparate systems that they tried to reconcile by hiring someone to create that interface. I literally saw no success at all at either of those two companies (one of which was AT&T, and the story of that department and that effort is a perfect example of why the deification of private industry over government labor is nonsense). So what is needed is a single system not a communicating piece, and that costs money and maybe they just never wanted to allocate the money. I don't argue that it hasn't been a problem or that it hasn't created problems. My response was based on Stewart mocking what was probably an ordinary and organic development that became problematic.
10 comments:
I wonder if that "number" of days waited is true. My son applied for his benefits and it was SIX YEARS before he got them. He had to submit paperwork four times, they "lost" everything that many times; how convenient for them, eh?
I have to defend the software industry, something Stewart probably knows nothing about. The two systems were probably installed at different times with different purposes by different departments and made by different companies. Possibly on different operating systems and, in particular, on different databases. I've been in the software industry for decades. What he describes is simply the result of different departments with different agendas and briefs going to vendors and having them build systems. Later they probably realized that it would be good if they communicated, but that didn't happen until it was too late. Stewart makes it seem like incompetent people were there, but that's not how this stuff happens.
DBK, Stewart made the point - valid, I think - that one system has to be able to talk with the other one to simplify the process. They have needed to reconcile or replace for too long.
At the Seattle VA, I got in to see a doctor right away, I have never had a problem at all. Maybe it's because it's so big?
I was wondering, about the number of vets all of a sudden hitting the system, could it be so many vets getting out? I mean, so many vets hitting the system at the same time?
Getting to see a doctor isn't the problem. The problem is with disability claims. Especially now that Agent Orange problems and Gulf War Syndrome are recognized as/assumed to be service-connected.
Yeah, I've known men who died waiting for Agent Orange disability. I had somehow forgotten that.
"DBK, Stewart made the point - valid, I think - that one system has to be able to talk with the other one to simplify the process. They have needed to reconcile or replace for too long."
I understand that. What I was talking about was the way in which the systems likely evolved to be unable to communicate. At no time was there an impetus to get them communicating. Nobody ordered an interface and it may be that no interface can be built. The problem isn't uncommon. The solution really isn't an interface generally anyway. I know about that. I've worked in interfaces and also at companies that had disparate systems that they tried to reconcile by hiring someone to create that interface. I literally saw no success at all at either of those two companies (one of which was AT&T, and the story of that department and that effort is a perfect example of why the deification of private industry over government labor is nonsense). So what is needed is a single system not a communicating piece, and that costs money and maybe they just never wanted to allocate the money. I don't argue that it hasn't been a problem or that it hasn't created problems. My response was based on Stewart mocking what was probably an ordinary and organic development that became problematic.
Post a Comment