QuoteWASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html
Fail.
I could understand how that would be controversial.
Why shouldn't veterans be required to pay for treatment with private health insurance? The cost of the Iraq War is substantial, but long term care of these individuals will lead to VA insolvency.
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:43:14 AM
Why shouldn't veterans be required to pay for treatment with private health insurance? The cost of the Iraq War is substantial, but long term care of these individuals will lead to VA insolvency.
We were able to do it after WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Why should this be any different?
Quote from: Weatherman on March 12, 2009, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:43:14 AM
Why shouldn't veterans be required to pay for treatment with private health insurance? The cost of the Iraq War is substantial, but long term care of these individuals will lead to VA insolvency.
We were able to do it after WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Why should this be any different?
They're going to live longer and the cost of medical care has risen dramatically over the past sixty years. If this plan is killed by the Congress, then I would expect severe rationing of VA resources in the future. I suppose that's how they'll force costs down...
Only a complete nationalisation of the HC can save America now.
Wow, what a piece of fail this is. "Charging for service related injuries".
I don't know, from where Obama sits and his level of experience and understanding of things military, I am sure it makes perfect sense for service members to pay for their own health care resulting from injuries serving the war machine.
We could save some more money by making them pay for their own ammo as well. This would not only remove some of the burden from the federal budget, freeing up money for more grants to ACORN and other groups doing *real* work, but would likely encourage them to be more careful in their use of firepower and perhaps even stop them from killing so many innocent victims of US imperialism.
After all, a bullet is no reset button!
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2009, 11:34:11 AM
We could save some more money by making them pay for their own ammo as well. This would not only remove some of the burden from the federal budget, freeing up money for more grants to ACORN and other groups doing *real* work, but would likely encourage them to be more careful in their use of firepower and perhaps even stop them from killing so many innocent victims of US imperialism.
After all, a bullet is no reset button!
apparently, many US Soldiers pay themselves for some piece of equipment, because the standard stuff is just not good.
Oh, and that idea is stupid.
If a soldier is too stupid to stay out of a bullet's way then he should pay the treatment.
Also gives a whole new meaning to "He bought it."
I must admit that it is fun to watch all the sturm und drang over a plan that does not exist yet. Hell, we have a strawman argument that is more flecshed out than the "plan" being attacked! :D
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2009, 11:56:51 AM
I must admit that it is fun to watch all the sturm und drang over a plan that does not exist yet. Hell, we have a strawman argument that is more flecshed out than the "plan" being attacked! :D
Shush you, this is fun.
One would think that a step away from the rampant Socialism of the military would be greeted more favorably here. But no.
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2009, 11:56:51 AM
I must admit that it is fun to watch all the sturm und drang over a plan that does not exist yet. Hell, we have a strawman argument that is more flecshed out than the "plan" being attacked! :D
So... people have to shut up about it until it's official policy? ???
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 12:56:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2009, 11:56:51 AM
I must admit that it is fun to watch all the sturm und drang over a plan that does not exist yet. Hell, we have a strawman argument that is more flecshed out than the "plan" being attacked! :D
So... people have to shut up about it until it's official policy? ???
Do you even have to ask?
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 12, 2009, 11:05:54 AM
Only a complete nationalisation of the HC can save America now.
Indeed.
I think what we're seeing here is the disconnect between two of Obama's most important constituencies. On the one side, the 'Improved health care is good' people, and on the other, the 'All American soldiers are war criminals and deserve to die' people.
Quote from: derspiess on March 12, 2009, 12:56:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2009, 11:56:51 AM
I must admit that it is fun to watch all the sturm und drang over a plan that does not exist yet. Hell, we have a strawman argument that is more flecshed out than the "plan" being attacked! :D
So... people have to shut up about it until it's official policy? ???
So, shutting up and
sturm und drang are the only choices ??????
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2009, 01:51:16 PM
So, shutting up and sturm und drang are the only choices ??????
In American political discourse? Yes it seems that way.
This is all a bit confusing as there is no plan other than what people are trying to derive by implication.
With that in mind, it does not seem like the concept is to make soldiers pay for anything - but rather that where there are former soldiers who have private health coverage, the private insurer should pick up the cost of treatment first. Ie it seems to be about allocating cost burdens as between the VA and insurance companies.
Quote from: grumbler on March 12, 2009, 01:51:16 PM
So, shutting up and sturm und drang are the only choices ??????
I'm going to whimper for a bit, then start cutting myself. Then blindly lash out.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 12, 2009, 01:56:22 PM
With that in mind, it does not seem like the concept is to make soldiers pay for anything - but rather that where there are former soldiers who have private health coverage, the private insurer should pick up the cost of treatment first. Ie it seems to be about allocating cost burdens as between the VA and insurance companies.
Oh sure, NOW you are all about trying to figure out what they really mean, rather than just construing the worst possible interpretation of their words!
Absolute insanity.
Quote from: viper37 on March 12, 2009, 11:50:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2009, 11:34:11 AM
We could save some more money by making them pay for their own ammo as well. This would not only remove some of the burden from the federal budget, freeing up money for more grants to ACORN and other groups doing *real* work, but would likely encourage them to be more careful in their use of firepower and perhaps even stop them from killing so many innocent victims of US imperialism.
After all, a bullet is no reset button!
apparently, many US Soldiers pay themselves for some piece of equipment, because the standard stuff is just not good.
Oh, and that idea is stupid.
Ammo pouches, camelbacks, boots, knee pads, load bearing vests? Yes.
Weapons and ammo? No.
Quote from: Berkut on March 12, 2009, 02:11:34 PM
Oh sure, NOW you are all about trying to figure out what they really mean, rather than just construing the worst possible interpretation of their words!
Congrats, you persuaded me. :)
Quote from: Weatherman on March 12, 2009, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Tiamat on March 12, 2009, 10:43:14 AM
Why shouldn't veterans be required to pay for treatment with private health insurance? The cost of the Iraq War is substantial, but long term care of these individuals will lead to VA insolvency.
We were able to do it after WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Why should this be any different?
You don't think that may have had something to do with the current hyper-inflation of healthcare, the way healthcare providers had to largely eat those costs?
QuoteThe American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Mon Mar 16, 5:49 pm ET
Featured Topics: Barack Obama Presidential Transition To: POLITICAL EDITORS
Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell
WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.
"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."
The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"
Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."
Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.
"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.
"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.
SOURCE The American Legion
Should we care about what old people have to say?
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2009, 09:24:52 PM
Should we care about what old people have to say?
I am myself a Commander, and can attest that the words of Commanders are not to be given much weight.
Quote from: grumbler on March 16, 2009, 11:27:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2009, 09:24:52 PM
Should we care about what old people have to say?
I am myself a Commander, and can attest that the words of Commanders are not to be given much weight.
That statement is impossible to decipher.