TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

We're all learning that Obama's statements come with an expiration date. This is yet another example and it's sickening. Remember this from the campaign?

quote:

OBAMA: We all know that the sacred trust does not end when the uniform comes off. That�s why it�s time to build a 21st-century VA. No more red tape. It�s time to give every service member electronic copies of their medical records and service records upon discharge so that they can immediately get the services that they�ve earned. No more shortfalls. We�ll fully fund VA health care. No more delays. We�ll pass on-time budgets. No more means testing. It�s time to allow every veteran into the VA system.

Then there's this from the other day:

quote:

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. No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration. The groups also cited an increase in �third-party collections� estimated in the 2010 budget proposal � something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries. Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under �consideration.� �A final decision hasn�t been made yet,� he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03...ance/index.html

I guess the commander of the American Legion had a meeting with Obama yesterday on the matter and came out of that meeting pretty angry. And who can blame him?

quote:

�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!� "... 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.�

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/200903...s_for_treatment

Ok so Obama wants them to get 3rd party insurers to pay for their coverage. What's wrong with that? First there's the moral obligation to provide treatment for those wounded in the service of their country. Secondly, as Rehbein points out, "vets with service-related injuries and illnesses can only get third-party insurance because insurers know the US will cover all service-related medical treatment through the VA. If the government reneges on that commitment, it will put insurers on the hook for veterans already enrolled � but it will make it a lot harder for the next set of veterans to get insured. It will also raise costs to the rest of the insured by those companies, when the burden should fall on all Americans equally."

Seriously, is this the way to get a new revanue stream? If you were in the military, how pissed would you be that this guy was your Commander In Chief?

Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss We're all learning that Obama's statements come with an expiration date. This is yet another example and it's sickening. Remember this from the campaign? Then there's this from the other day: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03...ance/index.html I guess the commander of the American Legion had a meeting with Obama yesterday on the matter and came out of that meeting pretty angry. And who can blame him? http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/200903...s_for_treatment Ok so Obama wants them to get 3rd party insurers to pay for their coverage. What's wrong with that? First there's the moral obligation to provide treatment for those wounded in the service of their country. Secondly, as Rehbein points out, "vets with service-related injuries and illnesses can only get third-party insurance because insurers know the US will cover all service-related medical treatment through the VA. If the government reneges on that commitment, it will put insurers on the hook for veterans already enrolled � but it will make it a lot harder for the next set of veterans to get insured. It will also raise costs to the rest of the insured by those companies, when the burden should fall on all Americans equally." Seriously, is this the way to get a new revanue stream? If you were in the military, how pissed would you be that this guy was your Commander In Chief?

before you get all hot-and-bothered, what is the definition of "service related injury?" If service related injury is limited to non-combat injuries, I have no problem with this. I'm willing to bet this doesn't encompass combat injuries otherwise they wouldn't be calling it "service related," instead they would be saying "Combat." For some stupid reason americans think that anything soldiers do while they are enlisted is considered 'in service.' I don't want to pay for a soldier's physical rehab for a biking accident he had while enlisted in the military.

Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 before you get all hot-and-bothered, what is the definition of "service related injury?" If service related injury is limited to non-combat injuries, I have no problem with this. I'm willing to bet this doesn't encompass combat injuries otherwise they wouldn't be calling it "service related," instead they would be saying "Combat." For some stupid reason americans think that anything soldiers do while they are enlisted is considered 'in service.' I don't want to pay for a soldier's physical rehab for a biking accident he had while enlisted in the military.

I agree with your point... I also think it would be fucked up to pay for rehab if a guy tore his ACL playing basketball in his driveway at home, and coincidentally was in the military. But, according to a Stars and Stripes article from the other day:

quote:

The VA already taps �third party� insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in fiscal 2008 totaled $2.4 billion. The VA expects to collect $2.5 billion this year. The total could jump to $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.

So it does appear my outrage is warranted. Plus everyone�s insurance premiums will go up if insurance companies are forced to accept pre-existing conditions of veterans, most of all the premiums of veterans.

Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 before you get all hot-and-bothered,

Apt.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/...-meeting-obama/

quote:

Originally posted by ******** "No more red tape." - what is easier than private insurance companies?

you must be joking. have you EVER dealt with insurance companies on anything..... ever?

The17sss ... Give the guy a break, he's only been in the office for what - 100 days? You making him look more evil than Osama Bin Laden for Christ's sake. He is not as bad as half of the people I see on the street every day.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium The17sss ... Give the guy a break, he's only been in the office for what - 100 days? You making him look more evil than Osama Bin Laden for Christ's sake. He is not as bad as half of the people I see on the street every day.

I think he is more dangerous... because he is instituting policies that affect millions of people. He has no real world experience doing anything except campaigning and reading off a telepromoter. He is governing based on social justice and an ever expanding government, not economic well being.

Edit: ... and in the first 100 days, we've lost 18% of our wealth as a country in household net worth. We never heard about how, during Bush's 8 years, American's household net worth increased $22 Trillion.

Article here---> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123687371369308675.html#

Any which way you slice it, Americans in general, not just the rich, have gotten much more prosperous since 1980. meanwhile, Obama tells us the tired ways of the past need to go. If this is the new way then, I'm pretty pessimistic right now.

Re: Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss So it does appear my outrage is warranted. Plus everyone�s insurance premiums will go up if insurance companies are forced to accept pre-existing conditions of veterans, most of all the premiums of veterans.

the fact that the VA already recoups 'non-service related injuries' doesn't answer the question as to what constitutes 'service related injuries.' this is a definitional question.

Re: Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Apt. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/...-meeting-obama/

that article didn't exand upon what the777sss wrote. what is the definition of 'service related injury?' i wouldn't support trying to transfer the cost of combat injury, but it appears very obvious to me that the everyone is using the general phrase 'service related injury' because it serves the purpose of opponents to outrage the american public. Obviously i don't know for sure, but I can't foresee combat injuries being included in the proposal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that article didn't exand upon what the777sss wrote. what is the definition of 'service related injury?' i wouldn't support trying to transfer the cost of combat injury, but it appears very obvious to me that the everyone is using the general phrase 'service related injury' because it serves the purpose of opponents to outrage the american public. Obviously i don't know for sure, but I can't foresee combat injuries being included in the proposal.

of course it didn't expand - it was simply ctrl + v.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov of course it didn't expand - it was simply ctrl + v.

my bad - i read too quickly and my comprehension was slightly impaired.

It's amazing that googling a sentence or two always leads back to the same source...

how much are they being charged? an arm and a leg?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN how much are they being charged? an arm and a leg?

HMO's are a real minefield.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that article didn't exand upon what the777sss wrote. what is the definition of 'service related injury?' i wouldn't support trying to transfer the cost of combat injury, but it appears very obvious to me that the everyone is using the general phrase 'service related injury' because it serves the purpose of opponents to outrage the american public. Obviously i don't know for sure, but I can't foresee combat injuries being included in the proposal.

Source with further expansion on the criteria (blow me Lebez) ----> http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?...4&article=61312

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss (blow me Lebez)

Gay, bro.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Gay, bro.

OMG THOSE SHOES!...shoes

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Edit: ... and in the first 100 days, we've lost 18% of our wealth as a country in household net worth. We never heard about how, during Bush's 8 years, American's household net worth increased $22 Trillion.

Didn't Obama enter into office "after" the economy took a nosedive. Our wealth as a country was already on its way down.

Also, that increase it Net worth during Bush's term was sustained, right?

I just noticed that the thread title is misleading and mostly inaccurate. Apparently the plan is to force private insurance carriers to pay for the cost. To the entent the private carriers are permitted to pass forward the cost directly to the injured soldier the title would be correct. However, if the insurers are required to pool the veterans with non-military people, then the veteran would not be paying the entire cost (although obviously they would have higher premiums unless restricted by some law - which is entirely possible).

quote:

Originally posted by OurManFlint Didn't Obama enter into office "after" the economy took a nosedive. Our wealth as a country was already on its way down. Also, that increase it Net worth during Bush's term was sustained, right?

Not to mention that it isn't a fair comparison until after Obama's presidency has ended. If in four years the Dow goes up to 11,000, is it then fair to say that Obama presided over a 35% expansion of the market?

A more accurate comparison would perhaps be to take the last 100 days of Bush's presidency and compare that with the first 100 days of Obama's (which is not yet over) since those are linearly connected... I have a feeling the conservatives would be somewhat quieter about the results of that sort of comparison though.

I don't understand the reasoning behind this move by the Obama team.

First decision of his that really makes no sense to me and is pretty upsetting.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I think he is more dangerous... because he is instituting policies that affect millions of people. He has no real world experience doing anything except campaigning and reading off a telepromoter. He is governing based on social justice and an ever expanding government, not economic well being. Edit: ... and in the first 100 days, we've lost 18% of our wealth as a country in household net worth. We never heard about how, during Bush's 8 years, American's household net worth increased $22 Trillion. Article here---> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123...369308675.html# Any which way you slice it, Americans in general, not just the rich, have gotten much more prosperous since 1980. meanwhile, Obama tells us the tired ways of the past need to go. If this is the new way then, I'm pretty pessimistic right now.

Do you have any idea whose interests are represented by the wall street journal?

Hint: they make a lot of money

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov A more accurate comparison would perhaps be to take the last 100 days of Bush's presidency and compare that with the first 100 days of Obama's (which is not yet over) since those are linearly connected... I have a feeling the conservatives would be somewhat quieter about the results of that sort of comparison though.

Well, one way to look at it is that Obama has spent more money (that we don't have) in the first 58 days than Bush did in 8 years.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.