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.

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.

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.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

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.

Last edited by The17sss on Mar-18-2009 at 00:47

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.

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.

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.

___________________

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...

___________________