Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on March 16, 2009, 09:40:26 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment
I didn't see this posted already. I heard on the radio earlier and saw it on Drudge just now.
The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment
Mon Mar 16, 5:49 pm ET
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.
The article really doesn't give any details about what exactly the Obama Administration wants to do except it seems they want to cut veteran medical benefits according to the American Legion. What is being describes sounds pretty bad and I can't imagine who would be in favor of it. I almost think banning guns would be more popular than this.
-
I'm a veteran.
I spent 4 years on active duty and ~11 in the reserves.
I was never hurt (other then a broken foot).
The .gov doesn't owe me anything other then the chance to be buried with my brothers-in-arms and spending eternity swapping war stories.
For those that have 'borne the battle' and been wounded protecting for our freedom, the .gov has incurred a debt that can never be repaid.
I am ashamed.
-
First I've heard of it, but this disabled vet has a VA Hospital appointment this coming Wednesday afternoon. I'll nose around and ask what's up...
-
I feel sorry for those that have to serve under this man's administration. I don't the details yet but it doesn't look good for our military. I have a son that just returned from his second tour and I would not blame him if he did not re-enlist.
-
Well I can see where the Insurance lobbist will be all over this like flys on s**t.
There is a hard enough time trying to get us Vets to the Dr. and to add this to the mix will make it even more difficult.
Should get interesting.
Plus they are talking only about a 2.9% pay raise for us this next year. What a crock. Quit bailing out all these f**king private companies and give us the damn money we deserve. :mad:
-
Strange, strange days.
I recommend Obama go to his amply stocked Harvard grad bookshelf and take down his Suetonius. Turn to the chapter on Caligula and read very, very carefully.
-
Obama is the antithesis of everything I stand for, but even I have a hard time believing this is true. I want it to be some paranoid bloggers vast misinterpretation, but it isn't, is it? I have nothing more to add that's appropriate so I'll just wonder how he thinks he can send young men to die and be maimed then refuse to care for the injuries. That's so....... I have no words.
-
Whats the problem with this? Sounds like Obama is taking cues from economic conservatives. The free market is always better than the government, right? The VA is socialized medicine, socialized medicine is BAD, and we should get rid of it, right?
(Tongue planted FIRMLY in cheek.)
Seriously, coming from PRNewswire? I'd give a story from The Onion more credibility.
-
Are you claiming the quotes from the American Legion guy are faked?
-
My ETS date is October 19th 2012. When it gets close to that date, I'm going to ask my Retention NCO if it's possible to extend for 1 month. That way I can postpone re-upping until I know who will be President for the next 4 years. If it remains unchanged, count me out of another enlistment.
-
It was just discussed on Fox news this morning as well. On that note, I was waiting for him to start taking from the Military and Veterans in order to pay other stuff. Was only a matter of time. I'm sure new weaponry programs are next.
-
Well, if you see more on this, please post it. So far, we only have the one source really. I'd hope there are people in the media looking into this.
-
Turn to the chapter on Caligula and read very, very carefully.
Ugh. Please don't say that ever again - if Obama starts acting any more like that tyrant, we're all very screwed. =(
-
Are you claiming the quotes from the American Legion guy are faked?
No, I'm just saying that the posted story is a press release, NOT a news story.
-
Well, it isn't any worse than the average news story, many of which are based on a single source. I will be curious to see what comes out of the administration on this and what other stuff is dug up. At the least, it is a prompt to keep our eyes/ears open.
-
Whats the problem with this? Sounds like Obama is taking cues from economic conservatives. The free market is always better than the government, right? The VA is socialized medicine, socialized medicine is BAD, and we should get rid of it, right?
(Tongue planted FIRMLY in cheek.)
Seriously, coming from PRNewswire? I'd give a story from The Onion more credibility.
My tounge isn't in my cheek.
I've been mistreated and mishandled by the "Doctors" that infest the Military's health system. My wife was misdiagnosed early on when she had severe Endimitrosis onsetting. "Sure you're not pregnant?" "My husbands on deployment, that's not possible!" "Here, take this Pregnancy test anyways...."
And then there is the Oral "Surgeon" who attempted to extract my wisdom teeth after first hitting me with the max dose of novicane.....when she failed to do it right, she kept trying until the novicane wore off. Oops, sorry, can't give you anymore. Let me tweak on your half-broken impacted wisdom tooth some more.
The VA and Military medical system is just a miserable preview into whats in store for us as a whole under socialized medicine.
Instead, the government should just send the wounded vets to the civilian world and pay all the bills.
-
I hate to say this, but some civvy doctors are just as bad.
The only difference here is that in the civvy world, you get a choice.
Which makes all the difference.
I'm glad our vets have the VA, but people I know that have served usually choose to go to private doctors if they have insurance, which I think makes all the difference.
-
For some of us, the VA is all we have left.
I don't know how I could afford all the surgery and work they've done on me since last year, especially now that I'm laid off and reduced to being simply "retired".
The VA Hospital system probably isn't the best HMO in the CONUS, but my dealings with them show a compassionate and dedicated team. I certainly like them better than DeanCare, Physicians Plus, or Kaiser-Permanente.
During my pre-op appointment I found myself commenting on the dilapidated appearance of the Middleton VA Hospital, with the brown tiles, institutional paint scheme, and hospital rooms (barely) converted into offices. The doctor replied that while the facility did indeed look pretty rough, they'd prefer to spend the money on the quality of care provided.
Maybe I got lucky - not from the disability rating, but by finding a good care team in what may be a real stinker, I dunno...
-
A lot of vets have only the VA. Some VA hospitals are good, some are atrocious. But for the fed.gov to shrug it's obligations onto others, after giving m-fing Amtrak 1.2 billion is just.....
-
Oh I never said they should shrug their obligations. Taking away the gauranteed health benefit of our disabled vets is appaling.
-
Seen this on FoxNews.com also.
I really don't know what I can say right now. I know several men and women who have nothing but the VA to take care of them. What is Obama going to do about those folks that cannot or will not pay for "private" health care?
-
I know several men and women who have nothing but the VA to take care of them. What is Obama going to do about those folks that cannot or will not pay for "private" health care?
This plan, which should be aborted, wouldn't leave them hanging as I understand it. It only seeks to make private insurance the primary insurer instead of the Federal government. Basically all it will do, from a finance perspective, is shift the cost burden onto the private sector and remove it from the government books. Rather than use our tax dollars to fund veterans care we'll be paying for it through increased premiums. That frees up our tax dollars for other projects, and odds are we probably won't approve of how they're spent there.
The other thing it does is complicates the lives of veterans. There's no need, or excuse, for that. They signed up for service and did their job. We owe it to them to take care of them.
-
Obama says he wants to save some money--and THIS is how he plans to save it? The idea is more than outrageous, it's vicious.
There's money for a $180 billion bail-out (so far) of AIG, with apparently a nice chunk of that going to help foreign banks, we have just learned. And Goldman Sachs got $13 billion it initially said it didn't need.
But we have to cut corners on veterans' care? No way, Jose.
-
Spending hundreds of billions bailing out unpopular financial institutions, then screwing the VA and crippled vets? I can accept that Obama will do evil stuff, but this is so stupid..... Srsly, how can he be so out of it? Is he trying to piss people off?
-
This plan, which should be aborted, wouldn't leave them hanging as I understand it. It only seeks to make private insurance the primary insurer instead of the Federal government. Basically all it will do, from a finance perspective, is shift the cost burden onto the private sector and remove it from the government books. Rather than use our tax dollars to fund veterans care we'll be paying for it through increased premiums. That frees up our tax dollars for other projects, and odds are we probably won't approve of how they're spent there.
The other thing it does is complicates the lives of veterans. There's no need, or excuse, for that. They signed up for service and did their job. We owe it to them to take care of them.
Private insurance, if the vet has any, already covers VA care for non-service-related injury and illness. All moral objections (and they are obviously huge) aside, this wouldn't work anyway. If I got injured on the job, my medical insurance, provided by my employer would refuse the claim, and refer it to the employers umbrella accident/liability coverage anyway.
Heck, I go to the ER with a locked up back, Aetna sends me a form from a law-firm where I have to attest it's just a random injury, and not some employer's or businesses fault.
What I find astonishing is that Obama and Rahm Emmanuel would even voice this plan to anyone. Again, leaving moral objections over our obligation as a nation to our wounded vets out of it, how stupid can they be to publicly float this to anyone, much less the leaders of a bunch of vet groups? Even Reid/Pelosi are smart enough to know that "hurting vets" is political suicide, and Congressional Democrats have loudly said any such proposal is DOA, to the point of it deep-sixing the entire budget.
I think the Dems are having a string of come-to-Jesus moments as just how vapid Obama & Co. really are. As they bring their faces out of the earmark trough of the porkulous bill and actually look around even they are shocked.
Obama and his inner circle are clearly running their mouths faster than they can think, they don't know how to leverage their staff to research the political ramifications of potential policy decisions, or even how "Washington works", with their own party in charge. It would be laughable, except for the fact this is the guy who's going to negotiate with other countries too.
-
Private insurance, if the vet has any, already covers VA care for non-service-related injury and illness. All moral objections (and they are obviously huge) aside, this wouldn't work anyway. If I got injured on the job, my medical insurance, provided by my employer would refuse the claim, and refer it to the employers umbrella accident/liability coverage anyway.
Heck, I go to the ER with a locked up back, Aetna sends me a form from a law-firm where I have to attest it's just a random injury, and not some employer's or businesses fault.
What I find astonishing is that Obama and Rahm Emmanuel would even voice this plan to anyone. Again, leaving moral objections over our obligation as a nation to our wounded vets out of it, how stupid can they be to publicly float this to anyone, much less the leaders of a bunch of vet groups? Even Reid/Pelosi are smart enough to know that "hurting vets" is political suicide, and Congressional Democrats have loudly said any such proposal is DOA, to the point of it deep-sixing the entire budget.
I think the Dems are having a string of come-to-Jesus moments as just how vapid Obama & Co. really are. As they bring their faces out of the earmark trough of the porkulous bill and actually look around even they are shocked.
Obama and his inner circle are clearly running their mouths faster than they can think, they don't know how to leverage their staff to research the political ramifications of potential policy decisions, or even how "Washington works", with their own party in charge. It would be laughable, except for the fact this is the guy who's going to negotiate with other countries too.
And they (the other countries) know it.
That's why all these regimes are suddenly bold about their plans.
Bombers in CUBA and ARGENTINA? Maybe it's not in the immediate plans for Russia, but that wasn't a "mistake" to float that balloon...
-
Running their mouth without thinking is their way of testing the waters before moving forward.
-
A lot of vets have only the VA. Some VA hospitals are good, some are atrocious. But for the fed.gov to shrug it's obligations onto others, after giving m-fing Amtrak 1.2 billion is just.....
My dad spent a month in the VA hospital in North Chicago last summer. I was pretty impressed with the place. I sort of expected a disaster. My SIL works there so we had a bit of a leg up, as far as knowing how to get past some of the typical minor annoyances, but IMO the actual medical care was of a very high quality and the staff was top notch.
I don't know if the unit my dad was indicative of the whole VA system or not.
-
This is a regime running on emotion, on ancient angers and long-held grudges. We've seen that before, many, many, many times, and we also know where it leads.
No doubt the Obama higher-ups have convinced themselves that their "iconoclasm," which others view as folly, is divinely-inspired courage. No one and no thing will be spared.
-
I think the Dems are having a string of come-to-Jesus moments as just how vapid Obama & Co. really are. As they bring their faces out of the earmark trough of the porkulous bill and actually look around even they are shocked.
The Groundhog has seen his shadow.
or
Hey look, "The Emporer (sp) has no clothes!"
-
Whats the problem with this? Sounds like Obama is taking cues from economic conservatives. The free market is always better than the government, right? The VA is socialized medicine, socialized medicine is BAD, and we should get rid of it, right?
Nice strawman there.
There is a massive difference between the government providing health care to every Tom, dick and Harry who sticks out there hands and providing health care to men and women who sacrificed their health to perform an invaluable service to said government. I'm sure that if you think on it for a moment, you'll see why.
-
you forgot that health care was promised as a part of their benefit package
-
Fox news reported this morning that he backed out of the plan.
-
Yup.
I just received this today from my regular military.com email newsletter:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,187179,00.html
Obama Drops Vet Insurance Plan
Tom Philpott | March 19, 2009
Obama Drops Vet Insurance Plan; More Showdowns Loom
President Obama won style points from veterans' service organizations this week even as he was forced, under heavy fire, to withdraw his plan to have the Department of Veterans Affairs bill veterans' health insurance for the cost to VA of treating service-connected medical conditions.
"The issue should never have come up [and] he got a black eye out of it," said David W. Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans Wednesday. "But we came out…very, very pleased that he had recognized the issue, he has listened to us, and he has taken heed of our advice."
More disputes are likely between a White House struggling to impose new restraints on federal spending, and advocates for military members and veterans who have borne the brunt of two long and difficult wars.
When the president's full budget request for 2010 is released in late April, the battleground shifts to Capitol Hill and fights are expected over several personnel issues including future military pay raises. Obama also might follow the lead of his predecessor, and listen to his top military adviser, by seeking higher TRICARE fees for working-age military retirees.
This week, however, the cost-savings target was veterans' insurance. Obama's plan drew stiff bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill and gave Republicans a wedge to try to separate Obama from veterans despite his surprising budget plan to raise overall VA spending next year by 15 percent.
Even comedian Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show, poked fun at Obama's insurance idea, suggesting the administration next might want to sell to corporate naming rights for different military medals.
Watch the clip on Military.com.
On Monday, feeling the heat, Obama took the unprecedented step of hosting a White House meeting with leaders of 11 veterans groups who had sent the president a letter Feb. 27, calling his third-party insurance collection plan for service-related conditions "wholly unacceptable."
"I cannot remember -- and I've been doing [veterans' advocacy work] for 35 years -- any sitting president ever inviting us over and sitting down with us to talk about a policy-related issue," Gorman said. "So we were very grateful for that. It showed us a lot."
Obama explained that insurance companies collect premiums for veterans' coverage but get a break when veterans use VA for service-related conditions. He then asked VSO leaders for their views, and got an earful.
"Everybody was opposed to the idea for a lot of reasons," said Gorman. "The fundamental one was that the foreign policy of the United States sent us war. These are the disabilities we've incurred. It's the federal government's moral and legal obligation to take care of them, not Blue Cross and Blue Shield."
Obama indicated he wouldn't go forward without VSO support. But when he and VA Secretary Eric Shinseki left to visit with employees at VA headquarters, Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, asked the VSOs to go back and consider ways to reduce VA costs enough to fill a $540 million hole that would be left in the budget if the president pulled his proposal.
The VSO met two days later with Emanuel and told him that they all agreed it was not their job to find savings for the VA.
"He was disappointed," said Gorman, who served as spokesman for the group at that meeting. "But I told him we would be more than happy, in fact, would relish the idea of coming back and talking about issues and ideas before they become a policy, a practice or a recommendation in the budget."
That afternoon, when VSO leaders met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic colleagues, she told them Obama was withdrawing his proposal. The leaders gave the news a standing ovation.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama had wanted to "maximize the resources available for veterans" but deferred to concerns raised by the VSOs that his plan could affect families' access to health care.
Glen Gardner, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said the episode showed Obama got bum advice but that he "is willing to sit down and talk about issues. That has to be good for the veteran."
At the Pelosi meeting, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, noted that Obama's budget proposes ending the ban on concurrent receipt for more disabled retirees -- those with fewer than 20 years service. He warned that the cost will make it very difficult to find money for other new programs, or to block TRICARE fee increases if they are proposed in the president's budget.
The administration will seek a 2.9 military pay raise for next January, enough to match wage growth in the private sector. If Congress agrees to the raise, it will end at 10 a string of annual raises set at least a half percent above private sector wage growth. Personnel chiefs for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps told a House hearing that 2.9 percent is big enough.
Check out the proposed 2010 pay charts.
Retired Navy Vice Adm. Norb Ryan, Jr., president of the Military Officers Association of America, disagrees. He said Monday that the string of bigger raises for the military should continue for five or six more years until a pay gap with the private sector, estimated at 2.9 percent, is fully closed.
"With the 6th anniversary of the Iraq invasion, with uniformed leaders saying we've got another decade of persistent conflict ahead of us, why would you abandon such a successful, responsible, measured way of going after a goal [of pay comparability] and stop on the 20-yard line," Ryan said.
He also warned against TRICARE fee increases, which Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, endorsed in our interview in January.
MOAA and other service associations support legislation that would block the Secretary of Defense from raising TRICARE fees in any year by more than the percentage increase in the January pay raise.
To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or visit: militaryupdate.com.
-
That is good to see. However, just the fact that he would actually propose this and think it was a good idea says a lot about him and what he will do if we don't keep an eye on him.
-
Well, the jury is still out on whether it was actually his brainchild or that of his cabinet/circle of advisors...
-
Well, the jury is still out on whether it was actually his brainchild or that of his cabinet/circle of advisors...
True. However, he publicly endorsed it. Sheer idiocy.
-
I agree. There's plenty of idiocy to go around, it seems. =|
-
I don't thiunk that he had any choice in deciding to drop it, wasn't he told Hell No by the congress?
I relate the .gov paying for vets injuries much like any employer would be responsible for injuries to their employees on that companies time. As the vets employer, the .gov has a responsibility to pay for any and all work related injuries from now until the end of time.