Obama admin thinking about making vets pay for

[Genx87]

I have heard of cutting costs but this is a real slap in the face.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...h.insurance/index.html

Luckily it appears it wont make it out of congress. But the whole idea they are even considering it is ridiculous.

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.

 

[MovingTarget]

FAIL on his part. I would shudder to think that our servicemen would have to be subject to the same broken system we currently are failing with for combat injuries. Good for congress for not wanting that shit.

 

[jagec]

Man, if the veterans were getting screwed under the Republicans, you know that they're REALLY going to get screwed under the Democrats.

 

[tweaker2]

Yep, pick one very small detail out of the whole plan, sensationalize it, generalize it, stereotype it, spin it and hype it over and over and over again, and there you go, the whole republican strategy for regaining power to keep us exactly where we are right now, which is exactly where Bush and his faithful ideological disciples got us after eight increasingly disasterous years in office.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Yep, pick one very small detail out of the whole plan, sensationalize it, generalize it, stereotype it, spin it and hype it over and over and over again

That trend is common for both pro-Republican and pro-Democrat thread OPs in P&N.

 

[KK]

surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer used to put it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Yep, pick one very small detail out of the whole plan, sensationalize it, generalize it, stereotype it, spin it and hype it over and over and over again, and there you go, the whole republican strategy for regaining power to keep us exactly where we are right now, which is exactly where Bush and his faithful ideological disciples got us after eight increasingly disasterous years in office.

Yea, Democrats never do this. What was it like being asleep for the past 8 years btw?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Yep, pick one very small detail out of the whole plan, sensationalize it, generalize it, stereotype it, spin it and hype it over and over and over again, and there you go...

Would doing so make even the mere proposal of this idea any less of a dick-move? I don't think so...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Yep, pick one very small detail out of the whole plan, sensationalize it, generalize it, stereotype it, spin it and hype it over and over and over again, and there you go, the whole republican strategy for regaining power to keep us exactly where we are right now, which is exactly where Bush and his faithful ideological disciples got us after eight increasingly disasterous years in office.

Yep, sweep it all under the rug and call it change! :roll:

If you climb a mountain and reach a cliff at the top, turning in a random direction (as long as it's not your original direction, it's fine, right?) is just as likely to get you killed. If you're surrounded by sheer cliffs on all sides, the only thing to do is turn around and go back the way you came. Piling folly on top of folly just gives us an avalanche of idiocy.

 

[UberNeuman]

ugh, horrible idea - but it tends to follow a pattern over the years where the vets get screwed...

and if have read correctly in the past, don't many of folks around here call CNN the Clinton News Network....

 

[jjzelinski]

As an active duty Air Force guy who has a slightly left of center bias, I will be seriously fucking pissed off if anyone tries to cut service members benefits before EVERYTHING else in our budget was reduced first.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jagec
Man, if the veterans were getting screwed under the Republicans, you know that they're REALLY going to get screwed under the Democrats.

Wrong. It was Democrats who frequently tried to push more bills that would help the troops who were opposed by Repulbicans.

Do you remember under which party's administration vets in military hospitals for service injuries were sometimes charged for their meals - and who led the fight against that?

You are clearly a victim of ideology, thinking the Republicans are 'pro troops', perhaps because they say so so much, once again proving the 'big lie' technique effective.

And note - I'm someone who would't mind considering some cuts for the trooops, not for any antii-troop reason, but because I'd like to see enlistment drop. I don't think troops are overpaid by any measure of fairness; but I'm concerned about the excessive size of the military, and the abusive use of it that excessive size encourages ('What are we getting for all those billions?' bad politicians can ask, looking for 'return on nvestment').

But even I see problems with this proposal - of all the places to cut, taking care of the wounded soldiers is about the last to consider, and my reaction is 'no way'.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Yep, pick one very small detail out of the whole plan, sensationalize it, generalize it, stereotype it, spin it and hype it over and over and over again, and there you go, the whole republican strategy for regaining power to keep us exactly where we are right now, which is exactly where Bush and his faithful ideological disciples got us after eight increasingly disasterous years in office.

You know what, after 20 years working for the DVA system, I gotta tell you that's not a small detail, that's an ass raping of our vets, the whole system revolves around treating service connected injuries.

It's a disgusting clause, and should give the vet groups a freaking heart attack. They remember that shit too, unfortunately as a voting block, they've all been dying off and have nowhere near the power they once had.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Yep, pick one very small detail out of the whole plan, sensationalize it, generalize it, stereotype it, spin it and hype it over and over and over again, and there you go, the whole republican strategy for regaining power to keep us exactly where we are right now, which is exactly where Bush and his faithful ideological disciples got us after eight increasingly disasterous years in office.

I think you are alone on this one.

 

[JSt0rm]

im not fully understanding the issue. Does he want to have a private insurer take the soldiers and the government pays for it? Could this cut costs and provide care at the same time? I really don't think the suggestion is to have the wounded soldier get their own health care.

 

[JSt0rm]

wait I'm reading the article and it hasn't even been proposed lol

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
im not fully understanding the issue. Does he want to have a private insurer take the soldiers and the government pays for it? Could this cut costs and provide care at the same time? I really don't think the suggestion is to have the wounded soldier get their own health care.

The main objection I see is that it would use up limited coverage the soldier has, and leave them vulnerable to having extra costs for things because their insurance got used up.

For example, say the soldier has $2000 in dental insurance per year, and uses it up for a war injury - and then needs a cavity fixed later that year. He'd have to pay for it.

Unless some provision were made for the VA to then pay for *those* expenses... that would otherwise now be billed to the private insurance... tell me if this is wrong.

Another possible objection I'm less clear on is if it affects the soldier other ways - their insurance rates, ability to get insurance, etc.

Insurance is typically priced based on risk of costs - if big expenses are added for soldiers, presumably somehow insureres will increase the cost of insurance, or reduce availability.

 

[Craig234]

Hit quote instead of edit.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm under the impression it would be "special" insurance above the normal insurance and then they would get rid of the VA? I don't know. This thread is dumb.

 

[ericlp]

I'm a vet... I could give a crap what they do. But if the did, maybe make health care available to all. That would be nice.

 

[tweaker2]

Thanks for the replies to my post all.

I reiterate: If you don't look at the whole plan for our vets and our disabled vets, which very well may have other features that either compensates for or make whole from whatever this specific feature takes away, then jumping on this one item and making it seem like Obama's/Shinseki's/Duckworth's overall plans are as bad or even worse than how Bush treated our retiring/retired and disabled vets is misleading, manipulative and very short-sighted.

For example, look at what Jagec posted, of which I was more or less referring to in my first post in this thread:

"Man, if the veterans were getting screwed under the Republicans, you know that they're REALLY going to get screwed under the Democrats."

To even imagine that Obama's administration would, on the whole, strip our vets and disabled vets of whatever paltry and demeaning welfare and/or veteran's benefits that existed after Bush and Cheney got through slicing and dicing them up, is, from my point of view, rather far-fetched.

I dare say that if it was Bush and Cheney making this proposal, then his supporters would either not even post anything about it, or attempt to spin it and/or divert away from it as they have been doing for eight years, ad nauseum.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have heard of cutting costs but this is a real slap in the face.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...h.insurance/index.html

Luckily it appears it wont make it out of congress. But the whole idea they are even considering it is ridiculous.

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.

Mr Obama needs to be called on this.

 

[Red Dawn]

The Vets already have paid enough with their service.

 

[heyheybooboo]

It would be nice to actually see the details of the plan before the knee-jerk conjecture.

I agree with Tweaker that it is rather far-fetched that the Obama administration would strip veteran benefits.

I will presume that the VA provides medical service and treatment to Vets without question upon diagnosis. IF the medical treatment is for an affliction NOT service related it SHOULD be billed to private insurance IF the private insurance is applicable.

It's not like a private insurance company would never back out of a legitimate claim and scam the US taxpayer, right? :shocked:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It would be nice to actually see the details of the plan before the knee-jerk conjecture.

I agree with Tweaker that it is rather far-fetched that the Obama administration would strip veteran benefits.

I will presume that the VA provides medical service and treatment to Vets without question upon diagnosis. IF the medical treatment is for an affliction NOT service related it SHOULD be billed to private insurance IF the private insurance is applicable.

It's not like a private insurance company would never back out of a legitimate claim and scam the US taxpayer, right? :shocked:

If you read the article what you describe already happens. Vets who visit a VA for injuries or conditions not acquired during service their private insurance gets billed. What the Obama administration is considering is to extend this to service related injuries or conditions as well.