Supra Forums banner

1 - 20 of 117 Posts

·
Finally up and running!
Joined
·
3,997 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html
WASHINGTON (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.


Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

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.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.

Don't Miss
Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries
12,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq by fall, military says
A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.

"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.

Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.

"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."

Eleven of the most prominent veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea. In the letter sent last week to the president, the groups warned that the idea "is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government's moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much."

The groups included The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

At the time, a White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option was being considered.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/03/13/administration-considering-plan-to-charge-vets-for-care/
Administration Considering Plan to Charge Vets for Care
By Mark Impomeni
Mar 13th 2009 11:30AM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Obama Administration


The Obama Administration confirmed that it is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for health care they receive at government-run hospitals with private insurance. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed that that plan is under consideration at a hearing on Capitol Hill yesteray. Although not a formal proposal, the idea was met with bipartisan derision from members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, who declared it "dead on arrival."

The Administration included in its 2010 budget proposal an increase in "third-party collections" at VA health care centers. Veterans groups say that the only way the govenment can realize that projected revenue is to begin charging veterans for service-related injuries. Currently, veterans only pay for treatment of conditions not related to their military service. Republican Senator Richard Burr (NC) told Shinseki the idea had no chance of passage. "I think you will give that up," he said, referring to the Obama Administration's projection of increased revenue from third parties. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), dismissed the idea in her opening remarks.

"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line. I don't think we need to nickel and dime them for their care."

The controversial plan may be more instructive of the Obama Administration's budget proposal than of its plans for veterans, however. The $3.6 trillion spending plan by the Administration last month envisions a beget deficit of more than $1.5 billion, a record-large number. But the deficit number is only that low, say many analysts, because the Obama Administration relies on overly optimistic projections of economic growth and makes questionable assumptions of savings in future years. Now the Administration's revenue forecasts are coming under scrutiny. When President Obama introduced his budget plan, he said it was free of the gimmicks used by prior administrations to hide the true costs of government. The veterans health proposal is just another example of President Obama's budget showing that the president too has some budgetary tricks up his sleeve.
_____________________________________________________
Remember, if you voted for Obama, you voted for this. GJ guys, this is an OUTRAGE, and the most unpatriotic thing that anyone can do. If you are broke, you get free healthcare. If you get injured fighting for your country, you have to pay.
 

·
Finally up and running!
Joined
·
3,997 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
A .50 cal gun has a range (in capable hands with the right setup) of hitting center mass at what, 3 miles? Why not piss the people off that are trained to use such weapons, and trained to not be found afterwards. Sounds like a grand idea to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
How low can you go?
It's the notion that they can use health insurance companies to help foot the bill, because when insurance companies have to pay for it the money just appears out of nowhere. It's like he doesn't realize that if the health insurance companies have to pay for it, then the premiums for soldiers will go WAY up because their potential risk is way higher! Insurance companies are nothing more than a shared collective of responsibility for injuries and you pay for those in your statistical category.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,882 Posts
Someone send his ass to the frontline...
 

·
make that blkGT4294 LOL!
Joined
·
827 Posts

·
In for teh nudez.
Joined
·
286 Posts
I'm sure there's a "rational explanation" for this guys, let's just patiently wait for RARUSH to chime in and explain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
It's an insult that the idea would even be thought of, let alone drafted. It undermines the very fundaments that the US forces is built on, pride in serving your country. What the hell are they thinking?
 

·
In for teh nudez.
Joined
·
286 Posts
It's an insult that the idea would even be thought of, let alone drafted. It undermines the very fundaments that the US forces is built on, pride in serving your country. What the hell are they thinking?
To be fair, several Civil War vets were fucked over as well. So this wouldn't be the first time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
IMHO that is one of the worst ideas ever, I am in the military and I just think about my friends that have had there legs and arms blown off while we were deployed and if they even had to pay 1 cent of the care that they received, I would be really pissed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
there are people that join the military just for the health care benefits and if this was passed, then i can see a decrease in the amount of military recruits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,527 Posts
there are people that join the military just for the health care benefits and if this was passed, then i can see a decrease in the amount of military recruits.
And rightfully so. There are a lot of great benefits with military service, but even so it's still a sacrifice. There is a lot of cost cutting the government should do, but asking veterans to put money toward medical costs is wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
I seem to remember while campaigning he said he looked forward to earning the TRUST of all the service members that were under his command. Looks like he gave up on that and instead has turned his back on each and everyone of us.
 

·
Not ur jizz, not ur bizz
Joined
·
6,571 Posts
I'm sure there's a "rational explanation" for this guys, let's just patiently wait for RARUSH to chime in and explain.
oh how I long for his intelligent and highly thorough insight :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
A .50 cal gun has a range (in capable hands with the right setup) of hitting center mass at what, 3 miles? Why not piss the people off that are trained to use such weapons, and trained to not be found afterwards.
You bring out a good point, hes gonna end up being shot. I have a gut feeling.
 

·
Old School Bruiser
Joined
·
298 Posts
Remember, if you voted for Obama, you voted for this.
Right. Just like people who voted for Bush also voted for the Iraq War. :bs:

Nevertheless, I am in complete agreement that this proposal is unpatriotic and ungrateful to those who serve , and I hope it never passes. Of all the places there are to make a compromise on, this isn't one of them.
 
1 - 20 of 117 Posts
Top