Obama Wants Vets To Pay For Service Related Medical Care

[m52nickerson]

That article told us sweet bugger all except their putting more money into VA. Could the original article be full of s**t? Sure it could but I'd like to see something more definitive than an article that says nothing.

So an article about a policy that is being considered and has little in the way of details is something to get more excited about then a pledge from the administration?

Even if this did end up getting pushed we don't know what the finale policy would be. There was talk before about making vets that make over a certain amount of money, like 0.5 million a year, pay for there treatment. I don't find that particularity horrible. On the other hand removing all government paid treatment would be bad.

[Aaron]

So an article about a policy that is being considered and has little in the way of details is something to get more excited about then a pledge from the administration?

Even if this did end up getting pushed we don't know what the finale policy would be. There was talk before about making vets that make over a certain amount of money, like 0.5 million a year, pay for there treatment. I don't find that particularity horrible. On the other hand removing all government paid treatment would be bad.

I find the thought of having people pay for their own treatment when they were injured in your service to be contemptible, especially as it's part of the deal when you sign. I have the same attitude towards Workmans Comp, your injured on company time, they pay. I don't care what they make, if they want to seek treatment elsewhere because the provided treatment is too slow or not good enough, then go nuts but you spend your dime.

It may turn out that your right and this is just a mistake, however we go with what we know. I'm not an American so it really doesn't affect me (only some good friends) but I don't trust Obama all that much more than Bush.

[Monroe]

I'm with Kendal. It doesn't matter how much someone makes. If Bill Gates served in the army and Bill Gates get shot in the shoulder then the government should pay for his medical care. He's freaking serving in the military. There are rich people who don't need money who serve. It happens throughout history. Dryfus in France comes to mind Rich people who serve should be entitled to the same medical care as poor people who serve.

If Prince Harry or Will or whatever his name is in England got shrapnel in the leg I would totally expect his government to pay for his injury.

[Captain Seafort]

If Prince Harry or Will or whatever his name is in England got shrapnel in the leg I would totally expect his government to pay for his injury.

They're both in the military. Harry's in the Blues and Royals and William's in the RAF.

As for the basic argument, it's quite simple - if you send someone to do a job, it's your responsibility to pay any expenses incurred therein. That includes the kit required, injuries sustained and, in the worst case scenario, funeral expenses.

[Foxfyre]

We do, however, have his photo in the appropriate forum. Besides which I assume Aeon signed a document stating "I will not rip the US government a new arsehole while I'm working for them" (or words to that effect), so I entirely understand and agree with his stance.

Yep! I have seen several cases of personnel being rip a new one over it. It in fact a part of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice for you non military types)

Indeed, better safe then sorry. We have his photo and location (trade as well IIRC) so somebody with an axe to grind with him could f**k him over a bit. If the US Military is anything like the CF, one of those nice rights you sacrifice is the right to criticize or endorse government policy.

Again, yes and my rating is a small one compounded by the fact I'm on a ship right now and I'm the only Aerographers Mate First Class on board, easy to ID me with a photo and a bit of know how.

But I'm enjoying reading the debate! That much I can do.

[Monroe]

Its okay Aeon I think we all know your opinion even if you can't voice it

[Monroe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk5mA6ODYFA
Right-winger nut but really the only thing on youtube I could find of this. I'm koren1124 who posted btw. Anyway its amazing this isn't being covered in the news.

edit: found http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/p ... _treatment

[Reliant121]

In my view, you send a guy to fight for your country, the least you can do is pay for injuries they might get doing it.

[SteveK]

Hope and change! Stuff like this really buggers up the "Anybody but Bush" theory.

[Tsukiyumi]

To me, it just illustrates that whatever candidate is elected, I'm still going to have issues with some of their policies.

I don't like his stance on gun ownership, for example. But, this is nothing compared to the host of issues I had with McCain's policies.

[Mikey]

To me, it just illustrates that whatever candidate is elected, I'm still going to have issues with some of their policies.

I don't like his stance on gun ownership, for example. But, this is nothing compared to the host of issues I had with McCain's policies.

No offense, as you're just illustrating a point, but... DUH! Whoever is elected, that person is still, well - a person. A human person, with all the positive and negative qualities which that entails. I'm glad Obama was elected, but I'd be an absolute idiot if I thought he was perfect, or that I'd agree with every single thing he said or did.

The other side of that coin is that sacrifices have to be made in some areas to buttress others. It sucks, and we may not always agree with what any one president chooses to sacrifice, but that's the nature of the world.

[Sionnach Glic]

In my view, you send a guy to fight for your country, the least you can do is pay for injuries they might get doing it.

Damn right. These guys are willing to risk their lives for their country, and now they're getting fucked over yet again.

Hey, here's an idea: why not go to AIG, confiscate that 100 million they pissed away in giving bonuses to themselves, and use that to pay for the vets?

[Monroe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Nv2d_I1-M
Well its made Jon Stewart so the story is beginning to hit the main stream. Which is good. Sooner Obama backs off from this the better.

[Aaron]

Link

The White House on Wednesday backed off a controversial plan that would have dramatically altered the way the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) handles insurance claims, after veterans groups staged an all-out fight against such a proposal.

President Obama will not pursue a proposal that would have allowed the VA to charge private insurance companies for the treatment of veterans with service- or war-related injuries. The proposal raised the ire of prominent Democrats on the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs panels. On Wednesday morning 68 Democratic and GOP House members sent Obama a letter, initiated by freshman Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Va.), urging the administration to drop the proposal.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was the first to announce Wednesday afternoon that the president won't pursue such a proposal.

She told veterans that Obama decided to scrap the proposal "Based on the respect that President Obama has for our nation's veterans and the principled concerns expressed by veterans' leaders."

For the second time in a week, representatives from prominent veterans organizations went to the White House on Wednesday to meet with the White House chief of staff to discuss VA budget issues.

Jim King, the national executive director for American Veterans (AMVETS), said that the meeting with Rahm Emanuel lasted all of 15 minutes and that the health insurance issue was the only topic discussed. The representatives of the 11 veterans organizations told Emanuel they were not willing to back down, and the chief of staff told them that he thought the issue was "off the table," but that he needed to talk to Obama.

Gutting the proposal is the "right move to make, because it could have caused too many hardships for veterans," King said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement on Wednesday that the president wants to continue a "constructive partnership" with veterans and military organizations and "is grateful" to those organizations who have worked "in good faith" with him on the budget proposal.

On Monday the organizations' representatives met with the president, but that meeting led to public outcry over what some veterans perceived as a move by the president to still consider the proposal despite opposition.

Under the proposal, insurance providers would have been billed by the VA for the treatment of wounds and conditions sustained as a result of their military service. The VA now picks up those costs, and only bills insurance providers for medical treatment unrelated to a veteran's military service. Veterans generally have a co-pay charge for treatment at a VA hospital.

Veterans groups were enraged over the proposal, charging that it would discourage employers from hiring disabled veterans by raising the premiums insurance companies would charge. They also argue that the plan could jeopardize health insurance for entire families.

Veterans groups also argued that the VA is abdicating its responsibility to veterans.

"We are pleased that [the president] has heard our concerns and taken them to heart," said Disabled American Veterans (DAV) executive director David Gorman. "Now that this ill-advised proposal is off the table, the DAV looks forward to working with the administration and Congress on crafting a good budget that will include sufficient appropriated dollars to cover veterans' healthcare needs."

Obama may not be off the hook with veterans yet. Another possible battle is brewing over the issue of advance appropriations for veterans' medical care. Veterans see the Obama administration backtracking on an Obama campaign promise to fund medical care a year in advance, rather than just on an annual basis.

Looks like it has been dropped.

[Tsukiyumi]

Wow; reason prevails. That's new.