| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance | |
| 2009-03-13 | |
| 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. This has to be the Dumbest Proposal Ever. Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance. If they didn't they wouldn't be back in Washington. Probably be tarred and feathered. But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.
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. How could he even consider this? 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. 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." AMEN! 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." I do wonder about the Government's morals but they seem to be in the right so far on this proposal. 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. We can say nothing! | |
| Posted by:Deacon Blues |
| #18 Slowly the left is breaking our hearts, our souls, and our nation into a shattered emptyness. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-03-13 13:08 |
| #17 Serious answer, he's out to destroy the Armed Services... And... 1. ...the productive working class. 2. ...the social/moral fabric of out society. 3. ...the economy (banking/investing...etc). 4. ...too damn many to list. He is out to do nothing short of destroy this Nation. No surprise really, there are many that were saying this 2 years ago. I'd just like to extend a hearty Thank You to the douche nozzle Independents that voted for this shit bag and the Republicans that stayed home out of spite. /sarc You won't be forgotten. |
| Posted by: Trader_DFW 2009-03-13 12:25 |
| #16 ..: provide only that care that the private system can't provide. But the usual suspects have talked themselves into a corner by harping incessantly about the 'Health Care Crisis'(tm). Overall health care and care for the poor is light years ahead of where it was circa 1960, people are living longer, and we probably have the largest population of over 70s in the world. However, now to put vets out into an environment that political media defines as in 'Crisis' is only going to sell to Obamanauts who can hold two contradictory concepts in their minds without their head exploding [along the story line that you can have an Ice Age during Global Warming]. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-03-13 12:23 |
| #15 Interesting comment, Doc. The late management guru Peter Drucker made almost the exact same recommendation in the 1990s. It made sense then and even more sense now. |
| Posted by: Spot 2009-03-13 12:18 |
| #14 While I'm not a vet myself, I have worked in three different VA hospitals as a physician/medical student in my training. My solution would be simple: 1) close most of the VA hospitals. They're for a bygone era. I'd keep certain specialty services that are specific to service-connected needs, including orthopedics, psychiatry, etc. You need a few VA hospitals around in case we ever again have a war with large numbers of casualties, but most VA hospitals are around today for political reasons. 2) every vet with a service-connected disability gets the medical equivalent of a platinum Amex, with 100% of the costs for service-connected medical care covered by the government. The vet goes where he likes for his care, the government pays. 3) every vet with non-service-connected disabilities gets medical care based on paid premiums to a government-run insurer, along the lines of Tricare or Champus. Pay the premium and get the care you need. In this way service-connected vets get everything they need without argument, non-service connected disabilities get care no matter the status of the vet at a cost that can be negotiated, and the VA returns to what it's supposed to do: provide only that care that the private system can't provide. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-03-13 11:53 |
| #13 RED HERRING! "Bait and Switch!" Pretend that you're throwing a bomb and the secondary doesn't realize it's going to be a run to the outside until it's too late. Anything that gives "Absolute Moonbats®" like Murray (who on the campaign trail praised Osama bin-Laden) some 'cred' with current military and veterans has to be a set-up so she (and others) can come back in two years saying "look how we supported our brave young people". Another faux-issue 'deflection' from his real problems - brought to you by 'The One'. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2009-03-13 10:47 |
| #12 He's just testing the waters at this point. Vigilence is necessary. |
| Posted by: Flineper Poodle8058 2009-03-13 10:32 |
| #11 Amazing. Amazing. 7 weeks in and they have now floated a balloon to alienate another section of the community. Another rule change for all those who have chosen a life of service and who anticipated a modicum of recompense to at least not be guaranteed impecuniosity. Noting the commentary in today's WSJ this administration is doing a fine job is spending its political capital. They are taking as much care of that as they are the national wealth. Won't belong before the middle ground which keeps wanting to give them a little more time, decides that times up. At that point a few democrats who acknowledge the problems [read see risks to themselves at the next election] start to take serious issue. |
| Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 2009-03-13 09:26 |
| #10 Any reading of history shows that any government that shortchanges its soldiers usually ends up not being the government for long. It literally took the full prestige and personal bearing of George Washington to prevent that at the very beginning of the republic. We no longer have a Washington. When Jefferson wrote about the "consent of the governed" in the Declaration of Independence, he was not referring to the 'vote', he was referring to what Lincoln would write some four score and seven years later about 'last full measure of devotion'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-03-13 09:24 |
| #9 What am I saying? Washington should have been burned 10 years ago. Aholes all of them. Unless you evacuate the collections first, try to carry a lightened cigarette within ten miles of the National Air and Space Museum and I will cross the Atlantic to kill you. :-) |
| Posted by: JFM 2009-03-13 08:40 |
| #8 What am I saying? Washington should have been burned 10 years ago. Aholes all of them. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-03-13 08:27 |
| #7 Hey, if it forces him to pay for private care for toops, that is one thing, but if he cuts the troops off from care during war, then it is time to raze all of washington DC to the ground. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-03-13 08:25 |
| #6 Didn't take them long to come after the wounded Vets. Absolutely deplorable. Barry's running a high class operation. Hat to you ya General Shinseki. You're performance as VA Secretary is exactly as anticipated. At the first mention of this, you should have immediately held a press confernece and announced your resignation. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-13 07:55 |
| #5 Now if your goals is that America loses the WOT F*ck the WOT, how about loosing America's soul? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-03-13 07:41 |
| #4 The Last of the Light Brigade. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-03-13 07:39 |
| #3 I rather have private health care. You haven't understood. The problem is not private healthcare but that veterans would pay insurance from own pocket. In other words if you are deployed to a war zone you face the perspective to be wonded and, once you are back in the States, to starve as your pension will go in helthcare. In other words if you enlist you face the perspective of starving later. Now if your goals is that America loses the WOT then it is a brilliant plan. |
| Posted by: JFM 2009-03-13 07:32 |
| #2 If he wants to make a political point, okay. I rather have private health care. If a vet needs it, they should get help with it. This administration if forcing an evil way for a simple context with no reasoning. Obama looks EVIL. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-03-13 04:56 |
| #1 How could he even consider this? Serious answer, he's out to destroy the Armed Services, this is undermining and demeaning, (Yes, he knows it, but if it'll kill recruitment, he's all for it, no recruits, no military without returning to a draft, and THAT, is the biggest killer of the services there is)and that's the desired result. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-03-13 02:24 |