| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama backs down on vets insurance billing |
| 2009-03-19 |
| Okay. Let's see how much coverage this gets... The Obama administration waved a white flag of surrender Wednesday, dropping a budget proposal that would have billed private insurance companies for treatment of service-connected medical problems at Veterans Affairs Department hospitals and clinics. “It was total capitulation,” one participant said at a meeting Wednesday with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in which 11 veterans groups vowed they would fight to the end to kill the proposal. AmVets Executive Director Jim King said he was glad the White House promised to kill the idea, which was distracting from the good news of the Obama administration’s proposed $4.9 billion increase in the VA budget, and which would have hurt disabled veterans, their families and maybe even employees at the same companies. Billing private insurance to pay for veterans’ health care would make disabled veterans less desirable employees for companies worried about holding down health care costs, and could have led to veterans and their families paying higher premiums — even raising premiums for everyone working for the same company, King said. Veterans groups met Monday with President Barack Obama to discuss the controversial proposal, but Obama promised only to look at the issue. On Wednesday, Emanuel “said he was wrong” in his earlier support of the proposal, King said. “The 11 groups spoke with one voice, and he accepted that.” The announcement of the reversal came from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., not from the White House. “I feel something good happened for veterans,” King said, adding that the White House deserved criticism for proposing the idea in the first place but also credit for quickly dropping it. Disabled American Veterans also commended the reversal. “The president was very open and candid when he met with veterans groups earlier this week, and we are pleased that he has heard our concerns and taken them to heart,” said David Gorman, executive director of DAV’s Washington office. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed the White House had changed its position. “In considering the third party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans,” Gibbs said in a statement. However, the president “listened to concerns raised by the VSOs that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families’ ability to access health care” and agreed with them. “The president has instructed that its consideration be dropped.” In an effort that could be viewed as making up for some of the political damage caused by the controversy, Gibbs said that President Barack Obama “wants to continue a constructive partnership” with military and veterans groups and is “grateful” to the groups that worked with him on the proposal, even in opposition. The White House is not talking about reversing current policy, which does bill the private insurers of some veterans for treatment not directly related to a service-connected injury, illness or disease. If anything, billing for nonservice-connected care could become even more aggressive in an effort to generate money for health care, which is what Emanuel told veterans groups was the whole reason for even considering expanding insurance billing. The White House idea was not getting support in Congress. On Wednesday morning, before the change was announced, Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee chairman, issued a statement saying he would not even consider such legislation. “The Obama administration’s proposal to charge third-party insurance companies for service-connected medical treatment will not be taken up by the Veterans Affairs Committee,” Filner said. “Our budget cannot be balanced on the backs, or legs, or kidneys or hearts of our nation’s combat-wounded heroes,” he said. The proposal gave Republicans an opening to question whether the Obama administration really wants to help veterans. Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a decorated Air Force veteran and former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called the insurance billing idea “sad and shameful. As a combat-wounded fighter pilot who served in two wars, I find the White House idea of charging wounded war heroes for care absurd, abhorrent and unconscionable,” he said in a speech on the House floor. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #4 Politics of the souk. You open with an outrageous offer, then counter-offer with something still way to your advantage when you're met with the expected response. The customer gets a sense of satisfaction from his emotional outbust, while the seller gets exactly what she wanted in the first place. In this case, I predict you'll be seeing 'service connected treatment' defined quite narrowly in the future; fees for treatment for 'non-service' will go up significantly. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-03-19 13:22 |
| #3 The Vets Insurance Billing would have been stillborn very early and the political cost would have been very significant. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-03-19 12:56 |
| #2 According to the Commander of the American Legion who met with Obama and Emmanuel, the whole conversation was "surreal". Every time he mentioned the "moral", "ethical" or even "traditional" obligation of the nation to its wounded warriors and vets, Obama kept changing the conversation to saving money. And Gibbs (what a little weasel he is) gives a wimpy story about 3rd party paperwork or whatever. We are seeing The Gong Show as Presidential performance. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2009-03-19 12:50 |
| #1 The White House is not talking about reversing current policy, which does bill the private insurers of some veterans for treatment not directly related to a service-connected injury, illness or disease. They've been doing that with retirees for years now. Once you retire and take employment elsewhere, they bill the employers health insurance for medical care received, by the retiree and spouse, at military or VA facilities. Congress et al has billions for pork, but reneges on obligations committed when they paid levels which would qualify below the poverty line on a deal of deferred benefits. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-03-19 11:05 |