Obama wants our wounded military to take financial responsibility for their own medical treatment. First, they serve and sacrifice. Then, he wants them to sacrifice more.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/2009031..._for_treatment
I'm speechless. And angry. And I'm not finished with this.
sounds like they want private insurance companies to cover expenses. i'm assuming that means they had coverage already?
if they have been paying premiums to an insurance company, why shouldn't they be taking care of some of the cost?
I tried to read this article as carefully as possible. I think y'mom has a point.
If a vet has been paying premiums to a Tricare supplement private carrier and becomes injured, then it seems fair for the private carrier to reimburse what would otherwise been covered in a non-military casualty that didn't come under VA's umbrella.
The article is a press release from the American Legion and I support them as a retired veteran, however, there seems to be some important points not made in it that raised questions and makes me think y'mom grasped what the article doesn't explain very well.
I'm in complete agreement that it would be the wrong policy to pursue. Injuries sustained in service to the country should be treated at the expense of the country.
If'n there's an online petition or something to state disapproval of this, I'd be happy to sign.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
1. Private insurance has a maximum lifetime benefit. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a person who loses a leg serving our country exhausting 500k of his 2mm lifetime benefit because the VA wants to save money.Originally Posted by yermom
2. We have a moral obligation to treat the injuries of our wounded.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
#2 goes without saying
i didn't really know about #1, but it's a bit of a gray area IMO
The thing is I just can't see Shineski being on board with this if it's exactly as presented.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
from the AL:
The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment
Mon Mar 16, 5:49 pm ET
To: POLITICAL EDITORS
Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell
WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.
"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."
The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"
Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."
Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.
"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.
"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.
If this is as it sounds Brack is even more out of touch then I thought. If someone experiences a "service-connected" injury the only rational thing that can happen is for the injury to be paid for by the country. If nothing else I'd prefer my tax money go to supporting wounded service personnel then have it pissed into the wind for some dumas stimulus package.
Behold the pale horse. The man who sat on him was death, and Hell followed with him.
Olevet Posse Pistolero
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2015.
The Lifetime Maximum might not apply under the new Obama Health Plan. He might tell the Privates they will cover you till death.
If the maximum stayed...I'd be against it too.
Military Folks should be covered even for papercuts sustained in Battle IMO
So as carefully as I tried to interpret this article, I took it to mean disabilities that occur to an active duty servicemember, not a middle-aged veteran who already has been receiving benefits.
If it is the latter, what will it matter under a socialist healthcare system?
One thing to remember is "service connected injuries" is a very broad category. For example, if Airman Jones is badly injured in a car wreck while on his way to work at Tinker AFB, that's generally considered a "service connected injury." Under those circumstances, the government provides the necessary medical treatment at no cost to Airman Jones and seeks reimbursement from any policy of insurance Airman Jones may own (typically the automobile policy he is required to maintain in order to drive on base) and/or the person who hit him. I see nothing wrong with that myself.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Remember my story about the time a dog bit the end of my USAF retired nose off? Well sir, the gubmint paid my 6000.00 medical bill, less my 25 buck co-pay, then sent me a letter requiring me to state whether I owned any insurance policies that could possibly cover the accident, or was covered under any employer-provided health benefits. They then sought reimbursement from both.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Hm. Homey has no reason to be an apologist for the current administration. He's a veteran AND works defense for insurance companies. If he's OK with this, then I guess this merits more study than what's on the surface.
Homey, don't most medical policies exclude injury resulting as an act of war? I know that the life insurers took a beating over this after 9/11.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Probably, but, it depends on what the policy says. The simple fact is, I don't think the gubmint is contemplating an outright denial of health bennies to those injured in the line of duty after their separation from the military.
Methinks all this is about is the gubmint trying to protect its interests by paying for the care, then requiring private insurers to kick-in benefits owed the policyholder pursuant to the insurance policy which are ultimately paid to the gubmint as a form of reimbursement. I say again, that makes sense. It's generally known as "subrogation" in the insurance biz and it's very common. In the classic subrogation situation, the first-party insurer "stands in the shoes" of the policyholder and can assert his rights against any third-party insurer. IOW, say you get in a wreck and file a claim against your policy. Your policy pays you, subrogates and goes after the guy who hit you for reimbursment of the benefits they paid you.
Here, if you have a private health insurance policy or health coverage through your civilian employer, and you were hurt on active duty back in the day, what's wrong with Uncle Sammy giving you care, then asking your private insurance to pony up?
That's not to say that the right-wing pundits won't try to make a lot of hay out of this by coloring it as some sort of anti-veteran dealio on the part of the BHO administration. I freely admit I'm a rightie and no fan of the Prez, but I'm not gonna pillory him over this if all that's happening is what I've described above.
Last edited by Okla-homey; 3/17/2009 at 01:24 PM.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
Okay, Homey. I rarely ever get angry, so I took a deep breath and read what you wrote. I trust your judgement. Thank you.
There may be time yet to get angry, but we need more facts before we do so. I'd like to read the proposed DoD/VA regulation and/or legislation before I light the signal fires to summon help from Rohan...or is it Gondor?
Last edited by Okla-homey; 3/17/2009 at 07:05 PM.
"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever they can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser; in fees, expenses and waste of time." -- Abraham Lincoln, (1809-1865) Lawyer and President who saved the United States.
"Without opportunities on the part of the poor to obtain expert legal advice, it is idle to talk of equality before the law"-- Justice Chas. Evans Hughes
I see this as one of the foundations for Obama to "convince" us universal healthcare is necessary.
I had to think about this for a minute. On the surface it sounded very shameful to me as well.
now if a full time member (or a retired member)of the armed forces get hurts on the job or even off the job, than I think it is up to the tax payers to foot the bill.
Now, if someone does their 3 to 5 year tour and moves on to the private sector, they need to get health care just like the rest of us. With the exceptions of any injury that may have occurred during their tour.
example: my brother did 5 years in the navy back in the late 70's than got out. He has used the VA for back problems and even had surgery. It had nothing to do with his military service. Should the tax payers pay for it, well it was a promised service when he joined. But I dont think the tax payer should have paid for it.
Now, he is a heavy drinker, his liver is about shot. he went to the VA and they said they could possibly do a liver transplant.
now, i love my brother even tho he has many faults, etc, and i do not give him any hand outs because it always goes to booze.
But there is no way in hell this should be paid for by the tax payer.
Posse Member hoping for middle manager, Yep , I dont know ****
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&CDean
I'm a tolerant mother****er.
Has anyone else heard that Obama stands for:
One
Big
A$s
Mistake
America
Posting Permissions
