American Legion Strongly Opposed to Obama's Plan to Charge Wounded Vets for Treatment

[David Berg]

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.

....

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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_ s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment

[DA]

obama kicking vets on the ground...how so cruel...

[antiquity]

House Panel Seeks Additional $800 Million to Pay for Veterans' Health Care
Written by Jason Leopold
Saturday, 14 March 2009 00:00
By Jason Leopold

The House Veterans' Affairs Committee wants President Barack Obama to add another $800 million to the Department of Veterans' Affairs fiscal year 2010 budget to ensure veterans' health care funding doesn’t dry up.

Obama’s proposed 2010 budget for the VA calls for a total budget of $113 billion, a $15 billion increase above 2009 levels. The request includes $52.5 billion in discretionary funding – an increase of $4.9 billion from 2009, or 10.3 percent. The bulk of discretionary spending goes to VA medical care.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner, D-CA, said Friday that Obama’s budget proposal “marks the first time any President has submitted a budget that exceeds the recommendations of the Independent Budget."

However, Filer said he wants Obama to add another $600 million to cover health care funding due to the fact that the the Veterans' Affairs Committee does not accept Obama's budget proposal which claims that it intends to raise $3.4 billion in 2010 by billing private medical insurance companies to cover part of the cost of treating veterans in VA facilities. Filner requested an additional $200 million to cover operating expenses associated with overhauling the VA's antiquated benefits claims system.

Moreover, Filner said the Obama administration's commitment to "cleaning up the [benefits] claims backlog" and other "high priority areas of interest...including caring for our returning service members, improving the VA’s ability to provide mental heath care and services, addressing homelessness among veterans, and not forgetting the veterans of previous generations...is refreshing."

The House Budget Committee will take up the additional funding request in the weeks ahead...


http://www.pubrecord.org/nationworld/753-house-panel-seeks-additional-800-million-to-pay-for-veterans-health-care.html

[David Berg]

All well and good, but why is he also proposing to force wounded vets to burn through their own private health insurance limits, with the associated deductibles and co-pays, for service-related injuries?

[Kathi49]

I've been spending alot of time myself reading about this David. It is an abomination. The VA is not for profit so this just makes me sick for the poor souls who have put their lives on the line. You are right they would have to burn through Tricare which isn't all that great anyway and any other private insurance they may have; potentially leading to sky rocketing premiums. And, which WOULD leave their families in a bind. So, and as of TODAY (see Fox News), we have a President who has never worn the uniform, preaching and pushing for universal healthcare but would prefer to slap in the face the very men and women who have defended this country. I suppose I should reserve my comments to see what Mr. Obama really does. But I am hoping the American Legion along with 10 others will get across to him! Supposedly the American Legion is refusing to tolerate this supposed new plan...whatever it REALLY is. And, evidently, Mr. Obama DEFLECTED any questions (why am I not surprised).

[antiquity]

It's interesting to see this level of outrage from McCain supporters as McCain supported privatizing veterans health benefits. Not only that, he repeatedly voted against fully funding veterans' health care, expanding mental health care, readjustment counseling, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans pay for prescription drugs. The media invested little time covering it though which may be why you weren't aware of it and continued to support him in spite of it.

[David Berg]

It's interesting to see this level of outrage from McCain supporters as McCain supported privatizing veterans health benefits. Not only that, he repeatedly voted against fully funding veterans' health care, expanding mental health care, readjustment counseling, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans pay for prescription drugs. The media invested little time covering it though which may be why you weren't aware of it and continued to support him in spite of it.

McCain received plenty of criticism for this stuff. If he was in office and proposing this same measure, I'd be just as vocal. It's a pity he was the last man standing in the Republican primaries, because he sure wasn't the best option they had to offer.

In other words, no matter who pushes this sort of idea, that we should back out of fully providing for service-related health care for veterans, they're flat wrong. McCain isn't in the White House to pull this stuff, Obama is, thus Obama is going to take the heat.

[antiquity]

McCain received plenty of criticism for this stuff. If he was in office and proposing this same measure, I'd be just as vocal. It's a pity he was the last man standing in the Republican primaries, because he sure wasn't the best option they had to offer.

In other words, no matter who pushes this sort of idea, that we should back out of fully providing for service-related health care for veterans, they're flat wrong. McCain isn't in the White House to pull this stuff, Obama is, thus Obama is going to take the heat.

I don't recall Fox News accuse McCain of selling out vets though. I don't recall the McCain backers here accuse McCain of slapping veterans in the face.

Unlike McCain, Obama will allocate 800 billion to veterans health care. McCain opposed every veterans funding bill that came across his desk yet he still received your support. Interesting.

[Fay Wrinkle]

If America sends a service member into harm's way and that service member is injured, whether in body, mind, or spirit, America should pick up the tab for their treatment and/or recovery.

[flicka]

If America sends a service member into harm's way and that service member is injured, whether in body, mind, or spirit, America should pick up the tab for their treatment and/or recovery.
Damn straight.

[antiquity]

If America sends a service member into harm's way and that service member is injured, whether in body, mind, or spirit, America should pick up the tab for their treatment and/or recovery.

The House Veterans' Affairs Committee wants President Barack Obama to add another $800 million to the Department of Veterans' Affairs fiscal year 2010 budget to ensure veterans' health care funding doesn’t dry up.

Obama’s proposed 2010 budget for the VA calls for a total budget of $113 billion, a $15 billion increase above 2009 levels. The request includes $52.5 billion in discretionary funding – an increase of $4.9 billion from 2009, or 10.3 percent. The bulk of discretionary spending goes to VA medical care.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner, D-CA, said Friday that Obama’s budget proposal “marks the first time any President has submitted a budget that exceeds the recommendations of the Independent Budget."

Looks like he will. I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about unless the media is misrepresenting his position again.

[David Berg]

Looks like he will. I'm not sure what all of the fuss is about unless the media is misrepresenting his position again.
The link I provided is from 3/16 and indicates the meeting happened that day, your's is from 3/14. It appears the latest word is that the cuts to veteran health care will be pushed by the Obama administration.

Do you agree the government should fully cover all service-related health care for veterans, without requiring them to use up their private coverage?

[Kathi49]

Which is what I was referring to earlier David. Your link was the most recent; other than a few reports today. And I have to admit I was wrong about Tricare. My husband just corrected me on that more or less explaining where I went wrong in my last post. :o Nonetheless, this is just flat out wrong of Obama. All Veterans should be fully covered by the government.

[JakeHalsted]

This sounds really fishy to me, if you know what I mean. Read this...

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.

This thread is entitled Plan to Charge Wounded Vets for Treatment .?

Is the author of this thread implying that it is the same thing to charge insurance companies or charge the veterans that they represent?

[antiquity]

The link I provided is from 3/16 and indicates the meeting happened that day, your's is from 3/14. It appears the latest word is that the cuts to veteran health care will be pushed by the Obama administration.

Do you agree the government should fully cover all service-related health care for veterans, without requiring them to use up their private coverage?

Your takes are rarely objective or accurate David. Does this ring a bell: http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=115862

I'll do some digging if someone else doesn't get to it first.

[David Berg]

Your takes are rarely objective or accurate David. Does this ring a bell: http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=115862

I'll do some digging if someone else doesn't get to it first.
Try dealing with the topic at hand instead of attacking the messenger.

On that other thread, it's not exactly as though we're ever going to agree. That bill says that civil suits can be brought for violations, including against government entities, but it does not limit suits to that scope so hospitals and providers may be at risk as well.

You're a heck of a person to talk about a lack of objectivity.

[fishin'guy]

You bet ur arse we should cover all medical costs related to service. I'ts a damnable situation where we would deprive these men and women this coverage, and all congress men/women vote themselves lifetime medical coverage, even after leaving office.
Whats wrong with this picture, AND McCain used his military service as propaganda during race, WTH now he's pulling the carpet out from under his'military bro. and sis'?
If he does this, i bet he takes some time to lay low and not visit any bases with active military.

[DA]

lots of money for greedy executives, none for wounded vets.

[antiquity]

Calm down David. No one attacked you. Next time you take issue with an opinion of mine, I'll remember to accuse you of a personal attack. :rolleyes:

I've read several articles thus far and haven't found any references to a bill or piece of legislation authorizing cuts to veterans health benefits. I don't see an executive order or House or Senate bill including a provision to force veterans to come out of pocket to pay their own health coverage. What I am reading is that one plan among many discussed was to have the VA bill third party insurers for service-related injuries. The VA already pursues third-party billing for non-service-related conditions.

The Senate and House committees on veterans' affairs rejected the proposal when they submitted recommendations on VA budget levels to their respective budget committees. So as it stands, it's a non-issue. There's no policy change or new legislation. Looks like another MSM distortion. For multiple headlines to assert 'Obama to force wounded vets to pay for own treatment" is deliberately misleading and alarmist.

A meeting between veterans groups and the White House is scheduled for Thursday.

[David Berg]

Calm down David. No one attacked you. Next time you take issue with an opinion of mine, I'll remember to accuse you of a personal attack. :rolleyes:
I was responding to your comments about me, not your opinion.

I've read several articles thus far and haven't found any references to a bill or piece of legislation authorizing cuts to veterans health benefits. I don't see an executive order or House or Senate bill including a provision to force veterans to come out of pocket to pay their own health coverage. What I am reading is that one plan among many discussed was to have the VA bill third party insurers for service-related injuries. The VA already pursues third-party billing for non-service-related conditions.
So what is you position on billing private insurance for service-related health issues?

The Senate and House committees on veterans' affairs rejected the proposal when they submitted recommendations on VA budget levels to their respective budget committees. So as it stands, it's a non-issue. There's no policy change or new legislation. Looks like another MSM distortion. All of the various headlines stating 'Obama to force wounded vets to pay for own treatment" are grossly misleading.
I haven't seen headlines that say that, though you might find some on the blogosphere going overboard if you look hard enough.

A meeting between veterans groups and the White House is scheduled for Thursday.[/quote]
I'll be interested to hear what comes out of the Thursday meeting. It could be that this has received such a negative that it won't even be mentioned again, or they might still push forward at some point. I expect the vets to raise the subject at the meeting.

Personally, I think this will get stomped in Congress if the Obama administration is able to push it that far. Legislators know good and welll what kind of repurcussions there will be from the voters over this proposal.

[antiquity]

I was responding to your comments about me, not your opinion.

I didn't say anything about you, I commented on your "takes" just as you finished by commenting on mine. Going by your logic, I guess I should accuse you of attacking me. :rolleyes:



So what is you position on billing private insurance for service-related health issues?

The VA already bills private insurance for non-service-related conditions.


I'll be interested to hear what comes out of the Thursday meeting. It could be that this has received such a negative that it won't even be mentioned again, or they might still push forward at some point. I expect the vets to raise the subject at the meeting.

Personally, I think this will get stomped in Congress if the Obama administration is able to push it that far. Legislators know good and welll what kind of repurcussions there will be from the voters over this proposal.

The proposal has already been rejected David hence why its a non-issue. Distortionary hype? The headlines implied that this was a done deal.

Regarding repercussions, this outrage from the right over an idea being tossed around is ironic in light of the lack of repercussions McCain faced when he voted against fully funding veterans' health care, expanding mental health care, readjustment counseling, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans pay for prescription drugs. And those WERE done deals. Funny how the media works. Funny how some vets still voted for him. Selective outrage?

[David Berg]

IThe VA already bills private insurance for non-service-related conditions.
That's not an answer to the question.

The proposal has already been rejected David hence why its a non-issue. Distortionary hype? The headlines implied that this was a done deal.
Where does it say the administration has rejected it? I'll be glad to see this, but it disturbs me that it would be proposed in the first place.

Regarding repercussions, this outrage from the right over an idea being tossed around is ironic in light of the lack of repercussions McCain faced when he voted against fully funding veterans' health care, expanding mental health care, readjustment counseling, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans pay for prescription drugs. And those WERE done deals. Funny how the media works. Funny how some vets still voted for him. Selective outrage?
Vets (and everyone else) had limited options. At least McCain wasn't proposing to slash the military budget like Obama wants to do. Ironically, he wants to make major cuts to military spending at the same time he's talking about boosting active enrollment. Not to mention, the military programs he wants to cut also provide many thousands of domestic civilian jobs.

[anthony]

That's not an answer to the question.


Where does it say the administration has rejected it? I'll be glad to see this, but it disturbs me that it would be proposed in the first place.


Vets (and everyone else) had limited options. At least McCain wasn't proposing to slash the military budget like Obama wants to do. Ironically, he wants to make major cuts to military spending at the same time he's talking about boosting active enrollment. Not to mention, the military programs he wants to cut also provide many thousands of domestic civilian jobs.
David, I don't think you said a word when Bush treated the vets like crap. If you did link me to your post....

[Fay Wrinkle]

I haven't seen headlines that say that, though you might find some on the blogosphere going overboard if you look hard enough.

Have you seen the title of the article you linked and the title of this topic?

[David Berg]

David, I don't think you said a word when Bush treated the vets like crap. If you did link me to your post....
I wasn't active on the Politics forum until not long before the election. I don't recall a specific post about this subject, but I've offered plenty of criticism of Bush on various topics. What's your position on this one?

[antiquity]

Where does it say the administration has rejected it? I'll be glad to see this, but it disturbs me that it would be proposed in the first place.

If you had done your research before jumping on the GOP talking points bandwagon, you would know this. It's called the legislative process. VA proposals (and this wasn't the only one presented although its the only one the media is covering), are presented to the senate and house committee on veterans affairs for feedback.

"The Senate and House committees on veterans' affairs rejected the proposal when they submitted recommendations on VA budget levels to their respective budget committees."

Vets (and everyone else) had limited options. At least McCain wasn't proposing to slash the military budget like Obama wants to do. Ironically, he wants to make major cuts to military spending at the same time he's talking about boosting active enrollment. Not to mention, the military programs he wants to cut also provide many thousands of domestic civilian jobs.

Vets didn't have limited options.

Really David, you need to stop making stuff up.

In Obama's stimulus plan alone (that you opposed):

$1 billion for the Veterans Health Administration
$150 million for an increase of claims processing military staff
$150 million for VA general operating expenses

In Obama's 2010 budget for the VA (that you oppose):

If passed, the total VA total "budget will be $113 billion, a $15 billion increase above 2009 levels. The request includes $52.5 billion in discretionary funding – an increase of $4.9 billion from 2009, or 10.3 percent. The bulk of discretionary spending goes to VA medical care."

Because Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner rejected the proposal "to raise $3.4 billion in 2010 by billing private medical insurance companies to cover part of the cost of treating veterans in VA facilities," Filner is asking for an additional 600 million. "The House Budget Committee will consider the additional funding request in the weeks ahead."

You oppose legislation to increase the VA budget beyond anything any president has ever proposed, most of which will be spent on veterans medical care and you supported a candidate that voted against every veterans funding bill put before him. Yet you say that you are a friend of the military and their families. :nono:

[David Berg]

If you had done your research before jumping on the GOP talking points bandwagon, you would know this. It's called the legislative process. VA proposals (and this wasn't the only one presented although its the only one the media is covering), are presented to the senate and house committee on veterans affairs for feedback.

"The Senate and House committees on veterans' affairs rejected the proposal when they submitted recommendations on VA budget levels to their respective budget committees."
Source for that quote? Is it more recent than the meeting the American Legion had on the 16th, where it was indicated the Obama administration intends to push forward with this?

If the legislative process kills this, then bravo. As I said, it bothers me that it would be proposed by Obama in the first place.

Vets didn't have limited options.

Really David, you need to stop making stuff up.
There were only just so many candidates on the November ballot. I call that limited. BTW, your smug commentary is growing old.

In Obama's stimulus plan alone (that you opposed):

$1 billion for the Veterans Health Administration
$150 million for an increase of claims processing military staff
$150 million for VA general operating expenses

In Obama's 2010 budget for the VA (that you oppose):

If passed, the total VA total "budget will be $113 billion, a $15 billion increase above 2009 levels. The request includes $52.5 billion in discretionary funding – an increase of $4.9 billion from 2009, or 10.3 percent. The bulk of discretionary spending goes to VA medical care."

Because Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner rejected the proposal "to raise $3.4 billion in 2010 by billing private medical insurance companies to cover part of the cost of treating veterans in VA facilities," Filner is asking for an additional 600 million. "The House Budget Committee will consider the additional funding request in the weeks ahead."

You oppose legislation to increase the VA budget beyond anything any president has ever proposed, most of which will be spent on veterans medical care and you supported a candidate that voted against every veterans funding bill put before him. Yet you say that you are a friend of the military and their families. :nono:
The article you are quoting (again) here predates the meeting on the 16th where this proposal was presented again by the administration.

You still haven't answered my question about whether you support charging vets for their service-related care.

[anthony]

I wasn't active on the Politics forum until not long before the election. I don't recall a specific post about this subject, but I've offered plenty of criticism of Bush on various topics. What's your position on this one?
I think it's wrong if it's true and should not take place. Vets should be provided housing and medical care for life free of charge if they served doing war time.

[antiquity]

While I was researching, I came across these additional provisions in Obama's stimulus that Republicans opposed.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, The American Legion greatly appreciates the provisions contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

A Tax Credit for Hiring Unemployed Veterans: Provides a tax credit to businesses for hiring unemployed veterans. Specifically, veterans would qualify if they were discharged or released from active duty from the Armed Forces during the previous five years and received unemployment benefits for more than 4 weeks before being hired.

Disabled Veterans Payment of $250: Provides a payment of $250 to all disabled veterans receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Medical Facilities: Provides $1 billion for non-recurring maintenance, including energy efficiency projects, to address deficiencies and avoid serious maintenance problems at the 153 VA hospitals across the country.

Increase the Number of VA Claims Processors: Provides $150 million for an increase in VA claims processing staff, in order to address the large backlog in processing veterans’ claims. This backlog has been a key complaint of veterans across the country.

Improve Automation of VA Benefit Processing: Provides $50 million to improve the automation of the processing of veterans’ benefits, to get benefits out sooner and more accurately.

Construction of Extended Care Facilities for Veterans: Provides $150 million for state grants for the construction of additional extended care facilities for veterans.

http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=35862&Newsid=345&Name=%20Steve%20%20Robertson

[David Berg]

While I was researching, I came across these additional provisions in Obama's stimulus that Republicans opposed.

Is this thread about the stimulus bill or about the new proposal to bill private insurance for service-related care?

It's obvious you'd like to pigeon-hole me as a die-hard Republican yet there have been plenty of times, here and elsewhere, that I have strongly criticized Republicans, voted for Democrats or others, or simply had to shake my head at how both parties are on the wrong track. I've even acknowledged here when Obama got something right, when he had the feds lay off on medical MJ.

Why are you dancing around the one direct question I've asked a few times already? I want to know your opinion on the issue.

[antiquity]

Below you will find the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010. Steve Robertson, Director of the National Legislative Commission for the American Legion analyzes the proposal in depth. This meeting took place on the 10th, not the 16th.

http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=35862&Newsid=345&Name=%20Steve%20%20Robertson

[antiquity]

Is this thread about the stimulus bill or about the new proposal to bill private insurance for service-related care?

It's obvious you'd like to pigeon-hole me as a die-hard Republican yet there have been plenty of times, here and elsewhere, that I have strongly criticized Republicans, voted for Democrats or others, or simply had to shake my head at how both parties are on the wrong track. I've even acknowledged here when Obama got something right, when he had the feds lay off on medical MJ.

Why are you dancing around the one direct question I've asked a few times already? I want to know your opinion on the issue.

I wasn't, I was researching as I said when I came upon that info. It stood out since I don't recall the MSM mentioning it during their criticisms of the bill.

And the victim posture is getting old. You weren't pigeonholed. You adamantly opposed a spending bill applauded by the American Legion for its generous provisions for military personell which I find hypocritical in light of your recent statements implying support for the American Legion.

[David Berg]

Below you will find the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010. Steve Robertson, Director of the National Legislative Commission for the American Legion analyzes the proposal in depth. This meeting took place on the 10th, not the 16th.

http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=35862&Newsid=345&Name=%20Steve%20%20Robertson
This is about a presentation to a House committee. The article I posted was about a later meeting at the White House with Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, and a couple of other administration staff members.

[antiquity]

This is about a presentation to a House committee. The article I posted was about a later meeting at the White House with Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, and a couple of other administration staff members.

David, Robertsons criticisms (http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=35862&Newsid=345&Name=%20Steve%20%20Robertson) were made during the 3/10 meeting. Rahm will be meeting with them tomorrow.

Since you oppose Obama's budget but support the American Legion, would you support the budget if it contained the 600 million that Filner requested to make up for the rejected provision as well as the additional millions Robertson wants?

[David Berg]

David, Robertsons criticisms (http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=35862&Newsid=345&Name=%20Steve%20%20Robertson) were made during the 3/10 meeting. Rahm will be meeting with them tomorrow.
The first article I posted was about a later meeting at the White House, not the House committee hearing. From that article:
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.

....

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.

It sounds like the White House is going to have another follow-up meeting.

Since you oppose Obama's budget but support the American Legion, would you support the budget if it contained the 600 million that Filner requested to make up for the rejected provision as well as the additional millions Robertson wants?
To say that my objections to his budget amount to a condemnation of each and every individual component is a rather disingenuous approach.

Ready yet to answer whether or not you support billing private insurance for service-related treatment?

[antiquity]

To say that my objections to his budget amount to a condemnation of each and every individual component is a rather disingenuous approach.

What's disengenuous is to allege that you support veterans issues yet vote for McCain and allege that you support veterans issues yet oppose a budget plan lauded by the American Legion for its unprecedented support of veterans issues. :thinking:

Ready yet to answer whether or not you support billing private insurance for service-related treatment?

As I said, the VA already bills private insurance for non-service-related conditions. Regarding sevice related injuries, their medical care will still be covered so I'm not sure what the problem is. The MSM implied that they are somehow being asked to foot the bill for their own medical costs which won't be the case if they're insured and the VA is reimbursing them unless they're referring to co-payments and prescriptions? According to Robertson, it involves the MCCF. Whatever the problem, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee has already rejected it so it's a dead issue. The purpose of tomorrow's meeting with Rahm will be to discuss other alternatives.

[BigK]

I'm glad i'm not in the ARMY anymore while democrats are in power. Twist it all you want they are the worst thing for military members and thier families. No more decent pay raises for soldiers fighting over seas!

[Fay Wrinkle]

I'm glad i'm not in the ARMY anymore while democrats are in power. Twist it all you want they are the worst thing for military members and thier families. No more decent pay raises for soldiers fighting over seas!
I suggest you Google the terms "bush military pay raise" without quotes, before you blame Democrats.

Here, I'll help... Bush opposed military pay raise (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=eKj&q=bush+military+pay+raise&btnG=Search)

[antiquity]

I'm glad i'm not in the ARMY anymore while democrats are in power. Twist it all you want they are the worst thing for military members and thier families. No more decent pay raises for soldiers fighting over seas!

What's being twisted?

You think the Director of the National Legislative Commission for the American Legion is a liar?

And the provisions below are not in the stimulus?

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, The American Legion greatly appreciates the provisions contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

A Tax Credit for Hiring Unemployed Veterans: Provides a tax credit to businesses for hiring unemployed veterans. Specifically, veterans would qualify if they were discharged or released from active duty from the Armed Forces during the previous five years and received unemployment benefits for more than 4 weeks before being hired.

Disabled Veterans Payment of $250: Provides a payment of $250 to all disabled veterans receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Medical Facilities: Provides $1 billion for non-recurring maintenance, including energy efficiency projects, to address deficiencies and avoid serious maintenance problems at the 153 VA hospitals across the country.

Increase the Number of VA Claims Processors: Provides $150 million for an increase in VA claims processing staff, in order to address the large backlog in processing veterans’ claims. This backlog has been a key complaint of veterans across the country.

Improve Automation of VA Benefit Processing: Provides $50 million to improve the automation of the processing of veterans’ benefits, to get benefits out sooner and more accurately.

Construction of Extended Care Facilities for Veterans: Provides $150 million for state grants for the construction of additional extended care facilities for veterans.

And McCain did not vote against fully funding veterans' health care, expanding mental health care, readjustment counseling, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans pay for prescription drugs?

Please correct me where I'm wrong.

[Fay Wrinkle]

I probably shouldn't have said anything. BigK has a problem with me calling people on their bullshit.

[David Berg]

What's disengenuous is to allege that you support veterans issues yet vote for McCain and allege that you support veterans issues yet oppose a budget plan lauded by the American Legion for its unprecedented support of veterans issues. :thinking:
Given the choices in November, at least McCain wasn't proposing to slash military spending for current active forces. Obama wants to do that, even while he's proposing to increase the ranks. He has a much stronger track record of supporting the military overall. McCain has also supported veterans in a number of votes over the years.

As I said, the VA already bills private insurance for non-service-related conditions. Regarding sevice related injuries, their medical care will still be covered so I'm not sure what the problem is. The MSM implied that they are somehow being asked to foot the bill for their own medical costs which won't be the case if they're insured and the VA is reimbursing them unless they're referring to co-payments and prescriptions? According to Robertson, it involves the MCCF. Whatever the problem, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee has already rejected it so it's a dead issue. The purpose of tomorrow's meeting with Rahm will be to discuss other alternatives.
The problems with the proposal were detailed in the quote in my first post.
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.
Apparently the Obama administration didn't consider it dead in the water after the House hearing, since they brought it up again with the American Legion the following week.

A number of other posters in this thread have also pointed out why Obama's proposal is such a bad idea. Bottom line is that this is coverage for health care issues that only exist because of their service in to this country. It was promised to them and we owe it to them.

[antiquity]

Given the choices in November, at least McCain wasn't proposing to slash military spending for current active forces. Obama wants to do that, even while he's proposing to increase the ranks. He has a much stronger track record of supporting the military overall. McCain has also supported veterans in a number of votes over the years.

You're repeating yourself. I addressed these fallacies in post #23.

Apparently the Obama administration didn't consider it dead in the water after the House hearing, since they brought it up again with the American Legion the following week.

It can be brought up a million times but if the house committee on veterans' affairs rejects it, it's a dead horse. Remember my post describing how the legislative process works?

A number of other posters in this thread have also pointed out why Obama's proposal is such a bad idea. Bottom line is that this is coverage for health care issues that only exist because of their service in to this country. It was promised to them and we owe it to them.


Are you referring to the rant about slapping vets in the face by a person completely ignorant of the American Legions endorsement of Obama's stimulus and every other component the VA budget and who supported a candidate who opposed every VA spending budget put before him? Or are you referring to the person who erroneously asserted that Bush issued pay raises for vets? LOL. These types of responses are what you call cogent and informed explanations? Reiterating that it was opposed doesn't address my questions. I'd prefer to hear from someone familiar with the VA billing system. But I won't be holding my breath, it's a dead horse.

[David Berg]

It can be brought up a million times but if the house committee on veterans' affairs rejects it, it's a dead horse.
Not very bright of Obama then, huh?

[David Berg]

In case you didn't get it in my post above, I was being facetious. Obama know how the legislative process works, which is why I couldn't consider the matter dead if he was still bringing it up even after the House hearing. I may not agree with him on most points, but I'm careful not to underestimate him.

Today, though, it looks like he's seen the light. This hit the news this morning. I guess Obama finally realized there was a groundswell against the idea that he just didn't anticipate.

President Obama, after an uproar by veterans groups, has scrapped a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service.

"In considering the third-party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday in a written statement. "However, the president listened to concerns raised by the [veteran service organizations] that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans' and their families' ability to access health care.

"Therefore, the president has instructed that its consideration be dropped," Gibbs said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/obama-drops-controversial-health-care-plan-wounded-veterans/

[antiquity]

David, I pointed out in post #36 that the purpose of Thursdays meeting was to discuss other alternatives so the original proposal was obviously dead or else the white house wouldn't have agreed to meet with them to discuss other alternatives. :rolleyes:

You've made it clear several times over that you oppose the VA budget with or without the provision so your outrage from the start of this thread has been disengenuous. If you sincerely cared about veterans medical coverage you would have joined the American Legion in their praise and support of it as a whole as every other veterans group has.

So drop the charade.

[David Berg]

David, I pointed out in post #36 that the purpose of Thursdays meeting was to discuss other alternatives so the original proposal was obviously dead or else the white house wouldn't have agreed to meet with them to discuss other alternatives. :rolleyes:
That doesn't mesh with the quote from David K. Rehbein from the quote in my original post. You're making assumptions.

You've made it clear several times over that you oppose the VA budget with or without the provision so your outrage from the start of this thread has been disengenuous. If you sincerely cared about veterans medical coverage you would have joined the American Legion in their praise and support of it as a whole as every other veterans group has.

So drop the charade.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

[antiquity]

Stop putting words in my mouth.

What words did I put in your mouth?

[ResonantEcho]

They were going to charge. Plain and simple. Otherwise, why would Obama and his administration backtrack on it just yesterday?

[antiquity]

They were going to charge. Plain and simple. Otherwise, why would Obama and his administration backtrack on it just yesterday?

Charge them, so it was a done deal?

The initial meeting took place on the 10th, the WH was open to their concerns and agreed to additional meetings to discuss alternatives. The last meeting took place today, not yesterday.

So now that the VA budget has met the American Legions demands, are you going to support it or is your concern about VA medical care as feigned as Fox News'?

You know, the American Legion praised Obama's stimulus plan and the VA budget for its unprecedented commitment to our military personell and their families...both of which you opposed. :nono:

[David Berg]

What words did I put in your mouth?
I never made any statement against the VA budget other than to express my objections to this proposal.

[BigK]

Wow! I love how I was actually in the military and was one of the few here actually recieving military pay raises each year and am still told I am bullshitting by people like Fay! Now I remember why I try to stay out of politics. Some people here are dilusional! Jesus Christ, i'm done trying to talk to people not in touch with reality. No more! LOL

[Wise Young]

Wow! I love how I was actually in the military and was one of the few here actually recieving military pay raises each year and am still told I am bullshitting by people like Fay! Now I remember why I try to stay out of politics. Some people here are dilusional! Jesus Christ, i'm done trying to talk to people not in touch with reality. No more! LOL

BigK,

I think that take-home message from all of this is that both sides care. They care a lot for veterans because all Americans accept the responsibility of caring for our people who put themselves in harm's way for our country. Of course, veteran care is and will always be political football. People will use veteran pay, care, and whatever they can to bash the other side.

This country is in deep doo-doo when it comes to money. We just came out of a decade of intemperate decisions that forced our nation to empty its treasury in countries such as Iraq and allowing Wall Street barons to make money while taxpayers guaranteed their profits and bailed them out when they lost.

This is not just a problem that Republicans or Democrats created. We were all responsible. So, along comes Obama. He has no money left. Congress has just spent it all on $3 trillion dollars of give-aways to pay for an irrelevant war in Iraq, and a unprecedented bailout of Wall Street firms and banks, including $178 billion to AIG alone.

Can you blame him for trying to get the private insurance industry to shoulder some of the load of veteran care? I am really surprised that people who are presumably Republicans in other guises are now saying that the private sector has absolutely no responsibility for veterans. Don't we all have some responsibility?

Obama is not saying that the bill should not be paid. He is just saying that everybody should pay. After all, the money comes from our pockets, no matter what, whether it is in the form of insurance payments or taxes. The President of the American Legion should be ashamed for playing politics on this issue. His goal should be the coverage of veterans and not where the money comes from.

Wise.

[David Berg]

Wise, is it really fair to expect vets to pay co-pays and deductibles for their service-related care, while using up their lifetime limits on their private policy? The country obviously is in a huge financial bind, but Obama still intends to invest plenty in his new plans for a variety of other stuff. Even the amount we're sending to the Palestinians is nearly twice what he was hoping to save by backing out of the commitment to pay for veterans health care.

[Wise Young]

Wise, is it really fair to expect vets to pay co-pays and deductibles for their service-related care, while using up their lifetime limits on their private policy? The country obviously is in a huge financial bind, but Obama still intends to invest plenty in his new plans for a variety of other stuff. Even the amount we're sending to the Palestinians is nearly twice what he was hoping to save by backing out of the commitment to pay for veterans health care.

David,

Why are you accepting the current rules of the game? The game has changed. In the coming several years, the insurance industry and the so-called lifetime limits will be gone. Don't you see the writing on the wall? The rules of the game has and will change. There will be no more life-time limits. That is just a device that the insurance companies used to increase their profit.

Regarding the investment that Obama is making in Palestine, your argument is petty. Please use some other example, such as $178 billion AIG bailout or the $780 billion stimulus package Obama has a lot of difficult foreign policy decisions to make and you want to play politics with those decisions? Please, you should choose examples that don't make you look so partisan.

Peace in the Middle East had a very high priority for Bush and he decided to expend nearly a trillion dollars on his failed plan to establish that peace, i.e. his Iraq war. It will eventually come out that his overall plan was to establish an American stronghold in Iraq that would serve as the bulwark against muslim extremism. It was a gamble and he lost. We are now paying for it.

So, please, why shouldn't private insurance bear some of the burden of the cost of veterans care. After all, they may be able to do so more efficiently and all Americans want to help. Why are private medical insurance exempt from pitching in to help? After all, most of our insurance rates are higher because we are covering illegal immigrant care and legal requirements that hospitals cover non-insurance covered people in emergency rooms.

I was trying to get some estimates of how much it would cost for our clinical trial in the United States. Guess what, they are telling me that it costs a minimum of at least $3000 per day hospital stay. This is close to the cost of the most expensive presidential suite in the Waldorf Astoria. Why? That is because our current insurance covers mandated care of people who are not covered by insurance.

In the coming years, I hope that this situation changes and that some form of universal health care system comes to the United States. Its current form is unacceptably inefficient and makes for bad medicine. I think that veteran are and should be part of the private sector commitment, as well as the government's responsibility.

Finally, regarding whether we should expect vets to pay co-pays and deductibles for their service-related care, I think that this is something that needs to be decided by Congress. One of the main goals of the Obama administration is to provide an insurance system that is equivalent to what Congress gets and at a similar cost.

Wise.

[Wise Young]

I am moving this to our Veterans Forum where I hope that we will get more veterans to weigh in on the issue with less politics. This is a very important issue, in my opinion. Thanks. Wise.

[bcripeq]

David,

Why are you accepting the current rules of the game? The game has changed. In the coming several years, the insurance industry and the so-called lifetime limits will be gone. Don't you see the writing on the wall? The rules of the game has and will change. There will be no more life-time limits. That is just a device that the insurance companies used to increase their profit.

Regarding the investment that Obama is making in Palestine, your argument is petty. Please use some other example, such as $178 billion AIG bailout or the $780 billion stimulus package Obama has a lot of difficult foreign policy decisions to make and you want to play politics with those decisions? Please, you should choose examples that don't make you look so partisan.

Peace in the Middle East had a very high priority for Bush and he decided to expend nearly a trillion dollars on his failed plan to establish that peace, i.e. his Iraq war. It will eventually come out that his overall plan was to establish an American stronghold in Iraq that would serve as the bulwark against muslim extremism. It was a gamble and he lost. We are now paying for it.

So, please, why shouldn't private insurance bear some of the burden of the cost of veterans care. After all, they may be able to do so more efficiently and all Americans want to help. Why are private medical insurance exempt from pitching in to help? After all, most of our insurance rates are higher because we are covering illegal immigrant care and legal requirements that hospitals cover non-insurance covered people in emergency rooms.

I was trying to get some estimates of how much it would cost for our clinical trial in the United States. Guess what, they are telling me that it costs a minimum of at least $3000 per day hospital stay. This is close to the cost of the most expensive presidential suite in the Waldorf Astoria. Why? That is because our current insurance covers mandated care of people who are not covered by insurance.

In the coming years, I hope that this situation changes and that some form of universal health care system comes to the United States. Its current form is unacceptably inefficient and makes for bad medicine. I think that veteran are and should be part of the private sector commitment, as well as the government's responsibility.

Finally, regarding whether we should expect vets to pay co-pays and deductibles for their service-related care, I think that this is something that needs to be decided by Congress. One of the main goals of the Obama administration is to provide an insurance system that is equivalent to what Congress gets and at a similar cost.

Wise.


And your argument isnt just as petty? First please provide proof that Iraq has been a failure. Seems like Bush Iraq plan is going pretty good to me. My buddy just reinlisted over there after a couple years stateside. He was there a couple years in the beginning. He says the difference is incredible. You support palistinean aid but not iraq aid? And then try to make David Berg look petty by the simple fact of his statement?

Second veterans benefits should not ever be at the will of private companies. Your argument that it is the future is simply an argument against a strong military.

[Fay Wrinkle]

Wow! I love how I was actually in the military and was one of the few here actually recieving military pay raises each year and am still told I am bullshitting by people like Fay!
Thank you for your service. But being in the military doesn't mean you get to post misinformed opinions without being challenged.

Now I remember why I try to stay out of politics. Some people here are dilusional! Jesus Christ, i'm done trying to talk to people not in touch with reality. No more! LOL
Are you disputing that GWB vetoed military pay hikes?

[David Berg]

Why are you accepting the current rules of the game? The game has changed. In the coming several years, the insurance industry and the so-called lifetime limits will be gone. Don't you see the writing on the wall? The rules of the game has and will change. There will be no more life-time limits. That is just a device that the insurance companies used to increase their profit.
When and if they do change then it will be a different situation, but for now we shouldn't put this on the vets and their private coverage.

Regarding the investment that Obama is making in Palestine, your argument is petty. Please use some other example, such as $178 billion AIG bailout or the $780 billion stimulus package Obama has a lot of difficult foreign policy decisions to make and you want to play politics with those decisions? Please, you should choose examples that don't make you look so partisan.
As you said, we only have so much money to spend. I'm not saying Palestinians shouldn't have some assistance, but I do believe we should give a higher priority to our long-standing obligations here at home.

So, please, why shouldn't private insurance bear some of the burden of the cost of veterans care. After all, they may be able to do so more efficiently and all Americans want to help. Why are private medical insurance exempt from pitching in to help?
I look at this as similar to worker's compensation coverage. If I am injured on the job at company X, then they are liable for coverage for care related to that injury. The same thing has always applied to the government covering our wounded vets and that should continue.

After all, most of our insurance rates are higher because we are covering illegal immigrant care and legal requirements that hospitals cover non-insurance covered people in emergency rooms.
That's another whole issue to figure out how to deal with. Presumably if we have universal health care then all U.S. citizens will be covered, but what will we do with the illegal immigrants who seek care? This is a huge burden for hospitals in some areas.

[antiquity]

I never made any statement against the VA budget other than to express my objections to this proposal.

My apologies then. Glad to see you join the American Legion in support of Obama's budget.

[Wise Young]

And your argument isnt just as petty? First please provide proof that Iraq has been a failure. Seems like Bush Iraq plan is going pretty good to me. My buddy just reinlisted over there after a couple years stateside. He was there a couple years in the beginning. He says the difference is incredible. You support palistinean aid but not iraq aid? And then try to make David Berg look petty by the simple fact of his statement?

Second veterans benefits should not ever be at the will of private companies. Your argument that it is the future is simply an argument against a strong military.

I would like to continue the discussion on the Iraq War with you at
http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?p=1016914#post1016914

[antiquity]

Obama is not saying that the bill should not be paid. He is just saying that everybody should pay. After all, the money comes from our pockets, no matter what, whether it is in the form of insurance payments or taxes. The President of the American Legion should be ashamed for playing politics on this issue. His goal should be the coverage of veterans and not where the money comes from.

Wise.

Thanks for moving the thread. I was hoping someone familiar with the VA billing system would explain how Obama's plan would result in veterans with service related injuries not receiving coverage. Especially given that the VA already bills private insurance for non-service-related conditions. :thinking:

The goal of the proposal was to raise $3.4 billion in 2010 by billing private medical insurance companies to cover part of the cost of treating veterans in VA facilities. Now that it's been rejected, he'll have to come up with an additional 800 million to add to an overall budget that Republicans have already vowed to oppose due to the price tag.

[David Berg]

My apologies then. Glad to see you join the American Legion in support of Obama's budget.
You do so love to presume to speak for me. :rolleyes:

[Kathi49]

Washington, DC - US Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)

"VA's sacred duty is to care for the Veterans injured in honorable service to our nation and the department should NOT turn to wounded warriors' private insurance to pay for combat injuries."

And another...

"Veteran's care and benefits are a cost of war and treatment for conditions DIRECTLY RELATED to service is the RESPONSBILITY of the government ALONE."

"Under my Chairmanship, the Veteran's Affairs Committee will NOT advance any such legislation".

Akaka

I was glad to see this and glad Obama backed off as well he SHOULD have.

[Wise Young]

When and if they do change then it will be a different situation, but for now we shouldn't put this on the vets and their private coverage.


As you said, we only have so much money to spend. I'm not saying Palestinians shouldn't have some assistance, but I do believe we should give a higher priority to our long-standing obligations here at home.


I look at this as similar to worker's compensation coverage. If I am injured on the job at company X, then they are liable for coverage for care related to that injury. The same thing has always applied to the government covering our wounded vets and that should continue.


That's another whole issue to figure out how to deal with. Presumably if we have universal health care then all U.S. citizens will be covered, but what will we do with the illegal immigrants who seek care? This is a huge burden for hospitals in some areas.

I disagree with your arguments that veteran care should be solely the providence of the federal government. Veterans care is not like worker compensation. It is the responsibility of every American. I find it curious that you and Cripeq would argue that the private sector should have no responsibilities at all for veteran care. In fact, Cripeq seems to imply that private sector taking over some of veteran's care would be somehow less good for the veterans with all their limitations. Where is all the much vaunted faith in the private sector? And, above all, where is their commitment to the veterans? Whether we pay in taxes or in health care premiums, it still comes out of our pockets. Why shouldn't health care insurance shoulder some of the burden of veteran health care?

Wise.

[David Berg]

Wise, the private sector does shoulder part of the burden when it comes to non-service related care. It's when we're talking about service-related care that I think the government should continue to fulfill their commitment to provide for that treatment. The vets should not be out of pocket at all for that care and they should not be draining down their limits. If the system changes, fine, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I also view it as more fairly shared through taxation then private insurance premiums. Many people do not pay for private insurance, however everyone pays taxes either directly or indirectly (by buying consumer goods from corporations that pay tax).

Why do you view service-related health care as so different than workers comp?

Hopefully some of the other vets on the forum will kick in with their opinion on the matter.

[Veteran Advisor]

The problem, Doc, is the private sector includes the very veterans that would end up paying for the care. That's the essence of the debate. Veterans with private insurance would be paying for care that should otherwise be covered at VA expense. And what happens when insurance companies have to pay out, particularly in the case of catastrophically disabled veterans who can still secure employment but require often-costly lifelong treatments (UTI care, catheters, urological exams, annual exams, new wheelchairs, etc.)? Higher premiums.

I wish I'd have known sooner this thread was started. In any event, the measure is dead. Privatized VA care has again been defeated, thank goodness. For over 200 years it was society's burden to "care for him who shall have born the battle." It should remain that way.

Gunner

BTW, I'm a staunch Independent and would never give a free pass to our government officials regardless of political party. But I commend Obama for listening to the veteran community despite his preconceptions. My boss in DC met with Obama face to face on this issue and thought he'd never change his mind. But he did. It's nice to know that someone in the White House is finally listening to veterans.

[Wise Young]

Wise, the private sector does shoulder part of the burden when it comes to non-service related care. It's when we're talking about service-related care that I think the government should continue to fulfill their commitment to provide for that treatment. The vets should not be out of pocket at all for that care and they should not be draining down their limits. If the system changes, fine, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I also view it as more fairly shared through taxation then private insurance premiums. Many people do not pay for private insurance, however everyone pays taxes either directly or indirectly (by buying consumer goods from corporations that pay tax).

Why do you view service-related health care as so different than workers comp?

Hopefully some of the other vets on the forum will kick in with their opinion on the matter.

David,

Why do I think consider veteran care differently from workman comp? I once was an intern and resident in the Manhattan VA. I believe that the VAH system should continue for certain functions but VAH system should not try to replicate the civil hospital system.

You may not have paid all that much attention to the health care debates that occurred between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Both strongly favored a federal health care insurance plan that would provide the same benefits that federal employees get. This federal insurance is what I think vets should be eligible for when they get out of the service.

Congress would have to decide how much of the premium of the federal insurance the federal government should pay and how to reckon what is service-related and what is not. I think that most of the service-related hospitalization care should be provided by the VAH and the rest by the federal insurance plan.

In my opinion, the landscape on insurance will be dramatically different in the coming years.

Wise.

[Wise Young]

The problem, Doc, is the private sector includes the very veterans that would end up paying for the care. That's the essence of the debate. Veterans with private insurance would be paying for care that should otherwise be covered at VA expense. And what happens when insurance companies have to pay out, particularly in the case of catastrophically disabled veterans who can still secure employment but require often-costly lifelong treatments (UTI care, catheters, urological exams, annual exams, new wheelchairs, etc.)? Higher premiums.

I wish I'd have known sooner this thread was started. In any event, the measure is dead. Privatized VA care has again been defeated, thank goodness. For over 200 years it was society's burden to "care for him who shall have born the battle." It should remain that way.

Gunner

BTW, I'm a staunch Independent and would never give a free pass to our government officials regardless of political party. But I commend Obama for listening to the veteran community despite his preconceptions. My boss in DC met with Obama face to face on this issue and thought he'd never change his mind. But he did. It's nice to know that someone in the White House is finally listening to veterans.

Gunner,

The details are important. I have difficulty imagining that Obama was asking the veterans to pay for the cost of care for service-related conditions. I was assuming that the government would pay the premiums to the insurance companies. I can imagine people being upset by the concept that whatever they spend would end up utilizing their lifetime insurance limit but one can criticize that portion without insisting the government provide all the services.

I think what is being confused here may be who is paying and who is providing the services. At the present, VA employed physicians and staff at VA hospitals are providing most of service-related VA care. I thought that what Obama is proposing is that the government pays the insurance premiums of the veterans so that they could get essentially private insurance that would pay for their service-related care.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that it is so objectionable for the government to pay for care by non-VA institutions to deliver care to veterans. This is what would happen if the government pays insurance companies to cover the medical care costs of veterans. I thought that this was the debate.

Wise.

[antiquity]

The problem, Doc, is the private sector includes the very veterans that would end up paying for the care. That's the essence of the debate. Veterans with private insurance would be paying for care that should otherwise be covered at VA expense. And what happens when insurance companies have to pay out, particularly in the case of catastrophically disabled veterans who can still secure employment but require often-costly lifelong treatments (UTI care, catheters, urological exams, annual exams, new wheelchairs, etc.)? Higher premiums.

I wish I'd have known sooner this thread was started. In any event, the measure is dead. Privatized VA care has again been defeated, thank goodness. For over 200 years it was society's burden to "care for him who shall have born the battle." It should remain that way.

Gunner

BTW, I'm a staunch Independent and would never give a free pass to our government officials regardless of political party. But I commend Obama for listening to the veteran community despite his preconceptions. My boss in DC met with Obama face to face on this issue and thought he'd never change his mind. But he did. It's nice to know that someone in the White House is finally listening to veterans.

Finally, an objective explanation.

Can you explain MCCF and how that relates?

And how veterans would be left without coverage or forced to pay for their own coverage if the government is reimbursing private insurance for their care?

Thanks.

[David Berg]

I thought that what Obama is proposing is that the government pays the insurance premiums of the veterans so that they could get essentially private insurance that would pay for their service-related care.
Have you seen anything that said that? I have not read any indication that was included in the proposal.

[Veteran Advisor]

Gunner,

The details are important. I have difficulty imagining that Obama was asking the veterans to pay for the cost of care for service-related conditions. I was assuming that the government would pay the premiums to the insurance companies. I can imagine people being upset by the concept that whatever they spend would end up utilizing their lifetime insurance limit but one can criticize that portion without insisting the government provide all the services.

I think what is being confused here may be who is paying and who is providing the services. At the present, VA employed physicians and staff at VA hospitals are providing most of service-related VA care. I thought that what Obama is proposing is that the government pays the insurance premiums of the veterans so that they could get essentially private insurance that would pay for their service-related care.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think that it is so objectionable for the government to pay for care by non-VA institutions to deliver care to veterans. This is what would happen if the government pays insurance companies to cover the medical care costs of veterans. I thought that this was the debate.

Wise.

Doc,

Under the plan any veteran with private insurance who also uses the VA would have his cost of care punted to his insurance company, even if said care was for a leg lost in Iraq, PTSD, etc.. There was no feature in the proposal where service connected injuries were exempt. Nor would the government cover the premiums. That's precisely why the plan was considered outrageous on its face. Obama focused on the $530 million savings but altogether missed the principle of a country bearing the cost of war.

To your second point about non-VA institutions providing care, that's a somewhat related but separate debate, in my view. The VA already outsources care in certain circumstances (rural areas, special treatments, staffing shortages, etc.) and pays for it through the fee basis program. But a past proposal called Project HERO raised the notion of giving vouchers to vets and letting them shop around for health care. We saw this as a disaggregation of the VA care network where catastrophically disabled vets in particular were likely to end up in less-than-stellar care systems. This plan, along with the private-insurer billing issue, culminate into a broader, growing mentality that the veteran community opposes---the idea that someone besides the country, the taxpayer, should provide the health care that the VA traditionally provides or covers.

I personally think it's smart for the government to consider novel approaches to pay for the cost of VA care for casual users. In fact, it may become inescapably necessary someday. But specialized VA care (SCI, TBI, amputations) arguably sets the benchmark for lifelong treatment. The quality of such care is not likely to get better in the private sector, especially since places like San Diego have no private-sector equivalent of VA's SCI Care model.

[Kathi49]

Wise,

I posted an article from Fedsmith yesterday about the FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) on the Politics Forum. You might want to read it. The article states that the FEHBP will NOT BE EXPANDED but instead, perhaps, used as a "model". I know this forum has to do with Veterans but since you mentioned the FEHBP I wasn't sure if you saw this article or not. It may change but I highly doubt it. So, this kind of tells me that a separate plan will be done up in the form of FEHBP but I would assume the uninsured would have to buy into it...maybe even at reduced rates. I guessing here since no plan is on the table yet.

VA Advisor,

Thank you for the explanation.

[Wise Young]

Doc,

Under the plan any veteran with private insurance who also uses the VA would have his cost of care punted to his insurance company, even if said care was for a leg lost in Iraq, PTSD, etc.. There was no feature in the proposal where service connected injuries were exempt. Nor would the government cover the premiums. That's precisely why the plan was considered outrageous on its face. Obama focused on the $530 million savings but altogether missed the principle of a country bearing the cost of war.

To your second point about non-VA institutions providing care, that's a somewhat related but separate debate, in my view. The VA already outsources care in certain circumstances (rural areas, special treatments, staffing shortages, etc.) and pays for it through the fee basis program. But a past proposal called Project HERO raised the notion of giving vouchers to vets and letting them shop around for health care. We saw this as a disaggregation of the VA care network where catastrophically disabled vets in particular were likely to end up in less-than-stellar care systems. This plan, along with the private-insurer billing issue, culminate into a broader, growing mentality that the veteran community opposes---the idea that someone besides the country, the taxpayer, should provide the health care that the VA traditionally provides or covers.

I personally think it's smart for the government to consider novel approaches to pay for the cost of VA care for casual users. In fact, it may become inescapably necessary someday. But specialized VA care (SCI, TBI, amputations) arguably sets the benchmark for lifelong treatment. The quality of such care is not likely to get better in the private sector, especially since places like San Diego have no private-sector equivalent of VA's SCI Care model.

Sherman, I agree completely with you. There needs to be continuation of the VAH for specialized care of the conditions that are service-related and that the VAH can best do. For things that the VAH cannot do, I think that they need to outsource these to the same service and plans as the federal employee program, with the vet paying a reduced premium or no premium, depending on the condition or disability and service relationship.

In the end, general medical care is best provided through an insurance system that allows vets to choose their doctors and facilities. I have been a doctor in the VA system and know that the VA does not have the expertise or facilities for many medical conditions. The veteran can always choose to go to a VAH, if he or she chooses to do so, where the cost of care should be covered by the government.

Wise.

[Wise Young]

Wise,

I posted an article from Fedsmith yesterday about the FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) on the Politics Forum. You might want to read it. The article states that the FEHBP will NOT BE EXPANDED but instead, perhaps, used as a "model". I know this forum has to do with Veterans but since you mentioned the FEHBP I wasn't sure if you saw this article or not. It may change but I highly doubt it. So, this kind of tells me that a separate plan will be done up in the form of FEHBP but I would assume the uninsured would have to buy into it...maybe even at reduced rates. I guessing here since no plan is on the table yet.

VA Advisor,

Thank you for the explanation.

Kathi,

You are right. There is currently no plan on the table in Congress concerning the health care plan. During the primaries, all the democratic candidates favored a universal health care plan. Obama's plan was the least universal of them all. Clinton favored a truly universal plan which requires all people to have an insurance. If a person did not have one and could not afford one, the person would be able to get into a program similar to the FEHBP and the government would pay for part or all of it.

While Obama called his plan a universal health care plan, it was not. It was patterned presumably after the health care plan that Ted Kennedy was pushing for. It would be mandatory for children. Families must pay the premium for their own kids up to age 25. He said that he will not force all people over 25 to buy insurance but that he would make it so cheap that everybody would buy into it. In any case, with the economy in shambles and much higher priority items being considered, I don't think that he will present a health care plan this year.

Wise.

[Veteran Advisor]

In the end, general medical care is best provided through an insurance system that allows vets to choose their doctors and facilities. I have been a doctor in the VA system and know that the VA does not have the expertise or facilities for many medical conditions. The veteran can always choose to go to a VAH, if he or she chooses to do so, where the cost of care should be covered by the government.

I see many vets opting for non-VA care, particularly where second opinions and non-traditional treatments factor into the decision. I think we'll see more of that in the near future. As long as we (society) continually find ways to better educate the masses, insofar as those decisions affect medical outcome, it could be a good thing. I'm hopeful.

[skippy13]

I will be using Medicare starting in June. There are some things that the VA seem to be reluctant to do. If I can get the surgery I need through a local doctor of my choice, well all the better for me I think.

[David Berg]

Under the plan any veteran with private insurance who also uses the VA would have his cost of care punted to his insurance company, even if said care was for a leg lost in Iraq, PTSD, etc.. There was no feature in the proposal where service connected injuries were exempt. Nor would the government cover the premiums. That's precisely why the plan was considered outrageous on its face. Obama focused on the $530 million savings but altogether missed the principle of a country bearing the cost of war.
Sherman, thank you for your input on this matter. This is why I was so outraged by the proposal when I saw it hit the news last week. We simply can't renege on our commitment to provide the care for out wounded troops. I'm glad it appears to have been worked out, but it still bothers me that the administration gave it serious consideration and placed it on the table for debate.

[Le Type Français]

Wow! Mention a veteran's care and suddenly our fabulous insurance-based system sucks. I agree it does suck, but it's funny how a veteran's care has to point it out to the Right-wing.

And yes, I obviously oppose Obama's decision on this issue.

[quadvet]

I see many vets opting for non-VA care, particularly where second opinions and non-traditional treatments factor into the decision. I'd not heard of these options before seeing KLD mention it here at CC, and have wondered, in what instances this might refer to, and how to go about it. For example, if I feel I'm not receiving proper care at VA, who pays for these second opinions or non-traditional treatments? Would not my VA doctors need to approve payment through fee service? Or, do you mean that these veterans are using Medicare? Thank you.


I will be using Medicare starting in June. There are some things that the VA seem to be reluctant to do. If I can get the surgery I need through a local doctor of my choice, well all the better for me I think. Will you abandon VA care altogether?

[David Berg]

Wow! Mention a veteran's care and suddenly our fabulous insurance-based system sucks. I agree it does suck, but it's funny how a veteran's care has to point it out to the Right-wing.
This isn't about the virtues of private health insurance vs government-sponsored care. It's about the government living up to its obligation to pay for service-related health-care for veterans.

And yes, I obviously oppose Obama's decision on this issue.
Which, his proposal to push the cost of co-pays and decuctibles onto vets so he could trim the budget, or when he relinquished and gave up that idea?

I hope he continues to listen to the voice of reason on matters related to veterans, even if it does take some coaxing.

[Le Type Français]

This isn't about the virtues of private health insurance vs government-sponsored care. It's about the government living up to its obligation to pay for service-related health-care for veterans.

Ha! But socialist medicine doesn't work. ;)

[David Berg]

Ha! But socialist medicine doesn't work. ;)
Todd this isn't about socialized medicine, either. It's our nation's obligation to "care for him who shall have born the battle", as Sherman quoted earlier.

[skippy13]

Will you abandon VA care altogether?


No not at all. I got the idea from my PCP at the VA. She agrees that it is a good idea to move things along faster by going through Medicare. I am in a lot of pain and am losing function and cant stand this much longer. Just like I did with my private doctors in years before who know me personally, I have to exhaust all other treatments first (pt, pain meds, etc.) before the surgery will be seen as the last resort thats all. I just cant wait for all of that. I just cant wait.

[quadvet]

No not at all. I got the idea from my PCP at the VA. She agrees that it is a good idea to move things along faster by going through Medicare. I am in a lot of pain and am losing function and cant stand this much longer. Just like I did with my private doctors in years before who know me personally, I have to exhaust all other treatments first (pt, pain meds, etc.) before the surgery will be seen as the last resort thats all. I just cant wait for all of that. I just cant wait. I didn't know it's gotten that bad, gosh I'm sorry. People should be outraged that 100% service-connected veterans should go through so much to receive critical care for this and other sometimes life-threatening conditions, and then have to resort to Medicare, for their semblance of proper medical care. Like Medicare has the extra money, no wonder they're hurting too.


Geez, and I complain about having to use Medicare for a sleep study, I hope you get help soon.

[flicka]

Are all disabled vets eligible for Medicare?

[metronycguy]

a lot of the problem with the va, especially in the ny area, is a lot of the people using the va system are not service connected. since there is no health care in the usa , and since the va hospital in these ara are surrounded by a lot of vets that have no insurance, so they use the va as their medical, for everything, not just traumatic injuries, for many years they never turned anyone away.i dont know how long the wait is for service connected in the ny va.
the quality of care , especially surgeries in much better on the outside of the va in this area.
the 100% connected vets should be given the option to see and pick the good doctors in the area they live in, have the va pick up the whole tab.
they should have the same insurance coverage i had when i worked, which was a lot better medical than my local va system


f

[Veteran Advisor]

Are all disabled vets eligible for Medicare?

I'm not an expert on Social Security benefits, flicka, but I believe a veteran becomes eligible for Medicare only if he/she earned enough work points prior to becoming disabled, whether the work was in or before service. That would mean not all disabled vets are eligible.

As a sidenote, the problem with Medicare even for those who are eligible is the veteran must collect SSDI for about 24 months before the Medicare entitlement kicks in (except in cases of kidney failure and ALS). This means a disabled vet with a permanent condition, who might otherwise benefit from using Medicare vice the VA during the earlier stages of an injury (e.g. second opinions, alternative treatments, etc.), has to wait 2 years before he/she can do so. Keep your eyes out for legislation proposing to exempt vets from the 24-month wait time.

[quadvet]

Are all disabled vets eligible for Medicare? I'm not sure, I thought I remembered it being because I'm retired. I'm sure I had enough work points, and do seem to recall having to wait 24 months like Veteran Adviser says. Might want to check into it, good luck!

[quadvet]

a lot of the problem with the va, especially in the ny area, is a lot of the people using the va system are not service connected. since there is no health care in the usa , and since the va hospital in these ara are surrounded by a lot of vets that have no insurance, so they use the va as their medical, for everything, not just traumatic injuries, for many years they never turned anyone away.i dont know how long the wait is for service connected in the ny va.
the quality of care , especially surgeries in much better on the outside of the va in this area.Hear this all too often. I hear ya re: non-service-connected veterans' care bogging down the system, the VA needs to pick up the budget or change policies.
the 100% connected vets should be given the option to see and pick the good doctors in the area they live in, have the va pick up the whole tab.
they should have the same insurance coverage i had when i worked, which was a lot better medical than my local va system

fAgreed, and even within the 100 mile VA "service area" a veteran shouldn't be limited to VA "care", and VA should pick up the tab.

[flicka]

Keep your eyes out for legislation proposing to exempt vets from the 24-month wait time.
That would be a good thing! I'd forgotten about the 24 month waiting period for medicare.

[skippy13]

The only reason I'm going to use medicare for some things is because I will be paying for it whether I like it or not. Beginning in June they will begin taking money from my SSDI check for the medicare premiums. I can afford to get additional coverage with Medicare part B and whatever else medicare offers, so I will load it up.

I am also a 100% SC vet. I am entitled to both medicare and VA care. I will continue to get my medications through the VA since I take 21 different meds per day, and medicare has a co-pay for such things, and the VA does not. I would be broke in no time. :)

It is just easier to utilise medicare for things like time sensitive medical concerns. It takes me a month at least to get in to see my PCP, and any other appts I get referrals for can take even longer to get in. That is why it took me a month to get a severely impacted bowel cleared earlier this month.

It is not fair perhaps to have what amounts to double coverage, but I'm glad I will have it to be honest. I earned both VA coverage and Medicare coverage the hard way.

[quadvet]

I earned both VA coverage and Medicare coverage the hard way.+1 and I plan to do what ever it takes to get proper care, whichever pays for it.

[Le Type Français]

Todd this isn't about socialized medicine, either. It's our nation's obligation to "care for him who shall have born the battle", as Sherman quoted earlier.

As it should and it would be socialized medicine our veterans receive. That's the whole point.

[metronycguy]

there was/is no comparision with my medical coverage from the large private corporation that i retired from and the VA /medicare system.
it is a real shame,hearing that a service connected vet has to wait , the time lenth that skippy had toi deal with is so wrong.
that is a disgrace.