Should US military personnel returning from Iraq/Afghanistan and other assignments have to foot their own medical bills through private insurance?

  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Mar 20, 2009 7:48 PM GMT
    I picked this up on another forum (without any linking source of info about the alleged statements by Rahm and Obama) so I don't know where this proposition may be read in full. Nevertheless, I'm appalled. How about you?

    "Does what Rahm Emaneul proposed bother the hell out of you? Apparently he propopsed that veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan who were seriously injured should seek medical treatment through medical insurance that the soldiers and marines pay for themselves. Rahm Emanuel estimated that this would save tax payers approximately 540 million dollars over the course of eight years. When it was pointed out that this is a third of the bonuses paid out for AIG, Obama remained silent. The very fact that his chielf of staff is proposing this, and Obama actaully entertained the thought of it, not only pisses me off but also scares the hell out of me. It shows where their hearts are, and that clearly isn't with veterans serving their country. I can't imagine that this could ever pass through the house, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the situation. Roe Conn the other days was blasting away at Obama, not to mention the American Legion and VFW representatives were chiming in. Furthermore, Roe Conn kept stating that we had a moral obligation to medically provide for the soldiers over there upon returning."

    ETA: How does this jibe with the Obama proposed Veterans' Administration budget increase (biggest in 30 years) of $4.9 billion?

    My opinion: If you're injured on the job in private industry, the employer has to pay. Why should the US government get a pass on this responsibility?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 8:34 PM GMT
    The Veterans Administration (VA) already requires that veterans declare any private health care benefits they may have, so that the VA will bill that private provider first, for any care the veteran receives at a VA medical facility. Any difference may or may not be covered by the VA, depending upon the degree of compensated care to which the veteran is entitled, based upon his or her service-connected disability rating. Therefore, such a concept as you describe has already existed in public law & practice for many years.

    But I'm dubious that WH CofS Emanuel did indeed say this. It sounds like right-wing disinformation, which has peaked since President Obama took office.

    But even if true, it's not as bad as some proposals from the Bush White House, most of which were killed in Congress. The worst Bush proposal, for the 2004 Defense Appropriations Bill, was that only service members wounded during enemy combat operations would receive VA medical benefits after being discharged.

    If you got injured during military training, say shot by accident on the firing range, or run over by a tank and disabled, you were out of luck. Even civilian employers have better on-the-job medical plans than that, for job-related injuries.

    But what the Bush Admin proposed was that unless an enemy bullet or bomb injured you, you could be discharged from the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force totally disabled due to your service, and you got nothing for your troubles. No medical care, no money, no nothing.

    Thankfully even a Republican Congress refused to go along with that Draconian measure. Such was the true attitude of the Bush Admin to our military, despite their PR to the contrary. The same Bush Admin that reduced the per-capita VA expenditures for disabled veterans like myself.

    I relish hearing from the pro-Republican RJers who think they know better, because they listen to Rush Limbaugh, but who haven't a clue what it means to actually be a disabled US veteran who has dealt with the crisis in the VA, thanks to Bush.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 9:01 PM GMT
    AbFab1 saidI picked this up on another forum (without any linking source of info about the alleged statements by Rahm and Obama) so I don't know where this proposition may be read in full. Nevertheless, I'm appalled. How about you?

    "Does what Rahm Emaneul proposed bother the hell out of you? Apparently he propopsed that veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan who were seriously injured should seek medical treatment through medical insurance that the soldiers and marines pay for themselves. Rahm Emanuel estimated that this would save tax payers approximately 540 million dollars over the course of eight years. When it was pointed out that this is a third of the bonuses paid out for AIG, Obama remained silent. The very fact that his chielf of staff is proposing this, and Obama actaully entertained the thought of it, not only pisses me off but also scares the hell out of me. It shows where their hearts are, and that clearly isn't with veterans serving their country. I can't imagine that this could ever pass through the house, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the situation. Roe Conn the other days was blasting away at Obama, not to mention the American Legion and VFW representatives were chiming in. Furthermore, Roe Conn kept stating that we had a moral obligation to medically provide for the soldiers over there upon returning."

    ETA: How does this jibe with the Obama proposed Veterans' Administration budget increase (biggest in 30 years) of $4.9 billion?

    My opinion: If you're injured on the job in private industry, the employer has to pay. Why should the US government get a pass on this responsibility?



    Hell friggin not! What happened to supportin the troops! They should be getting free medical attention!!!!!!!!!!!

    Where is the link to this. I want to read it myself!!!!!!!icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 9:16 PM GMT
    NO! Since these injuries were obtained while at work, on duty, the company you work for should pay for it, and in the case it's the US Government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 9:17 PM GMT
    OK I googled it and here is what I found:

    "OBAMA NIXES IDEA OF BILLING VETS' INSURANCE

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has decided to drop any
    consideration of billing veterans' private insurance companies for the
    treatment of combat-related injuries, the White House said Wednesday.

    Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said the idea was on the table as the
    administration sought "to maximize the resources available for veterans."

    Veterans groups complained that the proposal would reverse government
    policy of taking responsibility for caring for the war wounded and said
    it could cause difficulties for veterans in getting future insurance or
    even jobs.

    Members of Congress leapt in to join the criticism.

    Leaders of about a dozen veterans groups met at the White House on Monday
    to discuss it with Obama and top administration officials. They returned
    for more talks with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

    Gibbs' announcement that the idea was officially out was released by the
    White House in the afternoon.

    "The president listened to concerns raised by the VSOs (veteran service
    organizations) that this might, under certain circumstances, affect
    veterans and their families' ability to access health care," Gibbs said.
    "Therefore, the president has instructed that its consideration be
    dropped."

    Gibbs has noted that the administration is seeking an 11 percent increase
    in discretionary funds for the VA for this year. The proposal would have
    saved the Veterans Affairs Department hundreds of millions of dollars a
    year

    The VA already pursues third-party billing for conditions that are not
    service-related. The process only applies to those veterans who have
    private health insurance.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 9:24 PM GMT
    Glad the Prez has nixed it, but I'm not sure it ought to ever have been floated in the first place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 10:22 PM GMT
    It came from a government henchmen. What do you expect, something endowed with wisdom and birthed of common sense? Pfft.

    Use 'em and lose 'em.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 10:23 PM GMT
    hockeytiger saidGlad the Prez has nixed it, but I'm not sure it ought to ever have been floated in the first place.


    Why not?! Everyone is looking for ideas at how to cut cost. Nothing should be left unexplored!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 10:27 PM GMT
    Blackguy4you said
    hockeytiger saidGlad the Prez has nixed it, but I'm not sure it ought to ever have been floated in the first place.


    Why not?! Everyone is looking for ideas at how to cut cost. Nothing should be left unexplored!



    Quite right! Less body armour for the troops. What savings! That way more injuries will be fatal ones, saving millions in later medical bills! And that's not even counting the cost for China popcorn-pressed body armour!

    I should be in economics.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Mar 20, 2009 10:29 PM GMT
    Thanks, Blackguy4you. I finally got a link from the other site -- to the same story, I guess.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...itics/19vets.html?hp

    WASHINGTON — Under withering criticism from veterans and Congress, President Obama on Wednesday abandoned a proposal that would have required veterans to use their private health insurance to pay for the treatment of combat-related injuries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 10:42 PM GMT
    The government should pay for whatever these people need. I also support significant pay and benefit increases for the military and particularly for those in a war
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 11:13 PM GMT
    This whole thing came up while brainstorming by some of Obama's administration, not a thing wrong with that, the spirit of his efforts have been to increase everything for Vet's benefit. So when the head man O' got wind of this and what it would mean for vets, he nixed it, this doesn't say one thing against where his heart is concerning our soldiers who of course should be taken very good care of for life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2009 11:25 PM GMT
    I don't care what creative or unpopular ideas come up as long as they ultimately get it right. Times like this require that any and everything be up for debate. Some debates will be quick, some won't. Here, and according to blackguy4you (thanks for the citation, btw) it sounds like common sense won again.

    Remember when we had a decider who would never change his mind no matter how stupid the idea? Remember when changing your mind based on further thought and analysis was immaturely demonized as "flip-flopping"?

    Boy I'm glad those days are over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 2:21 AM GMT
    If someone who is in the US military get's damaged while they are on active duty then yes they should not have to foot the bills. That would be just stupid and I am sure that there would be a decline in recruits.