He's going to do what?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

SOURCE The American Legion

Obama has shown his true colors. A money grubbing morally corrupt asshole.

[candyman]

What the hell?!?!

We already have to pitch in money to help out the shitty services given to our wounded...and now this. I don't mind helping out now...hell, I am always sending money to my friend who was wounded in Iraq. I also pitched in some money for my other friends funeral.

I have already heard a ton of rumblings in the military...this will surely make it worse. They are always willing to fight for the people, I am no so sure about the government though. It is probably a far stretch but...a coup could be fun. Is it redneck of me to say that I have the guns, ammunition, food, camo, and location ready for such an event?

[creatureofthenyte]

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

Obama has shown his true colors. A money grubbing morally corrupt asshole.

Is this the change we can believe in ?

[candyman]

Is this the change we can believe in ?

Well, it is change, and I belive that it may happen...nobody ever said anything about it being GOOD change...like when you tell someone that you are going to change the way that their face looks...that can range anywhere from plastic surgery to a severe beating...

[TitsMcGee]

That just not fucking cool.

[StormKnight (1)]

It is nothing new that hasn't been kicked around. Actually, McCain planned for it during the campaign

POLITICS-US:

McCain's Plan to Privatise Veterans' Health Care

Analysis by Aaron Glantz*

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 21, 2008(IPS) - If John McCain is elected the next U.S. president, wounded veterans could be in for a world of hurt.

On the campaign trail, the Republican's presumptive nominee has talked of a new mission for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and argued that veterans with non-combat medical problems should be given vouchers to receive care at private, for-profit hospitals - in other words, an end to the kind of universal health care the government has guaranteed veterans for generations.

"We need to relieve the burden on the VA from routine health care," McCain told the National Forum on Disability Issues last month. "If you have a routine health care need, take it wherever you want, whatever doctor or health care provider and get the treatment you need, while we at the VA focus our attention, our care, our love, on these grievous wounds of war."

The Republican senator argues that giving veterans a VA card that they can use at private doctors would shorten the long wait times many veterans face in seeing government doctors, who are nearly universally viewed as among the best in the world.

A recent study by the RAND Corporation found that "VA patients were more likely to receive recommended care" and "received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow up" than that delivered by other U.S. health care providers.

Virtually all veterans groups oppose McCain's plan. The Veterans of Foreign Wars' national legislative director has said the VA card would "undermine the entire system".

According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contribution than has Republican John McCain.

This may seem odd to some since McCain is a former naval officer, prisoner of war, and Vietnam War veteran.

However, Paul Sullivan, a Gulf War veteran and executive director of the non-partisan Veterans for Common Sense, says that for McCain, free market ideology is more important than providing care for former soldiers.

"Ideologues like John McCain and George Bush hate the fact that the VA exists," Sullivan told IPS, noting that the Republican candidate also wants to partially privatise social security and offer private school vouchers to students currently enrolled in public schools.

"They hate the fact that there's a functional example out there of the government providing better care at a lower cost than the private sector," Sullivan said. "The problem that the VA faces now is that the Bush administration failed to hire enough doctors and disability claims adjusters when they chose to go to war with Iraq. If these doctors had been hired, the VA would be an example of the government doing good work. Bush and McCain don't want the public to see that."

McCain has also never spelled out what he means by a "combat injury", leading many veterans worried they could be left out in the cold.

"If I'm driving a Humvee in Iraq and a roadside bomb explodes and I veer off the road and crush my arm and end up losing it and needing a prosthetic, is that a combat wound according to Sen. McCain?" asked retired Air Force Colonel Richard Klass, the president of the Council for a Livable World's VETPAC, which has endorsed Obama.

Official Pentagon policy calls such an incident a non-combat injury. Technically speaking, the only soldiers "wounded" in combat are those hit by direct enemy fire. So all of those IEDs and roadside bombs are causing non-combat injuries, and wouldn't count as "combat injury." And PTSD wouldn't either since it is not a physical wound, (yet cuts much deeper than some.) It is REAL, people. Seen it more times than I care to. And any good military medical person knows that it is these "non-combat" wounds that make up a majority of war zone injuries. As of Aug. 5, Department of Defense statistics showed 32,799 U.S. soldiers had been "wounded" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another 10,685 had sustained "non-hostile" injuries which required a medical evacuation, while 29,881 were classified as "ill" enough to be airlifted out of the war-zone.

Veterans are also skeptical of McCain's plans because as a senator, he has repeatedly voted against fully funding veterans' health care. In 2005 and 2006, McCain voted against expanding mental health care and readjustment counseling for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

McCain's vote also helped defeat a proposal by Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow that would have made veterans' health care an entitlement programme like social security, so that medical care would not become a political football to be argued over in Congress each budget cycle.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) gave him a D+ when they scored his voting record (whereas Obama got a B+). He's voted with the interests of Disabled American Veterans only 20 percent of the time.

"If McCain would work to properly fund VA care, there would be no issue about a VA card," said Larry Scott, who edits the website VAWatchdog.org. "McCain, by wanting to give vets private care, is walking away from the VA and ignoring the problem. He is admitting that he will not properly fund the VA to the level where it can care for all qualified vets. "

Scott is sharply critical of the VA's often cumbersome and ineffective bureaucracy, but like most veterans' advocates, believes the VA system needs to be strengthened. He sees McCain's plan as a way to phase out the government's commitment to those who've served.

"For every vet who would get a VA card, that would be one less vet using the VA," he wrote in an e-mail to IPS. That "would mean, in a short period of time, a smaller budget, fewer locations...and the eventual dismantling of the best health care system in the country."

*IPS Correspondent Aaron Glantz is author of the upcoming book "The War Comes Home: Washington's Battle Against America's Veterans".

(END/2008)

Just to put the fact out it hasn't been anything new.

Now, currently, I am watching. Carefully. This is still proposed, and hasn't entered the congressional floor for official voting. Right now, we have the legislative branch slamming the idea by a good majority, and even garnering bipartisan agreement this would be shot down.

...the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

and:

A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.

"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.

Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.

"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."

I heard about the pre-emptive letter at the begining of the month when it was released (link to the letter here.) As an advocate for fellow vets, I *will* write President Obama, Senators Stabenow and Levin, and all 15 reps to shoot this down if it doesn't die in committee. Currently, I think it will die a horrible death in committee.

Also, since the 2010 budget for the VA finally breaks the triple digits in billions funded (was $97, now $113 billion per va.gov.) plus $1.4 billion from the economic spending/stimulus bill for immediate use, I would take the proposal with a bit of skepticism. I will wait to see if this is the poison in the candy or if this is a red herring.

If it is poison, I will act.

This might be withdrawn by the executive in order to keep popularity, considering most of the country (fortunately,) are actually supporting our people in action (unlike Vietnam, most unfortunately.) Keeping this idea may drop approval faster than "The Fonz's" TV ratings, something I suspect the branch would want to avoid. Especially with places like this keeping the pressure up and it in the limelight.

[asphyxian_doll]

Ah correction, I misread.

This is pretty unsettling.

I do however stand neutral about most politics....and would like to see how this would turn out.

I am doing research on this now, to get a look deeper into this issue myself.

I however am still not concerned about Veterans and their care.

I feel there is a bigger picture to be painted.

Call it morally wrong, but its just my opinion.

I think they will be cared for one way or another...honestly, but I have to look further into it and what enfolds.

What I have read so far is pretty messed up, I'm under the impression that these veterans will be forced to pay for their insurance,

but then again, I'm not sure how the legalities work and also where to draw the line in rights, and military contracting policy.

I'm a bit uninformed, but I will still disagree with the statement said regarding Obama from Gaf....

If the country needs more revenue streams, it should find some other way to find them than the backs of our wounded veterans.

Taken from an article from Hot Air:

I agree with this statement, but do not think this will be permanent.

Give it time, and have some patience.....

Also....Obama isn't leeching veterans and their insurance on a stand alone basis.....he is taxing and reforming just about all money generating AMERICAN business and income to build the economy back up,

I doubt this will go on forever, and I also HOPE it doesn't.

It is easy to go from trying to build up income for a country, to turning into money hungry monster, I can see that side of this presidency, but still find it better than The Bush administration.

Again....

Have patience....

I doubt all of this will be in vain, and if so, whats new?

Has America EVER gotten it right?

Or are you just looking for someone to be angry at.....? hmmm?

[asphyxian_doll]

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

Obama has shown his true colors. A money grubbing morally corrupt asshole.

Link to the source is broken.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

frigging Yahoo is always doing that.

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance

[Rev.Reverence]

..see....just when he is ABOUT to do some shit that I like (no bonuses for CEOs) he comes up with some hair brained bullshit! JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN I'VE SEEN! (save maybe 1 or 2)(but none of you have seen them either what with all the douche-buggery in the D.C.)

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

he is taxing and reforming just about all money generating AMERICAN business and income to build the economy back up

In all of man's history, raising taxes has never, not even once, built an economy back up. Taxes do just the opposite.

[Rev.Reverence]

In all of man's history, raising taxes has never, not even once, built an economy back up. Taxes do just the opposite.

This is true.

Taxes go up, people save more..spend less..& hoard as well as they can.