| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:24 pm Post subject: IS OBAMA TURNING HIS BACK ON AMERICAN WAR VETERANS? |
 |
|
I'm beginning to having serious misgivings about the Obama Administration and its handling of foreign policy matters, and matters related to the military. The liberals loved to chide Bush for not having served in Vietnam but he did in fact serve in the Guard and flew fighter planes. Obama has no military experience and it shows. While I don't necessarily believe it is a prerequisite for the job of Commander-in-Chief, it does give one a different, insider perspective. I had hoped the appointment of Shinseki would clear up the problems at the Veterans Administration which lingered under Bush. Maybe no such luck after reading this:
| Quote: |
The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment
Mon Mar 16, 2009
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. |
Bailing out greedy bank and insurance executives but not aiding the men and women who put their lives on the line for their country doesn't bode well. Obviously, McCain would have handled this differently.
What do you make of this?
(The savings gained is peanuts compared to what Obama is allowing in earmarks and bailout funds.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
It makes perfect sense.
Liberals hate the military and American military strength. The first place Democrats go to get money for Social Programs is to slash Defense.
I seem to remember Clinton closed a lot of bases and slashed the defense budget. So, when we went to war in Iraq, we ended up with Humvees with inadequate armor, and soldiers with no body armor for protection.
Of course, ALL candidates for office are going to support the military. Do you honestly think Obama would've been elected if he said "When I'm President, I am going to make Veterans use their private insurance to pay for treatments." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Liberals hate the military and American military strength. |
That's as approximately true as "Conservatives never saw a war they didn't like." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy suggested:
| Quote: |
| People might be interested in this interview with Paul Rieckhoff of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. |
Great interview--the best segment I've watched on this issue that should be a non-issue. While the bill might indeed be DOA in Congress, it begs the question: What in the hell were they thinking over at the White House? I mean, this is even bad politics and over how much money? I am genuinely surprised that Shinseki has had a hand in this given his past track record as a general (who also skirmished with that asswipe Rumsfeld over troop deployment numbers in Iraq in the early stages of the war, you might recall).
As the son of a combat veteran, it pisses me off big time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
None of the articles I've read on the issue have spelled out the logic of the proposal. So far, it just sounds like a trial balloon in the discussion about health care reform. I doubt very much that the White House takes it as a serious idea.
Early in the discussion of any reform, all points of view should be considered, even the nutty ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
It makes perfect sense.
Liberals hate the military and American military strength. The first place Democrats go to get money for Social Programs is to slash Defense.
I seem to remember Clinton closed a lot of bases and slashed the defense budget. So, when we went to war in Iraq, we ended up with Humvees with inadequate armor, and soldiers with no body armor for protection.
Of course, ALL candidates for office are going to support the military. Do you honestly think Obama would've been elected if he said "When I'm President, I am going to make Veterans use their private insurance to pay for treatments." |
you're blaming CLINTON for what happened in Iraq? Are you kidding me? You gotta be. Wow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy suggested:
| Quote: |
| People might be interested in this interview with Paul Rieckhoff of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. |
Great interview--the best segment I've watched on this issue that should be a non-issue. While the bill might indeed be DOA in Congress, it begs the question: What in the hell were they thinking over at the White House? I mean, this is even bad politics and over how much money? I am genuinely surprised that Shinseki has had a hand in this given his past track record as a general (who also skirmished with that asswipe Rumsfeld over troop deployment numbers in Iraq in the early stages of the war, you might recall).
As the son of a combat veteran, it pisses me off big time. |
It was indeed a good video. Wasn't aware of Obama's plan to spend $25 billion more over the next 5 years on vets. Yup pk, he really hates the military!
But yeah, no idea what the administration is thinking on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But yeah, no idea what the administration is thinking on this one. |
Speaking as the guy who started the "idiot Obama" thread on this same topic, I will observe that it's probably the case the no matter WHAT Obama does to help veterans, even to the tune of 25 billion dollars, the GOP will portray ANY isolated rollback in one particular area as proof that the administration wants vets to die in the street.
(Totally off-topic, but the spellcheck on this cafe computer I'm using underlines "Obama" as a possible error, but lets "Reagan" and "Clinton" pass by without notice.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
you're blaming CLINTON for what happened in Iraq? Are you kidding me? You gotta be. Wow. |
Are you saying that as soon as Bush took office in 2000, all the Humvees in the US Army suddenly lacked armor, and body armor for soldiers suddenly disappeared?
The Military that was under BUSH's command was inherited from Clinton era Defense policy.
| Quote: |
Spending on defense budget (source Congressional Budget Office)
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
1988 290.9
1989 304.0
1990 300.1
1991 319.7
1992 302.6
1993 292.4
1994 282.3
1995 273.6
1996 266.0
1997 271.7
1998 270.2
1999 275.5
2000 295.0
2001 306.1
2002 348.9
2003 404.9 |
I see a sharp decrease in the 1990's *cough* Clinton era. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cold War was over. There was supposed to be a peace dividend. Of course military spending declined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt Clinton's crystal ball saw two endless occupations in muslim states to begin a handful of years after he left office.
When Bush made the decision to go to war, he should have ensured soldiers would be sufficiently protected. Iraq especially, could have waited for some trucks to get amour. The whole "you go to war with the army you've got, not the army you want" story doesn't work for a war of choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-Ta Boy shrugged:
| Quote: |
None of the articles I've read on the issue have spelled out the logic of the proposal. So far, it just sounds like a trial balloon in the discussion about health care reform. I doubt very much that the White House takes it as a serious idea.
Early in the discussion of any reform, all points of view should be considered, even the nutty ones. |
Sorry, but this particular issue (reimbursement related to war wounds) should never, ever have been on the table much less leaked to the press. And the delegation from the American Legion who met with Obama were emphatic is voicing their grave disappointment over his rather indifferent demeanor about the matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
I doubt Clinton's crystal ball saw two endless occupations in muslim states to begin a handful of years after he left office.
When Bush made the decision to go to war, he should have ensured soldiers would be sufficiently protected. Iraq especially, could have waited for some trucks to get amour. The whole "you go to war with the army you've got, not the army you want" story doesn't work for a war of choice. |
exactly. It wasn't a necessary war, so pkang, your argument is pointless. If the war in Iraq was forced upon us, your point would be indeed valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| When Bush made the decision to go to war, he should have ensured soldiers would be sufficiently protected. Iraq especially, could have waited for some trucks to get amour. The whole "you go to war with the army you've got, not the army you want" story doesn't work for a war of choice. |
100% correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
