FC Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Obama is screwing over the VA Hospital Veterans by throwing the costs onto private insurance companies. What does this do? It breaks the companies finances to force socialized medicine as the only answer. The cost? The government, who sent the soldiers to battle will put the expense of wounds onto private insurers! listen at 59 minutes plus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlunity Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Fellas. The left HATES and FEARS the troops. We are the cossacks who suppress the revolution and the sooner we are dead the better. Karl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzRednek Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Obama is screwing over the VA Hospital Veterans by throwing the costs onto private insurance companies. What does this do? It breaks the companies finances to force socialized medicine as the only answer. The cost? The government, who sent the soldiers to battle will put the expense of wounds onto private insurers! Tony I saw the same thing during the Reagan Administration. At the time I was working with health benefits for federal employees. The VA, Indian Health Services and the Defense Dept hired bean counters and billed private insurance co's for services rendered to Vets, Military retirees and Indians that were actively employed and had health insurance through their employer or their spouse's employer. Many Vets had health insurance through their private employer but utilized VA and military bases for their prescriptions, dental and other medical services covered or partially covered by their employer's health plan. To the best of my knowledge no Vet was forced out of the system but if he/she were getting for example eye glasses, Rx's or hearing aids from VA or a military base. The bean counters would file claims with the Vet or retiree's private health plan. The private plans were never deliberately billed for any medical condition that was service connected. Service connected medical conditions are normally excluded by private insurance co's. There is really no reason for a private insurance co to get a free ride especially if they are being paid to provide coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 It's wrong to force insurance companies to pay for battle wounds- that's Uncle's problem. Like Levin said, if you have a million dollar lifetime limit, you may hit that limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzRednek Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 It's wrong to force insurance companies to pay for battle wounds- that's Uncle's problem. Like Levin said, if you have a million dollar lifetime limit, you may hit that limit. Tony I haven't seen the new proposals. If it is like it was previously the private insurer will not pay for anything service connected such as war wounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Nope, not the same- insurers will pay for war injuries. White House Declines to Explain Plan to Make Veterans Pay for War Injuries Wednesday, March 18, 2009 By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs speaks to a reporters, Tuesday, March 17, 2009, during his daily press briefing in the White House Pressroom at the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)White House (CNSNews.com) – White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs declined on Tuesday to provide any further explanation of a plan the administration is considering to have the Department of Veterans Affairs bill the private heath insurance of veterans for service-related injuries. Veterans’ groups and members of Congress, meanwhile, stepped up their criticism of the idea. The administration could face a fight in Congress over the issue, as members from both parties have slammed the plan. While administration officials say the idea is not yet a formal proposal, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag confirmed in congressional hearings last week that it is under consideration as part of their fiscal year 2010 budget. “That will be a place where we’ll have a battle,” Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), a deputy minority whip, told CNSNews.com Tuesday. “When individuals risk their lives to protect our freedom, one of the agreements this country made with them is that we would provide health care if they were injured in the line of duty. To ask them to now pay for it goes against everything America has stood for.” Veteran groups, after meeting with Obama and senior administration officials Monday, said their impression is that the White House plans to move forward with the proposal. “Let me not make the case for a decision that this administration hasn't made yet regarding the final disposition of a decision on third-party billing as it relates to services for service-related injuries,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday. “The VSO--Veteran Service Organizations--who we’re here yesterday meeting with the president, the VA chief and the chief of staff, and who will return later in the week to meet with the chief of staff, can have confidence that the budget the president proposed represents an historic increase in discretionary spending to take care of any wounded warriors.” Not everyone expressed that same confidence about the meeting between veteran group leaders, President Barack Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Shinseki. “It became apparent during our discussion today that the president intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” American Legion Commander David K. Rehbein said in a statement. “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.” Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander Glen M. Gardner Jr. came away from the meeting with a different impression, however. "The president told us that he would not go through with the third-party billing proposal if he felt the veterans' community didn't approve of it," Gardner said in a statement. "We made our opposition clearly known." Currently, the VA covers the full cost of medical ailments related to military service and bills third-party insurers for non-service related injuries. For example, if an injured veteran is treated for the flu, the veteran’s personal insurance is billed. If the injured veteran is treated for a service-related injury and requires hearing aids or prosthetics, for example, the VA covers the cost. This proposal would shift the expense of service-related injuries and illnesses covered by VA to private insurance. Veteran groups fear that shifting more of the cost to private insurance will do several things: 1) drive up premiums for veterans; 2) make it more difficult for injured veterans to find and retain health insurance; 3) discourage employers from hiring disabled veterans; and 4) possibly make a war injury a pre-existing condition. On Tuesday, Gibbs declined to answer questions as to the status of the proposal, or why it is on the table. But he stressed that there is an 11 percent increase in the overall VA budget to care for sick and injured veterans. Currently, the amount of money for veterans’ health services that the federal government seeks reimbursement for from third-party payers, the private insurers, is $2.5 billion. Obama’s proposed fiscal year 2010 budget would boost that reimbursement collectible to $3.4 billion, roughly a 36 percent increase. However, the budget summary did not provide information about where those collections would come from. In all, the Obama budget proposal increases funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs from $98 billion now to $113 billion in 2010, according to the White House budget summary. It also expands eligibility to about 500,000 veterans that are not currently eligible for VA health benefits. A letter signed by the leaders of 11 veteran groups was sent to in late February to Obama asking that he not pursue this policy. The letter in part reads: “Such a consideration is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government’s moral obligation and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedom. …. 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 the 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.” Last week Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said, “I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line for our safety. When our troops are injured while serving this country, we should take care of those injuries completely. We shouldn’t nickel and dime them with their care.” House Veterans Affairs Committee Rep. Michael Michaud (D-Me.) told Shinseki during a hearing last week, “If that [third-party payment proposal] is in the budget, I will not be supporting the budget. It is unconscionable and is an insult to our veterans who've been hurt overseas. So hopefully, you will give that message to OMB as it relates to third-party collections for disabled veterans, which is just unbelievable that anyone would ever think of doing that in this budget.” Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the ranking member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, also expressed opposition. “If this proposal reaches the Senate, I will strongly oppose it,” Burr told CNSNews.com in a statement Monday. “The VA was created for the purpose of caring for those who have fought and sacrificed for our country, and the care for injuries sustained while serving is our responsibility.” From Rush- "The Obama administration is considering making veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat and service-related injuries. The plan would be an about-face on what veterans believe is a long-standing pledge to pay for health care costs that result from their military service. But in a White House meeting Monday, veterans groups apparently failed to persuade President Obama to take the plan off the table. 'Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans,' said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. 'If the president and the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA.'" They write about this. Don't throw all this money away on failing concerns like these banks that ought to be going bankrupt. Don't throw the money away, don't bail out losing causes. Honor the contract with America's men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend and protect this country, its people, and its Constitution. Mr. Rieckhoff is exactly right. "Few details about the plan have been available, and a VA spokesman did not provide additional information. But the reaction on Capitol Hill to the idea has been swift and harsh. 'Dead on arrival' is how Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington described the idea. '... when our troops are injured while serving our country, we should take care of those injuries completely.'" The fact is Obama is considering it, just considering it. I'll tell you what else he's considering, folks, and I have warned you about this on several occasions. You mark my words. At some point, not only are they going to get rid of the ceiling on taxing people's Social Security benefits on all their income, leveling the FICA tax on all income, they are going to start counting employer provided health care benefits as income. This is exactly what they're going to do. They're outta money, they don't have any money; they are going to raise taxes on everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzRednek Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Tony you're right and I was wrong. I heard the details on the radio today. Obama's plan is nothing like what started under Reagan to force private insurance co's to pay what they were collecting premiums for from Veterans. Obama's plan is just part of the over all scheme to force everybody including disabled Vets into his socialized health care. His scheme would provide the same level of medical care to a disabled Vet and welfare mama. There is a local group here in Phoenix. Made up of and mostly speaks out on issues or as the members claim, "rights" for illegal immigrants. They are demanding state funded auto insurance for all licensed drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FC Posted March 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Do you think the government will make my car payments? The latest- they chickened out: (CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Wednesday afternoon that President Barack Obama is shelving a controversial proposal that would have forced the private health insurance of veterans to pay for their war- and service-related injuries. “President Obama listened to the genuine concerns expressed by the veteran service organizations regarding the option of billing service-connected injuries to veterans’ insurance companies,” said Pelosi. “Based on the respect President Obama has for veterans and the principle concerns of our veteran leaders, the president made the decision that combat wounds should not be billed through their insurance policies.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.