Members Jugghaid Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Let's take the title of this article for exampleThe American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for TreatmentYou would assume this is coming out of vet's pockets directly instead of out of the insurance industry's pockets (for the most part)Guess which idea sells more copy?The Press mostly sux. Well, quite honestly, if they had a $500 or $1000 deductible plan or even a co-pay plan where they are $2000 max out of pocket........I can see where they WOULD be paying for it. And also, take a look at most medical insurance policies. They specifically state they do not cover injuries etc incurred fighting in combat/at time of war, etc. IIRC. DO we have any medical insurance guys here that can weigh in on this? In addition, Colorado, like many states, is deemed a "patient liability" state. where if your insurance doesn't pay for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, you are still liable for the entire medical bill. You have the right to sue your insurance company, but the provider has the right to sue YOU, obtain judgment, and attach any assets allowable by law. I mean seriously, what medical insurance company is going to want to insure a soldier in combat? Lloyds of London? And yes, the press mostly sux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 To be clear, he wants their private insurance companies, if they have them, to pick up the tab first, not foot the bill themselves (except for the co-pays, etc). I believe they will still be covered if they are uninsured. If this is the case (I didn't read the articles), I don't see what the big deal is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Obama's just trying to save YOU, Joe Taxpayer, money!Yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted March 17, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 If this is the case (I didn't read the articles), I don't see what the big deal is... Because a Veteran's care is SERVICE related. IMO, it is the Gov'ts responsibility to care for sericemembers wounded or taken ill in the line of duty. It has been since WW2 and the establishment of the VA. To say that now we need to abrogate that responsibility because we spent too much on Wall Street is ridiculous. Full disclosure: I have no service related issues that require VA care, but I know too many guys and gals who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 If this is the case (I didn't read the articles), I don't see what the big deal is... Couple of things actually. 1. How does the deductible and copayment apply. I'd like to see the language. 2. This is nothing more than the government shirking their responsibility to veterans and putting the responsibility onto private insurance companies. Care to see what will happen to insurance policies and premiums for anyone in the military? Private insurance will become unobtanium and employers will take a HUGE hit in premiums by employing reservists. Or clauses that state that they will not be covered anyway if they are in a combat situation? If they are not already there? 3. It is a slap in the face to every man and woman who serves in the military. "Go fight for your country, even though we are not willing to pay for your medical care if you are wounded". Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Because a Veteran's care is SERVICE related. IMO, it is the Gov'ts responsibility to care for sericemembers wounded or taken ill in the line of duty. It has been since WW2 and the establishment of the VA. To say that now we need to abrogate that responsibility because we spent too much on Wall Street is ridiculous. They'll pick up the tab if vets aren't covered. They're not "abrogating" their responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 I'm not surprised that's what you think I was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 I knew some of you guys were really against privatized health care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Couple of things actually.1. How does the deductible and copayment apply. I'd like to see the language.2. This is nothing more than the government shirking their responsibility to veterans and putting the responsibility onto private insurance companies. Care to see what will happen to insurance policies and premiums for anyone in the military? Private insurance will become unobtanium and employers will take a HUGE hit in premiums by employing reservists. Or clauses that state that they will not be covered anyway if they are in a combat situation? If they are not already there?3. It is a slap in the face to every man and woman who serves in the military. "Go fight for your country, even though we are not willing to pay for your medical care if you are wounded". Jesus. 1: Yeah, there should be a provision in there for reimbursement of co-pays and deductibles at the very least. 2: It's probably true that most private insurance companies wouldn't insure a combat soldier, so doesn't that make this whole discussion moot, anyway? I'd think this provision would apply more to a spouse whose insurance covers the soldier. In this case, the soldier would most likely be insured and I think it's the responsibility of the insurance company to pay for the medical care of their customers, soldier or not. In the end, the taxpayer is less responsible and the insurance company does their job. 3: It seems they are willing... They just want private insurance to handle it first, if applicable. I'd rather the insurance companies foot the bill before the taxpayers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 I knew some of you guys were really against privatized health care! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 I knew some of you guys were really against privatized health care! In the case of wounded vets, yes. I am. It is one of the ONLY exceptions to the rule IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted March 17, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 They'll pick up the tab if vets aren't covered. They're not "abrogating" their responsibility. I'll give an example, based off my insurance coverage: I have a $2000 deductible on my current (private, job paid) insurance. They cover 50% after deductible for prosthetics. The VA wil pick up the rst of that, but I would be on the hook for the first $2k to replace a lower leg prosthetic for a leg lost in combat. If my private insurance calls it a "pre-existing condition", it gets dumped back on the VA anyway, but in this case, it makes mroe and more ense for aprivate insurer to NOT cover Veterans with service related medical issues. (This is an intentionally extreme example) What about mental health care? Hell, what if I was Navy for 30 years and ended up with high blood pressure and cholesterol due to all the good cooking on ship? (It happens, alot) The VA system has it's flaws, but it also serves a unique population, people who put thier country ahead of themselves, if only for a time. Don't nickel and dime Vets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 17, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 17, 2009 I'm not surprised that's what you think I was saying. Did you miss the at the end of my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 In the case of wounded vets, yes. I am. It is one of the ONLY exceptions to the rule IMO. Why?If you and I both agree that the private sector can provide cheaper AND better service than a socialized system, why should vets not get this better service?From what I can tell VA health care is pretty {censored}ty. If the gov't fully funds the care...I'm not sure how I feel about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 They'll pick up the tab if vets aren't covered. They're not "abrogating" their responsibility. Yes, they are. They are dumping it on the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Did you miss the at the end of my post? What doesn't work as a smiley anymore?? He's even wearing his socio-political bias shades! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Yes, they are. They are dumping it on the private sector. Okay...I'm going to have to go with "not enough info" at this point. If it costs a vet a single dollar=bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 17, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 17, 2009 What doesn't work as a smiley anymore?? He's even wearing his socio-political bias shades! Just making sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why?If you and I both agree that the private sector can provide cheaper AND better service than a socialized system, why should vets not get this better service?From what I can tell VA health care is pretty {censored}ty. If the gov't fully funds the care...I'm not sure how I feel about it. But they are not saying they will fully fund the care. Incidentally, the VA has REALLY improved over the last decade. They are not even close to the big pile of {censored} they were back when I served. I do agree that the private sector can provide better care. However, it's a matter of who is PAYING for that care. The government, the private insurance company (which we know will change their guidelines in 2 seconds or pass the cost on to the customers if this happens) or the customers. Whio will end up being the ones to pay for this if the government renegs on their promises to our troops. In the end, the consumer always picks up the tab. whether it's through higher premiums, through the employer (who will have to charge the employee a larger portion of their premiums) or in increased overall health care costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 *snip* So you're only objection is business paying the bill? If a system was set up where the insurance companies handled the claims and service but the Gov't footed the bill. Would you be for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 If the system I suggested above, privatized healthcare, payed for by the gov't, I think I'd be for it. I believe it would result in better service for the vets at a cheaper cost to the taxpayers. Jugg says that's not the case here, but I haven't seen anything stating that other than the damnation with no information statements like... "Employers might not employ vets with high medical costs". Great....that's helpful. If business do in fact have to pay for it, then I'll go back to "Horrible idea" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Okay...I'm going to have to go with "not enough info" at this point. If it costs a vet a single dollar=bad Even if it doesn't cost a vet $1 directly out of his/her pocket, that doesn't mean it won't cost them. It could very easily cost them through higher premiums, as I stated, or higher general health care costs.And even if it doesn't cost a vet $1 INDIRECTLY I still think it's bad. Look at it this way. Insurance companies are going to comensate for this one way or the other. We know that. They are in busines to make money and won't take a hit like this. So let's say that they refuse to insure military personnel. Then the VA will have to pay and there is no net change except pissing off vets and a lot of useless paperwork and law.Let's say they agree to insure military personnel. Look at the cost. Where is that going to be made up? Higher premiums for everyone. Yay. Great health care program Obama. Take a bad situation and make it worse. Lovely.I have a better solution. Let's just force the top 50% of all earners in this country to pay for all of the health expenses of our veterans. The rich can afford it right?Oh, wait. We already do that looking at the tax tables as the top 50% of earners pay around 90% of all taxes, which is what funds the VA in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bbl Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Yes, they are. They are dumping it on the private sector.They'll cover what the private sector doesn't. That's not "abrogating their responsibility."Sounds like they're making sure vets get care in the most efficient, effective way. That is, if you believe that the private sector does things more efficiently and effectively that the gov't. I agree with catphish - if this costs any vet one additional dollar, or any additional inconvienience, it's no bueno. We don't know any details yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 If the system I suggested above, privatized healthcare, payed for by the gov't, I think I'd be for it. I believe it would result in better service for the vets at a cheaper cost to the taxpayers. Jugg says that's not the case here, but I haven't seen anything stating that other than the damnation with no information statements like... "Employers might not employ vets with high medical costs". Great....that's helpful. If business do in fact have to pay for it, then I'll go back to "Horrible idea" If the government still footed the bill for all of the meical costs, but the claims and everything were handled by a private insurance company and it actually IMPROVED efficiency and lowered overall costs.....then yeah, that's something I would definitely be willing to look at.But that is not what is being proposed here at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 If business do in fact have to pay for it, then I'll go back to "Horrible idea" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.