Jump to content

OT: Obama wants to charge Veterans for VA care?!?!?!


Ender_rpm

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 


Few details about the plan have been available and a VA spokesman did not provide additional information.

 

 

This is what's the most relevant part of the story for me. After having read a couple of stories ... sure, the headlines inspire outrage but there are very little details being shared.

 

What if a veteran has no private health insurance? Would the proposed plan leave the veteran SOL?

 

It's possible that Commander Rehbein is reacting to upheaval and change, and not about the details of the plan. It's possible that he's reacting to something that's truly diabolical. But right now, all we know is that tomorrow is going to be different from the way things were yesterday.

 

Ok.

 

Maybe it's time for the rest of the nation to support its veterans. Outside of the government and other veterans, "support of the troops" is little more than a cliche. Maybe Obama's plan is a way for companies like Aetna and employers to help foot the bill for some of the freedom they enjoy.

 

 

I have no idea. But I've got a clear sense that I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators
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?

All the private insurance companies are going to do is raise their rates to cover that cost. Would that have a negative impact on other government employee plans for which we have to pick up the tab, too? I'm not sure on that one, but it's possible that it's just saving money on one budgetary item that eventually gets shuffled to a different line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
They'll cover what the private sector doesn't. That's not "abrogating their responsibility."



Yes, it is. Maybe not all of it, but a pretty good portion of it.


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.
:)



Nice spin. If that was the case then why would the "reasoning" behind this to be saving $500 million+. They're trying to cut costs, at the vets expense and you know it. This isn't about trying to make sure vets get better and more efficient care, it's about cost-cutting at a time when they are spending money like it's water on everything else. Except, apparently on the people that actually defend this country and preserve our freedom and our way of life. Great thinking. :)


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.



That's why I want to see the details. Haven't been able to find them yet. And I also question the motivation behind this as well as the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


What if a veteran has no private health insurance? Would the proposed plan leave the veteran SOL?


.

 

 

 

No, it states specifically that Vets without private insurance will be covered. But why ask a vet to pay for ANY of their service related medical issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
......Maybe Obama's plan is a way for companies like Aetna and employers to help foot the bill for some of the freedom they enjoy.

You mean in the same way AIG is doing the right thing? Large publicly traded corporations should never be trusted to do the right thing. They make money for their shareholders. Doing the right thing isn't their priority unless they are regulated to do so. And we know what a great job our government does with regulating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
You mean in the same way AIG is doing the right thing? Large publicly traded corporations should never be trusted to do the right thing. They make money for their shareholders. Doing the right thing isn't their priority unless they are regulated to do so. And we know what a great job our government does with regulating.



Socialist! :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

You mean in the same way AIG is doing the right thing? Large publicly traded corporations should never be trusted to do the right thing. They make money for their shareholders. Doing the right thing isn't their priority unless they are regulated to do so. And we know what a great job our government does with regulating.

 

 

The same way, a whole different way that doesn't currently exist or, some mixture of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

But do you really have to make me pay just because your entitled when you have other options (and probably will get better care ?)

 

 

If it's directly related to my service in the US Armed Forces? Yes. If it's something that developed years after my service when I have private healthcare, no. Non-specific cancer 20 years after the fact, unless caused by something I was exposed to while wearing the uniform, is all me, not Uncle Sam. Lung cancer i developed 20 years after the fact due to DU exposure during Desert Storm, or Agent Orange exposure during 'Nam? You bet your sweet bippy Uncle Sugar is on the hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
If it's directly related to my service in the US Armed Forces? Yes. If it's something that developed years after my service when I have private healthcare, no. Non-specific cancer 20 years after the fact, unless caused by something I was exposed to while wearing the uniform, is all me, not Uncle Sam. Lung cancer i developed 20 years after the fact due to DU exposure during Desert Storm, or Agent Orange exposure during 'Nam?
You bet your sweet bippy Uncle Sugar is on the hook
.



Yeah, that's what my now dead friend always said ("victim of agent orange from Vietnam) and he stood on that principle all the way into his grave instead of surviving at Fox Chase or Sloane Kettering. But he was entitled, no question. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I was trying to play off of the "what's wrong with being sexy?" joke.
:(



;)

(I didn't think the "socialist!" needed a ;) because I thought the next two lines told you I was just playing along and not being serious in the slightest - especially considering the humorous nature of the "socialist!" comment I made to Thud. Now that I've fully explained this, the subtlety is totally gone and therefore the humor is too dammit it's really hard to be subtle on teh interwebs! :mad:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's a lot more satisfying to scream and harrumph and pass quick judgement on ideas and proposals than it is to actually understand them. :idea:

I'm pretty sure I won't like everything the current administration comes up with, but I'm satisfied that at least there a genuine effort being made to do things smarter and in the light of open air. There's a change anyway.

Nothing that maggot does surprises me.



You certainly present your views in a classy manner! :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
;)

(I didn't think the "socialist!" needed a
;)
because I thought the next two lines told you I was just playing along and not being serious in the slightest - especially considering the humorous nature of the "socialist!" comment I made to Thud. Now that I've fully explained this, the subtlety is totally gone and therefore the humor is too dammit it's really hard to be subtle on teh interwebs!
:mad:
)



I knew you were joking when you used the term. I thought perhaps you missed my joke, because I suck at subtlety on the interwebs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...