Still glad you voted for him?

Message

BackInTex · #1 Post by **BackInTex** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:23 pm

Who here can say they agree with Obama on this?

Who here can say this is not the most dangerous policy to be put in place by a US President?

This is the most stupid thing I've every heard of. 3 months in and he can't seem to find a nominee that pay his or her taxes and now he expects the private sector to pay medical care cost for those sent in harms way to protect this country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/p ... _treatment

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!"

*********

Tocqueville3 · #2 Post by **Tocqueville3** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:27 pm

BackInTex wrote:Who here can say they agree with Obama on this?

Who here can say this is not the most dangerous policy to be put in place by a US President?

This is the most stupid thing I've every heard of. 3 months in and he can't seem to find a nominee that pay his or her taxes and now he expects the private sector to pay medical care cost for those sent in harms way to protect this country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/p ... _treatment

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!"

*********

Angry? Yes.

Surprised? Sadly, no.

TheCalvinator24 · #3 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:28 pm

I will say that it sounds the same as the subrogation provisions with Medicare.

But, this should not set well with people of any political stripe.

BackInTex · #4 Post by **BackInTex** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:32 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:I will say that it sounds the same as the subrogation provisions with Medicare.

But, this should not set well with people of any political stripe.

There's a huge difference with the subrogation of medicare. As an eligible Medicare participant you can still qualify for affordable private healthcare insurance if you are healthy and don't do roadside IED sweeps daily as part of your job. No private company would insure a military person. This is idiocy. But considering the source....

danielh41 · #5 Post by **danielh41** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:34 pm

I'm generally been trying to stay out of political discussions of late (everyone knows my lower than low opinion of Obama anyway), but this is beyond even what I expected from Obama. Let's pump money into corporations like AIG while their executives get million dollar bonuses, but soldiers injured while fighting for our country have to pay for their own war-related medical bills. That makes me want to throw up.

TheCalvinator24 · #6 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:35 pm

It's hard to tell for sure, but the article makes it sound like they are trying to make the veteran's private insurance to provide primary coverage.

BackInTex · #7 Post by **BackInTex** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:42 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:It's hard to tell for sure, but the article makes it sound like they are trying to make the veteran's private insurance to provide primary coverage.

Or what about a National Guardsman who is covered (for not military activities) by his or her private employer.

The bottom line is that no company can or will cover military personel for anything if they are required to cover their service related injuries. The one single thing everybody agrees on as to what our federal government should do (provide an effective military) this guy doesn't want to do. Or has no clue how to do it. Or both.

Bob Juch · #8 Post by **Bob Juch** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:44 pm

BackInTex wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:It's hard to tell for sure, but the article makes it sound like they are trying to make the veteran's private insurance to provide primary coverage.
Or what about a National Guardsman who is covered (for not military activities) by his or her private employer.

The bottom line is that no company can or will cover military personnel for anything if they are required to cover their service related injuries. The one single thing everybody agrees on as to what our federal government should do (provide an effective military) this guy doesn't want to do. Or has no clue how to do it. Or both.

The government paying for health care? Sounds like socialism to me!

silverscreenselect · #9 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:44 pm

Bush sent troops into battle without proper body armor, and his treatment of wounded vets was pretty bad as well.

Sadly, Obama looks more and more like the third term of the Bush adminsitration with a smoother speaking style.

tlynn78 · #10 Post by **tlynn78** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:53 pm

Hopefully this is another in his series of "let's see what happens if.." and when the %(#^ hits the fan, he'll back off.

t.

Jeemie · #11 Post by **Jeemie** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:56 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:It's hard to tell for sure, but the article makes it sound like they are trying to make the veteran's private insurance to provide primary coverage.
Or what about a National Guardsman who is covered (for not military activities) by his or her private employer.

The bottom line is that no company can or will cover military personnel for anything if they are required to cover their service related injuries. The one single thing everybody agrees on as to what our federal government should do (provide an effective military) this guy doesn't want to do. Or has no clue how to do it. Or both.
The government paying for health care? Sounds like socialism to me!

Even you cannot be as idiotic as this, Bob.

Jeemie · #12 Post by **Jeemie** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:58 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:Bush sent troops into battle without proper body armor, and his treatment of wounded vets was pretty bad as well.

Sadly, Obama looks more and more like the third term of the Bush adminsitration with a smoother speaking style.

This is becoming more true every day.

And there was SOMEONE on these boards that predicted this would be the case.

I think he got scoffed at.

Now who was that person? Hmmm....

sunflower · #13 Post by **sunflower** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:00 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:It's hard to tell for sure, but the article makes it sound like they are trying to make the veteran's private insurance to provide primary coverage.

That's how I took it. That IF you have private insurance that you're paying premiums for, they should provide coverage under their agreement to do so.

Kind of like when you get in a car accident. Even if it's someone else's fault, even if you have medical coverage, even if you get a settlement, at least in CT your primary private insurance must pay first, and then any copays, deductibles, overages or other out of pocket costs are submissible to your auto insurance or the other driver's auto insurance.

I don't take it as a bad thing, just normalizing to say, hey, private insurance companies...you're collecting these premiums, now pay up! It didn't sound like the veteran would be in any different of a position, it's just who is paying for the care.

(But I could be misunderstanding the true nature of this, and if I am, then my interpretation of it maybe be wrong)

Jeemie · #14 Post by **Jeemie** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:27 pm

sunflower wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:It's hard to tell for sure, but the article makes it sound like they are trying to make the veteran's private insurance to provide primary coverage.
That's how I took it. That IF you have private insurance that you're paying premiums for, they should provide coverage under their agreement to do so.

Kind of like when you get in a car accident. Even if it's someone else's fault, even if you have medical coverage, even if you get a settlement, at least in CT your primary private insurance must pay first, and then any copays, deductibles, overages or other out of pocket costs are submissible to your auto insurance or the other driver's auto insurance.

I don't take it as a bad thing, just normalizing to say, hey, private insurance companies...you're collecting these premiums, now pay up! It didn't sound like the veteran would be in any different of a position, it's just who is paying for the care.

(But I could be misunderstanding the true nature of this, and if I am, then my interpretation of it maybe be wrong)

How long do you think soldiers will be able to get private medical coverage, and what do you think their premiums will be, if the insurance companies know they have to pay for battle-related injuries?

Estonut · #15 Post by **Estonut** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:37 pm

sunflower wrote:
TheCalvinator24 wrote:It's hard to tell for sure, but the article makes it sound like they are trying to make the veteran's private insurance to provide primary coverage.
That's how I took it. That IF you have private insurance that you're paying premiums for, they should provide coverage under their agreement to do so.

Kind of like when you get in a car accident. Even if it's someone else's fault, even if you have medical coverage, even if you get a settlement, at least in CT your primary private insurance must pay first, and then any copays, deductibles, overages or other out of pocket costs are submissible to your auto insurance or the other driver's auto insurance.

I don't take it as a bad thing, just normalizing to say, hey, private insurance companies...you're collecting these premiums, now pay up! It didn't sound like the veteran would be in any different of a position, it's just who is paying for the care.

(But I could be misunderstanding the true nature of this, and if I am, then my interpretation of it maybe be wrong)

In my state, none of this applies to a car accident that happens while you're on the job.

clem21 · #16 Post by **clem21** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:46 pm

To answer your question - Yes, I'm still happy I voted for him.

themanintheseersuckersuit · #17 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:04 pm

When asked for a comment Mr. Kipling replied:

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

tlynn78 · #18 Post by **tlynn78** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:21 pm

I don't take it as a bad thing, just normalizing to say, hey, private insurance companies...you're collecting these premiums, now pay up! It didn't sound like the veteran would be in any different of a position, it's just who is paying for the care.

As someone who covers her spouse with my work insurance, and whose spouse is a disabled veteran, this is a very bad idea.

t.

TheCalvinator24 · #19 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:55 pm

tlynn78 wrote:
I don't take it as a bad thing, just normalizing to say, hey, private insurance companies...you're collecting these premiums, now pay up! It didn't sound like the veteran would be in any different of a position, it's just who is paying for the care.
As someone who covers her spouse with my work insurance, and whose spouse is a disabled veteran, this is a very bad idea.

t.

And this hits on the fact that it wouldn't just be veterans' health insurance premiums going up.

dimmzy · #20 Post by **dimmzy** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:00 pm

Well, if Bush hadn't bankrupted the military with one, but two, wars we cannot win maybe we'd have money for our veterans.

TheCalvinator24 · #21 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:06 pm

dimmzy wrote:Well, if Bush hadn't bankrupted the military with one, but two, wars we cannot win maybe we'd have money for our veterans.

Kinda hard to bemoan the financial condition of the government after not one, but two bailout bills.

And, of course, somebody just had to try to claim that Obama's horrid idea is really Bush's fault.

BigDrawMan · #22 Post by **BigDrawMan** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:07 pm

yes

i am

I am more glad that I dint vote for a feebleminded substance abuser who failed at every thing he tried in life.

even though he had an R next to his name

TheCalvinator24 · #23 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:12 pm

BigDrawMan wrote:yes

i am

I am more glad that I dint vote for a feebleminded substance abuser who failed at every thing he tried in life.

even though he had an R next to his name

Again, what does Bush have to do with this?

dimmzy · #24 Post by **dimmzy** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:18 pm

yes

i am

I am more glad that I dint vote for a feebleminded substance abuser who failed at every thing he tried in life.

even though he had an R next to his name

Bravo.

I was more sickened by the Walter Reed Hospital debacle from the previous administration.

Part of the problem is that more and more of our veterans are surviving their injuries and it's very expensive to provide a lifetime of care (which we should.) Speaking of military injuries, I still can't understand why our military is at the mercy of these roadside bombs. We can go to the moon and deliver 8 healthy babies for a mentally unstable woman, but we can't provide protection against IEDs? Doesn't ANYBODY make a bomb-proof vehicle?

BigDrawMan · #25 Post by **BigDrawMan** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:23 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
BigDrawMan wrote:yes

i am

I am more glad that I dint vote for a feebleminded substance abuser who failed at every thing he tried in life.

even though he had an R next to his name
Again, what does Bush have to do with this?

he asked if i was happy that i voted for obama

i am

i added that i am more happy that i dint vote for bush

shows good judgement twice

WWTBAM Bored

Still glad you voted for him?

Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?

Re: Still glad you voted for him?