Is this how the admin "supports" wounded vets?

I'm disappointed they are even considering this. It won't go anywhere. If I tell them "don't do that", I'm sure they will listen to me.

BBB

But your one voice, multiplied by enough people, will force them to listen.
Unless you dont think enough people will oppose the plan, after all there are more "non-vets" in this country then there are wounded vets.

So I'm sure the Obama admin is counting on that fact to get this plan passed without opposition.

While I don't like the sound of this plan, I don't think your conclusion is accurate. It sounds like they are saying that all vets are treated, but if they have private insurance the VA will attempt to get the insurance to pay for it.

Even still, I agree with the VFW spokesman that this could still negatively affect vets by maxing out their coverage.

Your interpretation may be right and mine wrong.
But, the govt promised to pay for all of my service wounds in exchange for my service.
Now they are saying that my private insurance might have to pay for it.
That violates an oath the govt made to me, and seriously undermines the credibility of the Obama admin with vets, IMHO.

I generally agree with you. I don't know the full details of what is being considered, but since vets pay for private insurance it is essentially asking them to pay for their own care, which I don't think is right. As much as I hated the Iraq war, if you're going to ask people to fight you have to take care of them when they come back.

While i consider this plan of the administration to be scurrilous in nature, this statement on your part is pretty damned dubious. When i enlisted in the United States Army, no one made any such promise to me. Do you recall the exact context in which a representative of the United States Army with authority to speak for the government told you specifically that the government had "promised to pay for all of [your] service wounds?"

If you do allege that that specific promise was made, was it made to you by this administration? This Congress?

It will amount to a hidden tax on everyone, since everyone pays premiums based on the projected expenses of the group.

Pretty shady.

I don't know. Seems like in one door and out the other to me. If the government pays for it, that's our taxes. If the insurance company pays for it, that's our premiums. Seems like same/same to me. Not that I'm crazy about the plan.

Except this would disproportionately affect the poor, I think. Not to mention, make veterans less desirable employees. What small business owner wants to hire someone that will raise their insurance premiums?

Hey MM, how come you waited for the new administration before complaining about vets' treatment?

It is a bad plan and I am surprised and disappointed it was considered. Since they have not released their plan, perhaps we don't know exactly the plans which were in place. But on the face of what I read in the link; it seems like a very bad plan.

I've been thinking about this question for days, especially in light of a recent conversation with my Army brother about the VA.

I'm not trying to defend the idea of making soldiers pay for their own care and I might be way off base but I'll throw this out there....

Brother was saying that one of the big problems with care is that there simply aren't VA hospitals in some of the towns that wounded soldiers living in -- that there aren't even any hospitals within traveling distance.

We are able to save soldiers from very traumatic injuries now and they receive extensive rehabilitation at the VA hospitals after their injuries.

Then they're sent home to Outerburg where similar treatment is simply unavailable and all the progress that a soldier has made starts slipping away and they really start to suffer.

Could this idea be some kind of attempt to make sure that care is available closer to home or that private insurers don't reject claims by soldiers?

I have no idea how non-VA hospitals deal with military insurance, or how insurance companies deal with war injuries, so, like I said, I might be way off base.

Bdcause the Bush admin never tried to get me or my insurance to pay for medical care for service related injuries.

You were lucky never to land in Walter Reed hospital, I suppose.

But I agree with the general drift of your thread. "Obama policy sucks, but so did Bush policies" is not the quality standard I was hoping the new administration to settle for.

Thanks for doing the right thing Obama.---BBB

3/19/09
Obama retreats on vets insurance plan
Posted by Margaret Talev - McClatchy Blog

Veterans groups and, yes, the president's fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill, said no way to the administration's bid to save $500 million by having veterans go through private insurance for treatments for combat- and service-related injuries.

Perhaps the administration did not anticipate what fury they would be unleashing from a constituency so important to a new president with no military experience who is seeking to build trust and credibility as he moves troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement a few minutes ago,saying the president has instructed the third-party billing plan "be dropped" from consideration. Gibbs said the thought behind the idea was "to maximize the resources available for veterans" but that Obama was sensitive to veterans' concerns the shift could affect their access to health care. So this appears to be over; but at what political cost to Obama?

vets benefits have consistently decomposed ever since the police action in Korea. Republicans and democrats alike decided that the cost outweighed the benefit.

This is undoubtedly true. The level of benefits to veterans has never been guaranteed (which is why i asked MM who had told him all of his costs would be paid when he enlisted; no one told me that when i enlisted). Veterans benefits have always been subject to the "generosity" of Congress. To that extent, neither the last nor the current administration can be held directly responsible. However, both the last administration and the current one can be held responsible for failing to advocate for veterans.