Obama mulls making vets foot bill for service injuries

[me]

Updated: 03/17/09 09:13 AM
Obama mulls making vets foot bill for service injuries
WASHINGTON—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."

Under current policy, veterans are responsible for health care costs that are unrelated to their military service. Exceptions in some cases can be made for veterans who do not have private insurance or are 100 percent disabled.

The president spoke Monday at the Department of Veterans Affairs to commemorate its 20th anniversary and said he hopes to increase funding by $25 billion over the next five years. But he said nothing about the plan to bill private insurers for service-related medical care.

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," Murray, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, told a hearing last week.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki said at the same hearing that the plan was "a consideration." He also acknowledged that the VA's proposed budget for next year included it as a way to increase revenue. But he told the committee that "a final decision hasn't been made yet."

For veterans, that was little comfort.

Veterans claim that the costs of treating expensive war injuries could raise their insurance costs, as well as those for their employers. Some worried that it also could make it more difficult for disabled veterans to find work.

The leaders of several veterans groups had written Obama last month complaining about the new plan. "There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide," they wrote.

Many veterans had high expectations for Obama after years of battling the Bush administration over benefit cuts and medical concerns such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

But the VA's decision to float a potential change in its policy of paying for service-related injuries could signal a quick end to the honeymoon.

"It's a betrayal," said Joe Violante, legislative director of Disabled American Veterans, which signed the letter to Obama. "My insurance company didn't send me to Vietnam, my government did. The same holds true for men and women now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the government's responsibility."

Meanwhile, a new poll by the independent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has found Obama's approval rating falling to 59 percent from 64 percent in February. It also found the ranks of Americans who disapprove of his job performance rising, to 26 percent from 17 percent.

Pew found that 44 percent think that the president listens more to liberals than to moderates in his party, while 30 percent think he listens more to moderates. In January, 44 percent thought he listened more to moderates and 34 percent more to liberals.
http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/610029.html

This is wrong any way you slice it.   

[Exterminator]

WTF?

[me]

Ya that's what I thought about the idea.  And yes, Ex I know that comment was aimed at me rather than the article.  Mine was aimed at the article. 

[Exterminator]

Of course it was aimed at you since there is already a thread discussing and linking to exactly the article you posted.

[dan foster]

This isn't new.  For those of us who retired from the military, the gov't is already making us pay for service connected disabilities; they reduce our "earned" retirement by the amount the VA pays for the disabilities.  Try finding a private firm that could get away with causing work-related injuries and then taking the money from your 401k to pay for them.

[me]

This isn't new.  For those of us who retired from the military, the gov't is already making us pay for service connected disabilities; they reduce our "earned" retirement by the amount the VA pays for the disabilities.  Try finding a private firm that could get away with causing work-related injuries and then taking the money from your 401k to pay for them.

My son-in-law is retired military and he has some related disabilities and he hasn't said anything about what you're talking about.

[dan foster]

My son-in-law is retired military and he has some related disabilities and he hasn't said anything about what you're talking about.

Wow, then it must be pure fiction, huh?  There is a recent law that started paying more with the intent to stop the practice, all together, in the future.  However, it still exists.  So, you might ask your son-in-law instead of just taking the ASS U ME position.

[me]

Wow, then it must be pure fiction, huh?  There is a recent law that started paying more with the intent to stop the practice, all together, in the future.  However, it still exists.  So, you might ask your son-in-law instead of just taking the ASS U ME position.

Ok, let me put it this way.  He started receiving treatment after he started receiving his retirement pay and they didn't reduce the amount he was receiving after he started being treated.  Is that better?  Damn I didn't call you a liar I just said my son-in-law hadn't said anything about his being reduced and neither has my uncle who retired after 40yrs.

[dan foster]

Ok, let me put it this way.  He started receiving treatment after he started receiving his retirement pay and they didn't reduce the amount he was receiving after he started being treated.  Is that better?  Damn I didn't call you a liar I just said my son-in-law hadn't said anything about his being reduced and neither has my uncle who retired after 40yrs.

You will need to ask.  Your explanation isn't how it works.  They don't reduce your overall amount.  They reduce your retirement by the amount you get from the VA for your "compensation" for your service connected injuries.  Tricare still covers your medical.  Not the same thing.  Is your son-in-law considered 100% service connected?  If not, his retirement pay (comes from the service he retired from) is being reduced by the disability compensation amount being paid by VA.  Like I said, what corporation could get away with disabling you, then reducing your 401k by the amount they pay to compensate you for the disability?  Answer: none.  But, the gov't does it routinely to Vets.

[me]

You will need to ask.  Your explanation isn't how it works.  They don't reduce your overall amount.  They reduce your retirement by the amount you get from the VA for your "compensation" for your service connected injuries.  Tricare still covers your medical.  Not the same thing.  Is your son-in-law considered 100% service connected?  If not, his retirement pay (comes from the service he retired from) is being reduced by the disability compensation amount being paid by VA.  Like I said, what corporation could get away with disabling you, then reducing your 401k by the amount they pay to compensate you for the disability?  Answer: none.  But, the gov't does it routinely to Vets.

Uncle's is Air Force and son-in-law is Navy.  Uncle is 30% and SIL's is 60%.  Who's brilliant idea was that to start anyway?  I will agree that it sucks. I thought you meant if they found out they were disabled after the fact from a service related thing they reduced what they were receiving benefits.  I know both, especially my uncle, would have been bitchin' up a storm if they had taken anything out of what he was receiving.