Obama considers charging veterans for medical care

[Sea Skimmer]

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance
By Adam Levine
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.

A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.

"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.

Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.

"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."

Eleven of the most prominent veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea. In the letter sent last week to the president, the groups warned that the idea "is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government's moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much."

The groups included The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

At the time, a White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option was being considered.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03 ... index.html

So Obamas band of spend happy idiots wont confirm or deny it, but the Secretary for Veterans Affairs says its real. Who to believe? Who to believe? It might have no chance in hell of happening, but the idea that such a thing would not be shot down out of hand is disgusting. But then you had to be retarded to think that change was always going to be good.

[Ender]

Are you fucking shitting me? The deregulation happy years under Bush already saw enough insurance changes that now Tricare can weasel out of caring for our families, now they want to do this? The obvious defense here is "oh, well it won't matter once there is full UHC", yeah well guess what motherfucker, we don't have UHC. So fucking us now based on what you want to try to accomplish later is idiotic beyond belief.

[Guardsman Bass]

I wonder why the Obama Administration would even consider this; they've been skeptical of privatization of government-provided health care services in other areas, like Medicare (where they're going after the private plan subsidies).

[xammer99]

He's actually considering taxing health benefits to a lot more than just Vets.

NYT Story

[ray245]

So is Obama even planning to introduce universal health care or not? It seems like he wants to do so, yet he is afraid to do so.

[open_sketchbook]

Not surprising at all. He wants universal healthcare but we're sitting on the edge of Great Depression 2 : Electric Boogaloo.

[ray245]

Not surprising at all. He wants universal healthcare but we're sitting on the edge of Great Depression 2 : Electric Boogaloo.

I think that Obama is better boom time president than a president in a recession. The type that is able to ensure that the country does not enter a recession or depression under his watch, but not the type that is that is as capable as FDR in pulling the nation out of a recession.

[Knife]

Fuck Ray, we're what? 56 days in? Not sure you have enough info for that determination.

As far as OT is concerned, some unknown source in the administration said so? Ok, color me not pissed until it is talked about in the Congress. Granted, I'd be happier if Obama would can the stupid fuck who brought this up but...

[ray245]

Fuck Ray, we're what? 56 days in? Not sure you have enough info for that determination.

OK, I concede. Guess I'm getting too cynical recently.

[Beowulf]

As far as OT is concerned, some unknown source in the administration said so? Ok, color me not pissed until it is talked about in the Congress. Granted, I'd be happier if Obama would can the stupid fuck who brought this up but...

Knife, it's not some unknown source, it's Eric Shinseki, head of the VA, and former (reviled) Chief of Staff of the Army.

[VT-16]

...but not the type that is that is as capable as FDR in pulling the nation out of a recession.

Isn't Roosevelt also hated in some parts to this day for his sweeping changes? In the light of that, it's not surprising Obama's hesitant on some issues if people can get riled up so easily.

[Chardok]

I think...Okay, so maybe this is political genius - perhaps he will propose this and it's really setting up congress the bomb. maybe he proposes this and it passes and then he says "Oh, but I forgot about this: *whips out UHC bill* (which would then pass because no soldier/military family will want to pay for healthcare [because it's retarded])" Or...he says, "wait, so congress is all 'yay UHC for soldiers' but since people who aren't serving are clearly second class, UHC is not good enough for them; WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, CONGRESS?!"

[Broomstick]

...but not the type that is that is as capable as FDR in pulling the nation out of a recession.

Isn't Roosevelt also hated in some parts to this day for his sweeping changes? In the light of that, it's not surprising Obama's hesitant on some issues if people can get riled up so easily.

Oh, absolutely, FDR is despised, reviled, and hated by some in the US who claim he did more damage than good. No PotUS is without critics.

I suspect that some of this "the Obama administration is considering" stuff is deliberate floating of ideas for public reaction and not so much actual policy-making at this point. A LOT of administrations, and not just on the Federal level, will release info on ideas prior to actual serious work on an item to judge reaction. In this case, I'd say it's wildly negative.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh, absolutely, FDR is despised, reviled, and hated by some in the US who claim he did more damage than good. No PotUS is without critics.

This is a bit of a tangent, so my apologies to the local moderators, but this is something I have always been curious about. I have heard a lot of people (usually libertarians and other small-government types) talk about how much they hate FDR. However, I have yet to meet any who can actually give a good reason why he "did more damage than good." All they seem able to do is bitch that he didn't save the country from the Great Depression, without supplying any corroborating evidence. I was wondering if anyone here can actually give any convincing reason why FDR could be considered bad (or, at least, not as good as posterity holds him to be), or if this is just another one of those radical ideas that have no basis in logic or reality.

[aerius]

I suspect that some of this "the Obama administration is considering" stuff is deliberate floating of ideas for public reaction and not so much actual policy-making at this point. A LOT of administrations, and not just on the Federal level, will release info on ideas prior to actual serious work on an item to judge reaction. In this case, I'd say it's wildly negative.

Obama's admistration seems to do this a lot, at least on finance & market related matters where I concentrate my attention these days. In that area at least, the reaction has been overwhelmingly negative in most cases which has not exactly inspired confidence, and people are beginning to wonder if he knows what he's doing.

[Knife]

As far as OT is concerned, some unknown source in the administration said so? Ok, color me not pissed until it is talked about in the Congress. Granted, I'd be happier if Obama would can the stupid fuck who brought this up but...

Knife, it's not some unknown source, it's Eric Shinseki, head of the VA, and former (reviled) Chief of Staff of the Army.

Eric Shinseki confirmed that some unknown fuck in the administration is talking about it. Not quite the same thing.

[Broomstick]

I suspect that some of this "the Obama administration is considering" stuff is deliberate floating of ideas for public reaction and not so much actual policy-making at this point. A LOT of administrations, and not just on the Federal level, will release info on ideas prior to actual serious work on an item to judge reaction. In this case, I'd say it's wildly negative.

Obama's admistration seems to do this a lot, at least on finance & market related matters where I concentrate my attention these days. In that area at least, the reaction has been overwhelmingly negative in most cases which has not exactly inspired confidence, and people are beginning to wonder if he knows what he's doing.

He probably is floundering somewhat as no one has a truly certain means of mitigating, much less solving, the current financial morass. But tell me - since family matters have been so paramount for me of late I have neglected the news - have any of these notions that generate such horrific negativity actually been enacted? If the negatively received items never come to pass then it may well be that the whims of the public have been heeded.

On the other hand, sometimes a leader needs to do something unpleasant for the ultimate greater good of the nation.

[Broomstick]

Oh, absolutely, FDR is despised, reviled, and hated by some in the US who claim he did more damage than good. No PotUS is without critics.

This is a bit of a tangent, so my apologies to the local moderators, but this is something I have always been curious about. I have heard a lot of people (usually libertarians and other small-government types) talk about how much they hate FDR. However, I have yet to meet any who can actually give a good reason why he "did more damage than good." All they seem able to do is bitch that he didn't save the country from the Great Depression, without supplying any corroborating evidence. I was wondering if anyone here can actually give any convincing reason why FDR could be considered bad (or, at least, not as good as posterity holds him to be), or if this is just another one of those radical ideas that have no basis in logic or reality.

From my reading of history and memory of screeds, I believe a substantial portion of the criticism is leveled at his social programs such as social security and food assistance to the poor which some view as a step towards Evil Communism, or at the very least a step away from The Rugged Self-Reliance That Made America Great! The upper classes and wealthy viewed him as a traitor basically for giving any damn about the working classes, and for demanding they pay what others viewed as a fair share towards supporting the nation. The people in favor of small government where outraged and aghast at the notion of the Federal government employing people at "make work" projects rather than leaving it to private industry to create jobs (which private industry wasn't doing at the time) though how they could view things like Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley Authority with their power production as "useless" or "make-work" is beyond me. Then there was the Temperance Movement, which he more or less ended by ending Prohibition early in his first term and, by their lights, unleashing the Evil Demon Alcohol upon the masses once again. Then there was the attempt to flood the Supreme Court with judges favoring his administration, that sort of pissed some people off, which combined with his unprecedented third (and fourth) term as PotUS made some view him as a power-mad tyrant wannabe.

So a lot of the hate is philosophical or political in nature.

[Darth Yoshi]

...but not the type that is that is as capable as FDR in pulling the nation out of a recession.

Isn't Roosevelt also hated in some parts to this day for his sweeping changes? In the light of that, it's not surprising Obama's hesitant on some issues if people can get riled up so easily.

But the thing is, though, whether or not that bloc has any voting power. It's all well and good to say that a lot of people hate FDR and will probably hate Obama for doing what needs to be done, but that doesn't really matter if those people are the 30% of the country who are hardcore Republicans anyway.

I think...Okay, so maybe this is political genius - perhaps he will propose this and it's really setting up congress the bomb. maybe he proposes this and it passes and then he says "Oh, but I forgot about this: *whips out UHC bill* (which would then pass because no soldier/military family will want to pay for healthcare [because it's retarded])" Or...he says, "wait, so congress is all 'yay UHC for soldiers' but since people who aren't serving are clearly second class, UHC is not good enough for them; WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, CONGRESS?!"

That would be hilarious and awesome if he actually did that.

[MKSheppard]

AMerican Legion gets in on the fun

Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell


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!"


Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."


Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

SOURCE The American Legion

[SirNitram]

Fuck Ray, we're what? 56 days in? Not sure you have enough info for that determination.

As far as OT is concerned, some unknown source in the administration said so? Ok, color me not pissed until it is talked about in the Congress. Granted, I'd be happier if Obama would can the stupid fuck who brought this up but...

Link to Military.com.

While it remains apparently some no-name fuck in the administration(And 'in study', which I believe is D.C. Talk for 'Kill it even more quietly than a Comission'), Congress has indeed spoken on it:

When Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), committee chairman, asked how the Senate might close any funding gap left in the 2010 budget if it rejected the insurance reimbursement plan, Robertson had a ready reply. Congress, he said, should require Medicare to reimburse the VA for treatment of non-service-connected conditions of Medicare-eligible veterans. More than half of VA's current patient population qualifies for Medicare, he said.

Akaka didn't react to that suggestion. But it was embraced by Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), chairman of the House committee, when Robertson raised it again during the House hearing on the VA budget.

Is it really time to take that issue on? Filner asked.

"We're bringing in Priority Group 8 veterans and trying to figure out how to pay for them and how to hire extra doctors, nurses, providers," Robertson said. Medicare dollars present "a logical revenue stream."

"If you guys are ready to work with us, we'll take that on. I agree with you," said Filner. But won't Americans see it simply as taking dollars from one government pocket and putting it in another, Filner asked.

"Sir, I've been paying Medicare since the day I started working," said Robertson. "That's a benefit I'm entitled to….If I choose to go to the VA, I should be able to take my health care dollars with me."

"I think we have to take on that fight," Filner told him.

Given previous statements that push for Medicare essentially enlarging to the 'Public Option' insurance carry for Obama's reforms, this would grease the wheels and go towards streamlining government health insurance into one program.

[SirNitram]

Insofar as something in a study by an unnamed mooked can be dropped, it's dropped: Link

The White House on Wednesday backed off a controversial plan that would have dramatically altered the way the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) handles insurance claims, after veterans groups staged an all-out fight against such a proposal.

President Obama will not pursue a proposal that would have allowed the VA to charge private insurance companies for the treatment of veterans with service- or war-related injuries. The proposal raised the ire of prominent Democrats on the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs panels. On Wednesday morning 68 Democratic and GOP House members sent Obama a letter, initiated by freshman Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Va.), urging the administration to drop the proposal.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was the first to announce Wednesday afternoon that the president won’t pursue such a proposal.

She told veterans that Obama decided to scrap the proposal “Based on the respect that President Obama has for our nation’s veterans and the principled concerns expressed by veterans’ leaders.”

For the second time in a week, representatives from prominent veterans organizations went to the White House on Wednesday to meet with the White House chief of staff to discuss VA budget issues.

Jim King, the national executive director for American Veterans (AMVETS), said that the meeting with Rahm Emanuel lasted all of 15 minutes and that the health insurance issue was the only topic discussed. The representatives of the 11 veterans organizations told Emanuel they were not willing to back down, and the chief of staff told them that he thought the issue was “off the table,” but that he needed to talk to Obama.

Gutting the proposal is the “right move to make, because it could have caused too many hardships for veterans,” King said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement on Wednesday that the president wants to continue a “constructive partnership” with veterans and military organizations and “is grateful” to those organizations who have worked “in good faith” with him on the budget proposal.

On Monday the organizations’ representatives met with the president, but that meeting led to public outcry over what some veterans perceived as a move by the president to still consider the proposal despite opposition.

Under the proposal, insurance providers would have been billed by the VA for the treatment of wounds and conditions sustained as a result of their military service. The VA now picks up those costs, and only bills insurance providers for medical treatment unrelated to a veteran’s military service. Veterans generally have a co-pay charge for treatment at a VA hospital.

Veterans groups were enraged over the proposal, charging that it would discourage employers from hiring disabled veterans by raising the premiums insurance companies would charge. They also argue that the plan could jeopardize health insurance for entire families.

Veterans groups also argued that the VA is abdicating its responsibility to veterans.

“We are pleased that [the president] has heard our concerns and taken them to heart,” said Disabled American Veterans (DAV) executive director David Gorman. “Now that this ill-advised proposal is off the table, the DAV looks forward to working with the administration and Congress on crafting a good budget that will include sufficient appropriated dollars to cover veterans’ healthcare needs.”

Obama may not be off the hook with veterans yet. Another possible battle is brewing over the issue of advance appropriations for veterans’ medical care. Veterans see the Obama administration backtracking on an Obama campaign promise to fund medical care a year in advance, rather than just on an annual basis.