Veterans healthcare, disability, now on chopping block

[SirNitram]

Link

Tea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has unveiled a plan for cutting $400 billion in federal spending that includes freezing Veterans Affairs Department health care spending and cutting veterans’ disability benefits.

Her proposed VA budget cuts would account for $4.5 billion of the savings included in the plan, posted on her official House of Representatives website.

Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, said cutting veterans’ health care spending is an ill-advised move at a time when the number of veterans continues to grow as troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan. Sullivan said he finds it difficult to see how VA could freeze health care costs without hurting veterans.

“It is really astonishing to see this,” he said.

In a statement, Bachmann said her plan is intended for discussion purposes as an example of ways to cut federal spending to make it unnecessary to increase the current $14.3 trillion limit on the amount the U.S. government can borrow.

The debt ceiling will be reached sometime in March, according to economic forecasts, but many lawmakers — especially members of the tea party movement — have been talking about cutting federal spending either instead of, or as part of, a move to increase the debt limit.

Bachmann is one of those opposed to allowing the U.S. to borrow more than $14.3 trillion. “I’m against another increase of the government’s debt ceiling,” she said. “Instead of making it easier for Washington to spend more of your tax dollars, I’m calling for Congress to do the hard work of making real and necessary cuts in federal spending.”

Her list of cuts doesn’t explain the impact of freezing veterans’ health care funding, but the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued in October that health care costs have been quickly increasing. VA’s health care budget was $44 billion in 2009, $48 billion in 2010 and is at $52 billion this year. The report forecasts a health care budget of $69 billion or higher by 2020 if trends continue, the report estimates.

Bachmann’s idea of cutting costs by reducing veterans’ disability compensation by the amount received in Social Security Disability Income is not new. The proposal, which would affect more than 150,000 veterans, has long been on a list of possible budget options prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which describes the option as a way to “eliminate duplicate payment of public compensation for a single disability.”

The average SSDI benefit is $12,800 a year, according to CBO

In their annual budget options report, CBO analysts predicted strong opposition from veterans if the two benefits were offset. The report suggests the cost-cutting option would draw less opposition if veterans already receiving both payments were exempt from the change. Having it apply only to future benefits awards would mean about 3,000 veterans a year would be affected.

The two veterans’ program cuts now advocated by Bachman were included in an Oct. 28 report from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, about ways to cut $343 billion in federal spending. The think tank’s report projects that a freeze in VA health care costs would save $2.5 billion.

The report said cutting veterans’ disability compensation for those receiving veterans’ disability income would save $1.9 billion, which is roughly the same savings now claimed by Bachmann.

According to CBO’s estimates, saving $1.9 billion in one year would require applying the change to all veterans receiving both payments. Applying it only to those who become eligible in the future would save only about $40 million in the first year, according to CBO.

VFW has stirred against this. But once again, the GOP shows just how happy they are to slash benefits to anyone.

[Zaune]

Way to enrage the one section of US society that could pose a serious threat to national security, Senator Bachmann...

[Alyeska]

Thats one way to drive the Veterans to vote Democrat. Still a horrible idea. Man, it looks like the GOP and Tea Party elements are trying to self destruct themselves while they dismantle society.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Thats one way to drive the Veterans to vote Democrat. Still a horrible idea. Man, it looks like the GOP and Tea Party elements are trying to self destruct themselves while they dismantle society.

Maybe this is a good thing. If they alienate their designated heroes, maybe those heroes will start publicly opposing them.

It wouldn't change any hardcore republican's minds, or probably even moderate Republican's minds, but it would certainly have an impact on current and former members of the armed forces.

The question is whether they finish their self-destruction before they dismantle society.

[Alyeska]

Maybe this is a good thing. If they alienate their designated heroes, maybe those heroes will start publicly opposing them.

It wouldn't change any hardcore republican's minds, or probably even moderate Republican's minds, but it would certainly have an impact on current and former members of the armed forces.

The question is whether they finish their self-destruction before they dismantle society.

Deliberately hurting people to change their political influence sours my stomache.

[JME2]

Oh, I hope this backfires on the GOP.

[Mr Bean]

Way to enrage the one section of US society that could pose a serious threat to national security, Senator Bachmann...

Representative, she's not a senator just one of 435 Representatives in the House. She keeps her seat via the local and national media ignoring her and inertia of being elected it's hard to de-elect someone. Also she has powerful (Read very wealthy) friends who throw lots of money into a very minor race in order to retain her lately.

[Zaune]

Sorry, I get the Houses mixed up.

[Patrick Degan]

This is the logical outcome of an ideology which sees the world purely in terms of money and not human beings, and in fact one that sees human beings as inconvenient if they get in the way of money.

It is not at all exaggeration to call rightwing philosophy Applied Sociopathy.

[Simon_Jester]

Deliberately hurting people to change their political influence sours my stomache.

Mine too.

But it's not deliberate on the part of the Republicans' enemies; it's deliberate on the part of the Republicans themselves, especially the Tea Party. They want this kind of thing to happen, they were quite up-front about it during the election.

The result will be, very predictably, the consequence of the Republicans' embrace of increasingly hardline antitax, anti-society political platforms... and the consequence of Republican voters' choice to empower the people calling for such platforms. I don't like it. I wish it had never happened. But I still think it's going to happen, and I still hope it weakens the political faction that made it happen.

Because if it doesn't, we're in trouble: we cannot survive bad policy indefinitely, and that means people will have to wake up and smell the coffee when the consequences of bad policy- and of electing people who believe in bad policy[/i]- come home to roost.

[Phil Skayhan]

Bachmann’s idea of cutting costs by reducing veterans’ disability compensation by the amount received in Social Security Disability Income is not new. The proposal, which would affect more than 150,000 veterans, has long been on a list of possible budget options prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which describes the option as a way to “eliminate duplicate payment of public compensation for a single disability.”

Why is this a bad idea?

[Broomstick]

Because it's likely neither of those payments is adequate to live decently.

[Alyeska]

But it's not deliberate on the part of the Republicans' enemies; it's deliberate on the part of the Republicans themselves, especially the Tea Party. They want this kind of thing to happen, they were quite up-front about it during the election.

I sincerely doubt that. I doubt they want to convince Veterans to vote Democrat. Do not attribute malice where simple ignorance will suffice.

[Phil Skayhan]

Because it's likely neither of those payments is adequate to live decently.

Then that is also true for a disabled civilian who can receive only Social Security disability. Why should the military get to double dip into the public trough?

[MarshalPurnell]

Because those military veterans eligible for both were disabled in the line of duty. Society fundamentally owes more to soldiers who are placed in danger as a routine condition of their service defending said society. Though that is a personal opinion. The proposal by itself is neither malevolent nor stupid, though Bachmann is both. It is something people could legitimately disagree about. Eliminating the duplication another way, perhaps by folding all disability payments into Social Security and having them administer a "bonus fund" for soldiers disabled in the line of duty could reduce bureaucracy costs. And if we really are in a situation where everyone has to take a cut it isn't fundamentally wrong to reduce disability payments so long as they actually remain adequate overall, and people better able to handle the cuts take more of them.

Which is rather in question in the US, granted.

[Lonestar]

VFW is screaming its' nuts off.

VFW WILL DEFEAT BACHMANN PLAN

"NO WAY, NO HOW, WILL WE LET THIS PROPOSAL GET ANY TRACTION IN CONGRESS."
January 28, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 28, 2011 — America's oldest and largest major combat veterans' organization announced it will do everything within its power to defeat a plan introduced by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to cut $4.5 billion from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

"No way, no how, will we let this proposal get any traction in Congress," said Richard L. Eubank, the national commander of the 2.1 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and its Auxiliaries.

On her website, the three-term congresswoman lists more than $400 billion in suggestions to cut federal spending. The VA suggestion would cap increases to VA healthcare spending, and reduce disability compensation to account for Social Security Disability Insurance payments — in other words, an offset. She says her plan is intended to generate discussion.

"The only discussion the VFW wants is to tell the congresswoman that her plan is totally out of step with America's commitment to our veterans," said Eubank, a retired Marine and Vietnam combat veteran from Eugene, Ore.

"There are certain things you do not do when our nation is at war, and at the top of that list is not caring for our wounded and disabled servicemen and women when they return home," he said. "I want the congresswoman to join us in a tour of the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and Poly Trauma Center the next time she's in her home district to witness firsthand the great work the VA does every day to heal their wounds and ease their pain. Then I want her to look those disabled veterans in the eye and tell them their service and sacrifice is too expensive for the nation to bear.

"The day this nation can't afford to take care of her veterans is the day this nation should quit creating them," said Eubank.

-30-

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is a nonprofit veterans' service organization composed of combat veterans and those who currently serve in uniform on active duty or in the Guard and Reserves. Founded in 1899 and chartered by Congress in 1936, the VFW is the nation's largest organization of war veterans and its oldest major veterans' organization. With 2.1 million members located in 7,600 VFW Posts worldwide, the VFW and its Auxiliaries are dedicated to "honor the dead by helping the living" through veterans service, legislative advocacy, youth scholarships, Buddy Poppy and national military service programs. The VFW and its Auxiliaries volunteer more than 13 million hours annually in community service to the nation. For more information or to join, visit the organization's Web site at http://www.vfw.org.

[Simon_Jester]

But it's not deliberate on the part of the Republicans' enemies; it's deliberate on the part of the Republicans themselves, especially the Tea Party. They want this kind of thing to happen, they were quite up-front about it during the election.

I sincerely doubt that. I doubt they want to convince Veterans to vote Democrat. Do not attribute malice where simple ignorance will suffice.

Excuse me, I was unclear.

They want drastic budget cuts. They were quite up-front about that during the election: being a deficit hawk took precedence over almost everything else in the Republican platform for 2010.

Now that they are in office, they must actually do something if they are ever to get the drastic budget cuts they want. And they are finding that there actually aren't all that many places they can cut the budget without making people (justifiably) angry at them.

That half is not what they wanted to happen. Ideally, I'm sure they would prefer to have their cake and eat it too: get credit for being deficit hawks without actually having to do anything about the deficit. The Republican leadership may try to pursue this goal. But a large number of Republican candidates ran in 2010 on the same 'starve the beast, cut taxes, cut the budget' platform that we saw in the Contract on America back in '94. And they did want this to happen, even if they don't like the consequences of doing it.

So no, they don't want veterans to vote Democrat, but yes, they do want to cut veterans' healthcare- or other things just as important to long term well-being of the American people- to save money. It's that simple.

[Phantasee]

"The day this nation can't afford to take care of her veterans is the day this nation should quit creating them," said Eubank.

That is a pretty good point. Can the US afford to take care of veterans from an interminable War on Terror?

[Mr Bean]

"The day this nation can't afford to take care of her veterans is the day this nation should quit creating them," said Eubank.

That is a pretty good point. Can the US afford to take care of veterans from an interminable War on Terror?

Easily, cheaply even considering we can take care of 1 year of veterans for every 1 month in Iraq and A-Stan producing even more Veterans.

[Zaune]

I would respectfully dispute that armed forces veterans are worthy of preferential treatment compared to emergency responders, utility workers or even many people with jobs in the private sector, all of whose jobs are at least equally important to a functioning society and in many cases equally dangerous. It isn't as if disability benefits for veterans only apply to battlefield casualties, either; it seems rather unfair that a soldier who's medically discharged with kidney failure before ever hearing a shot fired in anger gets a guaranteed pension and healthcare from the federal government whilst a firefighter who has a burning house collapse on him has to take his chances with the zipcode lottery.

Of course, as you yourself point out, the solution is to ensure that all citizens are treated equally in these matters.

[Broomstick]

Because it's likely neither of those payments is adequate to live decently.

Then that is also true for a disabled civilian who can receive only Social Security disability. Why should the military get to double dip into the public trough?

Because if they got hurt fighting for the country maybe they deserve a little more? Think of it as a sort of worker's comp.

[Broomstick]

I would respectfully dispute that armed forces veterans are worthy of preferential treatment compared to emergency responders, utility workers or even many people with jobs in the private sector, all of whose jobs are at least equally important to a functioning society and in many cases equally dangerous.

OK, maybe you're unaware of something.

In the US no private civilian health insurance will cover ANY combat-related injury or disability. NONE. For war wounds there are two, and ONLY two, means to have them covered:

1) Veteran's benefits
2) Social security disability

It's not like the UK where everyone can get coverage for whatever ails them regardless. In the US private health insurance specifically excludes covering anything war related.

Those other people? The emergency responders/cops/firemen/whoever - THEY can still be covered under civilian insurance, or worker's compensation for on the job injuries. For veterans, the VA is their only place to get care for war wounds, unless they can pay entirely out of pocket.

Does that make it just a little clearer why the veterans are so upset?

[Zaune]

No, I was not aware of that. I was in fact paralysed with incredulous astonishment and more than a little horror for a number of seconds by that information.

And yes, it really and truly does.

[ShadowDragon8685]

No, I was not aware of that. I was in fact paralysed with incredulous astonishment and more than a little horror for a number of seconds by that information.

And yes, it really and truly does.

It's easy for people covered by some form of socialized healthcare to forget that those in the United States do not. If I break my leg, I'm entitled to all of jack and shit in terms of help that I don't hock up for myself, because I have no coverage whatsoever. A lot - a damn lot - of people are in the same straits. And their numbers are only growing, because the primary means of securing healthcare insurance is one's employment which has been shrinking.

So do us a favor and stop calling us Americans selfish when we're facing the prospect of something that might help us find medical care being cut and we start getting up in arms about it.

[Broomstick]

You know, Shadow, Zaune has no reason to know how our system works. That's why I explained it to him. I think he realized pretty quickly that it's not a matter of veterans being selfish, it's a matter of them getting any care at all... or none.

The government promised to take care of them if they got hurt. For decades that promise was rock solid. It was, in fact, the rationale for the civilian companies being allowed to exclude war injuries - the government had it covered. So long as the promise was kept it worked well. Civilian companies covered civilian problems. The Federal government covered problems acquired in its service.

Now the Teaparty jackasses want to reneg on that. The fact that there is no other coverage? They don't care. I suspect Bachman is unaware that there is not other recourse for these men and women. Ideology over all.