Obama Administration Proposes Third-Party Billing for Combat-Related Injuries

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Washington Post

The Obama administration has proposed to bill veterans' private insurance companies for combat-related injuries. But the plan has incited an uproar on Capitol Hill and charges from veterans groups that the plan is unethical and would further burden the war-wounded and their families.

The proposal, which would save the Department of Veterans Affairs $530 million a year, threatens to complicate the new administration's relations with the 25 million Americans who have served in the military.

The plan would authorize the VA to pursue reimbursement of medical costs from private insurers, or so-called third-party billing, for treating injuries and medical conditions sustained in the course of a veteran's military service. The VA already pursues third-party billing for non-service-related conditions.

The Senate and House committees on veterans' affairs explicitly rejected the proposal today when they submitted recommendations on VA budget levels to their respective budget committees. But leaders of veterans groups said today that President Obama told them in a stormy meeting Monday that the plan would remain up for discussion. A meeting between the groups and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is scheduled for Thursday.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031702537.html?hpid=topnews

---

Sorry President Obama but this idea is really stupid. Wouldn't this make private insurance even more expensive for the rest of us? Wouldn't this make employers hesitant to hire an injured vet? And isn't it the country who sent them off to war to pay and take care of their war-related injuries the rest of their lives?

This one is a third-rail. If this doesn't get dropped I'm writing the WH & my represenatives saying drop this stupid idea.

And you just handed some more ammo to the RW.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. They have proposed no such thing. It was one of many proposals being up for consideration.

It is not the proposal though.

[RamboLiberal]

3. Gibbs confirmed it is under consideration

From OP article:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today confirmed that the proposal remains under consideration, but he said the administration has not yet made "the final . . . decision on third-party billing as it relates to service-related injuries."

So WTH is Gibbs confirming?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

4. The proposal is what is actually submitted, not the ideas they are kicking around.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. There's a really good article from Military.com here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8266199&mesg_id=8266199

[barbtries]

79. thanks for the link

this can't fly. probably should have never even been considered.

[dysfunctional press]

69. it sure doesn't sound like an administration that would have single-payer as an ultimate goal...

which is rather distressing, to be quite honest.

[timtom]

75. I'm biting my tongue...

[dysfunctional press]

77. about what...?

doesn't that hurt?

[timtom]

86. I made a snap judgement call

in reply to your post #69. I read further in the thread, however, and decided to hold off a bit.

[pattmarty]

80. Yeah, but it is a "trial balloon", and it absolutely is unacceptable..................

..........AND it was a really stupid idea that sounds like a "conservative" thought of it.

[cliffordu]

2. I will find it very difficult to support the President in this.

Just a stupid fucking political move into someone profiting off of war wounds.

If anyone can show me this is a sound thing to do, please tell me..

[Bonobo]

5. Executive Branch does not make laws. This is designed to be a hit piece. Use your common sense.

I have nothing to add. If you read this and are that easy to manipulate, then go ahead and believe it. But the WP is manipulating its readers and the American People.

If you disagree, take an Elementary Course in Civics.

[lib_wit_it]

7. Well, with single payer health care off the table, this is the next logical step. I am gutted, So

disappointing to see Obama even considering this.

[bemildred]

8. More bullshit from WaPo.

I see they at least cleaned up the headline a bit.

[RamboLiberal]

9. Well WH better get out there and get this clarified

It's more than the WP reporting it this way. I heard Paul Rieckhoff out there speaking out against this today and he had a meeting with President Obama yesterday.

[bemildred]

10. Yeah, I'm sure they are all quivering with fear. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. I agree with that. It is a terrible idea and Obama needs to shut it down.

[mvd]

54. Fortunately, it won't pass

And Obama won't propose it after he hears feedback. It should never be considered.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

55. He's already received feedback. I don't understand what the goal here is.

Even a D grade politician would have said "Not a consideration" by now.

[mvd]

65. The article says that..

"Emanuel and leaders of veterans groups are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss it further." Hope that changes things. :hi:

[biopowertoday]

74. Obama had the chance to do that when he met with the vets but that did NOT

happen.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031702537_2.html?hpid=topnews

.......Veterans groups said the plan was a puzzling political misstep by the new administration in its relations with the 25 million Americans who have served in the military. Obama heard firsthand about such objections Monday when he met with leaders of the groups at the White House.

"To ask veterans to save $500 million in a budget of over $100 billion is not only bad policy, it is bad politics," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, who attended the meeting.

"It could be a rookie mistake," he said. "Ultimately, it's only going to hurt the president."

[soccermomforobama]

11. According to a Hill article I read earlier today, this "idea"

has been around since the Clinton presidency. It is not something new to the Obama administration. With that said, I think it is a bad idea.

[bc3000]

12. I think he's just going for bargaining position with the insurance companies.

A few days ago the news that taxing private health insurance was on the table came out and now this.

It seems to me they are leaving everything on the table for leverage.

[Mithreal]

14. Leverage is good but no substitute for universal single payer

Welcome : )

[Mithreal]

13. This is going to be a long 4 years

if we jump every time the corporate media says something about the President's plans.

Remember folks, now that Dems are in control, the corporate media is highly focused on bringing down the President's approval ratings.

[Politicalboi]

15. It's too bad

The vet's couldn't sue Bush/Cheney or KBR or Hellaburton. I mean what's a 100 million dollars to Bush/Cheney cabal after all of the money they stole from us. Give each soldier 4 million dollars with no tax.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. What dumbass came up with this idea?

President Obama is listening to some really bad advice.

David

[jody]

17. The idea is not off the table until Obama says "I will veto any act that will bill veterans' private

insurance companies for combat-related injuries."

Until he does that, I will continue to believe he supports the idea and he would betray those who fought for our country.

[stillcool]

20. why would you 'assume' that?

VA Budget: Praise and a Warning
Tom Philpott | March 12, 2009

Many Cheers, Single Boo, Greet Obama's Budget for Vets

President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year.
------------
Obama's VA budget outline, with full details promised by late April, would raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That's an increase of $15 billion, or 15 percent, over the current budget.
---------------------------------------------------------

VA already taps "third party" insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in fiscal 2008 totaled $2.4 billion. VA expects to college $2.5 billion this year. The total could jump to $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.

Shinseki emphasized that this is only "a consideration" and not yet part of Obama's budget request. But members of the veterans' committees wanted Shinseki to know they won't support the proposal.

"Veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line... We should take care of those injuries completely," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Though she recognized that no formal proposal had yet reached Congress, Murray told Shinseki, "I can assure you it will be dead on arrival if it lands here."

Shinseki said the issue is solely about financing, and not about continuing to deliver superior care. "That is not discussable," Shinseki said.

[jody]

31. Because of Obama's promise "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right

to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away" and his present commitment of "support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent".

The latter commitment contradicts the former promise and the only thing that protects Obama on this issue is statements from Reid and Pelosi that they will not consider bills to renew the Assault Weapons Ban.

[stillcool]

33. Oh dear...You must hate politics..

or Obama..or both.

[jody]

35. No hate, I just don't trust any politician whether in my Democratic party or some other party. n/t

[stillcool]

36. exactly. it's the whole world really...

you're the only one that is a 'cut above'..the rest of us are mere mortals. You really should be President, or at least a Congressperson.

[jody]

37. That's your choice to blindly trust politicians but I won't. Your reply is nonsensical and in no way

related to my position.

[stillcool]

40. I don't 'blindly' trust anyone...

nor do I expect more from others than I would be willing to do myself.

[jody]

41. Your words say "no" but your comments mean "yes". Have a good evening and goodbye. n/t

[stillcool]

45. Bye-bye...

[barbtries]

82. aren't assault weapons

different from shotguns, rifles, and handguns?

[Abq_Sarah]

87. Nope.

According to the brilliant minds in Congress, if you add a pistol grip to your rifle or shotgun for added stability or have a magazine for your pistol that holds more than 10 rounds, you've turned it into a weapon equal to a machine gun.

[jody]

93. No! Please don't confuse assault rifles, machine pistols & other firearms capable of full

automatic fire that have been covered since 1934 by 26 USC CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS with semiautomatic firearms that are incorrectly called "assault weapons".

I don't rely on wiki but a useful starting point is Assault Weapon.

The problem is people who wish to ban semiautomatic firearms mislead the public by calling them "assault weapons" so that naive citizens don't understand that AWB definitions in HR 1022 in the last congress could have banned such popular firearms used for self-defense as the following:

Remington Model 1100


Colt Model 1911

[RamboLiberal]

19. From Raw Story

So far, the White House hasn't issued a firm denial of a plan which one reporter wondered why "was even on the table."

Although perhaps overshadowed in the media by the fracas over AIG's executive bonuses, veterans groups have become increasingly fearful of the proposal. Some have even said it amounts to "privatizing" wounded soldiers' health care.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540 million in revenue," said Cmdr. David Rehbein of the American Legion, in an advisory.

On Monday night, Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, pulled out all the stops in his opposition to the proposal. "We hope (Obama) drops it," he told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

-----

(Maddow asked Rieckhoff on his meeting with Obama)"Was his response direct enough?" she asked.

"No," said Rieckhoff. "We want to see him drop it. We want him to come out today and say, 'I will drop this proposal.' He's considering it. We're going to have meetings later this week. I think he's going to get considerable pressure from every major veterans group. ..."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Veterans_to_Obama_Drop_plan_to_0317.html

[TacticalPeek]

21. Obama Administration Proposes Third-Party Billing for Combat-Related Injuries

Source: Washington Post

Obama Administration Proposes Third-Party Billing for Combat-Related Injuries

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 17, 2009; 5:28 PM

The Obama administration has proposed to bill veterans' private insurance companies for combat-related injuries. But the plan has incited an uproar on Capitol Hill and charges from veterans groups that the plan is unethical and would further burden the war-wounded and their families.

The proposal, which would save the Department of Veterans Affairs $530 million a year, threatens to complicate the new administration's relations with the 25 million Americans who have served in the military.

The plan would authorize the VA to pursue reimbursement of medical costs from private insurers, or so-called third-party billing, for treating injuries and medical conditions sustained in the course of a veteran's military service. The VA already pursues third-party billing for non-service-related conditions.

The Senate and House committees on veterans' affairs explicitly rejected the proposal today when they submitted recommendations on VA budget levels to their respective budget committees. But leaders of veterans groups said today that President Obama told them in a stormy meeting Monday that the plan would remain up for discussion. A meeting between the groups and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is scheduled for Thursday.




Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031702537.html?hpid=topnews

---

Stupid bastards.

This risks negating all the good will Michelle has been building among military families.

For what? This crew is clueless about national health care.

[DS1]

22. Do we get to bomb the private ins. co hq with mortars when they don't pay up?

[bemildred]

23. Astroturf.

The mighty wurlitzer spins up to bash Obama for his hatred of veterans. DU is inundated with inane comments on Obama's evil intentions.
:puke:

[TacticalPeek]

34. Astro yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaML7rHtMag

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/obama-could-go-farther-right-than-mccain-on-privatizing-veterans-health-care.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/dems-fuming-over-white-ho_n_176006.html



TacticalPeek, Army, US, 69-71, father and son of veterans

[bemildred]

39. When the same thing pops up five times, with lots of Obama bashing, it makes me wonder?

During his press conference on Tuesday, spokesman Robert Gibbs pointed out the president has pledged an "11 percent increase in the discretionary spending" in the VA budget.

Veterans "can have confidence that the budget the president has proposed represents an historic increase in discretionary spending to take care of our wounded warriors," said Gibbs. "his president takes very seriously the needs of our wounded warriors that have given so much to protect our freedom on battlefields throughout the world."

---

While giving the administration the benefit of the doubt that they may dismiss the proposal, Jon Soltz, executive director of VoteVets, nevertheless offered preemptive disappointment.

"We don't know if this is going to be the proposal, or if it is a serious consideration or not," he told the Huffington Post. "So, it's premature to go to the White House with pitchforks at this point. That having been said, if it is proposed, we would be opposed, and can't imagine any veterans group that would be for it. There's no appetite for it on the Hill, either. There are ways to eliminate waste at every level of government, though, including the VA. I think we'd all like to sit down with the administration and find areas of the VA budget that are redundant or wasteful, to make sure every dollar spent there is necessary."

From your link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/dems-fuming-over-white-ho_n_176006.html

I read that this has been under discussion since the Clinton administration. Say something nice about Obama and I'll forget all about it.

[TacticalPeek]

49. Perhaps it should make you wonder if maybe Obama might be wrong about something for once?

This is more of the 'centrist', 'New Democrat' crap that apparently this swing election of the century will be frittered away on.

Gibbs was given several opportunities to swat this down today and instead he sounded like Ari Fleischer trying to finesse his way around a straight answer.

And by the way, I see apologists for these DLC-style policies kicking up a lot of dust and smoke over them, but it seems to usually amount to either (a) Obama's not really doing X just because the press reports it or (b) he's doing X but there is some clever political trick to it and the Rs will fall for it etc. blahblahblah.

New flash: Obama can be as full of shit as any politician. His ideas can be wrong. This is one of them.

[bemildred]

53. Eh, I can see we aren't going to agree.

I think you are gullible, and you think I am gullible. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[TacticalPeek]

56. Can we pre-agree that billing veterans' private insurance for combat-related injuries now is wrong?

Just that policy and based just on facts we know now, don't you agree that this is bad policy?

If you would vote to do it, then yes, we aren't going to agree absent more discussion some rainy day.

If you are agin it, then will you say so if Obama were to propose it?

[bemildred]

57. If it is done in any way that increases costs to the veterans, yes, entirely.

They should pay nothing. And I will help you raise hell if anybody tries to do that. But screwing health insurance companies to help vets sounds like a good idea to me. So it all depends. But I really prefer single-payer for everyone, vets included. Just like Congress has.

[wmbrew0206]

58. The vets will bear the brunt of this policy, since the insurance companies will just pass the costs

on to them through higher premiums.

[bemildred]

59. Not unless they are allowed to. Insurance companies are subject to the law too.

I do understand your concerns. One reason to fight for single-payer tax-funded public health care is to make all these games go away. Health care should be about your health, not your wallet, or the heath care providers wallet. And any active or retired service member should never have to worry about increased premiums because he or she sought medical care.

[wmbrew0206]

63. Do you really think that the insurance companies won't pass this cost back to the veterans, one way

or another?

I see what you are saying, but there is no way that Congress could pass a law that would rule out every possible way the insurance companies to pass this on to the veterans or other customers.

The ones this idea would effect is the servicemembers who served and did not retire. They don't rate insurance and would be carried by their employers insurance.

[bemildred]

64. I think the insurance companies will do what the law says.

They are not little tin gods. They will cease to exist if Congress says so, and Congress will say so if we threaten their jobs in a convincing way. So yeah. Not that I disagree about the need for vigilance and a touch of paranoia when it comes to the doings of government.

[barbtries]

84. don't you know you can't screw an insurance company?

they need to be taken right out of the mix (i know it won't happen in my lifetime, but perhaps, one day). otherwise their only duty as they see it is profits, and anyone and everyone else will be screwed long before they are.

[bemildred]

89. Sure you can.

Lawyers make a good living out of it.

[Cant trust em]

24. I'm trying to find the silver lining here.

If this were Bush pushing this I would be totally outraged. Since it's our guy I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt for the time being, but I don't like the way this sounds.

[bemildred]

25. Apparently, this idea has been around since Clinton's term.

Obama has proposed nothing. It's just the same idea being discussed like it was before.

[Cant trust em]

27. I hope you're right.

But thanks for reassuring me.

[bemildred]

29. This is like the 4th or 5th time this lie has been posted here.

Nothing personal, nothing against you or veterans.

[Abq_Sarah]

70. What lie is that?

It seems pretty clear it is a proposal or why on earth would President Obama meet with the American Legion Commander to discuss this issue. The White House has scheduled meetings this week with veterans groups to discuss this. The President's press secretary and chief of staff have both acknowledged this is under consideration.

[stillcool]

30. article here..

might be worth reading..

VA Budget: Praise and a Warning
Tom Philpott | March 12, 2009

Many Cheers, Single Boo, Greet Obama's Budget for Vets
-------------
Obama's VA budget outline, with full details promised by late April, would raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That's an increase of $15 billion, or 15 percent, over the current budget..
-----------------

Shinseki received a warm welcome when he presented the budget outline to the Senate and House veterans' affairs committees. But he also got a string of strong warnings from committee members over a cost-saving proposal that Shinseki conceded is under study. The administration is considering charging veterans' health insurance plans earned through civilian employment for VA's costs in treating service-connected injuries or ailments.

VA already taps "third party" insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in fiscal 2008 totaled $2.4 billion. VA expects to college $2.5 billion this year. The total could jump to $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.

Shinseki emphasized that this is only "a consideration" and not yet part of Obama's budget request. But members of the veterans' committees wanted Shinseki to know they won't support the proposal.

"Veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line... We should take care of those injuries completely," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Though she recognized that no formal proposal had yet reached Congress, Murray told Shinseki, "I can assure you it will be dead on arrival if it lands here."

Shinseki said the issue is solely about financing, and not about continuing to deliver superior care. "That is not discussable," Shinseki said.

[bemildred]

26. Oh yeah, and this is a dupe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3787585

[bluestateguy]

28. It's a bad idea, but I must say this...

how many conservative veterans voted for McCain and believe that private health insurance is such a wonderful thing? They seem to want private health care for everybody else, except them. Maybe government run health care is not so bad?

[jody]

32. Now now RamboLiberal, you've gone and stirred up the apologists again, shame on you. n/t

[brentspeak]

38. Reports of a "new FDR" have been greatly exaggerated. (n/t)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

42. It's a shame. Because other than this possibility, his plan for veterans is steller.

[ohio2007]

44. Use em then lose em ?

lose a leg, find a PPO to pay for rehab.

Hey, why not drop the insurance congress has in place for themselves and give it to the vets ?

just a thought

[SemiCharmedQuark]

47. What's especially offensive is that it is to save 500 million dollars. Which is...nothing

in the scope of things.

[TacticalPeek]

52. Exactly. That's why it's so irksome.

If he wants to run it out there for some cockamamie reason, wait a year, even 6 months would help.

I imagine if Clinton had delayed dontaskdonttell for a year it would have helped his early progress and barely made a difference to gays serving.

And now, with a huge, meaningful agenda to try to get past diehard do-nothing Rs and weak-kneed blue dogs, this will give major traction to opponents and accomplish . . . what exactly?

Dog knows, if they are stupid enough to send it up to the Hill, Congress will beat on it like a rented mule.

[customerserviceguy]

43. The bottom line is this

You're an employer, and you have two candidates sitting before you for one job. They're equal in every respect, except for one thing: One is a veteran that might have hidden service-related conditions that your insurance is going to have to pay for (I'm just assuming that we have no universal coverage or single-payer, but that some sort of experience-based rating for groups still applies), and the other one is not.

Which one do you hire?

That's the way veterans see this. I understand the need to send up trial balloons, but this one shouldn't have made it off the ground until universal coverage was an accomplished fact.

[ohio2007]

46. How about those in the reserves and guard? they have insurance and a real world job but when they

come back all gimped up....
doesn't everybody's rates go up ......to share the burden of increased costs ?


hmmm.

Barack should just get congress to bail out the VA.
That'll piss off the million $ bonus recipients

[customerserviceguy]

51. Nope

if the condition is service-related, they can get treated for it at no cost at a Veteran's facility. As it should be.

[amandabeech]

61. PLUS, an injured veteran could max out his or her lifetime insurance cap

with his or her service-related injury, leaving his spouse and children with no effective coverage.

This is a bad idea that should die an immediate death, and the person or persons who brought this up demoted.

[ProSense]

48. There is no new proposal. This is about an existing issue.

Here is what Gibbs said:

Q One other quick policy question. The President met yesterday with about 11 veterans groups, and discussed with the chief of staff and the head of the Veterans Administration the concept -- which hasn't been put in the President's budget yet, but it's on the table -- of having third-party insurance companies pay for combat-related injuries -- something that's never happened before. The American Legion put out a very strong letter today condemning that; IABA also has questioned this very strongly. Can you conceptually explain to the American people why for the first time it would be a good idea to think about the Veterans Administration having a third-party private insurance company pay for combat-related injuries?

MR. GIBBS: Let me not make the case for a decision that this administration hasn't made yet regarding the final disposition or decision on third-party billing as it relates to service-related injuries.

Q It is on the table, though, correct?

MR. GIBBS: But no decisions have been made. Let me give this answer to -- and I know that the veterans, the VSOs, the Veterans Service Organizations that were here yesterday to meet with the President, the VA chief and the Chief of Staff, who will return later in the week to meet again with the Chief of Staff, can have confidence that the budget the President has proposed represents an historic increase in discretionary spending to take care of our wounded warriors, those that have been sent off to war, have protected our freedom and have come back wounded. There's an 11-percent increase in discretionary spending in the VA budget, an historic jump -- because this President takes very seriously the needs of our wounded warriors that have given so much to protect our freedom on battlefields throughout the world.

Q But why would this even be on the table?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I think the President and the VSOs had a good conversation, and the veterans can be assured that the President understands any concerns that they would have, as well as shares -- looks forward to sharing with them the fact that the budget represents an historic increase for discretionary spending as it relates to taking care of wounded warriors.

link

The rumor was based originally based on a mischaracterization of Shinseki's testimony on March 10. Sen. Murray mentioned that she had a previous discussion with Shinseki and they came to an understanding about the issue, but she specifically said the rumored proposal would be dead in Congress. It appears someone misconstrued Shineseki's testimony as "Obama wants Veterans to pay for health care" when the consideration is whether or not to eliminating an existing third-party revenue stream from the budget.

Yesterday Obama gave a speech to Veterans about his budget. At some point the American Legion issued a press release about the rumored changed, which wasn't part of the plan Obama introduced yesterday.

I can see why Gibbs doesn't want to characterize the rumor because this is not new. Obama has a budgeting decision to make.

[wmbrew0206]

62. "You just don't get it, do you Scott" - Dr. Evil

This is a not a rumor, it is very clear that the Obama Admin is considering this. Gibbs went out of his way to avoid saying this proposal was not an option.

The fact the Gibbs would not say it was off the table, after all the press the VSO response has generated, makes it clear this idea is an option.

And every day that the White House leaves this option open, it hurts Obama's credibility with veterans, which is really a shame because the rest of his VA budget is terrific.

[ProSense]

66. "The fact the Gibbs would not say it was off the table" Good grief.

On or off the table, being considered or not, there is no new proposal and the issue in question is an existing budget item. It has nothing to do with Obama suggesting that Vets should pay for their own health care.

But you know what, keep pushing this spin. Eventually, like all the BS spin advanced and debunked, this will be clarified at some point.

[wmbrew0206]

90. Yup, nothing but BS spin...... Oh sweet, sweet, irony. Enjoy the link.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220571&title=that-cant-be-right-veterans

[jody]

50. Letter to Obama re the problem co-signed by every major veterans organization in the country.

http://iava.org/sites/default/files/2009%20VSO%20Letter%20to%20President%20Obama%20SC%20022709%20Final.pdf

The American Legion
1608 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
www.legion.org

AMVETS (American Veterans)
4647 Forbes Blvd.
Lanham, MD 20706
[phone]
www.amvets.org

Blinded Veterans Association
477 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
www.bva.org
Disabled American Veterans
807 Maine Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
[phone]
www.dav.org

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
308 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington, DC 20002
[phone]
www.iava.org

Jewish War Veterans of the USA
1811 R Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009
[phone]
www.jwv.org

Military Officers Association of America
201 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
[phone]
www.moaa.org

Military Order of the Purple Heart
of the U.S.A., Inc.
5413-B Backlick Road
Springfield, VA 22151
[phone]
www.purpleheart.org

Paralyzed Veterans of America
801 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
[phone]
www.pva.org

Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States
200 Maryland Avenue, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
[phone]
www.vfw.org

Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc.
8605 Cameron Street, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
[phone]
www.vva.org

[soccermomforobama]

60. Why would I not be surprised if this was a Republican solution

and that is why Obama is not saying it is off the table. If he says it is still on the table then they cannot say he does not listen to their solutions. The only people who I have seen or read are outraged are Dems in Congress. The Republicans have been very silent which makes me think they are behind this "idea". There is not even "faux" outrage from the Republicans.

EDIT: As much a Politico seems to be on a witch hunt towards the Obama administration, they would have plastered this horrible plan all over their website but there is nothing about it, which makes me believe again that this is a Republican solution to a problem.

[bemildred]

67. Vets angered by Obama plan get new hearing

WASHINGTON | Angry advocates for veterans will return to the White House on Thursday to try and talk the Obama administration out of cutting health benefits.

The plan has ignited a political firestorm in the veteran’s community, and a meeting Monday with President Barack Obama failed to tamp it down. But the same veterans groups that met with Obama have been asked to come back to meet with his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, for more discussions.

The plan to save money by cutting veterans’ benefits remains sketchy, but the Obama administration is weighing whether to make veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat injuries and other health problems that resulted from their military service.

Veterans currently are responsible only for health-care costs that are unrelated to their time in the military, with some exceptions.

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/17678

[soccermomforobama]

68. I wonder what those exceptions are. . .

[bemildred]

71. There was some discussion of that in one of these threads.

But I don't know where it is now.

[bemildred]

72. Ah, here's something:

"The plan would authorize the VA to pursue reimbursement of medical costs from private insurers, or so-called third-party billing, for treating injuries and medical conditions sustained in the course of a veteran's military service. The VA already pursues third-party billing for non-service-related conditions."

[Abq_Sarah]

73. here:

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 without private insurance or who are 100 percent disabled.

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/news/stories/2009/03/17/veterans_insurance.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=15

[jody]

76. Kick because major veteran's groups have written Obama challenging his plan. n/t

[barbtries]

78. the bushies apparently

are still in charge. this plan blows.

[antimatter98]

81. More Obama-BushCo stuff. Why was Obama elected? n/t

[limit18]

83. I'm thinking this could affect recruiting.

[alfredo]

85. this is a nod to the "privatization" crowd. If you want to privatize profits,

you have to accept privatization of costs.

[SgtSkectial134]

88. Why are you blaming Rep.?

Obama could have killed this idea (proposal) once he heard it, but he didn't... he still has it on the table for consideration.
So how are you going to blame Bush or the Rep. about that? I think this only shows Obamas true colors. He really doesn't care about the troops... All talk but look at his actions...

[wmbrew0206]

91. And it is no longer an issue. The Obama Admin comes through

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-backs-off-plan-to-alter-vets-care-2009-03-18.html

[SgtSkectial134]

92. Semper Fi

Hey devil dog, it's good they withdrew their plan to impose to have indiviual military personal's insurance pay for needed treatment.

I still don't trust him... keep an eye on this guy Obama...

[ProSense]

96. "I still don't trust him... keep an eye on this guy Obama... "

Or you!

[jody]

94. Emanuel said "he needed to talk to Obama"! It's not over until Obama tells veterans "I will veto any

bill that allows the VA to charge private insurance companies for the treatment of veterans with service- and war-related injuries."

Until Obama makes that statement, I will not trust the administration on this issue.

[ProSense]

95. Yes, he came through. Too bad for the

Veterans.

Let the insurance companies keep the money.

[jody]

97. I disagree, veterans won a major battle. Any president can expect united opposition in the future nt