PDA

View Full Version : Military health care



cvan
03-16-2009, 09:51 PM
I heard on the Mark Levin show that Pres. Osoma wants to make private insurance companies pay for wounded soldiers health care surgery/rehab.
I didn't catch all of the facts but it almost made me sick. If a Republican Pres did this it would be all over the news. WHY can't the press give a unbiased report and bring a little of his evil deeds to the eyes and ears of his brainwashed cult?
It might make some of our fellow Americans open their eyes.
Please come back from the DARK side. NO PUN INTENDED.

Eric Johnson
03-16-2009, 10:28 PM
From the limited coverage available, the Air Force at least, has done something like this for about 30 years. If the retired or military member has insurance, when they are seen in a military hospital, the insurance is billed. It they have no insurance, there's no charge. It's called the "3rd party liability" program. No reason why the military should pay the cost of treatment and not recoup from the insurance firms.

It sounds like the proposal is to implement the same program in VA hospitals. If so, good idea.

Eric

cvan
03-16-2009, 10:37 PM
I was refering to wounded vets. That got wounded in the line of duty.

Eric Johnson
03-16-2009, 10:40 PM
It doesn't make any difference. If you are injured or sick and have health insurance, your insurance provider should pay. It doesn't make any difference whether the sick or injured is active duty, a retiree, or an eligible dependent of either.

Eric

cvan
03-16-2009, 10:53 PM
I guess your right Eric but does your insurance coverage go up with use?
I know the coverage we provide for our emps. goes up with use.
So the cost is passed on to employers. I understand about the gov needing to recoup some cost if they can My wife works at an Indian health care Hospital.
I am just saying the Gov said a long time ago they would pay if something happens to you if you are in the service and SO if something happens god forbid they should pay and not try to pass the buck.
AND I bet it goes deeper than you are looking
LIKE BO said If I get elected no earmarks and line by line ect.....

Eric Johnson
03-17-2009, 06:21 AM
I guess insurance rates could go up with use. Mine never has.

The free healthcare for life issue has been resolved by the Supreme Ct. Basically they said that what the recruiter promised is not what the law reads. I didn't like the decision either but it's something we have to live with.

Eric

Goose
03-17-2009, 07:59 AM
Why not just leave our wounded men and women on the battlefield to die of their wounds reducing the surplus population? Then Dear Leader can save the $540 million without any conflict.

Our government has a mandate 'to care for him who shall have borne the batttle'. Not some private insurance company. Unicare didn't send PFC Smith into battle. It was the government.

Why would anybody want to serve his country with these clowns in charge? What a disgrace.

Neither Obama nor Biden were ever in the armed forces and their hatred of it is overwhelming.

brian breuer
03-17-2009, 09:12 AM
Why not just leave our wounded men and women on the battlefield to die of their wounds reducing the surplus population? Then Dear Leader can save the $540 million without any conflict.

Our government has a mandate 'to care for him who shall have borne the batttle'. Not some private insurance company. Unicare didn't send PFC Smith into battle. It was the government.

Why would anybody want to serve his country with these clowns in charge? What a disgrace.

Neither Obama nor Biden were ever in the armed forces and their hatred of it is overwhelming.

This has nothing to do with the level of care our vets will receive. It is only spreading a portion of the cost of the care to private party insurers if the vet has that private insurance. Think wife with an employer plan. The vet would still see no bills.

This is exactly what the Indian Health Service does. They see Indians at IHS facilities but if the patient has private insurance, that insurance company is billed. The patient still has 0 copay, 0 deductible, and receives the exact same level of care.

This may be one of the only fiscally responsible things to come out of DC lately.

If you get letting troops die on the battlefield from this, well I just feel sorry for you, carrying around that much hate can't be healthy.

labraiser
03-17-2009, 09:28 AM
So let me get this right? You go fight for your country, you get injured. You have to get some of the cost coved by private insurance? So at my job I work for a large company, So if i get injured, i get workman's comp and pay nothing for all medical services. How can this be justified by this f----- up adminstration!!!

scott

road kill
03-17-2009, 09:36 AM
So let me get this right? You go fight for your country, you get injured. You have to get some of the cost coved by private insurance? So at my job I work for a large company, So if i get injured, i get workman's comp and pay nothing for all medical services. How can this be justified by this f----- up adminstration!!!

scott
That is incorrect!
As of right now, if you recieved any kind of disability (that includes a wound) while serving, you have VA rights for life.

I might add, the VA Hospitals have improved DRAMATICALLY over the last 8 years!!

This may change, but right now it is good!

labraiser
03-17-2009, 10:01 AM
Re-read the news headline.

President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care.

Calling it a "desperate search for money at any cost," Craig Roberts, media relations manager for the American Legion, told FOXNews.com on Tuesday that the president will "wish away so much political capital on this issue" if he continues to insist on private coverage for service-related injuries.

Cmdr. David K. Rehbein of the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group, called the president's plan to raise $540 million from private insurers unreasonable, unworkable and immoral.

"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," Rehbein said late Monday after a meeting with the president and administration officials at the Veterans Affairs Department.

"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," Rehbein said.

Roberts said that 11 veterans service organizations were told to come up with another plan if they didn't like this one. The groups met on Monday with Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and Office of Management and Budget defense spending chief Steven Kosiak.

"What we've been tasked with now is to raise this money through alternative means and we're supposed to have a conference call in two or three days ... with Rahm Emanuel. So the implication was ... you guys come up with a better idea or this is what's going to happen," Roberts said.

A call to the White House was not immediately returned. But a summary of the proposed budget says the president wants to increase funding for VA by $25 billion over five years, and bring more than 500,000 eligible veterans of modest income into the VA health care system by 2013.

"The president's avowed purpose in doing this is to, quote, 'make the insurance companies pay their fair share,'" Roberts said. But he said it will raise premiums, make insurance unaffordable for veterans and impose a massive hardship on military families. It could also prevent small businesses from hiring veterans who have large health care needs, he said.

"It's not the Blue Cross that puts soldiers in harm's way, it's the federal government," Roberts said, adding that the American Legion would like the existing system to remain in place. Service-related injuries currently are treated and paid for by the government. The American Legion has proposed that Medicare reimburse the VA for the treatment of veterans.

He said that the argument about the government's moral obligation to treat wounded soldiers, sailors and Marines fell on deaf ears during the meeting.

"The president deflected any discussion when it got into any moral issue here," he said. "Any attempt to direct the conversation (to the moral discussion) was immediately deflected."

Private insurance is separate for troops who need health care unrelated to their service. But Roberts noted that if a wounded warrior comes back and needs ongoing treatment, he or she could run up "to the max of the coverage in very short order," leaving his family with nothing

Roberts added that how the plan would raise $540 million "is a great mystery and it seems to be an arbitrary number. ... The commander said it seemed like this phantom number."

Monday's meeting was preceded by a letter of protest earlier this month signed by Rehbein and the heads of 10 service organizations. It read that "there is simply no logical explanation" for the plan to bill veterans' personal insurance "for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide."

The letter called it "unconscionable" to shift the burden of the country's "fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country." Rehbein testified to both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees on those same points last week

brian breuer
03-17-2009, 10:02 AM
So let me get this right? You go fight for your country, you get injured. You have to get some of the cost coved by private insurance? So at my job I work for a large company, So if i get injured, i get workman's comp and pay nothing for all medical services. How can this be justified by this f----- up adminstration!!!

scott

NO. Your level of care is exactly the same now as before. If you have private insurance, whatever can be billed to that insurance will be. If you don't it doesn't matter.

Either way, there is no copay, no deductible, etc. The level of care stays the same. It is just a way for the DOD to recoup some of the cost of care by billing the insurance companies of soldiers that have outside insurance.

Your job at a large company / workman's comp has nothing to do with this. I have no idea where you got that.

NOTHING CHANGES FOR THE SERVICEMAN.

labraiser
03-17-2009, 10:09 AM
I was just making the comparison of the military to a private job. I still don't think it's right for the Adminstration to do this. In the end it will drive up cost for all of us.

road kill
03-17-2009, 10:13 AM
All of these things are the "change he promised!"

You just didn't know it.

brian breuer
03-17-2009, 10:20 AM
I was just making the comparison of the military to a private job. I still don't think it's right for the Adminstration to do this. In the end it will drive up cost for all of us.

I don't understand. It actually reduces the burden on the taxpayer.

labraiser
03-17-2009, 10:24 AM
What do insurance companies do when they have to put out more? They raise the rate for ALL policy holders. Insurance companies project their cost and spread the cost to all policy holders. Why do you think most home owners cost went up after 911 and katrina.

Bob Gutermuth
03-17-2009, 10:25 AM
Paying for the medical costs of a wounded vet is not a burden, its part of the price of being a citizen.

When I was a cop, if I got hurt on the job workmans compensation paid the bill, not my private insurance, why should private insurance pick up the tab for a vet wounded serving his country?

Its a shame you cannot impeach a a govt official for stupidity, the one who thought this up must be a real genius.

Uncle Bill
03-17-2009, 10:29 AM
As one "in the program" for a few decades, I'd like to say the VA in my area is providing me with excellant health care. They take care of me locally, except for major surgery, which is done in the larger markets. (Ft. Snelling in St. Paul for our region)

OR...as I opted to do when I needed orthoscopic surgery, cataract surgery, heart surgery, I had it done outside the VA, where my personal health insurance was used. This was more costly for me, but it was my option, and I chose to forgo traveling to the Twin Cities, and have the operations done locally.

After a recent VA CT scan, I was diagnosed with AAA. We are in the "wait and watch" period of treatment, but when the time comes for surgery, I will again opt to have it done locally. At that time I will again pick up the costs of the co-pay that isn't covered by Medicare or my supplemental health care policy, as I did previously without any Medicare at those times.

I have no problem with these arraingements. I'm grateful for all the VA has done for me.

UB

labraiser
03-17-2009, 10:31 AM
Could not agree with you more Bob. Obama will be remembered as the worst socialist pres we ever had or will have.

Goose
03-17-2009, 10:35 AM
A burden on the taxpayer? That's great.

Obama should just change the military's Oath of Office. Something like this...

"I, PFC Burden, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will try not to be a burden to the same."...so help me God.

Bob Gutermuth
03-17-2009, 10:36 AM
If he does like his hero Hugo Chavez he may be the last elected president we have.

Eric Johnson
03-17-2009, 10:48 AM
Folks....time out. This is a 30 year old program. What's being talked about is the VA adopting the program. I'm a retiree. When I go to an Army or Air Force hospital, my insurance makes a payment. If I were to go to a VA hospital, under this program, the same would be true. Right now, it's not.

It costs the insurance carrier, not you. In fact, chances are that it's the insurance carriers that are behind this hue and cry. For years they've skated with a population that needed more than average care. They took in the premiums but didn't pay the benefits. Suddenly they are going to pay their way.

What you should be insensed about is that for 30 years the VA has ignored this as a potential revenue stream. Think of the money to repair facilities they could have had in 30 years.

Eric

brian breuer
03-17-2009, 11:21 AM
A burden on the taxpayer? That's great.

Obama should just change the military's Oath of Office. Something like this...

"I, PFC Burden, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will try not to be a burden to the same."...so help me God.


Burden = cost

Dramatic much.

I'll give you three guesses as to where I get my health care.

TN_LAB
03-17-2009, 11:55 AM
It's just an attempt to socialize all health care. The extra burden (or whatever you want to call it) that will be put on private companies will make it that much harder for them. Then the government will come to the rescue (pretty soon it'll be socialized).

brian breuer
03-17-2009, 12:00 PM
It's just an attempt to socialize all health care. The extra burden (or whatever you want to call it) that will be put on private companies will make it that much harder for them. Then the government will come to the rescue (pretty soon it'll be socialized).

These soliders are eligible for private insurance. How is paying a benefit to a policy holder an excessive burden to an insurance company?

They take the premiums they should pay the legitimate claims, which these are.

Julie R.
03-17-2009, 12:48 PM
I still don't understand how you can put ANY positive spin on this. If you get hurt on the job, the employer pays for it. You get hurt serving the country, the govt. pays your bills. Simple--it's one instance where I fully agree with government health insurance.


I'm a retiree. When I go to an Army or Air Force hospital, my insurance makes a payment. If I were to go to a VA hospital, under this program, the same would be true.

This isn't about non military injuries; what you do is fine for your civilian ailments. Active duty military who have their own insurance coverage should not have to use that coverage, nor pay the higher premiums, because their carriers now have to pay for combat injuries.

Obomo and his tribe are a bunch of buffoons that want to turn the U.S. into a cesspool of filth and corruption to rival Zimbabwe. Washington D.C. is already becoming Mogadishu of the MidAtlantic with an AIDs rate as high as a 3rd world nation in Afreaka. Obomo may dress better but he's beginning to remind me of Robert Mugabe.

TN_LAB
03-17-2009, 02:03 PM
These soliders are eligible for private insurance. How is paying a benefit to a policy holder an excessive burden to an insurance company?

They take the premiums they should pay the legitimate claims, which these are.

Yesterday they didn't have to pay these claims. Today they do. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems like an issue that might matter.

Insurance companies price their policies based on certain assumptions. When the assumptions change, it effects them.

WindyCreek
03-17-2009, 02:15 PM
Dear Mr. Johnson,

There is a big difference between what you describe and what a greatful Nation owes those who were have combat related injuries, the key phrase is "combat related".

You and I not only obviously served in different branches of the military but have a completely different set of values. It is a responsibility the Nation bears to care for their battlefield wounded, to do anything less angers me and should you as well.



Folks....time out. This is a 30 year old program. What's being talked about is the VA adopting the program. I'm a retiree. When I go to an Army or Air Force hospital, my insurance makes a payment. If I were to go to a VA hospital, under this program, the same would be true. Right now, it's not.

It costs the insurance carrier, not you. In fact, chances are that it's the insurance carriers that are behind this hue and cry. For years they've skated with a population that needed more than average care. They took in the premiums but didn't pay the benefits. Suddenly they are going to pay their way.

What you should be insensed about is that for 30 years the VA has ignored this as a potential revenue stream. Think of the money to repair facilities they could have had in 30 years.

Eric

Eric Johnson
03-17-2009, 03:10 PM
1. I was merely pointing out that this is a program that has been around for a long time though apparently not for the VA.

2. This isn't talking (either me or the proposed program) about Combat Injury or Injury or Disease related distinction. If a member presents himself for care, he's cared for if he or she is eligible for care. The issue is a payment and then the only issue is whether the retiree has insurance. If s/he doesn't, they wad the bill up and toss it out. It's not like they come and get your car or house or...dog.

3. The concept of "healthcare for life" was decided in the Supreme Court about 10 years ago. The recruiters lied. I'm not happy about that but the case is closed.

4. For those who say, the rates will go up. Balderdash! I would say to you that the reasons the rates are what they are is that the insurance firms have been getting a free ride. For those who say the rates will go up for the rest of us, who do you think is paying for the VA?

I have service-connected health problems that are both chronic and sometimes severe. I'm also a retiree out of the medical service. In short, I see both sides of the coin. To me it's not a big deal. It's just not. Compared to the other issues confronting the country, I just can't get worked up about this one because the troops and their dependents are going to be cared for and that's all that matters to me at this point.

As for my values Mr. Windy Creek, I at least have the courage to sign my posts. Just sayin'

Eric

cvan
03-17-2009, 03:37 PM
Eric. I don't guess you are getting it.
If a soldier has private insurance somebody is paying for it MOST likely that somebody is a PRIVATE COMPANY.
If insurance is used the premiums can and do go up depending on said use.
The Government has the moral obligation to take care of its sldiers injured service to the country, not private insurance companies/private companies.
Yes in truth we are already paying for said health care. But when the Gov wants to hand out money for crap that doesn't need to be addressed Like handing out condoms,rebuilding the Hamas Gaza terrorist strip.
It kinda makes most AMERICANS pissed That he shows such contempt for the military.
The Government gets plenty of money to use, IF they would use it correctly and not try to make everybody dependent on the gov and the money they can get from the gov. See above mentioned condom/Gaza note....

WindyCreek
03-17-2009, 05:06 PM
Dear Mr. Johnson,
Just sayin.......... I have been the victim of ID Theft in the past and have very good reasons for not posting my name for public access, just sayin..........

You clearly still don't get it. There is a huge difference between combat related injuries and non combat related illness and injuries seen by the VA. I have injuries that fall in both catagories, I know the difference.

As a Site Manager after retiring from the military my operation was selected as the 2005 VFW Employer of the Year. My operation which grew from 100 employees to 400 employees was 93% Veteran of which over 35% were Disabled Veterans. My passion for caring for my Soldiers did not stop when I left active duty, I never left one on the battlefield and feel the same level of commitment to this day. I can assure you though that not all employeers share my compassion. Can you imagine and employer faced with high health costs who did not share my compassion who had a choice between a healthy 20 year old and a battle wounded 20 year old? Also what about the "pre-existing medical condition" provision so common in health care policies?

No amount of ink or electrons will convince you otherwise so I am out of this discussion, I have dogs to train.


1. I was merely pointing out that this is a program that has been around for a long time though apparently not for the VA.

2. This isn't talking (either me or the proposed program) about Combat Injury or Injury or Disease related distinction. If a member presents himself for care, he's cared for if he or she is eligible for care. The issue is a payment and then the only issue is whether the retiree has insurance. If s/he doesn't, they wad the bill up and toss it out. It's not like they come and get your car or house or...dog.

3. The concept of "healthcare for life" was decided in the Supreme Court about 10 years ago. The recruiters lied. I'm not happy about that but the case is closed.

4. For those who say, the rates will go up. Balderdash! I would say to you that the reasons the rates are what they are is that the insurance firms have been getting a free ride. For those who say the rates will go up for the rest of us, who do you think is paying for the VA?

I have service-connected health problems that are both chronic and sometimes severe. I'm also a retiree out of the medical service. In short, I see both sides of the coin. To me it's not a big deal. It's just not. Compared to the other issues confronting the country, I just can't get worked up about this one because the troops and their dependents are going to be cared for and that's all that matters to me at this point.

As for my values Mr. Windy Creek, I at least have the courage to sign my posts. Just sayin'

Eric