President Obama Continues to Seek to Cut VA Benefits
March 17, 2009, Matthew Cochrane
| |
President Obama has finally found an area of spending in the Federal budget that he would like to cut and we are now witnessing the real world effects of electing liberals in office. Last week, I reported on the Obama administration’s proposal to dramatically cut veterans’ employment and health insurance benefits. Obama’s proposed plan would force veterans to use private insurance to pay for treatments of injuries incurred during combat and service. Today, leaders of veteran groups met with the president in an attempt to dissuade him from going through with this arrangement. Unfortunately, these pleas seemed to have fallen on deaf ears within the administration and it appears President Obama is planning to go through with the proposal:
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.”
…in a White House meeting Monday, veterans groups apparently failed to persuade President Obama to take the plan off the table.
“Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “If the president and the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA.”
I’ve already received one email from a concerned veteran concerning this matter but, unfortunately, there’s not much more I can add beyond what’s being reported. The fact that this plan could even be considered as a viable way to raise funds is a moral outrage. President Obama just signed a stimulus spending bill worth $787 billion and an omnibus spending bill worth over $400 billion. The omnibus spending bill contained thousands of earmarks alone. The revenue this measure is expected to raise is a mere $540 million. I find it unfathomable that in the middle of a record spending spree by the U.S. government, President Obama can find the funds for thousands of pork barrel projects but cannot find the money for American veterans to keep the benefits they already have.
| |
|
| Comments |
Even your term of "moral outrage" doesn't really cover this betrayal of American veterans. This proposal seems to be nothing less than a planned and purposeful attempt to keep good people from ever joining the military in the future. In other words, with this proposal, Obama is trying to subvert military recruiting efforts going forward so that many people who might otherwise consider a military emlistment will be pursuaded not to for fear of financial ruin.
I can easily imagine a scenario involving a serviceman returning from a war with serious injuries. If his own private insurance will be forced to cover his medical care then the maximum payout of his insurance policy could be reached virtually overnight, leaving nothing left for his wife and children. This is a realsitic scenario as, unfortunately, veterans do, indeed, get hurt in the line of duty.
Further, I would suspect that if insurance providers are now going to be forced to picked up war-related claims from veterans that the cost of a standard medical policy for everyone else in the workplace is going to skyrocket. After all, insurance companies aren't going to voluntarily underwrite the costs of our wars; nor should they be expected to.
This proposal is going to hurt everyone; not just veterans. Please send a quick note to both of your senators and your congressman immediately so we can at least try to nip this in the bud.
This is unmitigated evil and, yes, it is a "moral outrage" as well. - Steamboat Willie
|
|
Just out of curiosity, can anyone think of a society or great civilization from any era that has placed the medical care of wounded soldiers and veterans on the backs of the individual? Right off the top of my head, I cannot.
This is such an odd, out-of-left-field proposal that it seriously makes me wonder what is really going on here. Can it be, as Steamboat suggests, nothing more than an attempt to stifle military recruiting in the future? I need to think this one through for a while and se what I can come up with.
Steamboat will be glad to know that I did e-mail my senators about this. It's pretty easy now as all of these guys have easy links on their web sites to make comments electronically. - Jameson
|
|
This just makes me sick! I can't believe he is even attempting to do this. There has to be something behind this. - Jamie Cochrane
|
|
Hey guys, it looks like Obama is scrapping the plan. It's funny how the "rest" of the media fails to really mention this anywhere. I went to NBCNews, ABCNews, and they don't even mention any part of this. Neither the original plan, nor the retraction of it.
Here's the latest where Obama says he's scrapping the plan:
www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/obama-drops-controversial-health-care-plan-wounded-veterans/ - Todd
|
|
Wow, I didn't expect such a quick response from Obama. I am so glad he didn't push this through. - Jamie Cochrane
|
|
Obama's inexperience really shines through this kind of hesitation. - Stephen
|
|
That's okay. He'll sneak it into the next stimulus plan at the 11th hour. FYI, though. Service connected disabilities includes things like sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension, acid reflux...Retirees would be covered for these by TRICARE anyway but a charge for the care would reduce disability pay. Service connected "disabled" with conditions like these would probably pay for the insurance or care from disability checks which are not enough to cover the insurance most likely. So maybe the intent is to really offset the cost of paying the "disabled" for their "disability." This attempt was too broad a brush and unknowingly (perhaps?) failed to cover combat wounded or injured in the more traditional sense which "in the line of duty" connotes. - ENO
|
|
That should be service connected [non retired] "disabled" - ENO
|
|
Another example: a servicemember while on leave is hit while walking down the sidewalk by a vehicle veering off the road. The member suffers permanent disability. He is discharged prior to retirement eligibility. He is paid service connected disability (which isn't all that much anyway) and most likely provided free health care at a VA clinic for the rest of his life. How is that service connected anymore than a non service member in an accident? In the aggregate, that cost starts to add up to a huge bill to the US Govt. It's an attractive recruiting tool, though. Most, I assume, think that service connected is either combat wounded which is a different criteria or for example a loadmaster who is brain damaged by a piece of gear that breaks loose in flight. He gets similar disability but most likely not enough to compensate for his permanent disability. - ENO
|
|
|
