In a startling, unprecedented and shameful move on Monday, President Barack Obama enraged leaders of 11 of America's principal veterans service organizations (VSOs), at a meeting celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Department of Veterans Affairs' elevation to Cabinet status held at VA headquarters in Washington, D.C., telling them that a proposal to order the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to bill veterans' private insurance companies for treatment for service-connected injuries and illnesses is still under consideration.
A report from CNN notes:
Some of the veterans groups were caught off guard when the president said the administration is still thinking about the idea as a way of generating $540 million for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2010. The groups and some members of Congress have been very vocal in opposing the idea.
"Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans. If the president and the OMB want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, in a written statement.
Jay Agg, a spokesman for AMVETS said, "This flies in the face of the VA's covenant to cover all service-related health-care expenses."
FOX News quotes American Legion Commander David K. Rehbein, invoking the VA's motto, saying:
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.
From the Revolutionary War onward, America has had a long, proud history of providing for its citizens who have served in its armed forces and who have paid the price of shedding their blood in defense of our country. The nation's earliest efforts left much to be desired in their scope, but the intent has always been to care for and support those who fought our battles.
Today's Department of Veterans Affairs saw its birth in July, 1930 as the Veterans Administration, a sub-Cabinet level agency charged with a variety of responsibilities to veterans, including medical services, disability compensation, and allowances for World War I veterans.
In 1944, as World War II wound down, Congress passed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, which quickly became popularly known as the GI Bill of Rights. With its passage, the role of the Veterans Administration was greatly expanded, encompassing job training, educational benefits, home, farm and business loans, life insurance, and unemployment insurance, as well as health care and compensation for wounded and disabled veterans returning from the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jordan Richardson
Shame, Mr. President!
Agreed. Nicely written, Clav.
2 - M (a)r {....!...} ¶/ ® k
outfuckingrageous - eof
3 - Ruvy
Well written Clavos - no surprise, though...
4 - Baritone
Actually, it is a surprise. But, obviously, I'm with you on this Clav. I bet it wasn't a vet who thought of this one.
B
5 - STM
Yeah, nice one Clav. As we discussed the other day, it's well known around the world how well the US looks after its veterans. They deserve the best - not second best - too for what they've done. Money shouldn't be an issue at all here.
There are a million and one other places the government can find savings of that amount.
A couple of (failed) executives' packages funded by taxpayers might be a good place to start.
6 - Dan(Miller)
Clav,
Excellent article, and I agree that it is a shameful thing to do.
I do have a few questions. The header for the article says, "America's veterans are being asked to pay again â€" in cash, this time." I could find no reference in the body of the article to paying in cash (or, of course, cash equivalents). I assume that medical insurance companies already covering veterans would be billed for covered procedures. Would the VA refuse to pick up the costs not reimbursed by the insurance companies?
The article itself does not suggest that veterans would be required, as a condition of treatment through the VA, to obtain additional medical insurance. Is that part of the proposal now under consideration? Also, does the proposal cover treatment for service related conditions, or only those which are not service related? The comment from American Legion Commander David K. Rehbein appears to speak only to service related conditions.
Even assuming that no additional coverage, and no actual cash payment by veterans for VA services, would be required, the proposal is ill advised. The $540 million or so to be recouped by the VA would, at least marginally, increase already excessive medical insurance costs overall -- a problem which President Obama's overall health care program allegedly seeks to fix.
While quite Machiavellian, is it possible that this is a ploy to screw veterans in order to enlist their various organizations in support of that overall health care plan? I seriously doubt it, and would be more inclined to attribute it to yet another Teleprompter malfunction.
Dan(Miller)
7 - Clavos
Thanks to all for your kind comments.
Dan, you're a great living testimonial to the value of a good Ivy League education, those are excellent questions -- look 'em up. :>)
Seriously:
Veterans are currently required to obtain medical insurance (or otherwise pay-on a means-tested sliding scale) for treatment of non service-connected ailments, but, obviously, not for service-connected, until now. I've not been able so far to find any specifics on the issue, but will keep looking and post them when I do. I would say that for most vets it would be a moot point, as few of us go to the VA exclusively for our service-connected treatment, so we are already paying for other treatments with private insurance.
And on that point, your observation about the article sub-head is correct, as noted in the article itself, Obama is not proposing an actual cash payment (though I wonder what would happen to a vet who requires eligible treatment and doesn't have insurance?).
One of the cited articles also mentions the possibility that Medicare would be used in lieu of requiring private insurance, which idea, naturally enough, the VSO reps indicated they would not oppose, but which is likely to exacerbate the financial problems of the already overburdened Medicare system.
Mr. President, just drop it, already!
8 - Cindy
Great article Clav! It makes me mad...especially right after the AIG execs walk away with free money.
I don't get what the difference is between Medicare funding and VA funding? One is directly funded through federal income tax(?) and the other is funded through payroll tax?
So, if people didn't have private insurance and just used medicare instead--or whatever the set-up is--isn't that just like creating a whole bunch of paperwork and needless shuffling of information that just results in the same thing?
9 - Clavos
Dan,
It may take some time to get more information regarding your questions; as this article, just published by CNSNews indicates:
10 - Dr Dreadful
It won't fly. Somebody didn't think this one through.
11 - M (a) ® k
I guess that this is just more of Obama's attempt to prove that he's not a socialist.
12 - Christopher Rose
Did I miss something? Obama hasn't decided anything and yet he is still doing something shameful? And this potential policy shift has been under discussion for longer than he has been in office? Is that it?
If so, I can only hope the author's navigational skills are better in real storms than the one in this teacup!
13 - Clavos
Yes, Chris, even merely considering such a move is shameful, and an abrogation of the nation's debt to its veterans; not to mention an incredibly stupid gaffe from a political standpoint.
And although the idea was first put on the table during the Clinton administration, it rightfully died aborning back then. The Obama people have just revived it.
This may be a small issue to you, but to those of us who have actually shed blood and require treatment, it is not, especially when it would reverse a venerable policy.
My navigation skills are excellent, thank you.
14 - zingzing
what was that veteran's hospital in dc a couple of years back? oh yeah, walter reed... "proud history," my ass. we've been fucking over veterans for centuries, and we will continue to do so well into the future.
obviously, this isn't a good thing--IF obama actually does it. right now, considering all options for saving money IS a good thing. let the veterans get a little mud on their face. they're men. they can take more than a mild slapping. right?
but don't act like this is the first, or the worst, bad thing the government has ever done to veterans. shame.
15 - Clavos
except, zing, walter reed isn't a va hospital; it belongs to, and is run by the us army. the va's history is a 'proud' one of service to vets.
considering all options for saving money IS a good thing. let the veterans get a little mud on their face. they're men. they can take more than a mild slapping. right?
if saving money is a good thing, let's save money by not giving it to all those moribund banks and auto mfrs. we'll save a lot more than a paltry $540 mil, and won't be breaking any promises made to people who actually have done something for the country.
but don't act like this is the first, or the worst, bad thing the government has ever done to veterans.
show me where i said it was the first.
but you're right, since we've fucked veterans before, it doesn't matter, and we're off the hook, so let's fuck 'em again.
what an ass...
16 - M (a) ® k
right now, considering all options for saving money IS a good thing.
You're being sardonic, right?
17 - zingzing
"except, zing, walter reed isn't a va hospital; it belongs to, and is run by the us army. the va's history is a 'proud' one of service to vets."
gov't is gov't is gov't is gov't.
"show me where i said it was the first."
show me where i said "said."
"we'll save a lot more than a paltry $540 mil, and won't be breaking any promises made to people who actually have done something for the country."
true. but we haven't even saved $540 million yet. you really think it'll fly? neither do i. we're also considering cutting education. you think that will fly? you bet. and those kids haven't done a damn thing to this country. so why we want to fuck them over? the answer is that no one WANTS to fuck over veterans and children.
"what an ass..."
at least i'm not falling into quoting fox news. so i haven't even begun to plumb the depths of my ass... oh, that's gross.
m, parenthesis, a, close parenthesis, registered trademark, k: "You're being sardonic, right?"
not really. not on a larger scale. i wouldn't agree this is where we need to save the money, but i'd have to say the same thing about educational cuts and a host of other considerations we're making right now. but i would say that THINKING about all our options is a good thing.
18 - Dan(Miller)
Clav, #9
Yep. And, if they have even a modicum of good sense, there will be no more about it. Unlike some recent legislation, perhaps if it does eventually surface in the Congress, there will be some discussion of the exact proposal. It would, however, be easy to stick it in an unrelated bill (subsidies for
Acornwheat growers, perhaps) where it would be difficult to find unless one were to know that it's there.Zingzing, true, the Obama administration can run any idea it wishes up the flagpole; some might even salute. Forced abortions for mothers with more than two children, compulsory euthanasia for folks over sixty, mandatory public service in CCC camps for everyone over eight years of age, etc. These things would be pretty ill advised even to suggest, but then President Obama won, and I guess he will act in accordance with his own lights.
I am very skeptical that the Screw the Vets idea would save anyone any money; it would just shift the costs out of the public sector and into the private sector. Not a bad idea for press conferences on the budget though, unless someone digs a bit.
Dan(Miller)
19 - Dr Dreadful
Good point that it's not a done deal. I give credit to the President for at least being honest about it while faced with a room full of angry folks who Know How To Use Things That Go Bang.
Another thing: sure $540 mil won't make much of a dent in the deficit and there is an excellent case for not clobbering vets; but there are no doubt a host of other programs/special interests in danger of having the federal rug pulled from under them, each of which is in itself a drop in the ocean and each of which has a compelling argument for continued funding.
Collect enough drops and you will have yourself an ocean.
20 - zingzing
dan: "Forced abortions for mothers with more than two children, compulsory euthanasia for folks over sixty, mandatory public service in CCC camps for everyone over eight years of age, etc. "
how's that for "sardonic," mark?
either way, which do you think is the more important "slap" to the american people? $540 mil to the veterans? or our nation's future (educational cuts)? let's have some perspective here. NOTHING IS SACRED at this point. and nothing has been for a long time.
21 - м @ ® ĸ
It's well known that sardonicism is Dan's middle name.
22 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, having read the CNN story you linked to in your article, I still think you are tea-cupping.
What would be shameful is not considering all possible ways of managing this system, that's what they're there for.
When this first blew up, it seems there was just the one proposal, the one you so plainly dislike. Now there are several to consider, which many might think was the point.
The central point seems to be that the insurance companies are getting a free ride and, if that is the case, trying to find some equitable way of re-balancing that isn't shameful, it's good business practice.
Given that there is also a proposal to increase the overall budget for vets considerably, your outrage is possibly just a tad disproportionate.
23 - Cindy
It seems it's always about the same thing--shifting
the care of peoples' real needs"the burden" around between the public and private sectors.I am tempted to leave the strike tag open.
24 - Clavos
false dichotomy, zing. it's not a case of either the vets or the kids, it's a case of either the vets or anything else.
so let's try a little either the vets or the execs of aig, fer instance.
some other possibilities:
vets or national endowment for the arts
vets or (uaw) auto workers
vets or studying why pigs smell
vets or congressional perks (pelosi's aircraft rides, e.g.)
i could spend the rest of the day listing choices that wouldn't harm kids in any way (btw, making vets' insurance companies pay could harm their kids as they reach their limits)
another specious argument, zing.
25 - Cindy
It appears they were too busy thinking about screwing little veteran people to have devoted sufficient time to thinking about how to prevent AIG using bailout money to reward execs.