Making vets pay for treatment

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Good thinking Obama!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/ ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.


Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.

A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.

"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.

How do these dipshits even THINK that is a valid approach?

[Zaelath]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

[Funkmasterr]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

My grandfathers both received benefits from being a veteran, including having their medications paid for and part/all of their rent at nursing homes paid for. I know there can be long waiting lists if they need to get into a nursing home that is covered 100% by their veterans benefits (when we looked for one of my grandfathers, the wait was a year or so), but that hardly reinforces the point you are trying to make.

More on topic, I don't like the idea of this. If we don't take care of our veterans, particularly those that have been injured in combat, what does that say about us as a country? And what incentive does that give for people to join?

[Ashur]

Honest transparent accounting with positive results requires clever creation of new forms of income/costs savings?

"A" for creativity, "F" for does not play well with others. Will never fly.

[Zaelath]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

My grandfathers both received benefits from being a veteran, including having their medications paid for and part/all of their rent at nursing homes paid for. I know there can be long waiting lists if they need to get into a nursing home that is covered 100% by their veterans benefits (when we looked for one of my grandfathers, the wait was a year or so), but that hardly reinforces the point you are trying to make.

More on topic, I don't like the idea of this. If we don't take care of our veterans, particularly those that have been injured in combat, what does that say about us as a country? And what incentive does that give for people to join?

Myopic doesn't even begin to cover it.

[Animalor]

It's an interesting way to do things though

1 - Float a rumor credible enough to make advocacy groups respond, that way the evening news has to run with it.

2 - Gauge public reaction

3 - Either confirm the rumor and run with the proposal or deny everything and leave things the way they are and move to your other cost-cutting ideas.

[Fairweather Pure]

Republicans suddenly pretending to care about veteran affairs is sickening considering their track record.

[Funkmasterr]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

My grandfathers both received benefits from being a veteran, including having their medications paid for and part/all of their rent at nursing homes paid for. I know there can be long waiting lists if they need to get into a nursing home that is covered 100% by their veterans benefits (when we looked for one of my grandfathers, the wait was a year or so), but that hardly reinforces the point you are trying to make.

More on topic, I don't like the idea of this. If we don't take care of our veterans, particularly those that have been injured in combat, what does that say about us as a country? And what incentive does that give for people to join?

Myopic doesn't even begin to cover it.

How so?

You made a simple statement saying that they are currently getting no treatment. I made a statement clearly stating an example of why you were wrong. Whether or not the treatment my grandfathers have got is some rare case isn't even relevant, cause one case is enough to prove you wrong.

However, I fail to believe that the relatively painless experience I've had with veterans benefits is somehow the exception to the rule. I'd be glad to listen to you if you could site evidence as to how I'm wrong, though.

[Zaelath]

It's an interesting way to do things though

1 - Float a rumor credible enough to make advocacy groups respond, that way the evening news has to run with it.

2 - Gauge public reaction

3 - Either confirm the rumor and run with the proposal or deny everything and leave things the way they are and move to your other cost-cutting ideas.

Yeah, our last Prime Minister was very effective with a similar tactic:
- Have a senior cabinet member propose a scheme
- if the public shouted it down, play the elder statesman that would never allow such a thing to happen
- if the public liked it, thank his minister for implementing his idea.

They ate that shit up for 12 years...

[Zaelath]

How so?

You made a simple statement saying that they are currently getting no treatment. I made a statement clearly stating an example of why you were wrong. Whether or not the treatment my grandfathers have got is some rare case isn't even relevant, cause one case is enough to prove you wrong.

However, I fail to believe that the relatively painless experience I've had with veterans benefits is somehow the exception to the rule. I'd be glad to listen to you if you could site evidence as to how I'm wrong, though.

Yes, I said all of them are getting no treatment, at all, ever. That's exactly what I said, so you only had to bring up one counter example to prove that ridiculous statement wrong....

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

What exactly DID you mean then you fucking retard? Oh...I forgot that all of your experience in being in US Veteran hospitals makes you an authority.

[Funkmasterr]

How so?

You made a simple statement saying that they are currently getting no treatment. I made a statement clearly stating an example of why you were wrong. Whether or not the treatment my grandfathers have got is some rare case isn't even relevant, cause one case is enough to prove you wrong.

However, I fail to believe that the relatively painless experience I've had with veterans benefits is somehow the exception to the rule. I'd be glad to listen to you if you could site evidence as to how I'm wrong, though.

Yes, I said all of them are getting no treatment, at all, ever. That's exactly what I said, so you only had to bring up one counter example to prove that ridiculous statement wrong....

Then what were you implying, the way you stated it it seemed pretty cut and dry. I'm not trying to be a dick, really, but if that's not what you meant then why not explain what I'm misinterpreting.

[*~*stragi*~*]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

quotin dis

[Spang]

Sometimes Presidents of the United States have bad ideas. I think George W. Bush had a couple. Unfortunately, his were implemented.

[Gzette]

terrible idea. i think you're right that thiis might even be dead before arrival (DBA?)

[Bagar-]

This won't go through, so discussing it is pretty moot. It's a dumb idea. What else is there to say? What I did find humorous was the following:

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

What exactly DID you mean then you fucking retard? Oh...I forgot that all of your experience in being in US Veteran hospitals makes you an authority.

No one on these forums is an authority on anything, with a few rare exceptions, so every time an argument is made and you try to shoot down people by saying they aren't an "authority" on the subject, it's pretty irrelevant. And then you get pissy when people imply you aren't exactly John Rambo in any thread that involves what a total badass you are with a pistol, and how you can hit a moving target at 75 yards with perfect accuracy, etc., so seriously, lay off of the pretentious "you're not an authority" bullshit, because it doesn't change the argument at hand whatsoever. If each of us had to be experienced in a particular field to give input on it, there would be no discussions on these forums at all.

Also, you guys shouldn't be so hostile to Funk. He's done a good job of not being a dick since his return, no need to be a preemptive dick to him .

[Zaelath]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

What exactly DID you mean then you fucking retard? Oh...I forgot that all of your experience in being in US Veteran hospitals makes you an authority.

I've heard the occasional horror story about the VA treating vets incredibly shabbily. There are other cases where the government has denied any responsibility at all for illness as byproduct of war, like Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndromes.

My frustration w/ Funk is that if he doesn't see any evidence of something locally then it doesn't happen; his grandpa, his famous speech on there not being an economic downturn, etc.

My frustration with you is that you're a petty, vindictive, little cunt that has anger management issues and a side order of redneck hillbilly which would skew any sense of justice you might have such that you shouldn't be allowed to run around with the means of disposing ultimate justice tucked under your jacket. Oh, and you resort to namecalling in the first instance then are just the kind of hypocritical cum stain to whine about people swearing and namecalling, fuckwit.

[Zaelath]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

quotin dis

Here's some advice for you Stragtard. If a sentence doesn't have every clause closed off, then it's not a closed statement and is subject to interpretation.

The amount of "them" is not defined, it could be "some", or "all", but not "none". Because certain cretins with poor comprehension choose to read words that aren't there, doesn't make them pop into existance.

[*~*stragi*~*]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

quotin dis

Here's some advice for you Stragtard. If a sentence doesn't have every clause closed off, then it's not a closed statement and is subject to interpretation.

The amount of "them" is not defined, it could be "some", or "all", but not "none". Because certain cretins with poor comprehension choose to read words that aren't there, doesn't make them pop into existance.

underlinin' dis

edit: addin sweet hotlinked image

[Zaelath]

Explain how these three things are the same:

some of them
all of them
none of them

Then perhaps you have a point. Otherwise, your lack of comprehension != me recanting.

[Nick]

Oh no the poor soldiers who murder innocent people aren't getting looked after. What a surprise. And what a shame.

(I'm so edgy, joking obviously)

[Winnow]

Nick whacks off at night repeating this line over and over while thinking of the U.S.

"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout Save Us! . . .and I'll look down and whisper, No."

[Funkmasterr]

This would be worse than them not getting any treatment at all under the current system, how exactly?

What exactly DID you mean then you fucking retard? Oh...I forgot that all of your experience in being in US Veteran hospitals makes you an authority.

I've heard the occasional horror story about the VA treating vets incredibly shabbily. There are other cases where the government has denied any responsibility at all for illness as byproduct of war, like Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndromes.

My frustration w/ Funk is that if he doesn't see any evidence of something locally then it doesn't happen; his grandpa, his famous speech on there not being an economic downturn, etc.

My frustration with you is that you're a petty, vindictive, little cunt that has anger management issues and a side order of redneck hillbilly which would skew any sense of justice you might have such that you shouldn't be allowed to run around with the means of disposing ultimate justice tucked under your jacket. Oh, and you resort to namecalling in the first instance then are just the kind of hypocritical cum stain to whine about people swearing and namecalling, fuckwit.

By no means was I claiming our current system is perfect and there aren't bad things that happen like you stated.

I felt you were making a all encompasing statement saying our system is a utter failure all or most of the time, and I don't feel that is the case.

Going by what you are saying now, you didn't mean it was a failure ALL of the time, but that's hard to discern, read your original statement again.

[Drasta]

This is a rumor that i hear... but dont some vets refuse to go to the VA because they are so shitty that they would be worse off when they left than when they got there?

[Gzette]

I'm told their PTSD programs (or lack thereof) are pretty terrible. dunno about anything else personally

[Drasta]

well today on CNN they were talking about over a 5 yr period a buncha vets at the VA might of gotten AIDS/hepatitis and crap from water back flow during a colonoscoipy... since were on the subject on the VA ...

[Gzette]

probably their fault for getting colonoscopies. y'know bad neighborhood and all

[Drasta]

lol are we seriously hijacking this thread and dragging that here?

[Cracc]

Whais it with american veneration of their army and soldiers, do you get the notion that they "fight to protect our freedomz no matter teh president in office" notion drilled into you at a young age? It seriously brings the roman republic of old into mind.

As i see it, someone should expect economical help from the state if the medical condition was contracted as a result of serving in the military, not otherwise, so this does sound a little stupid.

[Gzette]

Well the troops don't pick their battles, so yes they should be supported despite the leadership involved. It gets hazy when politicians try to use supporting the troops as a reason to support their foreign policy goals. That I do not agree with, and I find it insensitive and distracting.

I see you're from Sweden, so your opinions will be vastly different from us here in the U.S. My personal belief is that all people in health care should get the best medical attention available, despite their socioeconomic status, profession and insurance status. Others here (in America) wildly disagree. I'm willing to take the pay cut to ensure my medical coverage.

lol are we seriously hijacking this thread and dragging that here?

.

I think it will be awhile before you live the rape thread down.

[Fairweather Pure]

Unless it was a medical condition sustained during active duty, I wouldn't extend any extra benefits once a person is out of the military. In America, we pay for our health care.

[Raistin]

I'll let you know how it goes. So far my first appointment since being back, is for the middle of next month for blood tests. Seriously, 30 days to get a appointment for blood tests? Who knows when I can find out my disability for my 90% hearing loss in my left ear.

I can say all the people were very helpful and easy to work with. Even helped me on some stuff I didn't even know or ask for.

As for the PTSD or TBI tests. I was asked 4 questions for PTSD, and was told I am ok. TBI? Asked me if I hit my head or been blown up. Answered yes, and I was told I don't have TBI. Thank god!Of course this is just a pre-screen.So who knows what I encounter next time.

As for making our private heath care provider a pay for stuff. As combat vets, we get like a year of free health care. For injuries from combat, we are covered for 5 years,and you can get a waver if it goes on longer. I don't think we should get free health care all our lives. There are other ways we can get our money from Uncle Sam!

[Gzette]

Unless it was a medical condition sustained during active duty, I wouldn't extend any extra benefits once a person is out of the military. In America, we pay for our health care.

I mentioned post traumatic stress disorder earlier. that's a grey area to say the least. first of all, its an ongoing mental health issue that will affect a soldier for the rest of his or her life. Second, it's not as imperical as say, an amputated leg. where do you draw the line?

Just because that's how it is, doesn't mean it's right. the health care industry in the US is a bloated inflated fuck-all that doesnt work.

[Drasta]

Unless it was a medical condition sustained during active duty, I wouldn't extend any extra benefits once a person is out of the military. In America, we pay for our health care.

I mentioned post traumatic stress disorder earlier. that's a grey area to say the least. first of all, its an ongoing mental health issue that will affect a soldier for the rest of his or her life. Second, it's not as imperical as say, an amputated leg. where do you draw the line?

Just because that's how it is, doesn't mean it's right. the health care industry in the US is a bloated inflated fuck-all that doesnt work.

i agree with service related injury care given for free to vets ..... if you want free health care services because you have strep throat .. you should pay for it not the tax payer. ... and as for PTSD ... i dont think that should be covered either ... just physiological impairments, IE .. lost leg, metal in ur arm, lost a finger... had to get a new knee ... etc something that you can go, hey, my leg was blown off by a grenade.

[Raistin]

i agree with service related injury care given for free to vets ..... if you want free health care services because you have strep throat .. you should pay for it not the tax payer. ... and as for PTSD ... i dont think that should be covered either ... just physiological impairments, IE .. lost leg, metal in ur arm, lost a finger... had to get a new knee ... etc something that you can go, hey, my leg was blown off by a grenade.

Then you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Think PTSD isn't as bad as a blown off leg or finger? I would say it's 10 times worse. You can get over not having a leg. It saves money on socks for god sakes, but PTSD? A person can be fucked mentally the rest of their lives. They will never live a normal life, and not do the things that many people can do, with one leg. This is part of the stigma the Military is having a huge issue with. Only like 10% of the people will answer the questions,tests truthfully, compared tot he rest who think PTSD is for cowards. You have many, many people coming back from the wars fucked in the head. I have seen this first hand.

PTSD can have treatment that can help them. This should be covered to the day they die, till they go on a random slaughter fest, or whatever. It is a HUGE issue and it should be in the forefront with TBI. Think I am joking about random slaughter fests? Look up the murder counts around military bases pre-wars and after. It will scare you.

[Boogahz]

People refuse to acknowledge the severity of mental disorders because they cannot see the effects when they look at someone suffering from them.

[Dregor Thule]

I thought this thread was about veterinarians

[Gzette]

also, look at all the homeless vets. these people can't hold down jobs because they have been traumatized by their service. I've spoken with a few, and they are truly mentally ill. Commonplace things like not being able to watch the news, because they'll flash back, unable to be in a room with their back to a door, extremely agitated by large crowds. One guy couldn't even drive a car anymore because during his service he was driving a humvee that got hit by a roadside bomb.

Also, I should clarify what I said earlier. I do agree that people should pay for things like strep throat, etc. What I mean is at a reasonable cost. My GF, for example, was ill recently. she has no insurance and went to the doctor to get a diagnosis she couldve made herself (its a recurring ear problem for her) and get the antibiotics she knew she needed. the cost: $200 and then something like $50 for the pills. she's a student, so it made a nice dent in her funds. my job gives me insurance. that visit would've cost me approx $20 plus a $5 copay for the pills. you can't tell me I'm more deserving of health care on the cheap than she is. she's a way better person than i am.

it's a flawed system. I don;t understand how anyone can say that affordable healthcare is a privilege not a right.

[Ashur]

my job gives me insurance. that visit would've cost me approx $20 plus a $5 copay for the pills. you can't tell me I'm more deserving of health care on the cheap than she is. she's a way better person than i am.

Your employer gives you (or probably just subsidizes part of the cost of and you probably pay a hell of a lot more a month for it out of your paycheck than you are thinking of when you list this example) your insurance as part of your compensation. It's not a freebie that "society gave you". You earned it or paid for it. She's a student (who could probably buy insurance on her own or even through the school). It has nothing to do with your quality as a person. Poor analogy. -1

[Gzette]

my job gives me insurance. that visit would've cost me approx $20 plus a $5 copay for the pills. you can't tell me I'm more deserving of health care on the cheap than she is. she's a way better person than i am.

Your employer gives you (or probably just subsidizes part of the cost of and you probably pay a hell of a lot more a month for it out of your paycheck than you are thinking of when you list this example) your insurance as part of your compensation. It's not a freebie that "society gave you". You earned it or paid for it. She's a student (who could probably buy insurance on her own or even through the school). It has nothing to do with your quality as a person. Poor analogy. -1

no! negative internets! point taken though. i think i pay $25 a month, which I recognize as awesome. she could get insurance through school if she was a full-time student. she's not because she cant afford it. i've been told university's the plan is a waste of money (when i attended). she could get it through her work if she was full-time employee, which she isnt because she's a student. so she would have to get it independently, which is frakking expensive. the crux of my argument is that no one "earns" insurance just because they have a full time job with a company offering a health plan.

[Drasta]

my job gives me insurance. that visit would've cost me approx $20 plus a $5 copay for the pills. you can't tell me I'm more deserving of health care on the cheap than she is. she's a way better person than i am.

Your employer gives you (or probably just subsidizes part of the cost of and you probably pay a hell of a lot more a month for it out of your paycheck than you are thinking of when you list this example) your insurance as part of your compensation. It's not a freebie that "society gave you". You earned it or paid for it. She's a student (who could probably buy insurance on her own or even through the school). It has nothing to do with your quality as a person. Poor analogy. -1

no! negative internets! point taken though. i think i pay $25 a month, which I recognize as awesome. she could get insurance through school if she was a full-time student. she's not because she cant afford it. i've been told university's the plan is a waste of money (when i attended). she could get it through her work if she was full-time employee, which she isnt because she's a student. so she would have to get it independently, which is frakking expensive. the crux of my argument is that no one "earns" insurance just because they have a full time job with a company offering a health plan.

yea my schools health insurance thing is crap as well .. and really expensive ... its a waste of money .. i do think they need to do a socialized healthcare tho ... basically if you wrk, you have healthcare ... take out like i donno, i'd be happy with paying like 10% of my income for national health care

[Ashur]

the crux of my argument is that no one "earns" insurance just because they have a full time job with a company offering a health plan.

Then I don't understand your argument, because when insurance is provided or subsidized by your employer, it is the very definition of "earned" (i.e. you did work and it was part of your compensation). Try again?

Health Care is a commodity (well, technically an industry, but you see the point).
Insurance (the service that manages and covers excesses with Health Care) is also a commodity.

Insurance is something you can buy completely independent of healthcare expenses. i.e. You can pay the doctor in full every time (a la your girlfriend).

You claim you aren't more deserving of Insurance than her, but yet you do buy it. Someone (Your employer, hi!) is offering that commodity to you at that price as part of your compensation. There's no inherent "unfairness" in it. If she worked where you do, it's likely she would also have the opportunity to buy the insurance at that rate as well.

If your argument is that healthcare as a commodity/industry should be nationalized because it's a right and not a privilege, then state that. But your argument about earning insurance is a fallacy.

[Zaelath]

yea my schools health insurance thing is crap as well .. and really expensive ... its a waste of money .. i do think they need to do a socialized healthcare tho ... basically if you wrk, you have healthcare ... take out like i donno, i'd be happy with paying like 10% of my income for national health care

Our socialized medical here costs 1.5% of salary. 2.5% if you earn over $50k and don't bother to have any private insurance.

You still get better/faster treatment if you're privately insured, but being sewn up after an assult won't send you broke. Though the ride to the hospital still might (IIRC ambulances aren't free without some kinda of pension card).

[Gzette]

If your argument is that healthcare as a commodity/industry should be nationalized because it's a right and not a privilege, then state that. But your argument about earning insurance is a fallacy.

That is my argument. I should have said that people should not earn their healthcare. I'm not trying to argue how our health care system works, just that it doesn't work right. The whole reason I brought up my GF is that she is a hard working person that is by no means a member of the dregs of society some may feel do not deserve affordable health care based on merit alone. I feel we all should have a fair shot a affordable health care. Earning it is wrong. it should be a right. I don't care whether it's nationalized or heavily subsidized by the federal govnt. bottom line is taxpayers need to pay for it, and i am ok with that.

[Ashur]

Actually bringing up your girlfriend's merits only weakens your argument. She would be eligible for any number of student insurance programs I suspect.

Better if you would have brought up the homeless. If we don't have a plan for all, then the homeless remain (as they are today) a risk. Both to themselves (being turned away or not seeking needed healthcare because of no way to pay) and to medical institutions who are private and will not get reimbursed by anyone when Jane Doe the bag lady needs open heart surgery.

Don't get me wrong, I agree we don't have a perfect solution and while I mostly agree with your premise that healthcare is a right (I have some social Darwinist issues I'm still working through but I can see where good people get in bad situations), I can still sweat the details. The current system works for me because I'm one of the "lucky ones" (hah!) who can afford the ever increasing cost of health insurance for me and my family, but national health care that isn't insurance based will be something the US will have "fun" implementing, as the industry is private today and the government can't simply nationalize it.

If the plan is still insurance based, then the way it will be implemented will almost certainly fuck over everyone who can afford to buy it today, because I strongly suspect we'll be expected to pick up the tab for those that can't (hey, they'll get excepted from paying the taxes that will fund this due to income levels etc and the money has to come from somewhere....)

[Fairweather Pure]

If we don't have a plan for all, then the homeless remain (as they are today) a risk. Both to themselves (being turned away or not seeking needed healthcare because of no way to pay) and to medical institutions who are private and will not get reimbursed by anyone when Jane Doe the bag lady needs open heart surgery.

I said this in a previous thread, but I'll say it again.

Hospitals cannot turn people away for health care. It is against the law. The homeless man and the insured, working class citizen sitting next to him in the ER will get the exact same level of care. Every person in the US has access to health care. They just have to deal with the consequences of obtaining that treatment.

[Ashur]

Hospitals cannot turn people away for health care. It is against the law. The homeless man and the insured, working class citizen sitting next to him in the ER will get the exact same level of care. Every person in the US has access to health care. They just have to deal with the consequences of obtaining that treatment.

Reality calling. They do get turned away (or dumped on other hospitals sometimes) and they DON'T get the same treatment as the person who comes in with insurance. They get the minimum needed to get them the fuck out of there (a la "I think we'd like to keep you a day for observation"... I don't think so!).
Yes, it's illegal, but so's most marijuana use and you don't see that not happening. It's reality.

[Gzette]

if you read above Ashur we already talked about how expensive and shitty the student programs are. since it seems we largely agree, i don't see why you need to point out 'weaknesses' in my argument. but whatever, + internets to you

[Ashur]

fair enough