Reply With QuoteNow thats just messed up... How can they even think such a thing and worse trying to pass it?!
Senators slam Obama plan for wounded vets to use private insurance
Absofreakinglutely disgusting.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.
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.
Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.
"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."
Eleven of the most prominent veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea. In the letter sent last week to the president, the groups warned that the idea "is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government's moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much."
The groups included The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
At the time, a White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option was being considered.
Source
Now thats just messed up... How can they even think such a thing and worse trying to pass it?!
Might be a stalking horse. It gets slaughtered in the Committee, and the next (less insane) proposal gets passed, as it looks like a winner in comparison.
This was part of Obama's agenda which he spoke about but never went into too much detail. Universal Health Care isn't going to be cheap so expect them to cut more corners on different programs.
Its pretty darn sad that veterans are taking a hit on this issue. Still though, Obama is a political animal and might drop it if it gets too hot. Or at least wait and see till after the second election and then pick it up again (assuming he gets elected again).
Politics is like the newspaper, don't believe everything you read.
So, we're just supposed to ignore what the head of the VA says?Originally Posted by Carib
I'd have to read more specifics, but it sounds like it has the potential to create jobs for teachers or at least not force them to seek supplemental income in the summer months. Perhaps parents that work all year long wouldn't have to worry so much about day care. Kids would hopefully get a better education and have more time for organized / supervised activities.
Thank God I am a Senior this year....
First of all this "I heard this and that" is getting old.
Everyday in class this neo-tard makes new "I heard" claims.
Today it was, "I heard Obama is gonna take away all 401K and only give us 3% back"
Yeah... right.
Now... lets pretend he does do what you suggest...
So better educated children is a bad thing?
Less Nintendo time is unfair?
Please explain the downside to year round school.
My sister-in-law teaches at a year round school and it seems to work out for everyone. They go 9 weeks on and 3 weeks off. Students are learning at a consistant pace without a 3-4 month break of doing nothing and parents arent stuck trying to find something to do with their kids for that length of time.
Year round school?
I thought you were joking.
Children need to express their exploratory nature through play and imagination. I'm not saying they shouldn't go to school or shouldn't have a good education but year round school is the stupidest sh*t I have ever heard of.
These are kids we are talking about. Why wouldn't you want them to have a childhood?
Are they simply contracting out responsibility for the paperwork in utilizing the private insurers more? Does this mean the vet is actually footing the bill and not being compensated in other way?
Uh yeah it isnt 52 weeks a year. And there's after school and weekends to "be a kid"
The higher scoring children on planet earth... do year round schooling sir.
Higher scoring?
Statistics don't impress me. If that is all year round school is good for then for those who want these results from their own children, I am sure it is very convincing.
I am not sure that such an environment will help foster a well developed ability to operate outside of or within institutionalized settings that lack structure and demand a degree of self-discipline, motivation and independent thinking.
I think a defining feature in human beings is our deficiency in species specific specialization which in turn is our greatest strength, being instead endowed with a behavioural versatility.
I think that exploratory, latent modes of learning has helped us evolve out of instinctive motor patterns and innate releasing mechanisms (mechanisms which direct motor patterns towards specific stimuli.)
I think that our curiosity furthers our greater range of applicability of a wide range of behaviours and these are discovered through play.
I think it can't be understated that kids should to an extent be able to construct their significant environment through active interactions with the extraspecific environment- by doing so learning to adapt to a wide variety of conditions which I don't think can be replicated within the structure of the school.
The more you specialize one's early experimental, curiosity based learning the more you restrict the ability to adapt.
Maybe this is good for indoctrination or for brainwashing, but for helping young people develop their own autonomy outside of an institution as well as fostering the ability to adapt to new and differing circumstances I personally think that a child should have time away from institutions in order to develop these necessary attributes through the learning processes which are already instinctive and inherent.
All work and no play make Jack a dull boy.
Kid's need more time to be kids. Fvck the statistics.
They get the same amount of time off during the year. And who strives to be second best?
Posting Permissions
