http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_u...treatment/print

 

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

Mon Mar 16, 5:49 pm ET

To: POLITICAL EDITORS

Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell

 

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- 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."

 

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "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!"

 

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

 

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

 

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

 

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

 

SOURCE The American Legion

 

-0-

Here's how it can be interpreted: He wants universal healthcare, unless you're a soldier.

This story sounds fishy. I bet the VA will pay for the treatment and then the private insurance company will reimburse the VA. Find a more credible source and I will believe you.

This story sounds fishy. I bet the VA will pay for the treatment and then the private insurance company will reimburse the VA. Find a more credible source and I will believe you.

 

This is my interpretation of it... I saw this somewhere or something and thought that too.

This story sounds fishy. I bet the VA will pay for the treatment and then the private insurance company will reimburse the VA. Find a more credible source and I will believe you.

You find it. I believe the story is accurate and expect much of the mainstream media and much of the left to ignore it as it portrays Obama in a bad light and Obama comes first.

This story sounds fishy. I bet the VA will pay for the treatment and then the private insurance company will reimburse the VA. Find a more credible source and I will believe you.

 

What is the difference there? Who ultimately pays?

Here's how it can be interpreted: He wants universal healthcare, unless you're a soldier.

I'm not so sure about that.

As I see it, this seems to me to be an issue of who the primary payer is in a case where a veteran has private insurance as well as the VA insurance that they automatically have(for service related injuries). As far as the veteran is concerned, he/she wouldn't pay anything or be nickel and dimed. It means that the billing would go first through a private insurance company, and then the VA insurance would kick in to cover any deductibles or co-pays(if they extended beyond any deductible or co-pays a vet has through VA insurance, if any).

.

.

Seems like it would violate the standard "act of war" clause in most insurance contracts.

Also seems like the only real objectionable claim would be the point about eating into a policy maximum, but this could be tweaked with a change in the proposal. In any case, I don't see how this casts Obama in a bad light.

.

.

Really not sure if this is a good or bad proposal. I do think that the initial posted link is just one side of a more complicated issue. What we really need here is someone who's an expert on everything, and who also works in the medical billing or insurance field :whistle

That doesn't sound good.

This story sounds fishy. I bet the VA will pay for the treatment and then the private insurance company will reimburse the VA. Find a more credible source and I will believe you.

What's wrong with the source?

 

Anyway, I fully believe that the federal government needs to cut spending but this is the last place for the government to be doing it. Compensation for those that our country sends off to fight in our wars is perfectly sound.

Of course, I'm all for supporting our vets, and their families.

But doesn't this, on the face of it, go against libertarian principles, not to mention RP foreign policy.

Wouldn't it be libertarian to prefer the private sector solution as preferable or in this case primary to the public sector solution? Please learn me.

On foreign policy, the point would be moot if RP policy was in place. There never would be a wounded Iraq vet to begin with. He did vote against the war funding, didn't he?

I respect whatever your political or idealogical leanings may be. What does Ron Paul have to do with this, you're right, not much. It's just that you interject the libertarian stance on lots of threads, and for better or worse he's the face(sic) of the party, and you place yourself in a position of defending, or deflecting.

Here, I'm just giving you the chance to explain libertarian policy on health care and on this issue, and on a possible conflict, or maybe they agree with Obama. I don't know and I'm curious. And I don't expect you to agree 100% with their stance, I know I don't with any party. This may be an area where you disagree.

Obama wants the troops to pay for their own medical care through higher co-pays, higher deductibles and higher premiums while decreasing their overall coverage and because the troops have pretty much universal support (although a good chunk of the support from the left is feigned) I think his policy will be viewed as disrespectful to the troops and portrays him in a bad light.

Obama wants the troops to pay for their own medical care through higher co-pays, higher deductibles and higher premiums

I don't believe that's true. The VA coverage would be secondary to the private insurance and it would cover co-pays and deductibles. It wouldn't cost the veteran anything, and presumably, the care in the private market, would be better anyway. The proposal is to reduce goverment spending by shifting the primary cost from the public to the private sector.

It's in no way disrespectful. The veterans without private insurance would still receive the same care, at the same cost, that they receive now.

Either way, they're shelving the idea.

 

link

Either way, they're shelving the idea.

 

link

Someone at the Pentagon is going to get fired, book it.

Either way, they're shelving the idea.

 

link

Someone at the Pentagon is going to get fired, book it.

Why would Obama fire someone for a proposing something he (Obama) agreed with?

 

Can you explain?

 

You make so sense.