So do people pay for this insurance out of pocket and then not use it?
In my case, when i was discharged, I was being seen at military facilities using only my retired ID card which is what we were promised at enlistment, and wasnt employed. My benefits had not come through with the VA at that time. I had to purchase TRICARE insurance in order to continue to be seen at the military facilities thanks to changes made to that policy back in 1991. Now that I have 40% disability it is just easier to use the military facilities than wait in line for hours to see a VA doctor. If you have any insurance as a retired veteran the military treatment facilities charge that insurance for your treatment. So much for taking care of your injured soldier philosophy.
Hal,
Actually I was asking about civilian insurance, not Tricare
"So do people pay for this insurance out of pocket and then not use it?"
Yes.
Also often have more than one coverage (ever been asked 'do you have other insurance?' - that's why).
Also often stay well and receive little medical care at all, certainly not to maximum level of coverage. In my case after retirement, I had company coverage and Tricare-Plus. And one annual physical every 3 or 4 years.
Look, one should sympathize with fellow veterans and encourage better access to health care for them/us. But with this sympathy should also go a desire to strengthen veterans health care and to broaden its resource base. That's what this proposal does, by invoking the coverage the veteran already has in place through 'civilian' insurance and using it to help defray the cost of the VA-provided care.
The problem here is labeling. Should have been called 'End The Free Ride For Insurers.'
George W: you said "But when you send someone into harms way, your obligation to that individual is total. And what you told that person as you were handing out the weapons and issuing the orders is a moral contract that should NEVER be breached, altered or canceled. For sure, there are people in harms way at this very moment. I care not only about how we treat them when they come home, but what they think at this very moment. We can never love them enough, and own them everything."
Good theory, but I'll quote the father of one of my fellow plankowners at CVB: "Talks cheap - it takes money to buy whisky."
Veterans health care is expensive, these are parlous times, and bringing in a new source of revenue for the system strengthens the moral contract you speak of. This is a good deal for veterans.
I agree with everything u say in your last two post Ducky...especially in your second post...But respectfully disagree on pumping more money into the VA administration....VA at this point cant find its collective BUTT with/without the aid of a working party. It is bloated with admistration/adminstrative people that cant spell Veteran....and sorely under staffed with quality health providers....we have all heard the horror stories. So lets quit worrying about a piddly butt 54million dollars and get the Vets that in most cases cant afford alternate health care, never mind the insurance premiums that it requires the quality health care they have earned and deserve...I for one again believe now is not the time to look at this and many other issuses associated with the Vets or the military....these 2 groups did not put the country in the fog/funk/soup that we're in .....but marched on smartly and continue to do so. I think the "new administration" should go after the financial greedy crooks, allow bloated companies to fail...thats the capitalism way ....when u clean up that mess and elimate the pork from "the stimulus" pkg come talk to me about the vets.....have a nice day all ....best regards tony
The VA provides the best and most cost-effective health care of any operation remotely near its size in the country. Here's an excellent discussion in one of my favorite magazines: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html
Walter Reed was a debacle in 2004, no question, but so were many other Federal programs under the Bush administration (and how well did that last bunch regulate Wall Street? How was their Katrina response? Haven't we done well in Iraq? Climate change? International relations?). And Walter Reed is fixed now.
I agree that we're all gonna hafta suck it up these days, but the points above about need for sound VA coverage for veterans are well taken and hard to argue against, especially when we're talking about sweeping up moneys already on the table.
Rubber Ducky,
Although I agree with some of your views regarding the insurance issue your recent posts lead me to believe you are wearing the same glasses the media is wearing. There is plenty of blame to go around in Washington but sooner or later this administration will have to stop blaming everything on the last. I hope they keep their eye on the ball when it comes to our veterans.
jbrooks
Must make a correction: Walter Reed isn't a VA operation and should not have been used by me above in commenting on past VA issues.
Walter Reed is owned and operated by the US Army and its shocking state earlier this decade is example of the Army abusing its own. Aside the deplorable living conditions in some of the facilities, Walter Reed (and the Army care system in general) had huge problems in transferring patient information to the VA upon a soldier's discharge, leaving many trapped between the two systems and having to spend inordinate time and effort to move to VA care.
If I'm hearing the news right the insurnce companies will will be picking up the tab. Will our premiums be
going up? So whos paying?
Having worked at a VA Hospital in cost recovery dept. under current law the VA does charge the veterans Insurance for as much as they can recover weather they are disabled or not. if 100% care is free. ANY VET. who can not afford health care can receive primary care, free or at a cost based on your income. Every year you are required to sumit a means test stating your imcome and expenses. If you don't live near a VA Hospital they will pay travel expenses (see link to chart).
Well hopefully this thread got some of you to write your congressmen and women. This was a great way to get some people riled up enough to do so and I know I fired off letters to my representatives as I do for anything that applies to VA or veterans rights. With the fact that Prsident Obama has decided (after major pressure) not to go through with this less than popular idea, is a perfect example of what pressure from the lawmakers and their constiuents can do. Please stay in touch with your representatives and talk loud and often to them when you see something that seems out of line with your thoughts. Chris, good job and glad to see you on here.
I thought I saw everything until I saw ELEPHANTS FLY!
It is so true! We went from President Bush to Obama and the difference is even more astounding than that of Reagan and Carter! I NEVER WOULD HAVE thought that I would ever see a time that our military people would be asked to pay for their medical services after being wounded in action fighting for their country! This is one way to lower the quotas (for recruiters) in the military services.
"I NEVER WOULD HAVE thought that I would ever see a time that our military people would be asked to pay for their medical services after being wounded in action fighting for their country! "
There is now and never was such a proposal. One can have opinions as desired, but facts are not optional and what you said ain't a fact. And BTW, the majority of VA patients are being treated for garden-variety ailments not a result of combat.
In an earlier life, I got to know a great number of veterans both individually and in their veterans organizations. Great folks, deserving of great respect, but also the unhealthiest group of individuals I have ever met.
So... I guess it would be fair to assume that those who cry loudly about veterans health care do take wonderful care of their own health: no smoking, drink in moderation, work out regularly, annual physicals, eat healthy. Or are you just spouting bar talk.
I thought that stream was about over..........but Rubber Ducky, let me clearly state that for me, this isn't about annual physicals, intoxication, smoking, or any other off-point tangents you want to take this.
My primary focus is the folks we send in harms way. If they come home with a mental or physical ailment or disability that was incurred while they were protecting my freedom, I think we owe them whatever treatment may be necessary. There should never be a question of who pays for it. They should not be saddled with mountains of forms to be filled out, and they should not have to deal with a third party insurance company (who will pass along the cost to all other policy holders). I don't know how I could state this any clearer. And I'm happy to hear that the President has backed off.
For the record, my physicals are current, I do not smoke, rarely drink, and am a 67 year old active veteran. Perhaps these attributes make my opinion more valuable, but I think not. And I do not engage in "bartalk" any more than I used to.
Bless you, George W. Now, if you have some way to operate a $650 billion health care system ... without forms or bureaucracy, well double bless you - you've discovered magic.
Maybe it's just me being a bit tired of all the veterans (and the sunshine patriots who've never served) carrying on as though those who did serve were beyond the normal economic and societal reach of our nation, saints as it were and beyond challenge. We served. We served the nation. It's just not the other way around and all this talk of 'moral responsibilities' and obligations beyond those in law is just so much blather.
The veterans benefits system is sound and the issue of wounded care and concern for families of injured service people has never had more attention. Could it be better? Perhaps in some perfect world, but doing well in this one.
I regret the administration backed off their proposal. It means fewer resources flowing to veterans health care and poorer care because of that.
Rubber Ducky, you say all this talk of moral responsibility and obligations is just so much blather, I can't help but wonder how you might feel, if you were suffering residual effects from a service induced injury, but the treatments promised to you, as a retiree, were suddenly no longer gratis. I think you might then see the other side of the issue more clearly.
You also say that "The veterans benefits system is sound". As one that is getting only periodic checkups, don't you think your perspective might be a little limited? Based upon that, I don't think you're really in a position to adequately judge the efficiency of the system.
The point is, as I see it, our vets were promised medical care for life, if retired or disabled, at no cost to them. There is no way in the world that I can support abandoning that obligation, whether it be for logistics, economics or politics!
I'm another vet that is very pleased that the administration backed off this idea. I'm embarrassed that they ever gave it serious thought to begin with.
"The point is, as I see it, our vets were promised medical care for life, if retired or disabled, at no cost to them."
And the VA provides that. Your point?
Way to go, Weller....just wait 'til Sabin hears about this.......
Amen! And good night.......
Come on Skip, don't be a buzzkill! A good political discussion that I didn't start for a change!
Something to be thankful for.....I don't have to depend on THIS government for anything, at least not yet.....
Best to all...
No, "Rubber Ducky," you still don't convince me that biiling private insurance for s/c care is the right thing to do. I know that if an s/c vet has insurance, he or she won't see the bill, and that if they have no insurance, they won't be billed directly. That isn't the point. It (to me) is morally reprehensible to let our government charge private entities for care that it (the Govt) is responsible for providing. Blow the VA budget argument. If they need more money, fund them directly. We can afford pork, we can afford bumping up the VA budget. The whole "VA needs the money" argument just doesn't hunt. Likewise, I'll give you a situation where this new billing idea could hurt the vet. What happens if the vet and spouse have insurance, and one or the other gets sick and uses it? Let's say the vet gets real ill, has multiple operations, and his or her insurance company is billed to the point where the insurance is capped. Most policies have a catostrophic cap in them, and they will not exceed it. Now who is going to pay for the non-vet's care? VA? Not likely. I don't think this scenario would play out in large numbers, but it would happen, particularly with the older vet families. No, I think our govt should be responsible completely for providing care related to a service connected disability. It is the right thing to do, despite all the rationalization you might try to throw at it. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, no matter how you dress it up. I also think this is a moot point, as the Administration had its ass handed to it when they broached the idea. I appreciate the Legion. They come through when needed!