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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This will make you reach for your meds!!
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!
