Obama Shows His Didain for Those Who Protect Our Freedoms!

[SUPDOG]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/17/vets-group-blasts-obama-plan-private-insurance-pay-service-related-health-care/

President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care.

Calling it a "desperate search for money at any cost," Craig Roberts, media relations manager for the American Legion, told FOXNews.com on Tuesday that the president will "wish away so much political capital on this issue" if he continues to insist on private coverage for service-related injuries.

Cmdr. David K. Rehbein of the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group, called the president's plan to raise $540 million from private insurers unreasonable, unworkable and immoral.

"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," Rehbein said late Monday after a meeting with the president and administration officials at the Veterans Affairs Department.


Disgusting exuse for a president. Good job voting him in libs. :mad:

Just like I told you.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I read the article and I am still a little confused.

From the article under the current system if I am a vet and I get injured in combat I can get treated and the government will pick up the tab. It wasn't clear but there seems to be no co-pay or premium involved here. I just go to the doctor's office/hospital and present some form of ID and it is directly billed to the government. First of all is that correct?

Under the proposed change what will happen differently. Will a vet have to pay upfront or will he be out of pocker more money? From the article it alluded to the fact that vets will have to pay money but I am not sure how or why.

Sorry I am not conversant on the vet heath care system. If someone knows how the system works can they clear some of this up. Thanks...

-TS

edit: If the cost is the same to the vet under both system is the issue just that the government is pushing the cost to a private insurance company?

[Milwaukee]

Sup, your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.

[theanalogkid]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/17/vets-group-blasts-obama-plan-private-insurance-pay-service-related-health-care/

President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care.

Calling it a "desperate search for money at any cost," Craig Roberts, media relations manager for the American Legion, told FOXNews.com on Tuesday that the president will "wish away so much political capital on this issue" if he continues to insist on private coverage for service-related injuries.

Cmdr. David K. Rehbein of the American Legion, the nation's largest veterans group, called the president's plan to raise $540 million from private insurers unreasonable, unworkable and immoral.

"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," Rehbein said late Monday after a meeting with the president and administration officials at the Veterans Affairs Department.


Disgusting exuse for a president. Good job voting him in libs. :mad:

Just like I told you.

Huh? Why didn't you criticize President Bush for slashing veterans benefits when he was doing it? Why the hypocrisy, Sup?

[SUPDOG]

Huh? Why didn't you criticize President Bush for slashing veterans benefits when he was doing it? Why the hypocrisy, Sup?


Do you approve?

I don't remember this "slashing" that you are babbling about.

Anyway.....

Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut
February 18, 2004
Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.
Summary
In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.”
It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.

Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

Analysis
Funding for veterans benefits has accelerated in the Bush administration, as seen in the following table.


Anyway, to compare any minor cuts that may have or have not taking place under Bush to this is laughable.

How are you not outraged at Obama even considering such an action?


The reality is twofold:

1.Obama hates the military (much like Bill Ayers) and wants to discourage people from signing up. Who would want to pay for their own medical bills after getting maimed?

How does this not outrage you again?

2. After the public sector can't/ won't pay for the medical bills of veterans, what shall we do?

Huh?

Socialized health care to the rescue? Yay!

All this for free video games for the left!!!

[SUPDOG]

Sup, your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.

I was hoping you would have awakened from your 9/11 fantasy, but I saw the other thread.

I don't care to entertain the comments of people who are so incredibly clueless, so I will ignore your comment.

I thought you would have been outraged, but Obamaism has no dignity found within. :(

[Milwaukee]

I was hoping you would have awakened from your 9/11 fantasy, but I saw the other thread.

I don't care to entertain the comments of people who are so incredibly clueless, so I will ignore your comment.

I thought you would have been outraged, but Obamaism has no dignity found within. :(

I know I open myself up to criticism when I say that stuff. I would guess maybe.....1% of the forum would openly admit they believe the 'inside job' stuff. I don't care....I'll keep asking questions. Do you have an answer to my question in that thread? I have alot more :)

[resnor]

LOL

So, the new buzz word is to call someone a hypocrite, as if that invalidates somehow the point? As Sup pointed out, Bush didn't slash veteran's benefits...but, even if he had, would that in any way, shape, or form make it ok for Obama to do it? Of course not. You guys really need to quit making sweet Obama love, and realize what he is: someone who is in way over his head, and has no idea what to do.

[Gtrght77]

There are going to be a lot of benifits cut in a lot of different areas. Nobody is making sweet obama love but it gets old to have a new thread posted about nothing every 10 minutes. Its not like he has watched a city get destroyed or been president during the worst terror attack in US history.


Bush screwed up for 8 years and you (SUp and Res) never disagreed with anything he really did no matter how stupid it was. Now that Obama is in its a thread a minute about how this and that are happening.

[Milwaukee]

I was trying to add to my previous post but I got booted lol. Anyway my point about Obama and Sup's hypocrisy is similar to AK's. Im not in anyway condoning Obama. Idk anything about the subject but Im sure Obama is wrong. He's a POTUS-they do 'wrong' all the time so I expect it. But how can someone be pissed at the privatizing of a soldiers health care, but is fine with the same soldier being sent to an unprovoked war? Plus, I don't even watch the news but I can remember random stories of soldiers getting ****ty health care after coming back from the middle east. I didn't see any "outraged" threads then. You can't turn away just b/c the person in office has an "R" next to their name, and all of a sudden be Dick Tracy when the R changes to a "D". It's hypocritical

[dannydufflebags]

ummm not so much

[SUPDOG]

I was trying to add to my previous post but I got booted lol. Anyway my point about Obama and Sup's hypocrisy is similar to AK's. Im not in anyway condoning Obama. Idk anything about the subject but Im sure Obama is wrong. He's a POTUS-they do 'wrong' all the time so I expect it. But how can someone be pissed at the privatizing of a soldiers health care, but is fine with the same soldier being sent to an unprovoked war? Plus, I don't even watch the news but I can remember random stories of soldiers getting ****ty health care after coming back from the middle east. I didn't see any "outraged" threads then. You can't turn away just b/c the person in office has an "R" next to their name, and all of a sudden be Dick Tracy when the R changes to a "D". It's hypocritical

Highlighted is your most valid point in years.

Go study loose change, it will likely do us all more good.

Obama is a snake, just like I told you.

[Milwaukee]

You're a lost cause.

[resnor]

Gtrght, it's not true that I agreed with everything Bush did. I was against his immigration thing, for instance. Just because I AGREE with the war in Iraq doesn't mean that I agreed with everything he wanted to do, or did do.

The problem is, if you didn't like GWB and his economic/fiscal policies, then you should REALLY not like Obama. GWB inherited a recession, and he also had 9/11 that affected the economy, and yet, with two wars, and some other stuff to deal with, he still didn't spend as much money in 8 years as Obama has spent in 57 DAYS. 57 DAYS.

Also, a couple soldiers getting crappy healthcare happens all the time...what Obama wants to do is much, much worse, and it will affect many more than a couple soldiers here and there who have some sort of issues.