Do You Think It Is A Good Idea To Require Private Insurance Carriers To Reimburse The Dept Of Veterans Affairs For The

[colmcille]

treatment of troops injured in Service? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/17/vets-group-blasts-obama-plan-private-insurance-pay-service-related-health-care/

[Nerve]

LouLou - As you know - I promised myself I wouldn't criticize or praise the Obama Administration for at least his first six months - so I'll stay true to that.As for your question - I'm not sure I fully comprehend the connection . As I see it - Anyone working for "The Government" has their medical benefits covered by a "Government" medical plan. The "Government" is funded by us. We - everyday citizens - pay for all "Government" plans.Can someone please educate me? How do we - tax-paying citizens - benefit from either supporting the Dept of Veterans Affairs or Private Insurers handling medical benefits? As long as someone does a good job at it, and there's no extra cost to the family who's receiving the required benefit, what's the difference?I really am at a loss to see the point of arguing who takes care of the Vet, as long as it gets done, and it doesn't add to the burdens of the vet and/or his/her family. As long as someone covers any extra expense, I don't have problems with looking for alternatives, if the current conditions aren't working.

[torin7]

pattiann said: 2 Absolutely not. When these folks signed up to defend their country a promise was made to cover their medical needs for the rest of their lives. Now President Obama doesn't find that convenient. Why don't they cut AIG instead of our veterans. 58 months ago

[Torry]

gandg22 said: 3 LouLou - As you know - I promised myself I wouldn't criticize or praise the Obama Administration for at least his first six months - so I'll stay true to that.As for your question - I'm not sure I fully comprehend the connection . As I see it - Anyone working for "The Government" has their medical benefits covered by a "Government" medical plan. The "Government" is funded by us. We - everyday citizens - pay for all "Government" plans.Can someone please educate me? How do we - tax-paying citizens - benefit from either supporting the Dept of Veterans Affairs or Private Insurers handling medical benefits? As long as someone does a good job at it, and there's no extra cost to the family who's receiving the required benefit, what's the difference?I really am at a loss to see the point of arguing who takes care of the Vet, as long as it gets done, and it doesn't add to the burdens of the vet and/or his/her family. As long as someone covers any extra expense, I don't have problems with looking for alternatives, if the current conditions aren't working. 58 months ago

[Geomar]

Jaxk said: 1 Yet another scheme to bilk the public out of money so that Obama can spend it on his liberal programs. It seems this train will never end. 58 months ago

[Fercos]

TurboB said: 4 I want the soldiers coming home to get the best possible care available. It become clear a couple of years ago - when Walter Reed, the flagship of VA care, was uncovered to be a mold and fly infested hovel, with not only the paint coming off the walls, but the actual walls were falling in - that the VA was NOT offering the best care. It makes no difference what promises were made - it is in fulfilling those promises that this country dropped the ball.I agree with gang22 on this one. I don't see the difference who pays for their medical care. I find it rather sad that someone would object to taking care of people who put their lives on the line to keep us all safe, and, of course, blame it on Obama and the liberals. If it comes to money to get the health care and rehab our soldiers need, no one has to "bilk me" out of it. I will give it willingly. It's the least I can do. Of course, that's liberal commie leftest behavior - taking care of people who need it. 58 months ago

[Willis]

to do whatever is required for our troops. Now the Repugnants are gone, this should be standard procedure. Anything else, next war send politicians first?the the military.   I?ll bet Ya we can then find a reason?NOT?to have a war!

[Cony]

I want the soldiers coming home to get the best possible care available. It become clear a couple of years ago - when Walter Reed, the flagship of VA care, was uncovered to be a mold and fly infested hovel, with not only the paint coming off the walls, but the actual walls were falling in - that the VA was NOT offering the best care. It makes no difference what promises were made - it is in fulfilling those promises that this country dropped the ball.I agree with gang22 on this one. I don't see the difference who pays for their medical care. I find it rather sad that someone would object to taking care of people who put their lives on the line to keep us all safe, and, of course, blame it on Obama and the liberals. If it comes to money to get the health care and rehab our soldiers need, no one has to "bilk me" out of it. I will give it willingly. It's the least I can do. Of course, that's liberal commie leftest behavior - taking care of people who need it.

[Alvar]

Yet another scheme to bilk the public out of money so that Obama can spend it on his liberal programs. It seems this train will never end.

[Rikke]

We are obligated to do whatever is required for our troops. Now the Repugnants are gone, this should be standard procedure. Anything else, next war send politicians first?the the military.   I?ll bet Ya we can then find a reason?NOT?to have a war! Sources: rednecksputter(redneck phillosopher). read some. skep 58 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.