• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Come on Rev.. 9/11 is the beginning of "asymmetric war" - Afghanistan was an invasion to get Al-Qaeda but it was not a war in the sense of the Afghans coming to storm the US.


:lol: "asymmetric warfare"..... What is the problem with rolling your enemy cause you are stronger?

Anyway..

AQ attacked us, hid in Afghanistan, the Taliban, the government in Afghanistan refused to give them up and therefore became a beligerant.

DEFENSIVE.




War by proxy yes - but "defensive???"


yes IMO defensive in nature, the spread of communism was a real threat. It is unfortunate we had to fight by proxy, though the other options were a far greater threat of destruction of all.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Come on Rev.. 9/11 is the beginning of "asymmetric war" - Afghanistan was an invasion to get Al-Qaeda but it was not a war in the sense of the Afghans coming to storm the US.
That doesnt make it any less a defenseive war.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

:lol: "asymmetric warfare"..... What is the problem with rolling your enemy cause you are stronger?

;)

AQ attacked us, hid in Afghanistan, the Taliban, the government in Afghanistan refused to give them up

Agree so far...

-- and therefore became a beligerant.

DEFENSIVE.

Nope, can't agree there. I'm not saying we were wrong to go in but "defensive" it wasn't.

:yes IMO defensive in nature, the spread of communism was a real threat. It is unfortunate we had to fight by proxy, though the other options were a far greater threat of destruction of all.

That is surely one of those "question of perspective" things again - just like "freedom fighter" and "terrorist". For the life of me I cannot agree that ideaological difference equates to the need to fight proxy wars on other people's land and call it "defensive."
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

That doesnt make it any less a defenseive war.

How so?
We're not talking right or wrong - just "offense / attacking war" or "defensive war."
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

How so?
We're not talking right or wrong - just "offense / attacking war" or "defensive war."
When you go to war to go after the people that attacked you, to stop them from atacking you again, you're fighting a defensive war.

Never mind that the entire offensive/defensive war argument is a red herring.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

When you go to war to go after the people that attacked you, to stop them from atacking you again, you're fighting a defensive war.

Never mind that the entire offensive/defensive war argument is a red herring.

Agreed it's a red herring - however that doesn't make your point valid. ;)

I just don't remember a declaration of war by Afghanistan on the US in the same way Japan did (dishonorably) after Pearl Harbour.

To me, asymmetric war broke all the traditional rules which is why no traditional name tags fitted anymore (like offensive / defensive etc)

OK - we'll stop beating the red herring.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I'm curious about how vets costs are paid for now - do vets have private insurance now already or are their (military injury) costs paid for by the Govt?

IF their costs are paid for by solely the Govt now then what is being discussed is a breach of the unwritten mandate to treat the war wounded on their return however if Private Insurance is already involved I can see the reason for going one way or the other.



I'm afraid your personal experiences aren't backed by any of the major independent studies comparing quality vs costs of healthcare.

True. But I was responding to a personal charge of hypocrisy and I don't know how to do that other than to give my personal experiences. lol
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Agreed it's a red herring - however that doesn't make your point valid
I just don't remember a declaration of war by Afghanistan on the US...
False premise.
There doesnt have to be a DoW in order for the war in Afghanistan (or anywhere else) to be defensive.

OK - we'll stop beating the red herring.
OK
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

But that's not what I read from the article posted in the OP, which states:



Thus, it looks like VA would seek reimbursement from the private insurance carrier--not the veteran. I think people are hypothesizing that somehow this will cause an increase in premiums for veterans.

Two things. One of which I believe was pointed out.

1. Increase in overall premiums by the carrier, because they are paying out for more claims and assuming more risk. Thats just how insurance works.

2. If a veteran has not met either his/her deductible or out of pocket maximums for their private insurance plan, they will have to pay out of pocket for treatment of injuries sustained while in service, which is a cost they normally do not have to incur. So, if for example, a friend of mine who ruptured disk in his back while in service, was normally healthy through the rest of the year but was using the VA hospital system for his back problem, under Obama's plan it would seem that my friend would now have to pay for the services that the VA provides, via his deductible/co-pay/out of pocket maximum that he has with his private insurer.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

True. But I was responding to a personal charge of hypocrisy and I don't know how to do that other than to give my personal experiences. lol


Thank you for explaining, however you do understand from another perspective (a non US perspective) where the words "National Health" has no political meaning as in the way the Americans have when healthcare is discussed. And yes, you are tight to defend yourself from a charge of hypocrisy if levelled against you.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I don't know what the other thread is but I can comment on this here.

FWIW:
My family is military and conservative and against socialized health care. I don't think we're being hypocrites.

You're not. The left doesn't understand that they're the biggest hypocrites around. The government providing care to the wounded and disabled it sent into battle is merely the contractual obligations it assumed when it enlisted those men. Nothing socialist about it, unless you're discussing the basic inadequacies and inefficiencies of government run health care.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Set aside all the partisan bickering and questions about socialized medicine v. the free market.

We can all agree that the military budget is more bloated than it should be, but if you're trying to cut $540m out of a $800b budget, does health care for wounded soldiers sound like the best place to start?

It does if you're a Democrat with a lifetime disdain for the military that protected your freedom to say the most ignorant and stupidest things imaginable.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Yes. See my post above. How does this equate to a finding that the veteran will be billed?

Where does it say the veteran will be re-imbursed?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

We need a separate thread to "discuss" this. :lol:

That might be fun.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Two things. One of which I believe was pointed out.

1. Increase in overall premiums by the carrier, because they are paying out for more claims and assuming more risk. Thats just how insurance works.

2. If a veteran has not met either his/her deductible or out of pocket maximums for their private insurance plan, they will have to pay out of pocket for treatment of injuries sustained while in service, which is a cost they normally do not have to incur. So, if for example, a friend of mine who ruptured disk in his back while in service, was normally healthy through the rest of the year but was using the VA hospital system for his back problem, under Obama's plan it would seem that my friend would now have to pay for the services that the VA provides, via his deductible/co-pay/out of pocket maximum that he has with his private insurer.

I hear you, Crippler. I just cannot fathom how this could be seen as an idea worth floating around. WTH? It makes no sense to me. :confused:

I genuinely don't believe for a minute that Obama doesn't respect our veterans--I just think he's being completely boneheaded about this.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

How is Afghanistan "defensive?"

Just in cased you weren't born then, Afghanistan attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

Or Vietnam?

Didn't say it was. Said it was "Democrat".

Or Korea?

Did they invade the US or attack the US like Japan did in WW2?

Look at a map of Asia some day. If you lack the ability to comprehend after seeing that, and don't understand the geopolitical issues of the day, don't come back, you're out of your league.

Did they invade the US or attack the US like Japan did in WW2?
And if you read what Orius said - he said "recent", not "all....."[/QUOTE]

The US is only 200 years old or so. All US wars are "recent".

Or...of course he said "recent". He didn't define "recent" so it means whatever he thinks it means....and it means whatever I want it to mean, when I respond.

Gee, if you restrict you view of American history to the last three major conflicts, the "majority" of them as "offensive". The United States is sooo evil, isn't it?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Do you think this might be a ploy to get rid of private health insurance?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I just don't remember a declaration of war by Afghanistan on the US in the same way Japan did (dishonorably) after Pearl Harbour.

The Japan issued their declaration of war to their US embassy prior to the initiation of hostilities. The incompetence of the Japanese embassy delayed the release of that declaration until well after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The government controlling Afghanistan was a muslim fanatic regime and thus lacked the civilized courtesy and the courage to announce their actions in advance or take responsiblity for them after.

Regardless, they initiated a war with the United States with their attack on September 11, 2001.


Let me guess, you're going to pretend to not know that Obama bin Laden was appointed Afghanistan's Commander-in-Chief in the months preceding Afghanistan's attack on the US, right?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Just in cased you weren't born then, Afghanistan attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

They did? Sorry, but you have your facts mixed up. Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The ONLY reason we attacked the Taliban, which were in power in Afghanistan, was because they would not turn over key members of Al-Qaeda wanted for 9/11 to the U.S.

Afghanistan didn't attack us on 9/11.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Do you think this might be a ploy to get rid of private health insurance?
It wont work.
Insurance comnpanies will simply stop insuring military personnel.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Talk about a hyper-partisan statement. jeesh captain, is this REALLY what you think?

the military offers health care to troops while serving and certain troops after separation. I have this health care, it was part of a contract I signed, and based on my service in the Gulf war.


I can use it now, I don't because I have means. but a country is honor bound to take care of its vets. this is not a conservative-liberal thing, this is an AMERICAN thing.....


I am shocked you of all people would make such a hyper-partisan comment.

Why would you be shocked? :shock:

Hmm. I was thinking 'deliberately inaaccurate, in a desperate attempt to make some inane partisan point'.

Taking care of wounded veterans and socailizing the health care industry arent realted topics -- so keep beating that straw, man.

I read it all, including your qualifier... which contradicts some of the previous statement.

Your qualifier doesn't negate all of your initial statement.
I commented on that section.

It's not hypocrisy, but coming from you that's expected. How is it hypocritical to say the country owes those it asks to put life and limb on the line each and everyday medical care as part of return for their sacrifice. You're attempting to make this political, it's never been and thus fully in line with conservative view points. But you have no real grasp of what a conservativism is all about, thus it's not a surprise you'd come to such a sadly considered conclusion.

It's always good to see some of our "conservative" contingent come out in such a unified front. It's also nice to see these folks get it wrong, as usual. Health care for veterans IS socialized health care, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not...and as I have said, our veterans, because of their military service, deserve these benefits. But of course, because of y'all's partisan blinders, y'all will divert, dodge, and skirt around the hypocrisy of your position. Now this could all be solved if your minds were a bit more flexible, and you recognized that in some situations, like heath care for veterans, socialized medical care is appropriate. Of course, that would be asking a bit much of y'all.

Now, supporting socialized health care for veterans does not mean one must support socialized health care for the rest of us. That is the beauty of not being hyperpartisan. Flexible thinking, the abililty to see shades of gray of issues, and the ability to recognize that different circumstances require different actions.

Now, say it with me: Health care for veterans IS socialized health care. And that's OK. And that doesn't mean others should have socialized health care. But it is hypocritical to rail against socialized health care, just because it's socialized...when veterans receive this benefit. Try to open your minds a bit and understand that it is possible that something good for one situation might not be good for another...and vice versa.

Your welcome. Any time I can assist in your understanding of the issue, I'll be happy to.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Health care for veterans IS socialized health care, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not
Only if you redefine the term away from its meaning in its common context.

Which means, of course, that you're arguing apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

The real story here, is why is this subject even being discussed?

Regardless of political affiliation, the folks in our armed services signed up, served our country, and are entitled to healthcare for free.

We should never turn our back on the veterans of our country, period. Their sacrifice should receive unanimous support from all Americans.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

It's always good to see some of our "conservative" contingent come out in such a unified front. It's also nice to see these folks get it wrong, as usual. Health care for veterans IS socialized health care, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not...and as I have said, our veterans, because of their military service, deserve these benefits. But of course, because of y'all's partisan blinders, y'all will divert, dodge, and skirt around the hypocrisy of your position. Now this could all be solved if your minds were a bit more flexible, and you recognized that in some situations, like heath care for veterans, socialized medical care is appropriate. Of course, that would be asking a bit much of y'all.

Now, supporting socialized health care for veterans does not mean one must support socialized health care for the rest of us. That is the beauty of not being hyperpartisan. Flexible thinking, the abililty to see shades of gray of issues, and the ability to recognize that different circumstances require different actions.

Now, say it with me: Health care for veterans IS socialized health care. And that's OK. And that doesn't mean others should have socialized health care. But it is hypocritical to rail against socialized health care, just because it's socialized...when veterans receive this benefit. Try to open your minds a bit and understand that it is possible that something good for one situation might not be good for another...and vice versa.

Your welcome. Any time I can assist in your understanding of the issue, I'll be happy to.

You are just as partisan as some of our more noisy leftist, you just couch your words better and claim you are not.

You are making a political score point by trying to say that military healthcare is "socialized" medicine and that conservatives are hypocrites by picking and choosing the socialized medicine that they support.

This is a disingenuous argument, but common for your posts. The country has to take care of those it sends in harms way. That's not socialized anything, that's honoring the debt owed those that serve.

Thus your entire "point" is negated before you can make it.
 
Back
Top Bottom