• 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

Audit: More bad accounting in veterans health care

Friday January 23, 2009 8:01 PM

By HOPE YEN


Associated Press Writer= WASHINGTON (AP) — Two years after a politically embarrassing $1 billion shortfall that imperiled veterans health care, the Veterans Affairs Department is still lowballing budget estimates to Congress to keep its spending down, government investigators say.

The report by the Government Accountability Office, set to be released later Friday, highlights the Bush administration's problems in planning for the treatment of veterans that President Barack Obama has pledged to fix. It found the VA's long-term budget plan for the rehabilitation of veterans in nursing homes, hospices and community centers to be flawed, failing to account for tens of thousands of patients and understating costs by millions of dollars.

In its strategic plan covering 2007 to 2013, the VA inflated the number of veterans it would treat at hospices and community centers based on a questionably low budget, the investigators concluded. At the same time, they said, the VA didn't account for roughly 25,000 — or nearly three-quarters — of its patients who receive treatment at nursing homes operated by the VA and state governments each year.

"VA's use, without explanation, of cost assumptions and a workload projection that appear unrealistic raises questions about both the reliability of VA's spending estimates and the extent to which VA is closing previously identified gaps in noninstitutional long-term care services," according to the 34-page draft report obtained by The Associated Press.

Lawmakers expressed anger, saying they will be watching for new VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to provide a more honest accounting.

"The problems at the VA have been caused by years of mismanagement and putting the bottom line above the needs of our veterans," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. "While we won't fix everything overnight, Secretary Shinseki has pledged honesty and accurate accounting which are key to realistic budgets and providing the services our veterans have earned."

The VA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In the report, the VA acknowledged problems in its plan for long-term care, which accounts annually for more than $4 billion, or 12 percent of its total health care spending. In many cases, officials told the GAO they put in lower estimates in order to be "conservative" in their appropriations requests to Congress and to "stay within anticipated budgetary constraints."

As to the 25,000 nursing home patients unaccounted for, the VA explained it was usual clinical practice to provide short-term care of 90 days or less following hospitalization in a VA medical center, such as for those who had a stroke, to ensure patients are medically stable. But the VA had chosen not to budget for them because the government is not legally required to provide the care except in serious cases.

The GAO noted the VA was in the process of putting together an updated strategic plan. Shinseki, a former Army chief of staff who was sworn in Wednesday as VA secretary, has promised to submit "credible and adequate" budget requests.

"VA supports GAO's overarching conclusion that the long-term care strategic planning and budgeting justification process should be clarified," wrote outgoing VA Secretary James Peake in a response dated Jan. 5. He said the department would put together an action plan within 60 days of the report's release.

The report comes amid an expected surge in demand from veterans for long-term rehabilitative and other care over the next several years. Roughly 40 percent of the veteran population is age 65 or older, compared to about 13 percent of the general population, with the number of elderly veterans expected to increase through 2014.

In 2005, the VA stunned Congress by suddenly announcing it faced a $1 billion shortfall after failing to take into account the additional cost of caring for veterans injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The admission, which came months after the department insisted it was operating within its means and did not need additional money, drew harsh criticism from both parties.

The GAO later determined the VA repeatedly miscalculated — if not deliberately misled taxpayers — with questionable methods used to justify Bush administration cuts to health care amid the burgeoning Iraq war. In Friday's report, the GAO said it had found similarly unrealistic assumptions and projections in the VA's more recent budget estimates submitted in August 2007.

According to latest GAO report, the VA is believed to have:

—Undercut its 2009 budget estimate for nursing home care by roughly $112 million. It noted the VA planned for $4 billion in spending, up $108 million from the previous year, based largely on a projected 2.5 percent increase in costs. But previously, the VA had actually seen an annual cost increase of 5.5 percent.

—Underestimated costs of care in noninstitutional settings such as hospices by up to $144 million. The VA assumed costs would not increase in 2009, even though in recent years the cost of providing a day of noninstitutional care increased by 19 percent.

—Overstated the amount of noninstitutional care. The VA projected a 38 percent increase in patient workload in 2009, partly in response to previous GAO and inspector general reports that found widespread gaps in services and urged greater use of the facilities. But for unknown reasons, veterans served in recent years actually decreased slightly, and the VA offered no explanation as to how it planned to get higher enrollment.
Guardian Newspaper Story

Seems there's more to the history of this story than simply saying Obama is trying to cut back on military spending at the cost of US Veterans..
 
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?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

No one is arguing against privatized insurance. That has nothing to do with this.

Veterans were promised health care for life. That was part of the deal. Esp. wounded vets have earned that. The gov't is supposed to take care of them! That the CIC would try to take that away is such a big betrayal, it's almost beyond belief. The gov't sent them out to fight for their country, to give up part of their lives for their country. In exchange the gov't was supposed to provide health care. You're aware of that, right? The vets can't get those years - or their health - back. Now after the fact he wants to yank that promised benefit? I can't find the words to describe how disgusted I am. My husband is a soldier and *part* of the reason we've put up with the low pay and frequent moves and separations is for the benefits. This is just a really, really horrible way to treat disabled veterans. No CIC has ever screwed over veterans like this before.
Why would anyone ever enlist again? This is one way to bring back the draft!

Dix, Hats off to your warrior and all his buddies.
These people are the best and deserve to be treated like gold.

Thanks to them all.
Can't be said enough.
:2usflag:

As for the Bolded section.
Marxists do not believe in the binding nature of contracts.
Look at AIG.
.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I commented about this on another thread a few days ago. Since many in the military are conservative, I suppose socialized medicine is OK only if it takes care of conservatives. There's a word for that...

hypocrite


What a load.
And a load of faulty thinking.
It certainly is not a partisan stance.
I do not care what party these people are.

But nice to see you reveal your true self.

I suppose you would have warriors negotiating medical coverage with private insurers.

They would have to pay the government/military for ambulance service on the battlefield, helicopter delivery, Triage, international travel... or perhaps they could let Iraqi Dr.'s work on our boys. That would lower premiums a little.

These people are fighting for their country.
It's a simple contract they enter into.
The serve to defend and protect, and they in turn receive care.

Does it really make sense for warriors to buy private medical insurance?
Duh.

In all the show me where socialism works discussions I said there was one instance it does.
The military.
Because people's lives are on the line... they are motivated like no other government run sector.
 
Last edited:
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

What a load.
And a load of faulty thinking.
It certainly is not a partisan stance.
I do not care what party these people are.

But nice to see you reveal your true self.

I suppose you would have warriors negotiating medical coverage with private insurers.

They would have to pay the government/military for ambulance service on the battlefield, helicopter delivery, Triage, international travel... or perhaps they could let Iraqi Dr.'s work on our boys. That would lower premiums a little.

These people are fighting for their country.
It's a simple contract they enter into.
The serve to defend and protect, and they in turn receive care.

Does it really make sense for warriors to buy private medical insurance?
Duh.

In all the show me where socialism works discussions I said there was one instance it does.
The military.
Because people's lives are on the line... they are motivated like no other government run sector.

Please try to read the entire post before go off on one of your silly tangents:

BTW, I strongly disagree with Obama doing this. Our military deserve better and should receive these benefits.

Next time, perhaps you will be a little more careful. :2razz:
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

If the legislations is on a go-forward basis, and does not include those already enlisted (and thus legally binded to what the original contract said they'd be entitled to), then I see no foul play. If you volunteer for the military, you are volunteering to potentially die. You know the risks.

Practically all of the recent American wars have been offensive and not defensive. The soldiers aren't protecting anything that justifies dishing out billions to their health care. Also, how many people enlist in the military just to get those benefits? The same goes for their education.

The military shouldn't be a free ride when everyone else has to pay out of pocket. And frankly, in these economic times, the military should not get half a trillion dollars in budget per year. I applaud Obama for seeking cut backs.





You are nuts. you are actually blaming the soldiers for your percieved view of the US and want to punish those who served by violating thier terms of contract?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I commented about this on another thread a few days ago. Since many in the military are conservative, I suppose socialized medicine is OK only if it takes care of conservatives. There's a word for that...

hypocrite


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.



[/SIZE]BTW, I strongly disagree with Obama doing this. Our military deserve better and should receive these benefits.


Good. I agree.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

This is ironic, so called conservatives arguing against privatized insurance.
As one of the people that griped about the way the Bush administration handled injured/disabled veterans, what do you think of The Obama's plan?
 
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.






Good. I agree.
Why would you be shocked? :shock:
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I commented about this on another thread a few days ago. Since many in the military are conservative, I suppose socialized medicine is OK only if it takes care of conservatives. There's a word for that...

hypocrite

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

Please try to read the entire post before go off on one of your silly tangents:



Next time, perhaps you will be a little more careful. :2razz:

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

I don't think you understand. As much as I disagree with Bush's invasion of Iraq I think every soldier their injured in war should have health care.
So, you think The Obama's plan to have the soldiers pay for their treatment themselves is pretty crappy.
Right?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

The U.S. is the only developed nation that has socialized health care for its soldiers but not for its own people.
The health care for the soldiers isn't 'socailized health care', unless you want to change the meaning of that term away from what it is to what it isn't.

When you have to change the definition of the basic terms of an argument to make that argument sound, it's pretty good sign that you -know- you really dont have a leg to stand on.

And as for the US not having socialized medicine for its people in general... I thank God for this, every day.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I commented about this on another thread a few days ago. Since many in the military are conservative, I suppose socialized medicine is OK only if it takes care of conservatives. There's a word for that...

hypocrite

BTW, I strongly disagree with Obama doing this. Our military deserve better and should receive these benefits.

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

There is a very good reason the government has to insure wounded veterans, and cannot ask them to get private insurance. The private market is not going to provide any coverage. What free market enterprise can offer the coverage necessary to treat guys missing 6 feet of intestine, at an affordable premium? There is a reason that free market insurance doesn't want to cover pre-existing conditions like these. They cannot charge premiums to cover the costs. Or rather they could, but nobody could afford the premium levels.

I'm not someone who likes being taxed that much, but among the few things I am absolutley be willing to pay taxes for, is for a strong robust military, care for its servicemen while active, and those wounded in the line of duty. These people actually make a difference, and are amongst the very few in our generation that make any kind of sacrifice these days, and the world is a better place because of them. You all supported my health via taxes when I was in the military, and I am proud to support other military members as well with the taxes I pay.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

No one is arguing against privatized insurance. That has nothing to do with this.

Veterans were promised health care for life. That was part of the deal. Esp. wounded vets have earned that. The gov't is supposed to take care of them! That the CIC would try to take that away is such a big betrayal, it's almost beyond belief. The gov't sent them out to fight for their country, to give up part of their lives for their country. In exchange the gov't was supposed to provide health care. You're aware of that, right? The vets can't get those years - or their health - back. Now after the fact he wants to yank that promised benefit? I can't find the words to describe how disgusted I am. My husband is a soldier and *part* of the reason we've put up with the low pay and frequent moves and separations is for the benefits. This is just a really, really horrible way to treat disabled veterans. No CIC has ever screwed over veterans like this before.
Why would anyone ever enlist again? This is one way to bring back the draft!

You all are ignoring the fact that VA medical centers are overwhelmed due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been forced to rank veterans and NOT allow some veterans treatment at VA facilities as a result of the influx of new patients. VA gets multiple complaints about how long it takes for veterans to be treated at VA facilities. I would think this would assist veterans in getting more prompt treatment.

Am I missing something? I don't see where this plan will charge veterans for the treatment they receive for service-connected disabilities from non-VA facilities.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

You all are ignoring the fact that VA medical centers are overwhelmed due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Irrelevant to the the issue.

You should be outraged that The Obama wants veterans to pay for their wounds with their own insurance.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Irrelevant to the the issue.

You should be outraged that The Obama wants veterans to pay for their wounds with their own insurance.

Please tell me how this plan would make them pay for their wounds.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Am I missing something? I don't see where this plan will charge veterans for the treatment they receive for service-connected disabilities from non-VA facilities.

I don't have the specifics of what Obama proposed in front of me, but this is via the other thread that was started about this a while ago. A quote from a CNN piece on this...

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.

So I am guessing that Obama's plan would be that veterans who have a private insurance policy, would be charged by the VA for service-related injuries, in much the same manner they are charged when they use the VA hospitals for non-service related matters.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I don't have the specifics of what Obama proposed in front of me, but this is via the other thread that was started about this a while ago. A quote from a CNN piece on this...



So I am guessing that Obama's plan would be that veterans who have a private insurance policy, would be charged by the VA for service-related injuries, in much the same manner they are charged when they use the VA hospitals for non-service related matters.

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

The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

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.
 
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?
Strawman.
No one never said the veteran was billed.
The veterans' insurance is billed; the veteran pays for his insurance.
Thus, the veteran is paying for his own treatment.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

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.
Of course it will. Higher risk = higher premium.
 
Back
Top Bottom