• 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

jallman said:
And everyone has access to join a branch of the military so, no, it's still a compensation and not an entitlement.
Click to expand...

Children can join the military? Seniors can join the military? The disabled can join the military? People with serious illness can join the military?

Your argument does not stand. Again, it is socialized health care but provided to only a select few.

jallman said:
In return for their service. So, no, still not an entitlement.
Click to expand...

What part of socialized is not sinking in? Yes, it's in return for their service, but it's paid for by everyone in the United States, including everyone who is not in the service. Why then are Americans paying for socialized health care that they themselves don't have access to?

It's one giant hypocrisy.

jallman said:
Yeah...I'm gonna have to go ahead and call bull**** on that one. The waiting periods to receive care in Canada are notorious.
Click to expand...

For who, and for which specialist?

If you have a serious complication that requires the immediate attention of a specialist, you are bumped to the front of the line. Those with the most need are seen first, and those who are simply inconvenienced can wait.

Even if you have private insurance, there is no such thing as a "private specialist" for you to bump yourself over to. All specialists are on the public system and are required to see everyone, regardless of their payment method. The only thing that determines the difference in wait is the priority assessment of patients. Your wait time will still be based on the level of need because there are only so many specialists in the country.

You clearly don't know Canada's health care system at all.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius said:
What part of socialized is not sinking in? Yes, it's in return for their service, but it's paid for by everyone in the United States, including everyone who is not in the service. Why then are Americans paying for socialized health care that they themselves don't have access to?

It's one giant hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Please, please, please go back and read what the military guys have said about this. It's been answered more than once.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

BulletWounD said:
Please, please, please go back and read what the military guys have said about this. It's been answered more than once.
Click to expand...

I did, and I don't agree.

I often hear from Conservatives regarding universal health care, and all they have to say is that they don't want to pay for other people's bad choices in life. Last time I checked, joining the military and perhaps getting shot, although noble, is still a choice. So why should socialized health care pay for it, and why shouldn't everyone be entitled to free health services?

Clearly it's a double standard. They are in favour of socialism for the military, and even corporate socialism as part of neo-liberalism, yet it kills them that civilians get socialized anything.

As I said... I am in favour of treating the military because they perform protective services, but I am not in favour of the double standard of treating the military but not the general public. Clearly socialized medicine is okay under certain circumstances in the U.S., so why not expand it further?
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius said:
I did, and I don't agree.

I often hear from Conservatives regarding universal health care, and all they have to say is that they don't want to pay for other people's bad choices in life. Last time I checked, joining the military and perhaps getting shot, although noble, is still a choice. So why should socialized health care pay for it, and why shouldn't everyone be entitled to free health services?

Clearly it's a double standard. They are in favour of socialism for the military, and even corporate socialism as part of neo-liberalism, yet it kills them that civilians get socialized anything.

As I said... I am in favour of treating the military because they perform protective services, but I am not in favour of the double standard of treating the military but not the general public. Clearly socialized medicine is okay under certain circumstances in the U.S., so why not expand it further?
Click to expand...

Yeah, socialized anything is okay if you're willing to give up your liberty, become dependent on government, deal with layers of complex bureaucracy, and get ****ty service. The left will never grasp the inextricable link between economic freedom and social freedom, will they?

jallman said:
You do realize that this is because they are considered the "property" of the United States government, right? That they have their rights severely restricted during the course of their service and that the government is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of its property.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

Edit: and by the way, I think this might be a good thing. I've been asking around and I haven't found anyone yet who would not be willing to sacrifice a bit of their paycheck to pay for wounded soldiers. We'll finally give them the service they deserve.
 
Last edited:
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius said:
I did, and I don't agree.

I often hear from Conservatives regarding universal health care, and all they have to say is that they don't want to pay for other people's bad choices in life. Last time I checked, joining the military and perhaps getting shot, although noble, is still a choice. So why should socialized health care pay for it, and why shouldn't everyone be entitled to free health services?

Clearly it's a double standard. They are in favour of socialism for the military, and even corporate socialism as part of neo-liberalism, yet it kills them that civilians get socialized anything.

As I said... I am in favour of treating the military because they perform protective services, but I am not in favour of the double standard of treating the military but not the general public. Clearly socialized medicine is okay under certain circumstances in the U.S., so why not expand it further?
Click to expand...


Conservatives typically don't want to see their standard of care go down.

I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that soldiers are providing a service for the gov't and are given benefits in return from the gov't. In that respect their health care resembles socialized medicine. And they do run into some of the problems that countries with socialized medicine face. But, and this is the important part, it is NOT the same as providing health care for all through major taxation. It's not a double standard because you haven't provided a service for the gov't that you haven't been compensated for! Seriously, socialized med for the US population in general is a separate topic. It has nothing to do with what Obama is trying to do to disabled vets. You keep paying lip service that that but then griping about how you haven't been given anything but you don't say what it is you are supposed to be getting something in return for? It is the duty of ALL Americans to provide for the common defense. That is what your tax money is going for. Health care is part of that. If you want to get rid of that because you don't think it is "fair" your taxes will probably stay the same, or more likely increase, because soldiers pay rates will have to go way up to cover their health insurance costs. Retention is an issue for our common defense, you know.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

jallman said:
I am nto disagreeing that it is run like socialized medicine. I just think certain people in this thread were acting as if the benefit wasn't earned instead of just given as a freebie, as in the case of the socialized medicine of europe and canada.
Click to expand...

Jallman gets it. That's because he can see shades of gray. ;)
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

MrVicchio said:
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.
Click to expand...

In bold. Classic hypocritical dodge. It's not socialized because it's honoring people who served. :rofl:rofl:rofl

I think I'm done here. That wasn't difficult at all.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Based on the backlash from the service organizations and the statements from the Chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, a plan like this would never pass muster. So it's dead.

However, I feel better about this suggestion now that I have a better understanding of how this works.

If a veteran goes to a private hospital for treatment and he/she has insurance, the private hospital bills the insurance company (even if the condition is a service-connected one).

If a non-service-connected veteran seeks treatment at VA and has insurance, VA bills the veteran's insurance company.

This proposal just expands when VA shall seek reimbursement from the insurance company. If the insurance company pays private hospitals, why not pay VA?

I definitely don't support this idea, but it makes more sense to me now.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...




1. Never said it wasn't "socialized medicine", What you did see, is build a mighty strawman by attacking conservatives with a hyper-partisan statement calling any as you put it "conservative" (in quotes) "hypocrites".


Why in quotes? btw? anyway, you continue attacking this strawman by claiming we are being hypocritical for stating that we support vet's benefits which is a rather superficial view of reality.

2. The Military by necessity is a communal society, where most everything is provided for you. We all accept this. It does not make us hypocrites, it makes us realists.


3. Careful what you wish for. My bet is that most leftists who crave socialized medicine wouldn't be willing to live in a society such as the military. ;)
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius said:
It can be spun any which way... you still volunteer to become property, no one is forcing you. You make the choice to sign the contract. But I understand that many would want to volunteer because they are impoverished, want to go to college, or want free health care. In peace time this is a dream come true for many people.
Click to expand...


The rich and middleclass are overrepresented in the armed forces, the poor are less represented.

Bottom line, it is still taxpayer money funding a soldier's healthcare. I don't agree with this given that the rest of taxpayers do not get this option.
Click to expand...


So its you who is demanding a "free ride", not the troops.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
1. Never said it wasn't "socialized medicine", What you did see, is build a mighty strawman by attacking conservatives with a hyper-partisan statement calling any as you put it "conservative" (in quotes) "hypocrites".


Why in quotes? btw? anyway, you continue attacking this strawman by claiming we are being hypocritical for stating that we support vet's benefits which is a rather superficial view of reality.
Click to expand...

I placed the word conservatives in quotes to denote some of our more "rabid" conservatives. And yes, rabid is also in quotes. These are folks who have difficulty seeing things without partisan blinders. I wanted to differentiate them from conservatives who can see shades of gray. There are quite a few of them on this site.

2. The Military by necessity is a communal society, where most everything is provided for you. We all accept this. It does not make us hypocrites, it makes us realists.
Click to expand...

Good to hear you say this. It is hypocritical to deny that medical care for veterans is socialized health care. Some "conservatives" do this because of their opposition to socialized health care, so they deny reality to stick to their partisan position. This is hypocrisy, and what I pointed out.


3. Careful what you wish for. My bet is that most leftists who crave socialized medicine wouldn't be willing to live in a society such as the military. ;)
Click to expand...

Firstly, I am not in favor of socialized medicine, or at least a total UHC. And I would agree that many lefties would be unwilling to live in a military like, communal society. And those "liberals" (note the quotes) that would support UHC, and at the same time refuse to look at military health care as an example, are also hypocrites. ;)
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius said:
Bottom line, it is still taxpayer money funding a soldier's healthcare. I don't agree with this given that the rest of taxpayers do not get this option.
Click to expand...

And guess what? I agree with the Reverend on this. If you serve your country's military, IMO, you deserve perks and rewards for doing a job, often a dangerous job, that many others of us would not do. One reason I have the utmost respect for the military and any one who serves or served is that I know I would not want to do that job. It's a tough job and if someone can spend their time protecting me, least I can do is support them. If I don't then I need to shut up, and put on a uniform myself.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

CaptainCourtesy said:
I placed the word conservatives in quotes to denote some of our more "rabid" conservatives. And yes, rabid is also in quotes. These are folks who have difficulty seeing things without partisan blinders. I wanted to differentiate them from conservatives who can see shades of gray. There are quite a few of them on this site.
Click to expand...


hmmm. you quoted me as one of them evil "conservatives". I think I have shown that indeed you were making a hyper-partisan strawman and attacking a position I never made.


Good to hear you say this. It is hypocritical to deny that medical care for veterans is socialized health care. Some "conservatives" do this because of their opposition to socialized health care, so they deny reality to stick to their partisan position. This is hypocrisy, and what I pointed out.
Click to expand...



incorrect. Please re-read you hyper-partisan statement:

CaptainCourtesy said:
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
Click to expand...


a rather black and white hyper-partisan statement. pure hackery. You called me a hypocrite, I served, I am a vet, I have va benefits, I support all troops getting va healthcare, not just conservatives. it is a contractual benefit. and your statement imo bordered "baiting"..... ;)



Firstly, I am not in favor of socialized medicine, or at least a total UHC. And I would agree that many lefties would be unwilling to live in a military like, communal society. And those "liberals" (note the quotes) that would support UHC, and at the same time refuse to look at military health care as an example, are also hypocrites. ;)
Click to expand...



how would they be hypocrits? do you have an example? I think you are trying to look non-partisan here, but your statment fails to deliver. perhaps you can explain old friend. ;)
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
hmmm. you quoted me as one of them evil "conservatives". I think I have shown that indeed you were making a hyper-partisan strawman and attacking a position I never made.

incorrect. Please re-read you hyper-partisan statement:

a rather black and white hyper-partisan statement. pure hackery. You called me a hypocrite, I served, I am a vet, I have va benefits, I support all troops getting va healthcare, not just conservatives. it is a contractual benefit. and your statement imo bordered "baiting"..... ;)


how would they be hypocrits? do you have an example? I think you are trying to look non-partisan here, but your statment fails to deliver. perhaps you can explain old friend. ;)
Click to expand...

Here's the thing Reverend. Conservatives tend to be more supportive of the military. I think a comment you made certainly alludes to this: "Careful what you wish for. My bet is that most leftists who crave socialized medicine wouldn't be willing to live in a society such as the military." If one were to scour DP, I'm certain we could find plenty of "conservatives" stating that liberals do not support/hate the military. And hell, I'm sure we could find some "liberals" that do. Conservatives tend to be more supportive of defense spending and of the military. So, my purpose for this was to weed out those who can see the reality of what I have discussed, and not take a purely hypocritical partisan stance on the issue. Why would someone support socialized medicine over a conservative issue, but not a liberal one?

So what did we discover. When confronted, some folks, including you, presented non-hypocritical positions. You recognize that military health care is socialized. You support it, not because it is a conservative issue, but because our military deserves this benefit. My accusation no longer applies to you, and I retract...to you. But look at the thread. We still have some who don't share your position. My accusation still applies to them. They are still being hypocritical.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

CaptainCourtesy said:
Here's the thing Reverend. Conservatives tend to be more supportive of the military. I think a comment you made certainly alludes to this: "Careful what you wish for. My bet is that most leftists who crave socialized medicine wouldn't be willing to live in a society such as the military." If one were to scour DP, I'm certain we could find plenty of "conservatives" stating that liberals do not support/hate the military. And hell, I'm sure we could find some "liberals" that do. Conservatives tend to be more supportive of defense spending and of the military. So, my purpose for this was to weed out those who can see the reality of what I have discussed, and not take a purely hypocritical partisan stance on the issue. Why would someone support socialized medicine over a conservative issue, but not a liberal one?

So what did we discover. When confronted, some folks, including you, presented non-hypocritical positions. You recognize that military health care is socialized. You support it, not because it is a conservative issue, but because our military deserves this benefit. My accusation no longer applies to you, and I retract...to you. But look at the thread. We still have some who don't share your position. My accusation still applies to them. They are still being hypocritical.
Click to expand...



Thank you for the clarification. I still believe though your initial statement was out of character for you and rather hyper-partisan.

Anyway, i do see the military as a socialized society, it has to be for readiness.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

I'm going to point something out that I doubt many people know. A veteran can be service connected for disabilities they would have incurred regardless of having been in the service. For example, if a woman gets a hysterectomy in service, she will be awarded service connection and will automatically receive a 50% rating (which is about $700/month tax free) even if she has no symptoms whatsoever from the removal of her uterus and the removal of the uterus had nothing to do with the performance of her duties. She will receive this money for the rest of her life.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

aps said:
I'm going to point something out that I doubt many people know. A veteran can be service connected for disabilities they would have incurred regardless of having been in the service. For example, if a woman gets a hysterectomy in service, she will be awarded service connection and will automatically receive a 50% rating (which is about $700/month tax free) even if she has no symptoms whatsoever from the removal of her uterus and the removal of the uterus had nothing to do with the performance of her duties. She will receive this money for the rest of her life.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's money she receives. When you get a disability ranking that is just a percentage of your retirement pay that is tax-free. I'm not sure if that's what you were saying or not. Just wanted to clarify.
 
Last edited:
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you said what you just said to my face I am afraid I would not be able to contain myself. After you regained consciousness Id knock you back out again.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

SgtRock said:
If you said what you just said to my face I am afraid I would not be able to contain myself. After you regained consciousness Id knock you back out again.
Click to expand...

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

Dix said:
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that soldiers are providing a service for the gov't and are given benefits in return from the gov't. In that respect their health care resembles socialized medicine. And they do run into some of the problems that countries with socialized medicine face. But, and this is the important part, it is NOT the same as providing health care for all through major taxation. It's not a double standard because you haven't provided a service for the gov't that you haven't been compensated for! Seriously, socialized med for the US population in general is a separate topic. It has nothing to do with what Obama is trying to do to disabled vets. You keep paying lip service that that but then griping about how you haven't been given anything but you don't say what it is you are supposed to be getting something in return for? It is the duty of ALL Americans to provide for the common defense. That is what your tax money is going for. Health care is part of that. If you want to get rid of that because you don't think it is "fair" your taxes will probably stay the same, or more likely increase, because soldiers pay rates will have to go way up to cover their health insurance costs. Retention is an issue for our common defense, you know.
Click to expand...

The first part makes sense and is a tangible argument that I can understand. Basically anyone who works for the government gets benefits, military or otherwise, so tax payer dollars cover the premiums. On these grounds, it makes sense that the military would get benefits, although I think the military gets even more than the average government worker. They also get post-service benefits that last a life time... no government worker gets that, unless maybe they got a nice retirement package as part of their contract.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

CaptainCourtesy said:
And guess what? I agree with the Reverend on this. If you serve your country's military, IMO, you deserve perks and rewards for doing a job, often a dangerous job, that many others of us would not do. One reason I have the utmost respect for the military and any one who serves or served is that I know I would not want to do that job. It's a tough job and if someone can spend their time protecting me, least I can do is support them. If I don't then I need to shut up, and put on a uniform myself.
Click to expand...

If you notice, I am not against soldier's receiving benefits... I have said I can agree with it. People view my comments as controversial because they think my core message is that the military should not get benefits at all.

My argument is two-fold...

One, I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy innate to the anti-UHC arguments created by Conservatives. Whether or not I agree with the military getting said benefits is not the issue, but rather it is clearly okay for socialized health care to exist in some instances. It's just a matter of who we think is more deserving, and that is subjective no matter what way you slice it. I just happen to fall on the side that thinks giving it to the military is okay.

Secondly, because I come from a nation that supports UHC, I think it is double standard to give it to the military but not to civilians who are in turn paying for military health care anyway. Clearly there is a system of standarized care that can exist in a financially abundant sector of the U.S. (the military), so why is it so unfathomable and controversial to expand this system to everyone else? Like I said, I understand giving it to the military and they should receive it, but on those grounds, so should everyone else.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

SgtRock said:
If you said what you just said to my face I am afraid I would not be able to contain myself. After you regained consciousness Id knock you back out again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh! :mrgreen:
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius said:
One, I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy innate to the anti-UHC arguments created by Conservatives. Whether or not I agree with the military getting said benefits is not the issue, but rather it is clearly okay for socialized health care to exist in some instances.
Click to expand...
What you (and others) continue to fail to see (or refuse to admit) is that health care for soldiers (or any other government employee) is NOT 'socialized medicine'. Its a benefit paid to employees by their employers as part of their job, rather than an entitlement owed to the citizenry in general, created by legislation.

And so, there is no 'conservative hypocricy' on this matter.
 
Re: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes

Orius said:
Also, how many people enlist in the military just to get those benefits? The same goes for their education.
Click to expand...
People in all walks of life join companies and/or the government to receive both education and healthcare.

The case for the military offering this has been well made.
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.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true Post 70's Lib.

These folks and those that came before them fought to preserve your freedoms and way of life.

The weapons systems and readiness are the cost of being free.

Military spending should be increased.
The Clintons claimed we could fight a two-front war.
We learned The Clintons left the military underfunded.

When we went to war the Libs SCREAMED we were over-extended.
They weren't called on the carpet to defend their handling of the military.
No, that was Bush's doing... he should have vehicles up-armored.
Had more body armor for the troops.
Should have had a bigger military.

For what the Screaming Meme's were screaming about, their own failure to pass on a 100% prepared military, we need to spend more and increase the size of the military.

There is Constitutional grounds for the military.
It's a large portion of what The Founders believed our taxes were for.
Self preservation. Military and its related services.

There are no Constitutional grounds for all the social spending/social engineering.
And there are hundreds of billions that could and should be slashed.
But Obama during the campaign could not name one program he would cut.
Not one.
And he hasn't.

By comparison, his expansion of government would Marlon Brando look like a microscopic spec of dust.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom