Veterans Oppose Outsourcing VA Health Care Costs
Etched into the entrance of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is a phrase from President Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address: "To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan." With these words, President Lincoln pledged America's solemn obligation to care for the men and women who have honorably served this country.
It is disappointing that President Obama, a student of Lincoln, is considering a proposal that would allow the VA to bill a veteran's private insurance for the cost of caring for a service-connected injury. This is also surprising in light of the record increase in veterans' health care funding in the President's budget and repeated assurances during his campaign about making veterans a priority.
The VA now covers the full cost of medical injuries related to military service and bills third-party insurers for non-service related injuries. If a veteran goes to the VA to treat strep throat, for instance, his or her personal insurance is billed. However, if that individual suffers a Traumatic Brain Injury in Baghdad, the VA covers the cost of caring for this injury.
The notion that the VA may abdicate this responsibility to the men and women who have served in uniform has sparked outrage among veterans, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest organization representing VA workers. And with good reason. This proposal forsakes a sacred promise to our veterans, the promise that we will care for them in return for their service.
If enacted, this policy could result in disabled veterans facing higher premiums or losing private health insurance entirely. For the 1.8 million men and women like me who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, this idea is dead on arrival. The cost of war should not be shifted onto the backs of disabled veterans, who have already paid more than their fair share.
Small business owners, many of whom are disabled-veterans themselves, might not be able to keep pace with increased health care premiums for their employees. As these small business owners know all too well, the single biggest cost burden today is skyrocketing health care expenses. And as thousands of veterans return home to the toughest job market in decades, many potential employers would surely think twice about hiring a disabled veteran if they knew that the cost to pay employees' health care premiums would rise.
The Administration may defend a third-party billing proposal as a cost-saving mechanism. While we are all concerned about the economic difficulties the country is facing, we cannot allow our veterans to bear the brunt. They have already shouldered enough of a load; over 600,000 of them have served more than one combat tour, taking an emotional, economic, and physical toll on them and their families. If the President and the Office of Management and Budget want to cut costs, they should focus on Wall Street, not at the VA.
In the coming years, with the new surge of tens of thousands of veterans returning home, there could not be a more critical time to heed Lincoln's words and honor our men and women in uniform. This country founded the VA for the purpose of caring for those who served and sacrificed and we must ensure that it continues to fulfill that duty. Our nation cannot go back on its commitment to these warriors and their families.
Crossposted at IAVA.org.
UPDATE: Good news! The President has decided not to move forward with a third-party billing proposal. With this critical decision, the Administration upheld our sacred trust with America's veterans.
We're extremely encouraged by this news; the President is quickly proving himself to be a committed leader on veterans' issues. The record increases for VA health care in the President's budget and the First Lady's commitment to serving military families demonstrate their appreciation for the sacrifices our servicemembers and their families have made. With this issue resolved, we look forward to working with the Obama Administration on addressing the challenges facing new veterans, including timely implementation of the new GI Bill, homelessness, and the alarming rates of mental health injuries.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but most private group insurance excludes coverage for illness/injury resulting from war/military duty
Thank you Paul for treating our President with respect and stating your case in a positive manner without blame. I'm happy to see that President Obama has changed his mind.
Carol
this the official statement:
The President has consistently stated that he is committed to working with veterans on the details of the 2010 VA Budget Proposal. The President demonstrated his deep commitment to veterans by proposing the largest increase in the VA budget in 30 years and calling VSO and MSO leaders into the White House for an unprecedented meeting to discuss various aspects of the budget proposal. In considering the third party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans; however, the President listened to concerns raised by the VSOs that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families’ ability to access health care. Therefore, the President has instructed that its consideration be dropped. The President wants to continue a constructive partnership with the VSOs and MSOs and is grateful to those VSOs and MSOs who have worked in good faith with him on the budget proposal.
Mr. Reickoff I knew the president would listen to you and others who served. Following are you kind words about President Obama's reversal on third party billing. It was a bad idea and we finally have a president that listens to the people affected by his decisions.
"On the Administration’s decision not to move forward with the third party billing proposal:
“Today, the President made a critical decision that will positively impact veterans of all generations who rely on the VA for care. By deciding not to move forward with a third-party billing proposal, the Administration is upholding our sacred trust with America’s veterans. Veterans of all generations are celebrating this decision,” said IAVA Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff. “The President is quickly proving himself to be a committed leader on veterans’ issues. The record increases for VA health care in the President’s budget and the First Lady’s commitment to serving military families demonstrate their appreciation for the sacrifices our servicemembers and their families have made. With the third-party billing issue resolved, we look forward to working with the Administration on addressing the challenges facing new veterans, including timely implementation of the new GI Bill, homelessness, and the alarming rates of mental health injuries.”
http://iava.org/blog/iava-applauds-obama-administration%E2%80%99s-focus-veterans-issues
Obama has reconsidered --- The system in place now will remain the same!
I really can't find a lot of details about this proposal. If I give Obama the benefit of a doubt and try to come up with a scenario that would help me understand this proposal I can only come up with one thing. I've read that once a Veteran is in the VA system, he is well cared for, but that there are many Veterans who are stuck in the bureaucracy. Also, there were reports that bureaucrats were "encouraged" to slow the paper work or deny treatment for those with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There are reports of Veterans who committed suicide before they could get into the system. Ensuring that our Iraqi Veterans get into the system quickly and smoothly should be the top priority of this administration. Maybe somehow, this proposal was to be a shortcut for the returning Vets that aren't in the system to get quicker care. I can't imagine that anyone with an inkling about how insurance works would consider requiring service related illness or injury to potentially wreck a family's lifetime maximum health care insurance, so my guess was that for the Veteran, there would be no maximum on a service related injury. When I heard that Obama was speaking tonight I was sure that this would be the topic because it's too important to NOT mention.
JUST ANNOUNCED ON RACHEL MADDOW SHOW VIA MR RIECKHOFF WHO WROTE THIS ARTICLE (AND WAS ON RACHEL MADDOW LAST NIGHT TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE): PRESIDENT OBAMA IS DROPPING CONSIDERATION OF THIS POLICY
HE DOES LISTEN
Sorry for shouting, but this had to go out as soon as i heard.
But NO EXCUSE for having wanted to do this.
Where is the documentation on this? Where is the "proposal", any discussion, and subsequent rejection of the idea? The stories are all very vague.
When I heard about this from watching Keith Olberman on Countdown I emailed every single person I know plus every address I had for Obama and my senator and every other Congress person I could email to make sure the noise would be heard!! I work at Naval Medical Center San Diego which takes care of all military branches for sure in trauma and psych. I do not want anyone to have to suffer even more than they already are. As a Vet they deserve as good a care as they can get from us and that isn't happening now so by changing to privatizing how much worse can it get for these brave soldiers no longer active duty? Do we want more soldiers on out streets because it takes too long to get appointments or to be wrongly denied as they are now? Even with missing limbs our soldiers can be denied services if the paperwork is done wrong. These soldiers are just no longer active duty and are humans not dispensible people.
Here is your health care under Obama:
"What we saw in those eight weeks will haunt us for the rest of our lives."
The British government apologised Wednesday after a damning official report into a hospital likened by one patient's relative to "a Third World" health centre.
Between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected in a three-year period at the National Health Service (NHS) hospital, according to an investigation by the Healthcare Commission watchdog.
"We do apologise to all those people who have suffered from the mistakes that have been made in the Stafford Hospital," said Prime Minister Gordon Brown, questioned on the matter at his weekly grilling in the House of Commons.
Julie Bailey, whose 86-year-old mother Bella died in the hospital in November 2007, said she and other family members slept in a chair at her bedside for eight weeks because they were so concerned about poor care.
"What we saw in those eight weeks will haunt us for the rest of our lives," said the 47-year-old. "We saw patients drinking out of flower vases they were so thirsty.
"There were patients wandering around the hospital and patients fighting. It was continuous through the night. Patients were screaming out in pain because you just could not get pain relief.
"It was like a Third World country hospital. It was an absolute disgrace.
Here you go again...rediculous dreaming. Obama does not have a plan...they are working on one. I know you would love to hate everything he is trying to do..but we can also show people who have died in American Emergency rooms waiting for help. There are also allot of articles about hospital errors in America...wrong drugs, wrong surgery...blah, blah, blah. Just go on line and see how many times your hospital has been sued..it is very interesting. He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
"Obama Nixes Plan to Charge Veterans For Service-Related Health Care
By Elana Schor - March 18, 2009, 5:32PM" from talking points memo.com
yes, we can trust this guy to do what he says; as horton himself said, "i say what i mean and mean what i say!" i support both iava each month and president obama each day to do what is best for each of us, veterans and non-veterans alike.
At the risk of sounding like an apologist for the administration, I think this is exactly the pattern of governing we were promised. Obama is not an ideologue and open to many opinions and encourages debate. To me, transparency is refreshing, in contrast to the closed door meetings where process and even results weren't published.
That does mean there will be trial balloons floated and shot down before leaving the launch pad, and some may take those ideas as betrayal. It's not. If any plan floated is bad on the merits, please vigorously oppose it. But wait for the process and decision before deciding if the President has abandoned core principals, like veterans' care. The fact that Obama had the judgement to make excellent appointments in Eric Shinseki and Tammy Duckworth to lead the VA gives me confidence that improvement is coming.
In the end, I believe we will get ideas and solutions that work - be pragmatic. I also believe most will be progressive in nature, since many conservative ideas to address the nations' problems of healthcare, the environment, business regulation, etc. have failed. As part of the process, Mr. Rieckhoff deserves a great deal of respect and credit, ensuring those workable ideas are heard. Institutional changes in large bureaucracies is difficult at best, but at least there is a President now that will pay more than lip service to the needs of veterans and I hope that makes the jobs of all advocates just a little easier.
Agree completely. Spot on!
The weirdest part of the proposal is that it demonstrates no understanding of the way private insurance works.
If you use your insurance for a major illness, your premiums will rise to amazing levels, that is, if your policy is not cancelled outright.
If you use it for medium-cost illnesses (as if there is any such thing), you will spend hours and hours trying to get the insurance company to pay. The more they delay, the more your premium earns for them. The more they delay, the worse your financial situation becomes.
Can it really be that the administration does not understand? If so, veterans and everyone else are in for a world of hurt.
So your argument is that single payer, universal health care should be enacted. That would solve the problem of dealing with the insurance companies.
What proposal. Let me see it so I can decide if it "demonstrates no understanding..." and so on.
There's something so fishy about this.
I agree with ya' Paul...hold Presidents feet to the fire the same way you did during the campaign. let him know. Not sure why he came up with this idea...seems to go against what he has done so far
I am with you Paul. The men and women who serve this great country deserve government medical care paid for by the tax payers. I'm pissed off about the thought of the Obama proposal. I want to know who the hell is advising him. We need single payer health insurance in this country, the same damn insurance that most federal employees recieve. It's funny that the rethug congress members are all against it, yet they have it and wouldn't give it up for all the tea in China.
If Obama lets this happen he is TOAST.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
