Town Square

Post a New Topic

Should wounded vets be forced to PAY for their medical treatment? Obama thinks so!

Original post made by - on Mar 16, 2009

Another "brilliant" move by our Commander in Chief. (I cringe at his title.) He absolutely hates our military.

Here our wonderful military who are sent into battle for our freedom...should they become wounded may have to pay for their medical care. This is OUTRAGEOUS! We owe them their health care and more.

Any American...whether Repub or Democrat should be offended at the mere thought of requiring them to pay for their medical treatment if they are wounded in battle...and should vigorously fight this!

Honestly, however, no one should be surprised at Obama's plan here given his disdain for the US military. Anyone who would send billions to the leftwing ACORN thugs while cutting our military budget should not be surprised at our "Commander's" low opinion of our military.

Click on this link below if you haven't heard the latest...

Web Link

Comments (30)

Posted by bobbi, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2009 at 8:09 pm

absolutly horrible! I was in shock when i heard this... but why should I be? it's just like Mr. O to do something like this.

Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Julie is a registered user.

<yawn> Here you go again. With all this time you have on your hands for criticizing maybe you should have run for office!

Posted by Kiko, a resident of Val Vista
on Mar 16, 2009 at 11:25 pm

Its no <yawn> and people should criticize liberal socialism every time something like this is stupidly suggested. But what is even more outlandish than this proposal is the fact that Prince Obama now wants to tax medical benefits (its in the NY (Obama)Times) to help fund his programs for socialized medicine. If he doesn't raise taxes on the middle class one way, he'll raise them even higher with this sham. The Unions must be loving this didn't take long for the coalition to show cracks.

Did I say "liberal socialism" ? I was wrong...this is communism.

Where is "Tail Gunner Joe" now that there is a real national threat ?

Posted by Frank G., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 17, 2009 at 9:13 am

Sounds to me at first glance that President Obama is floating ideas and really trying to figure out ways to actually help our Veterans, given the long-term needs that they face and the past failure (under both Democrats AND Republicans) of the VA to effectively deliver those services. Trying to brainstorm and think outside the box a bit and see if these things make sense. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but to lash out at him and call him a communist and a socialist is over the top, in my opinion. Just as you're entitled to yours.

As for "He absolutely hates our military.", I'd beg to differ. He campaigned on helping the military and their families and assisting the returning, wounded military with long-term care, and he's moving in that direction:
Web Link

Posted by David, a resident of West of Foothill
on Mar 17, 2009 at 10:20 am

The law requires that workers comp covers employees when they get hurt on the job. State and Federal workers enjoy those same benefits. If they get hurt on the job, the goverment covers their medical expenses until they are "made whole" again. Why would our veterans receive anything less????? If President Obama gets hurt while he is President, is he going to pay for his injures using his private funds or do our tax dollars pay for it?? Come on! I am really taken back by the fact that Obama even suggested it.

Posted by Mike, a resident of another community
on Mar 17, 2009 at 10:34 am

I absolutely agree that the US government should pay our vet's medical bills but I agree with Frank that this all discussion being floated around. Where were all of you when the Bush Administration reduced the US Department of Veterans Affairs and it's ability to help our vets?

Kiko, and the rest of you, please look up the definition of socialist and communist. You have no clue what the words mean. You are all wound up emotionally and not using your heads. All you want to do is attack President Obama. The guy is in the office a short time but has done a lot to move ahead. Heck, it was reported that Bush chewed up his first 100 days trying to figure who to have in his administration.

Posted by Ann, a resident of Amador Estates
on Mar 17, 2009 at 10:41 am

Does every discussion have to be spun back to Bush?? Get some new material. Move on and focus on the what needs to be done now to help this country. Obama throws it out there for "discussion" and that is what your getting. Just because everyone isn't supporting every comment made by Obama doesn't mean that we are emotional. You just can't find yourself disagreeing with Obama without sugar coating it and making excuses.

Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on Mar 17, 2009 at 11:01 am

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

Does anybody here check sources?

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

How is that making our "wounded vets" pay for their medical care??? Anybody want to jump to the defense of those poor insurance companies? The title is an inflamatory lie. For goodness sake get your facts straight.

Posted by Mike, a resident of another community
on Mar 17, 2009 at 11:13 am

Anne, throwing back at President Bush is just pointing out the hypocrites writing their posts.

Regarding "emotional," better re-read the postings. For example: "He absolutely hates our military." Really? He appointed Eric K. Shinseki, an outspoken former military general as Secretary.

That's the kind of writing I define as emotional.

By the way, I have disagreed with President Obama on some things, such as today about cutting back the mortgage interest deduction for household income greater than $250,000. Need that income to live in some places in California.

Thank you for your comments.

Posted by Mike, a resident of another community
on Mar 17, 2009 at 11:15 am

AVHS Dad... thank you for looking it up.

Posted by Huh, a resident of Livermore
on Mar 17, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Ok AVHS et al let's think this through.
Private insurance companies can't print their own money like the government, so if they pay a bill they have to get the money from somewhere. That would be from customer premiums. So who is paying the premium? Either the veteran for his own policy, in which case he is paying for his medical care. If he's not paying then the other customers are paying to subsidise his care. Which would be similar to taxpayers paying except now there is a smaller customer base paying the bill. Now under BO who is going to be able to pay insurance premiums? - THE RICH.
So again he has instigated class warfare, demonized business and slighted the military; Triple Play
And everyone goes along because he's the anointed one

Posted by Joe, a resident of Downtown
on Mar 17, 2009 at 12:49 pm

We owe the veterans way more than we owe teachers, thats for damn sure

Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on Mar 18, 2009 at 8:32 am

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

@ Huh from Livermore,

Nobody is talking about taking anything away from the vets.
If a vet already has private insurance what the heck is wrong with having the private insurer reimburse the VA? Please explain to me how that is a burden to anybody but the money grubbing insurance companies? Guess it might take away from the billions of dollars they keep in excess reserves or cut back on their multi million dollar executive bonuses.
I have absolutely no sympathy for insurance companies who are constantly trying to weasel out of their responsibilities to their customers.

Posted by olfthfl, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Mar 18, 2009 at 9:02 am

To AVHS Dad . . . . Amen!

Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on Mar 18, 2009 at 9:18 am

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

@ Joe:

We owe both our teachers and our vets, not the least of which is our respect. But we can follow that up with money too.

Posted by CM, a resident of Stoneridge
on Mar 18, 2009 at 9:22 am

I understand that they are not taking anything away from our soldiers but they are deferring their responsibility to a third party.
If the soldier is not acting on behalf of the US Government and he/she is injured then their private insurance company should pay the medical bills. However if the US Government sends a soldier into harm's way as their employee and there is an injury then the US Government should pay the bills. You can't put someone in harm's way and then when they get injured say it's not our responsibility to pay for that injury.
Perhaps the government should purchase workers comp ins.

Posted by Claire, a resident of Mohr Elementary School
on Mar 18, 2009 at 9:37 am

What's with the "Obama hates the military"? His wife has made it one of her primary focuses to work with military families to improve their lives while family members are serving our country. I guess I just find it hard to believe the Obamas are that far apart on what they choose to shine the spotlight on.

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 18, 2009 at 9:48 am

Stacey is a registered user.

This sounds really ironic. I'm not familiar with the details on this story, but it seems ironic to me that many would cry foul after all the previous rants against so-called socialized medicine. Hey, let the consumer decide, right?

Maybe this will illustrate just how inhumane our current health care system really is.

Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on Mar 18, 2009 at 9:48 am

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

As I said before, the title and the original post is an inflamatory lie. At least we're having a real discussion now.
This kind of stuff reminds me of a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. There's a mob that wants to burn an accused witch and one peasant speaks up and says "She turned me into a NEWT!". The crowd looks at him and someone repeats "a newt???". He looks around and says "I got better!".

Posted by marie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2009 at 10:25 am

Another slack and unthoughtout idea by our new President. How horrendous to slap the face of our military, again, especially now that even HE is finding the need for their presence (in Afganistan).

The poor decisions he is making are on topics that are too important. Well, I suppose that is the way all the current decisions are going.

Posted by A Resident, a resident of Mission Park
on Mar 18, 2009 at 10:31 am

You people should listen to yourselves and stop listening to Fox News. When are you going to get out the torches and pitch forks?

Posted by ., a resident of Apperson Ridge
on Mar 18, 2009 at 11:10 am

To Mission Park-er...You are "SO RIGHT!" We shouldn't listen to a news network that has the GALL to investigate and communicate MORE THAN ONE SIDE OF A STORY.


(Remember...if it weren't for alternative news outlets, including talk radio, we never would have learned from mainstream media about Obama's relationship with America loving Jeremiah Wright, domestic terrorist Bill Ayres, and other buddies. )

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 18, 2009 at 11:37 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I have no idea what any of you are talking about. Fox News loves Obama! Web Link

P.S. Marie wrote: "especially now that even HE is finding the need for their presence (in Afganistan)" Obama said he'd increase military presence in Afghanistan since before he was elected. Didn't you pay attention?

Posted by check google news, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm

The proposal has been withdrawn, so there's nothing left to debate on this topic. Here's a link to a news story:

Web Link

Posted by Frank G., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 18, 2009 at 4:13 pm

From that article cited above,
"In considering the third party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans," Gibbs said. "However, the president listened to concerns raised by the [veterans service organizations] that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families' ability to access health care."

So, an idea to help the veterans receive the care they deserve was floated, and in listening to the input and feedback, President Obama decided it wasn't in the best interests of the veterans.

How refeshing this is: a president who actually solicits input, listens attentively to feedback, evaluates the information gathered and is not afraid to say "thanks, my first idea wasn't the best; let's keep working at it."

Posted by Handyman, a resident of Foothill High School
on Mar 18, 2009 at 8:03 pm

First, to even suggest private insurance companies pick up the cost of injuries to our vets shows a lack of understanding of the real world. This amateur president is just hacking around. Not a leader.
Second, regarding the VA, my experience is better care from VA-Livermore than Pleasanton Valley Care. Better diagnostics, better personal attention, and great care at the VA hospital in Palo Alto.

Posted by Shelley, a resident of another community
on Mar 18, 2009 at 9:13 pm

It looks like many misunderstood what was meant by billing private insurance companies, or having private insurance companies reimburse the VA for medical expenses incurred, as was pointed out above. My understanding is that for veterans to receive care, they must go to a Veterans Affairs' hospital or center. This plan would give veterans more options for receiving care than having to go only to veteran's hospitals. So, instead of reading articles about horror stories of veterans being cared for in cockroach-infested Walter Reed Army Medical Centers or other such places (which was a hot topic in the news a couple of years ago), veterans have the option to go to any hospital or clinic and not pay for the service.

As an aside: it's weird how everyone jumps to conclusions and blows the whole thing out of proportion in these threads.

Posted by Jerry, a resident of Oak Hill
on Mar 19, 2009 at 12:36 am

"Actually solicits input"? He didn't solicit input. The veterans organizations got wind of what he was proposing and raised so much hell he was forced to back track...

Where would a disabled veteran find a private health insurance company that would assume the cost of rehab for a prior combat/service related disability that could possibly require treatment for years...

Posted by =, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 19, 2009 at 7:19 am

Jerry, you are RIGHT ON! Wounded vets who must be treated via private health insurance could very easily reach their lifetime family maximums in a very very short time. This would end up not only leaving them without coverage...but would also leave their entire family without coverage.

There is a hidden intent of the Obama plan. And I disagree that this is a dead issue. Like the Fairness Doctrine that will rise again under a different "Orwellian name", Obama will try to screw the Vets somehow.

With his first plan to have the Vets health coverage channeled thru private health insurers, he wanted to FLOOD the private insurers with all of these serious vet cases. The privates would not be able to cover all of them adequately and the vets would then be outraged at the poor service. This additional 'outrage' would be another reason, in "Obama-think" to nationalize health care which is his ultimate goal.

Shelley: You were partially right...but the reality is that under private coverage, the Vets would max out extremely quickly and their whole family would be without coverage. That is the Obama plan.

Obama is determined to weaken our military in any way he can...and he is accomplishing this in many ways. Some "Commander in Chief."

Is a weakened national defense one of the changes you Obamaphiles voted for? (Actually I think it is because all democrats I know have a certain disdain for this country.)

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 19, 2009 at 7:35 am

Jerry wrote: "Where would a disabled veteran find a private health insurance company that would assume the cost of rehab for a prior combat/service related disability that could possibly require treatment for years..."

Exactly! This is what leads to the irony I see when many other posters in a previous thread and the poster above rail against reforming our national health care system to something like a single-payer system. Hey, let the consumer decide! But the reality of our current system is that it is inhumane because it is highly selective. Vets aren't the only group of Americans who would have difficulty finding and paying for private insurance yet we're supposed to let the consumer decide. I fully expect those who are against nationalized health care to never make an application to Medicare or Medicaid when they get older or disabled. Practice free market health care!

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Preserving Disorder
By Tom Cushing | 73 comments | 2,125 views

Jim Kohnen Post Office Signed into Law
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 711 views

CPRA: Balancing privacy, public's right to know
By Gina Channell-Allen | 3 comments | 339 views