Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

You Volunteer, You Go, You Get Hurt, You Pay?

By

Suppose I was President of the United States.

Suppose I decided to keep fighting wars in other countries that my predecessor started.

But suppose I told the soldiers fighting that war, which I authorize and approve of, that they had to get private medical insurance to pay for their treatment if they are wounded.

We aren’t supposing. This is precisely what this pathetic jerk Obama is proposing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/2…

For the first time in our history, a sitting president is turning his back on the military he commands. This is beneath contempt. Nothing anyone can say will justify what this swine is trying to do.

You liberals have elected the all-time twit jerk to be President. Hope you’re happy.

And, when nobody else, in our all-volunteer Armed Services will volunteer to protect all that liberal crap you insist are your “rights,” what will you do then?

Sadly,

Chuck

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Probably not a great idea, but it’s not nearly as bad as you’re portraying it.  You make it sound as though vets with no private insurance won’t get services, or will be personally billed, and that’s clearly not the case.  Anyway, it’s not going anywhere.

    • Not that it lessens the impact of what he’s trying to do, which is to heap the cost of what has been paid for by the feds since the Revolutionary War onto the backs of private insurers.

      <

      p>And I reckon that, for this old veteran, is the issue.

      <

      p>Further, the impact could destroy private insurance in a heartbeat. Which is an objective of socialized medicine, eh? I mean, heck, if the system don’t work, let’s replace it with a government-run system.

      <

      p>When you — or I — need bypass surgury in our eighties, I hope we don’t have to get in line, as do the Canadians, and wait two years for our turn, and dying in the meantime. For me, that will come a bit sooner than it will for you.

      <

      p>I don’t often thank my senator, Patty Murray, but this time around, I’ve sent her bouquets.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck  

  2. The headlines are dramatic.  “Wounded War Heroes’ to Pay” etc.  Based on what I have read so far, that is not the proposal.

    <

    p>Medicare has a rule called “secondary payer.”  It means that if you have Medicare and private health insurance, the private insurer pays first, then Medicare pays the difference, if any.  It does not mean that Medicare provides no coverage or reduces its benefits.

    <

    p>This proposal sounds similar.  If the veteran has private insurance, the private insurance would pay, then the VA would pick up the difference for VA covered services.  It does not appear to be a reduction in benefits covered.

    <

    p>Of course, this proposal pales in comparison to the many cuts to actual VA benefits put forward by former President Bush.  Here is a one account.

    <

    p>I just can’t find Chuck’s posts protesting the VA benefit changes made during the Bush administration, but I’m sure he will post them again so we can read them.  

    • the 4.9 billion in additional funds proposed to the VA from Chumpy too.  But nothing has been official proposed, so we’ll see the proposal in April.

    • I was covered under a program called CHAMPUS, the Civilian Health And Medical Program for the Uniformed Services. But I didn’t really retire, I entered the civilian workforce.

      <

      p>And I had civilian insurance, which paid first, then CHAMPUS paid. Typically, my insurance in those days paid eighty percent, then CHAMPUS picked up eighty percent of the balance. I paid the rest out of picket.

      <

      p>Now, I’m covered by Medicare, and what Medicare doesn’t pay is picked up by Tricare For Life, the retired veteran’s medical insurance program.

      <

      p>I was promised this benefit by a beneficent government, in exchange for twenty years of committed military service, at drastically less pay than I could have made as a civilian. In exchange for that, I saw action over Cuba, in five Viet Nam tours, and in military campaigns in Lebanon and Yemen. The severe injuries I received on two occasions have cost me three spinal surguries, and netted me the shattered feet, ankles and lower legs that force me to hobble around on a cane today.

      <

      p>My concern is not for myself, as existing programs aren’t impacted by Obama’s scheme to disenfranchise today’s soldiers. (Not that he wouldn’t take mine away if he could!)

      <

      p>David is quite right; Congress, even a very liberal Congress, is not going to let Obama’s twit plan take effect. They know it would be stepping over dollars to pick up pennies, and they also know that young Americans would stay away from the Armed Forces in DROVES!

      <

      p>Or perhaps Obama’s pals, the newly wealthy AIG Insurers could pick up the tab . . .

      <

      p>And finally, Bush was dead WRONG. Which doesn’t make Obama’s scirrilous attempt any more right.

    • I just can’t find Chuck’s posts protesting the VA benefit changes made during the Bush administration, but I’m sure he will post them again so we can read them.

      <

      p>I wasn’t a BlueMass member in 2003.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

  3. Once you understand what Obama is really all about such things are very clear.  The goal is to take down America.

  4. Privatization of health care is not the way to go, we should stick with government run health care.  It’s better and it works.

  5. Liberals are evil, Obama is out to destroy the country, civil rights are “crap.”

    <

    p>meh.

    • Liberals are NOT evil (misguided, perhaps ;->)
      Civil Rights are NOT crap.
      As to the rest, maybe you’ve got something there . . .

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

      • This diary was better written than previous ones.
      • Unlike JohnD, ChimpsChump has not vowed to keep us honest or prevent echo chambers or perform any other good deeds only a conservative could perform.

      But why is this resident of Washington State writing unwelcome screeds on a Democratic site on the other side of the country? If one has such a low opinion of liberals, why bother?

      <

      p>A hunger for snark?

      • tell each other what they know, dialogue disappears. The sweetness of such a victory would soon turn to saccarine, I believe.

        <

        p>But in your case, KBusch, if your mind is made up, I’ll try not to confuse you with the facts. 🙂

        <

        p>Happy St. o’Patrick’s Day to all:

        <

        p>Young Billy O’Connor, the lout,
        Was as drunk as a Lord, there’s no doubt!
        And, accepting a dare,
        He jumped up on a chair
        Screamed “ERIN, GO BRAGH!” and passed out!

        <

        p>Faith! An’ it’s a wonderful day to be Irish! So ‘ere’s to ye, lads an’ lassies, May ye all be in heaven a half-hour before the devil knows yer dead!

        • I think that there are some conservatives who make excellent contributions to this site. I almost never agree with gary, for example, but I think he adds a lot. Old Scratch has been raising good questions. JoeTS writes well and graciously. geo999, who has disappeared, was painfully acerbic but solidly substantive. Lodger and Seascraper have thought through their perspectives. Unlike Huh, I think Edgarthearmenian means well though he tends to veer into curmudgeon on occasion.

          <

          p>None of those conservatives are snark magnets.

          <

          p>Also we won’t always play with you.

          • Snide and sarcastic. It is an obvious contraction of the two, and is a relatively new work in the lexicon. I assume therefore, that a snark magnet would be someone trolling for snide and sarcastic remarks.

            <

            p>But in the immortal words of Senator Phogbound, “That ain’t Why I’m Here.”

            • The neologism “snark” is in wide use on the web.

              <

              p>Not having a clear understanding of why you, er, contribute so much here, I’m left to assume that you enjoy the reception that your diaries receive.

              <

              p>Am I inaccurate in saying that they are snark magnets? Here’s the recent history. I pass over older diaries with embarrassing beginnings like this:

              America is fast becoming an overrun country. Within our borders are Muslim Terrorists, illegal alien welfare bums, murderous illegal alien gang members and others who WILL do you harm.

              <

              p>

              DiarySnark level
              Lisa Miller Should Know BetterAnti-marriage diaries are always snark magnets

              DEMOCRAT Party Hypocrisy?Use of “Democrat Party” is a guaranteed snark magnet

              Dump “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”Low snark level

              ..Solving the Economic ProblemLow snark level

              Benedict Hammers … SpeakerVery high snark level. Sexism, like previous comments about Hillary Clinton, will do that.

              When Caught Raiding the Cookie JarObama birth certificate idiocy, guaranteed snark

              CrocodilesInsanely stupid. Very high snark level.

              Pulled PorkAchieved high level of snark even on a subject with bipartisan approval

              Volunteer/Go/Hurt/PaySnark level rising

              Cheney v. Obama/GibbsWe were merciful

              HeyGetting into trouble

          • I agree on the rest, but this conversation ended my desire to engage with Edgar, just like this one has ended my desire to engage with Chuck.

            <

            p>(p.s. no, not the Basque terrorist group)

            • I have a track record of being wrong: I had to apologize to lolorb over just such a generous misassessment a year or so ago.

            • I have a track record of being wrong: I had to apologize to lolorb over just such a generous misassessment a year or so ago.

                • and I strongly suspect you don’t believe that it is. The remark was made in the context of a light-hearted exchange, and was intended to be humorous. But it must be ince that you and KBusch have enough spare time to go sloshing around in old posts to find erasons to quarrel.

                  <

                  p>Best,
                  Chuck

                • Why ARE you here?  Surely there must be a market for your purple prose over at RMG?  Or do you find your brethren as dull as we find you?

  6. His gay-hating “Christian” buddies here in WA have scored a big ZERO so far when it comes to blocking passage of the bill that will make our DPs equal to marriage in all but name.  And, the “leaders” of Washington’s religious right are at each others throats.  I’m not surprised Chuck is throwing a tantrum.  I’d be pretty darn pissed too if I saw my cause lost to the disunity and king of the hill backbiting by my leaders.

    <

    p>But wait, there’s more!  The few WA haters that can pull themselves out of disillusionment long enough to rally in Olympia Thursday are likely to be undercut by movement of the DP bill in the House the day before (a little birdie told me).  It’s already passed in the Senate and the Governor will sign.

    <

    p>Have a nice day. 🙂

    • is an oxymoron, Laurel. Further, I am on record as not opposing this bill, as it stops short of including marriage.

      <

      p>Finally, I don’t know the pastor of Antioch Bible Church, and don’t subscribe to bigotry.

      <

      p>Happy St. Patty’s day!
      Chuck

  7. I haven’t looked into this, but being ignorant has never deterred me. Or Chuck, for that matter.

    <

    p>I’m a combat Infantry vet, 101st Airborne, Desert Storm. So I’m gonna play the vet card, OK?

    <

    p>Obama is trying to work out some details for universal health care. Part of it is for covering veterans and their families. We have all heard of “Hero Cards” or something close. Well, at least those that follow vet issues have. Anyways, in the blind, I’m gonna say that Obama is trying to figure out how to put the VA in a position that will allow for closer collaboration with the coming “universal health care.”

    <

    p>This undoubtedly will bring shrill rebuke from those that care little about vets and plenty about maintaining the status quo in health care.

    <

    p>The VA is well suited for a veteran’s trasition into the civilian world. Some vets will require, based on their injuries, service from the VA for their entire life. The VA cannot and should not provide 100% care for 100% of American veterans. Anyone that suggests that will hear from the GOoPers screaming about big gubmint handouts, beauracracies, freedom to choose providers, accessability and all the other things they flaunt at their convenience.

    <

    p>This type of rhetoric is a lame attempt at GOoPers to play Dems as “anti-American, anti-flag, anti-military, anti-apple pie……”

    • I don’t need it, I have Tricare For Life, which is not  mismanaged managed by the VA.

      <

      p>As I mentioned earlier, my concern if for the vets who are not entitled to a retiree’s benefit.

      <

      p>And Universal Health Care, as our Canadian Neighbors have demonstrated, as they die, waiting for access to government-limited health care, is also an Oxymoron, IMHO

    • And I agree that the VA cannot and should not provide 100% care for 100% of American Vets. But try going back to a more sensible time. A grateful country took care of its WWII vets without bitching. Today, we have a President who has decided he isn’t obligated to do that.

      <

      p>What, in terms of the dedication and sacrifice of the vets, has changed, that would justify such a decision?

      <

      p>Nothing? Absolutely right. Then what, in terms of attitude and motivation, has changed, that would justify such behavior by elected officials?

      <

      p>I’d really appreciate an answer that makes sense. I have yet to find one. Those who are losing limbs and becoming crippled in Iraq have been sent there by one President, and are being kept there by still another, who, if reluctantly, recognizes the necessity for their actions. He just doesn’t want to pay the freight.

      <

      p>He’d rather give the money to those banks and insurance companies who donated to his campaign. Sorry if that offends, but that’s how I see it.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck  

      • Sorry Chuck,
        I have my doubts about you. See, I’ve been making the rounds and have found that there is a focused and concerted effort to flog this proposal. Cynic that I am, I tend to think the faux indignation has only one primary political goal.

        <

        p>Smear Progressives and progressive policy!

        <

        p>

        Michelle Malkin’s, Hot Air:

        Our friend Jim Geraghty reminds us that all of Barack Obama’s pledges come with expiration dates – all of them.  
        …

        Update: This Ain’t Hell wonders when General Eric Shinseki will resign in protest.

        The GOoPer populist twist, Version #1:
        Let’s see.  The same administration that wants to give tens of billions of dollars to GM, Citigroup, AIG, and a host of other banks and manufacturers wants men and women injured in service to their country to pay for the medical care that arises from these injuries?  In what universe does Shinseki and the Obama administration live, anyway?

        From NH conservative blog, GraniteGrok

        All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date – even the ones that you thought he would never dare let expire.
        …

        So, when is Shinseki going to do the right thing and resign, as I rather doubt that this is in the best interest of our vets!  

        The GOoPer populist twist, Version #2:
        And Obama is willing to use MY tax money to pay for the healthcare for illegal aliens and wants to charge our veterans for the same?

        <

        p>Maybe you’re a true, kind spirit who has been had by the right wing regurgitation machine. I got my fingers crossed for ya, buddy.  

        <

        p>The Sacred Trust will be maintained.

        • I suspect that some of the more conservative webbies and Columnists are thrashing the issue with more heat than light. And their indignation is not without cause, IMHO; taking care of our Wounded Warriors has been a priority of our government for many years.

          <

          p>But for a second, suppose the proposed 24 month rule had been in force in 1966? Then, suppose I had accepted the medical retirement I was almost forced to accept in 1966, after spending four months in a MASH getting put back together? Almost a quarter-million dollars of the medical care I’ve had since then is directly related to the wounds I suffered in 1965, when the NVA and VC blew up my boat. Countless MRIs, CT Scans, three spinal surguries, leg and foot operations so I could at least continue walking with a cane — this wasn’t cheap.

          <

          p>Pre-existing conditions haven’t always been covered by my civilian employers. Nor should my civilian employer be forced to pay for medical care for wounds I received in combat.

          <

          p>Our slogan was always “The Navy takes care of its own.” With respect, and again IMHO, Obama wants to change that to “Tough luck after 24 months, bud.”

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

  8. Something imposed upon the individual in order to access private insurance, if available, but never to be enforced against the individual.

    <

    p>Good for the ill-informed ranting, though.

    • of my medical expenses, for problems related to combat. While I didn’t think much of that, one way or the other at the time, I’m grateful that both the military health care plans, AND the private insurers, were there for me.

      <

      p>I can only hope they’ll somehow be there for returning Wounded Warriors.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

Archives