Obama plans to charge wounded military members for health care.

[FlamesAddiction]

If it's getting too expensive to provide war vets with free medical care, then maybe they need to stop making new war veterans.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by T@T

People need to read.

But the other way makes a much more shocking thread title!

Of course, the plan does actually have a long-term cost for the vets - if $500 million used to be paid out by the government, now the companies paying out the $500 million are just going to take it out on the people paying the premiums. They certainly aren't going to take it out of their profits - that's unAmerican!

Hey, though, that's capitalism for ya - can't understand how this can be a problem for all the hard-core libertarians and conservatives here. Why should the vets get socialized medicine over anyone else - clearly private medicine is more efficient and the soldiers are going to be better off by some inexplicable process of the market. And if not, what are the soldiers gonna do - sign up for some other army?

[Phanuthier]

... so maybe this thread title should be changed to not misrepresent the information?

[fatso]

Originally Posted by jammies

But the other way makes a much more shocking thread title!

Of course, the plan does actually have a long-term cost for the vets - if $500 million used to be paid out by the government, now the companies paying out the $500 million are just going to take it out on the people paying the premiums. They certainly aren't going to take it out of their profits - that's unAmerican!

Hey, though, that's capitalism for ya - can't understand how this can be a problem for all the hard-core libertarians and conservatives here. Why should the vets get socialized medicine over anyone else - clearly private medicine is more efficient and the soldiers are going to be better off by some inexplicable process of the market. And if not, what are the soldiers gonna do - sign up for some other army?

Great post Jammies!

[CliffMair]

That's the thing with spending: some people will get less money than before. I am sure we'll see more posts like this very soon.

[Daradon]

Yeah, there's something fishy about this title/article. Nothing against you Azure, because the Yahoo article has the inflamatory title too, but just a few sentences in, I read this as well...

'"deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases'

It seems to be more of a battle versus the insurance companies than the vets. Course one could argue that the government should be doing everything in it's power to make sure the vets don't have to deal with those sleazy companies, so I guess I get the reaction. But it doesn't really have to do with the government taking away something they had before. (at least as I'm reading it)

Now I know that the US has never done a good job with it's vets, which is very shameful since they seem to like to go to war, but not being an insurance expert and having some trouble cutting through the shock value of this article I'm not exactly sure what they are saying.

It appears the government is just trying to recoup losses from the companies themselves.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

The guy from the American Legion thinks its a bad idea.

Why?

Because government-funded health care is way better, of course!

Seriously, I think the reasons have been discussed--but for me, this is really about Obama going after insurance companies, not soldiers. But in all seriousness, it does reveal the basic moral quandary that the U.S. is in over their health-care system--multiple payers, multiple payees, unequal coverage, etc. all aside. The argument here (and I don't disagree) is that health care SHOULD as an ethical and moral imperative, be offered to veterans free of charge. Of course it should. The government should definitely take on the full responsibility for their care, and it's a shame that they don't.

But in that case, what's the moral difference between a veteran with a leg wound and a child with cystic fibrosis? I'm at a loss as to how you can say that one is a moral imperative and the other is not.

[octothorp]

What this article doesn't mention is the 11% increase to funding of veterans programs under this proposed plan; while the full numbers haven't been released yet, it seems pretty likely that there would be a significant amount going to veterans to make up for any increases in insurance premiums they might receive. At the same time, it's eliminating a layer of government bloat and shifting those roles to the private sector, which is an efficient direction to go in.
Although I am puzzled as to why they're going in this direction when it seems not to jive with the overall direction for health care that Obama is espousing. But rather than put too much stock in what the veterans organizations have to say, I'll wait to see the full plan in April. I suspect we're hearing only a fraction of this plan.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

... so maybe this thread title should be changed to not misrepresent the information?

Even before reading any of this thread that title looks so suspect. It's pretty hard to get 2 idiot presidents in a row.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Because government-funded health care is way better, of course!

No, employer health care is way better. I would expect ANYONE who works for the US government to get US government funded health care.

But in that case, what's the moral difference between a veteran with a leg wound and a child with cystic fibrosis? I'm at a loss as to how you can say that one is a moral imperative and the other is not.

Decent, affordable health care available to all Americans is a whole different subject.

In regards to your question....is has nothing to do with morals. These soldiers are under the employment of the US government. They 'deserve' to have health care provided to them by the government.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

In regards to your question....is has nothing to do with morals. These soldiers are under the employment of the US government. They 'deserve' to have health care provided to them by the government.

That sounds an awful lot like a moral argument to me.

Besides, it's not as though the VA (like an employer) participates in a group insurance program that requires people to pay 100s of dollars per month to be in it. It's public health care, plain and simple. Your analogy to employer-provided health-care is comparing apples and oranges.

Anyway, all the policy does is put insurance companies on the hook. I'm not exactly crying in my beer for the profiteers of the American health-care industry.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

But the other way makes a much more shocking thread title!

Of course, the plan does actually have a long-term cost for the vets - if $500 million used to be paid out by the government, now the companies paying out the $500 million are just going to take it out on the people paying the premiums. They certainly aren't going to take it out of their profits - that's unAmerican!

Hey, though, that's capitalism for ya - can't understand how this can be a problem for all the hard-core libertarians and conservatives here. Why should the vets get socialized medicine over anyone else - clearly private medicine is more efficient and the soldiers are going to be better off by some inexplicable process of the market. And if not, what are the soldiers gonna do - sign up for some other army?

Yeah, turn it around and throw it at us libertarians. Again, these people work for the US government, and deserve employer funded health care.

I might be for 'less' government, but that doesn't mean I believe in disbanding the military. Having the ability to defend the nation and declare war is one of the few things a government SHOULD be able to do, and part of that is looking after the people who do that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That sounds an awful lot like a moral argument to me.

Uh, not if you're comparing wounded soldiers to a kid with a serious medical problem. It has nothing to do with that.

Anyway, all the policy does is put insurance companies on the hook.

Who in turn put the wounded soldiers on the hook.

I'm not exactly crying in my beer for the profiteers of the American health-care industry.

Yeah, who cares about all those wounded vets who are disabled and can't get a job to pay for basic living expenses. You ever think that there is a REASON the US government should be looking after wounded vets? Something along the lines of them not being able to support themselves?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, turn it around and throw it at us libertarians. Again, these people work for the US government, and deserve employer funded health care.

I might be for 'less' government, but that doesn't mean I believe in disbanding the military. Having the ability to defend the nation and declare war is one of the few things a government SHOULD be able to do, and part of that is looking after the people who do that.

I don't disagree with that. I presume you were outraged at the underfunded VA under Bush, and applaud Obama for adding 11% to their budget in that case.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Uh, not if you're comparing wounded soldiers to a kid with a serious medical problem. It has nothing to do with that.

Who in turn put the wounded soldiers on the hook.

Yeah, who cares about all those wounded vets who are disabled and can't get a job to pay for basic living expenses. You ever think that there is a REASON the US government should be looking after wounded vets? Something along the lines of them not being able to support themselves?

Hey, I think there should be single-payer, government-funded health care. That would solve both problems in one fell swoop.

Sadly, no-one asked me what I thought...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't disagree with that. I presume you were outraged at the underfunded VA under Bush, and applaud Obama for adding 11% to their budget in that case.

Yeah, good for Obama.

Does that make this plan better/worse?

Or should I not care as long as those evil insurance companies are forced to pay an extra $500 million to fund Obama's spending projects?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Hey, I think there should be single-payer, government-funded health care. That would solve both problems in one fell swoop.

Sadly, no-one asked me what I thought...

Given Obama's support for public health care, I would assume he thinks the same as you.

Although when he pulls stuff like this, I really wonder what his motive is.

[Azure]

On another note, how do you edit the thread title?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Given Obama's support for public health care, I would assume he thinks the same as you.

Although when he pulls stuff like this, I really wonder what his motive is.

Actually, his plan is more tinkering around the edges of the system--a Massachussetts-based plan where people are required to carry health insurance and given the option of a cheaper insurance alternative through a government-negotiated group rate.

I think that's a horrible idea. But marginally better than what they have now.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, turn it around and throw it at us libertarians. Again, these people work for the US government, and deserve employer funded health care.

I'm "throwing it at us libertarians" because wanting vets to have the government pay for their health care is, as has been said, a moral argument and not an economic one. It's perfectly possible to have them pay for their own health care, so why not do it?

To be clear, I am in full agreement that the gov't should be liable for all the costs here, but that's because I don't think that economic rationality trumps all else. The libertarian position, though, is that it DOES, so arguments that resort to what the government "owes" its employees fall down before the fact that it would undoubtedly cost them less money to either force the soldiers to buy their own health insurance or have them co-pay at least some of the costs instead of getting a socialist free ride.

Once you admit that not every issue involving spending money can be reduced down to what is most economically efficient, then you start looking at comparing what's best for society vs what's best for the economic actors within society, which is anathema to the libertarian idea that what is best for the economic actors is necessarily also best for society.

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, who cares about all those wounded vets who are disabled and can't get a job to pay for basic living expenses. You ever think that there is a REASON the US government should be looking after wounded vets? Something along the lines of them not being able to support themselves?

That's a moral argument. Again, I'm fine with it, but to expand on IFF's question, why is a moral argument allowable for soldiers with expensive and debilitating wounds but not for children with expensive and debilitating illnesses? We're not disagreeing with the argument, we're disagreeing that libertarian premises can support such an argument and - critically - we're saying that such premises are invalidated precisely because such arguments can and should be made.