Billing Private Insurance Companies for the Treatment of Wounded Warriors

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually the letter and press release is political pot-stirrring itself. And it seems to have worked done just that.

Budget options are being considered to reduce costs and to bring more vets into the VA system. From Fox News, "a summary of the proposed budget says the president wants to increase funding for VA by $25 billion over five years, and [policy]bring more than 500,000 eligible veterans of modest income into the VA health care system by 2013." [/policy]"

No decisions have been made. The Veterans groups were invited into the planning and decision-making process. This is good, imo. Very good. It's also a [policy]more transparent and open process than previous budget planning efforts. /[policy]"


And yes, GEN Shinseki, USA (ret) was in the room with the same folks who drafted and circulated the letter sited in the OP and press releases. And yes, he has commented on the proposed budget *and* [policy]options being considered. [/policy]"

For the 'rest of the story' as one might say, from Military.com, "VA Budget: Praise and a Warning:"

"President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year.

"No president before ever offered a VA spending plan that surpassed in size the "Independent Budget" presented to Congress by major veterans groups. Obama seeks to fulfill several high-profile promises made to veterans during his presidential campaign including a big increase in VA healthcare budgets.

"Obama's VA budget outline, with full details promised by late April, would raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That's an increase of $15 billion, or 15 percent, over the current budget.

"'This is the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans,' Shinseki told lawmakers.

[policy]"The plan allows the VA health care system to enroll up to 550,000 new Priority Group 8 veterans by 2013. These are veterans who have no service-connected ailments and have incomes deemed adequate based on family size and geographic location. The total for new enrollees includes 266,000 Group 8 veterans already slated to enroll in VA health system starting this summer under a funding initiative Congress passed last fall.

"Obama's Defense and VA budgets also call for a gradual lifting of what remains of the ban on concurrent receipt of both military retirement and VA disability compensation for disabled retirees. The next step would occur in 2010 with concurrent receipt allowed for the most seriously disabled veterans forced to retire short of 20 years. Further details must await the full budget's release in April, Shinseki said.[/policy]



"'Veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line... We should take care of those injuries completely,' said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Though she recognized that no formal proposal had yet reached Congress, Murray told Shinseki, 'I can assure you it will be dead on arrival if it lands here.'"

Marg, that's lots of great information about funding for the VA, not VA policy.

Policies highlighted in blue above.

Budget is a main policy activity; new programs and new policies are funded through budget policy.

Quote

How do you think President Obama might justify such an increase in funding? Well, if the VA can recoup from private insurance companies (which do not often cover service related, injuries, combat, etc through exclusions by the way)...

Proposed $15B increase to VA budget - $500M (notional idea to bill third party) = $14.5B.
By the same method that the VA intends to justify that $14.5B increase.

Are you opposed to the VA budget increase?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

If you assert that as your position, then what do you say to those who are responsible for the current policy that already does that?

That is an expansion. The Iraq "War" can be seen merely as an "expansion" of the previously existing SASO operation where the rules of engagement were modified. Um - it's quite a bit more than that.

We’ll just have to disagree on that: I’d argue for a more apt (but stilled strained) analogy of the expansion Desert Shield to Desert Storm.

The Veteran’s Affairs Committee has already sent GEN Shinseki back to the metaphorical drawing board on the notional idea, a decision with which I agree.

There was transparency in the process. There was involvement of major VSOs. And what appears to have been a $540M bad idea is no longer viable. There is over $14B for expanded coverage for veterans (& the policies/programs they will support) that is still in play.

I’ve been talking about advocating for increased attention to the long-term consequences of TBI, PTSD, IEDs, and need for increases in military medicine since … well, since before Dr. Winkenwerder was forced to resign as ASD(HA). Writing about such here for over a year.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We’ll just have to disagree on that

We don't have to disagree. There is another choice - you can agree with me. That's all it takes.

At any rate, I reckon we probably have total disagreement of only about 5%. An interesting discussion and always awesome whenever you chime in.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

The problem is that it has not only been suggested, but apparently is being/has been seriously considered. It is the mere proposal that is worrisome.

It is an indication of the thought processes involved.

Oh, bollocks. Brainstorming sessions happen all the time (the drunker, the better), and so does floating trial balloons. BFD.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Actually the letter and press release is political pot-stirrring itself. And it seems to have worked done just that.

Budget options are being considered to reduce costs and to bring more vets into the VA system. From Fox News, "a summary of the proposed budget says the president wants to increase funding for VA by $25 billion over five years, and [policy]bring more than 500,000 eligible veterans of modest income into the VA health care system by 2013." [/policy]"

No decisions have been made. The Veterans groups were invited into the planning and decision-making process. This is good, imo. Very good. It's also a [policy]more transparent and open process than previous budget planning efforts. /[policy]"


And yes, GEN Shinseki, USA (ret) was in the room with the same folks who drafted and circulated the letter sited in the OP and press releases. And yes, he has commented on the proposed budget *and* [policy]options being considered. [/policy]"

For the 'rest of the story' as one might say, from Military.com, "VA Budget: Praise and a Warning:"

"President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year.

"No president before ever offered a VA spending plan that surpassed in size the "Independent Budget" presented to Congress by major veterans groups. Obama seeks to fulfill several high-profile promises made to veterans during his presidential campaign including a big increase in VA healthcare budgets.

"Obama's VA budget outline, with full details promised by late April, would raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That's an increase of $15 billion, or 15 percent, over the current budget.

"'This is the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans,' Shinseki told lawmakers.

[policy]"The plan allows the VA health care system to enroll up to 550,000 new Priority Group 8 veterans by 2013. These are veterans who have no service-connected ailments and have incomes deemed adequate based on family size and geographic location. The total for new enrollees includes 266,000 Group 8 veterans already slated to enroll in VA health system starting this summer under a funding initiative Congress passed last fall.

"Obama's Defense and VA budgets also call for a gradual lifting of what remains of the ban on concurrent receipt of both military retirement and VA disability compensation for disabled retirees. The next step would occur in 2010 with concurrent receipt allowed for the most seriously disabled veterans forced to retire short of 20 years. Further details must await the full budget's release in April, Shinseki said.[/policy]



"'Veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line... We should take care of those injuries completely,' said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Though she recognized that no formal proposal had yet reached Congress, Murray told Shinseki, 'I can assure you it will be dead on arrival if it lands here.'"

Marg, that's lots of great information about funding for the VA, not VA policy.

Policies highlighted in blue above.

Budget is a main policy activity; new programs and new policies are funded through budget policy.

Quote

How do you think President Obama might justify such an increase in funding? Well, if the VA can recoup from private insurance companies (which do not often cover service related, injuries, combat, etc through exclusions by the way)...

Proposed $15B increase to VA budget - $500M (notional idea to bill third party) = $14.5B.
By the same method that the VA intends to justify that $14.5B increase.

Are you opposed to the VA budget increase?

/Marg

Again, you are confusing funding with policy (by the way, with $15B upfront, that only leaves $10B for the remaining four years according to the sources you quoted).

Now, take that $500M each year...indefinitely...account for inflation...

The other thing that doesn't make sense to me: President Obama wants socialized medicine, yet he wants Veterans to be billed through private insurance from the VA??

Meanwhile, if you insist on providing selective quotes about what this issue is about, I shall do the same, from your link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/17/vets-group-blasts-obama-plan-private-insurance-pay-service-related-health-care/

Quote

He added that the argument about the government's moral obligation to treat wounded soldiers, sailors and Marines fell on deaf ears during the meeting.

"The president deflected any discussion when it got into any moral issue here," he said. "Any attempt to direct the conversation (to the moral discussion) was immediately deflected."

Private insurance is separate for troops who need health care unrelated to their service. But Roberts noted that if a wounded warrior comes back and needs ongoing treatment, he or she could run up "to the max of the coverage in very short order," leaving his family with nothing

Roberts added that how the plan would raise $540 million "is a great mystery and it seems to be an arbitrary number. ... The commander said it seemed like this phantom number."

And from this link: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,186747,00.html?wh=news

Quote

"Some insurance companies have caps [on total payments] that could quickly be met if they [had] to reimburse for service-connected disabilities," Robertson said. The dollar caps could result in family members losing access to care. "Also it would affect premiums to where it may not be affordable, especially for veterans who are self-employed or…on fixed incomes."

When Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), committee chairman, asked how the Senate might close any funding gap left in the 2010 budget if it rejected the insurance reimbursement plan, Robertson had a ready reply. Congress, he said, should require Medicare to reimburse the VA for treatment of non-service-connected conditions of Medicare-eligible veterans. More than half of VA's current patient population qualifies for Medicare, he said.

Akaka didn't react to that suggestion. But it was embraced by Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), chairman of the House committee, when Robertson raised it again during the House hearing on the VA budget.

Is it really time to take that issue on? Filner asked.

"We're bringing in Priority Group 8 veterans and trying to figure out how to pay for them and how to hire extra doctors, nurses, providers," Robertson said. Medicare dollars present "a logical revenue stream."

"If you guys are ready to work with us, we'll take that on. I agree with you," said Filner. But won't Americans see it simply as taking dollars from one government pocket and putting it in another, Filner asked.

"Sir, I've been paying Medicare since the day I started working," said Robertson. "That's a benefit I'm entitled to….If I choose to go to the VA, I should be able to take my health care dollars with me."

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Oh, bollocks. Brainstorming sessions happen all the time (the drunker, the better), and so does floating trial balloons. BFD.

Yep. And the Bush Admin shows what happens during brainstorming sessions. The drunker or more coked out, the better.

"Fuck, guys. Let's do it. We'll justify it somehow."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Again, you are confusing funding with policy (by the way, with $15B upfront, that only leaves $10B for the remaining four years according to the sources you quoted).

No Max, you don’t understand policy, the policy process, or budgetary policy in this situation. The policy changes were clearly highlighted.

Quote

Meanwhile, if you insist on providing selective quotes about what this issue is about, I shall do the same, from your link: http://www.foxnews.com/...related-health-care/

Again Max, no … that’s all further context, which as you note I introduced.

You still haven’t addressed the fact that President Obama has proposed a over $14B in budget increases to VA funding for wounded warriors. Is that the “something like this would be emerging from the new administration” that you expected? Or are you looking for excuses to disregard or diminish what GEN Shinseki called “the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans”? That the proposed policies would increase extend benefits to 500,000 veterans and would lift residual bans of concurrent receipt of compensation by disabled veterans. No one has argued the notional idea was or should go forward: see Sen Murray's quote.

This discussion is making me ill. As someone who has advocated for increased funding for military medicine and veterans treatment over two administrations regardless of executive branch or control of Congress, it’s offensive to me that you would politicize “the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans.” Again, no one has argued the notional idea was or should go forward: see Sen Murray's quote. What I'm hearing is that you care more about whether there is an (R) or an (D) behind the President's name and that advocates for active duty protective medical equipment/treatment and veterans care should restrict their activities to administrations that match their politics. That's not me.

That may not be your intended message, but that is the one you're sending.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Marg:

I don't have a problem with increasing VA funding. I support it. It seems Max doesn't have a problem with it. I have a peoblem with forcing third party funding.

Max also asks questions about the numbers. From where do these numbers come?

Of all people, max would have an interest in VA funding. But it seems that even with his self-interest, he is maintaining his beliefs. He doesn't want to get a benefit is it was received through unjust means.

I don't see Max as looking at D or R. I see Max as having the integrity to question whether a benefit to be conferred to him is received fairly. And whether the benefit suggested is truthful.

I see it the same as you: of all people Max questions it!!! If HE has problems when he has the most to gain then shouldn't you or I consider his issues in depth?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerdgirl 0]

Uh ... perhaps, it's been the incorrect insistence there is no policy underlying the proposed budget.

Perhaps, it's been the failure to acknowledge what GEN Shinseki called “the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans” after he asked what the General thought of the proposal budget.

Perhaps, it's been the failure to address/acknowledge the increase extend benefits to 500,000 veterans and would lift residual bans of concurrent receipt of compensation.

Perhaps, it's been the comment "my gut told me something like this would be emerging from the new administration."

Perhaps, it's been the comment "So, President Obama has no problem sending $900M to Hamas, spending bail-out money into black-holes, but can't preserve $500M... "

... that somehow your generous argument doesn't resonate.

As has been observed over and over, the notional proposal that was put forth at the meeting with the VSOs has about zero political viability. The VSOs are getting what they wanted, something which no one seems to disagree but keeps getting put forth as indicting while ignoring "the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans”, and the VSOs didn't have to wait for a Washington Post story for someting to be done.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

You still haven’t addressed the fact that President Obama has proposed a over $14B in budget increases to VA funding for wounded warriors.

What good is increased funding (aimed at bringing in more veterans) if it isn't used to actually cover service-connected disabilities or injuries?

Quote

Or are you looking for excuses to disregard or diminish what GEN Shinseki called “the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans”? That the proposed policies would increase extend benefits to 500,000 veterans and would lift residual bans of concurrent receipt of compensation by disabled veterans. No one has argued the notional idea was or should go forward: see Sen Murray's quote.

This discussion is making me ill. As someone who has advocated for increased funding for military medicine and veterans treatment over two administrations regardless of executive branch or control of Congress, it’s offensive to me that you would politicize “the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans.” Again, no one has argued the notional idea was or should go forward: see Sen Murray's quote. What I'm hearing is that you care more about whether there is an (R) or an (D) behind the President's name and that advocates for active duty protective medical equipment/treatment and veterans care should restrict their activities to administrations that match their politics. That's not me.

That may not be your intended message, but that is the one you're sending.

/Marg

Throwing money at a system doesn't make it better, or promise anything, or, in the case of the government's performance over the past year guarantee any favorable result.

You can advocate what you want -- FOR THE THIRD TIME, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE NOTION OF HAVING VETERANS WITH SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITIES OR INJURIES BEING FORCED TO OVERSEE PRIVATE INSURANCE FOR SERVICES THE VA IS MANDATED WITH COVERING.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kbordson 8]

Just a quick question here though....


Many of the health insurance policies that I have looked at have several exclusions and limits on pre-existing conditions.

Of which, "acts of war" is a common one to see.

How would that mesh in with this proposed plan?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

FOR THE THIRD TIME, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE NOTION OF HAVING VETERANS WITH SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITIES OR INJURIES BEING FORCED TO OVERSEE PRIVATE INSURANCE FOR SERVICES THE VA IS MANDATED WITH COVERING.

For the third (or 4th) time, no one disagrees with that, as at least 5 other people have noted.

Quote

Throwing money at a system doesn't make it better, or promise anything, or, in the case of the government's performance over the past year guarantee any favorable result.

Uh ... so now do you want it privatized? Or not?

Is what GEN Shinseki (you asked for his words) called “the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans” adequately funding responsibilities and obligations or is it what you're calling throwing money at a system? Or does it matter more that there's a (D) or an (R) behind the administration proposing the policies and budget to pay for those policies? There's the crux.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Just a quick question here though....
Many of the health insurance policies that I have looked at have several exclusions and limits on pre-existing conditions.
Of which, "acts of war" is a common one to see.
How would that mesh in with this proposed plan?

It could directly conflict with it, I'd think. Ultimately, every insurance policy is still a private contract between the insurance carrier and the policyholder; and if an exclusion applies, it applies. Any legislation that would presume to allow a third party - in this case the government - to step in and unilaterally alter that contractual relationship would probably face a constitutional challenge that might ultimately need to be decided by the Supreme Court.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Is what GEN Shinseki (you asked for his words) called “the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans” adequately funding responsibilities and obligations or is it what you're calling throwing money at a system? Or does it matter more that there's a (D) or an (R) behind the administration proposing the policies and budget to pay for those policies? There's the crux.

*groan* God love ya Marg...

In my first post, I wrote:

Quote

I would like to know what Gen. Shinseki has to say about this.

Do you really need me to add context? Because this post is about the idea of having service connected veterans on the hook for their service connected injury or disability.

The fact that Gen. Shinseki is stating that this is the largest single dollar increase for the VA doesn't mean anything to a veteran who may be using the VA system for continued care for their service connected injury or disability, if the VA is going to require private insurance to foot the bill.

I really have no way to make it any clearer than that.

So far, the only thing I've seen or read about what Gen. Shinseki has to say on this matter is this:

Quote

Shinseki emphasized that this is only "a consideration" and not yet part of Obama's budget request. **emphasis mine**

I like Gen. Shinseki, I've never met him, but have no reason to doubt him. However, when you have the heads of ten major Veterans Service Organizations on a united front, writing a letter in February, meeting the President in March, and commander of the oldest, and biggest VSO states that this idea is still on President Obama's table, that, in my opinion, provides an adequate reason for veterans to be disturbed at the notion (even at it's mention).

Part of the increase the VA is getting is to fund the mandate that Congress passed last year for Priority Group 8 Veterans -- Vets with no service connected injury or zero percent disability rating. Half of the 550,000 that will be eligible result from this bill being passed. Congress did this by lifting the income thresholds for single and married veterans in this group. Ironically, the cost of this appears to be $519 million...not too far off the number that was getting floated earlier.

Now, I believe I have reiterated my issues as it pertains to the original post, as well as addressed your unrelated queries about the increases in VA funding as whole.

Personally, the VA could fulfill the new Congressional mandates without the massive bump of $15B on the front end. In fact, given the over spending over the past 6 months, the VA could implement with less than that. This is critical because Group 8 vets do not necessarily need a VA health program. It is, in my opinion, a back door to introduce a larger model socialized health care program for all.

Before you jump all over me about my plans with the VA in the future, I will be in the VA system to care for my leg (stump), ankle, and any issues that derive from those injuries. I will be maintaining a separate health insurance plan and do not plan to intertwine the two if I don't have to.

Do I advocate the VA take care of veterans? Yes. I want the VA to live up to its mission. Does more money equal more care, or higher quality care? I don't know. Given our track record on spending lately, I'm inclined to think not, and that is what my gut tells me.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Thank you for that much more thoughtful & responsive reply than your earlier ones. Still think your parsing ... but in the end, I want the best protection and military medicine for active duty, reserves, and guard soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines; deployed civilians; and allies. And I want fulfillment of ethical and statutory obligations to veterans. Having seen firsthand how policy and budgets can be developed without transparency and without external input, what has been observed here -- in which there is an opprtunity for intervention -- is a change for the better.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Thank you for that much more thoughtful & responsive reply than your earlier ones. Still think your parsing ... but in the end, I want the best protection and military medicine for active duty, reserves, and guard soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines; deployed civilians; and allies. And I want fulfillment of ethical and statutory obligations to veterans. Having seen firsthand how policy and budgets can be developed without transparency and without external input, what has been observed here -- in which there is an opprtunity for intervention -- is a change for the better.

VR/Marg

I parsed nothing. I'm at a loss as to how you don't see that, and it frustrates me because I don't usually have this problem.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[DanG 1]

It seems that no matter what the Obama administration does regarding the VA you will find a way to see it in a negative light.

I agree the third party insurance idea was stupid. It is also never going to happen, and you seem to be the only one who refuses to recognize that.

The budget calls for a massive increase in funding to the VA, and all you can say about it is that is it a plan to backdoor socialized medicine. If your buddy GWB had proposed the same increase, I very much doubt that your reaction would be to criticize it as socialization of national healthcare.

The VA system (and I'm already in it, so I know firsthand) is sometimes extremely frustrating and poorly managed. Sometimes, however, it works beautifully. Just like any other system, it has flaws and good points. Increasing funding may not (will not) eliminate all flaws, but I find it hard to swallow your apparent argument that it will not have any positive impact on the system.

- Dan G

[Gawain 0]

Quote

It seems that no matter what the Obama administration does regarding the VA you will find a way to see it in a negative light
...
...
...
The VA system (and I'm already in it, so I know firsthand) is sometimes extremely frustrating and poorly managed. Sometimes, however, it works beautifully. Just like any other system, it has flaws and good points. Increasing funding may not (will not) eliminate all flaws, but I find it hard to swallow your apparent argument that it will not have any positive impact on the system.

I did not argue that is won't have a positive impact on the system. I argued that funding does not guarantee quality, and even though some in this thread have tried to link the funding to the third-party-pay idea to funding, I did not.

The VA has received increases of funding every year in recent memory.

I am pointing out that given the bang-for-the-buck we've been getting out of the government as a whole, especially the last two years, I find it hard to believe that you aren't skeptical of this out-of-control-spending. The VA can meet its mandates with a more responsible increase in funding (for Group 8 and continued service connected treatments)...of course, I'm basing this on the numbers that have been thrown around in previous posts...which seem to reflect government numbers...can you really tell me that your comfortable with these pie-in-the-sky numbers?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

This matter has officially been officially scrapped, according to Speaker Pelosi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/politics/19vets.html?hp

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I did not argue that is won't have a positive impact on the system. I argued that funding does not guarantee quality, and even though some in this thread have tried to link the funding to the third-party-pay idea to funding, I did not.

No, Max you are still parsing and ignoring context. (For the 4th time, at least, no one has argued in favor of the idea.) Context and transparency have been the points I’ve argued consistently regardless of your efforts to try to create straw men.

Disconnecting the overall budget increase from one notional proposal that wasn’t even included in the actual budget is selective.

And back to the original issue I raised: transparency and full context (that would be what you label “link”ing). Third party billing has been going on for decades. This is the first time an administration has actually made the policy public knowledge. The 2004 PBR proposed (not a not idea on the proverbial table) expanding third party billing, but there was no transparency. The VA health subcommittee marked up two bills based on that budget designed to increase revenue for veterans' health care services through 3rd party billing regardless of nature of injury.

Veterans and veteran service organizations have not had the access and input in the budget policy process that they have had in the last 2 months.

This proposed budget remains the largest increase in the VA budget in 30 years. That you had/have such trouble acknowledging those facts is indicative to the level of politicization in your response.

Regardless of politicization – VSOs input was solicited. They had an opportunity to be involved in the budget process this time even for notional ideas not actually in the budget. Transparency: that’s what your “gut” seems to be unable to acknowledge.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I did not argue that is won't have a positive impact on the system. I argued that funding does not guarantee quality, and even though some in this thread have tried to link the funding to the third-party-pay idea to funding, I did not.

No, Max you are still parsing and ignoring context. (For the 4th time, at least, no one has argued in favor of the idea.) Context and transparency have been the points I’ve argued consistently regardless of your efforts to try to create straw men.

Disconnecting the overall budget increase from one notional proposal that wasn’t even included in the actual budget is selective.

I'll try one more time to make my point by asking this question: What good does this extra funding do for a service-connected-disabled/injured veteran if a policy of third-party pays for ongoing treatment of those conditions is put in place?

Quote

Veterans and veteran service organizations have not had the access and input in the budget policy process that they have had in the last 2 months.

This proposed budget remains the largest increase in the VA budget in 30 years. That you had/have such trouble acknowledging those facts is indicative to the level of politicization in your response.

There is a disconnect here, and I'm going to counter your play-by-play:

1.

Quote

Regardless of politicization – VSOs input was solicited.

VSO input was solicited, and in first, and second impressions, as noted by the American Legion, appeared to be ignored and/or discarded, see the first post in this thread.

2.I posted:

Quote

Well, my gut told me something like this would be emerging from the new administration.

By that, I was expressing the feeling that President Obama, despite his charm and charisma, is lacking a clear understanding of those that serve, and an even lesser understanding of those that endured a life-altering injury during that service. Also the number being floated around, specific to this issue was that President Obama was focused on saving $500M or so with this proposal, hence my comment:

Quote

President Obama has no problem sending $900M to Hamas, spending bail-out money into black-holes, but can't preserve $500M

This is a valid argument. My gut told me that President Obama does not grasp, or care to learn about, military service, and those that do serve. While he is my Commander-in-Chief, I believe he does not understand the depth of that role.

3.The first person to bring up the VA's overall proposed budget was you:

Quote

Budget options are being considered to reduce costs and to bring more vets into the VA system. From Fox News, "a summary of the proposed budget says the president wants to increase funding for VA by $25 billion over five years, and bring more than 500,000 eligible veterans of modest income into the VA health care system by 2013."

Nothing you post here is disputable, however, you are trying to tie in an increase in funding as being a justification of sorts, an ends-justifying-the-means.

4.To which, I then posted the counter:

Quote

The fact that President Obama entertains the idea shows how disconnected he is. An insurance company gets billed until a catastrophic cap is reached and the rest of the policy is not available to the family, etc.

This is the very thing the VA was desgiend, and mandated to do. Non-service-connected conditions are not a comparison.

I'm not disputing the funding, I'm disputing the idea that was posted at the origin of this thread, citing that the very idea the President is entertaining is wrong. The argument posted had nothing to do with the VA's goals as to the expansion of service to Group 8 veterans, rather, it had to do with the "how" they were going to handling ongoing treatment of service connected veterans. In addition, I note that President Obama may use this policy of recouping these costs through private insurance companies as a justification of such a dramatic increase in funding.

5.You then bring up the overall budget again, citing the exciting policy enhancements with the proposed budget increase:

Quote

Policies highlighted in blue above.

--I figure I don't have to copy/paste all that. You then throw a low shot at me by saying:

Quote

Are you opposed to the VA budget increase?

Of course, the budget increase as a whole wasn't at issue here.

6.I then provide some selected quotes from the sources you cite at FoxNews and Military.com, again targeted at the issue at hand: Consideration of having service connected-disabilities and injuries paid through third-party insurance sources.

BREAK:Now, I want to re-state the issue that was originally brought up had to do specifically with consideration of adopting a policy of having service connected-disabilities and injuries paid through third-party insurance sources.

7.Again, you state to me:

Quote

You still haven’t addressed the fact that President Obama has proposed a over $14B in budget increases to VA funding for wounded warriors. Is that the “something like this would be emerging from the new administration” that you expected? Or are you looking for excuses to disregard or diminish what GEN Shinseki called “the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans”? That the proposed policies would increase extend benefits to 500,000 veterans and would lift residual bans of concurrent receipt of compensation by disabled veterans.

In this, you keep bringing up the plan to bring in another half-million vets that are not service-connected. You also cite concurrent receipt of pensions, if applicable. You also state your advocacy for increased VA funding regardless of political party in the administration.

8.I then reply to you:

Quote

What good is increased funding (aimed at bringing in more veterans) if it isn't used to actually cover service-connected disabilities or injuries?

Again, I haven't been talking about the funding as a whole, but the notion that as of that time, had not been dismissed, and was still being entertained by the administration. I then state that more funding does not guarantee performance, and cite the government's performance over the past year as evidence of that fact and reiterate that my issue is not with the funding as a whole but the floating of the idea to have service-connected veterans on the hook for ongoing treatment related to their condition.

9.You gloss over my point about the third-party idea, without really acknowledging it. You then cite Gen. Shinseki's words about the budget as a whole, yet again, being the "biggest increase" in the history of the VA.

10.I then provide a real quote as to what Gen. Shinseki had to say about the matter at hand:

Quote

Shinseki emphasized that this is only "a consideration" and not yet part of Obama's budget request.

This was based on his testimony in front of Congressional Committee. I then comment on the budget as a whole, though unrelated to the original post.

11.You then comment on the transparency of the process and tell me I'm parsing.

12.I express my frustration.

13.I then reply to DanG, explaining that I'm not arguing about the proposed funding as a whole, not fully knowing the impact it may have.

14.I post a NY Times link stating the issue of service-connected veterans idea has been scrubbed. Note that in that article, President Obama is still interested in finding a way to save $500M +/-

Quote

administration officials have told veterans groups that they want to find another way to save a similar amount of money

.

15.You then tell me I'm still parsing, drawing me into a discussion I was avoiding in this thread. You then accuse me of politicizing the issue.

Having summarized all that, I'll leave it at this:

It disturbs me deeply that President Obama would even entertain the thought. I don't care what politics is represented. ...and again, no, I'm not talking about the "biggest increase in the budget ever requested for the VA in the history of the VA."

I yield the last word to you, good day.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Also the number being floated around, specific to this issue was that President Obama was focused on saving $500M or so with this proposal, hence my comment:

Quote

President Obama has no problem sending $900M to Hamas, spending bail-out money into black-holes, but can't preserve $500M

This is a valid argument.

It’s *only* specific if you selectively ignore the context of :

(1) the largest increase in the VA budget. The budget proposed increases funding to veterans by >$14B. That is directly contrary to your next assertion, which you keep parsing out:

Quote

My gut told me that President Obama does not grasp, or care to learn about, military service, and those that do serve. While he is my Commander-in-Chief, I believe he does not understand the depth of that role.

Of course, you have a right to that belief.

Unfortunately, the facts, as noted by GEN Shinseki, are contrary to what your ‘gut’ told you. That fact also suggests that what you called a ‘valid’ argument above is not. It’s only a valid argument if the fact of the largest budget increase is ignored. That you can’t address that and keep wanting to push that out selectively suggests something. One explanation is politicizing the issue. You’ve offered no other. Maybe it’s not the facts and context that need to be re-examined for validity.

Yes, I put forth the larger context, i.e. “the rest of the story.” That’s the opposite of parsing.

(2) The unprecedented transparency of the process. The VSOs had access that they had not before. Expansion of third-party billing has been proposed before. The VSOs didn’t have access and the policy changes were not made public.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying