Jump to content
Posted 01 September 2010 - 08:14 AM
Posted 01 September 2010 - 05:09 PM
So how's everybody doing in that little head of yours ? ™
Posted 01 September 2010 - 05:49 PM
La aldri niggerne å stjele Viking kulturarv
Posted 01 September 2010 - 06:18 PM
Posted 01 September 2010 - 06:48 PM
Edited by zalternate, 01 September 2010 - 07:46 PM.
Posted 02 September 2010 - 08:31 AM
You still crack me up man of few words. So straight to the point.
Fuck that Nigger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited by tommie gorman, 02 September 2010 - 08:36 AM.
Posted 02 September 2010 - 10:37 AM
By the way I don't know of any veterans denied healthcare "yet", but give Obama time, I am sure thats to change soon. Under Bush it was better really. Ask my navy veteran brother. Many things have been cut back during this administration. Unlike during Bush. Sorry, no link, just facts on that one.
Fought for America? Bush Still Won't Give You Health Care
Subjecting veterans to the profit-maximizing health insurance industry leaves our moral debt unpaid.
November 8, 2007
Last April, President Bush told members of American
Legion Post 177 that "we owe the families and the soldiers the best health care possible."
That debt is still unpaid. According to a new report by Harvard Medical School researchers, published last week in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Public Health, millions of veterans and their family members have not been getting the medical care they need.
People assume that veterans automatically get health care from Veterans Affairs (VA). They don't. Despite their military service, the Bush Administration requires most veterans to pay additional money for insurance in order to get care. But many veterans don't earn enough money to be able to buy health insurance. At the same time, they aren't poor enough under Bush Administration guidelines to get VA care or to qualify for Medicaid. Abandoned, these veterans struggle alone to find health care. In the insurance marketplace, our veterans remain in harms way -- their service, and our debt, forgotten.
Why haven't we made good on our obligation? Our moral debt to our veterans, based on mutual need and shared responsibility, goes unpaid in the current health insurance system because it is based upon corporate self-interest. An insurance company's responsibility is to maximize profit, even when that means denying care to veterans. Clearly, our national moral responsibility is not the same as an insurance company's corporate fiduciary duty to maximize profits. (This concept is discussed further in our Rockridge Institute paper, The Logic of the Health Care Debate).
In fact, as the veterans' predicament demonstrates, these obligations can be quite contradictory. A vet is a national hero. Soldiers risk their lives. Many will be injured. Some will die. In return, we promise to support our troops in whatever way possible -- both on the battlefield and when (or if) they return as veterans. Certainly, our support includes medical care.
There is no price that can be put on the risks a soldier takes. Nor is there a way to estimate the care a veteran will need during their lifetime. Our mutual obligations are easily understood, but impossible to quantify.
But a health insurance company's duty is to its shareholders. Its legal and contractual obligation is to maximize profits. Health insurance companies do that by quantifying likely health costs, and selling the policies for more than they will pay out in benefits. If you cannot afford their policies, then they will not sell you one. Simply put, a veteran is just another potential customer.
The national failure to meet our shared obligations to veterans -- who risked life and limb on our behalf -- is a disgrace. It betrays the moral vacuum at the center of our current health care system.
Let's simplify to make this ugly circumstance as clear as we can. Imagine a town. Inside the town live health insurance executives and the politicians who serve their interests. Soldiers risk life and limb to protect the town. Later, a soldier gets sick. "Sorry, you don't earn enough to afford our insurance policies. Try the next town," say the insurance executives. Except, in America, there is no "next town."
One way that we could meet our national obligation to support our troops is for the government to provide or guarantee medical care for all veterans. A version of this idea occurred through the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-262). The Act opened VA care to all veterans, with copays for those veterans considered to be "non-poor" (generally those making $30,000 and higher). In January 2003, however, the Bush Administration ordered a halt to the enrollment of "non-poor" veterans. The VA facilities were "full." To date, it's no better. As a result, according to the Harvard Medical School study, millions of vets and their family members cannot afford health insurance and go everyday without needed medical care. That is tragic. Something must change.
The authors elegantly summarize the central role that veterans and health care play in our national community:
The disturbing scene of returning soldiers left without care is a stark reminder that America is a nation bound by mutual obligations and shared responsibility. We owe veterans care not because they can pay for it nor because they are heroes but -- as their sacrifices remind us -- because members of a society are obligated to serve and protect each other.
In America, we don't have a health care system; we have an insurance marketplace. Until we understand the difference, no reform will work. To our low-income veterans, that is a daily hardship. We should make their hardship our problem too. One we solve together. Now. We owe that to our veterans.
Between tax cuts for the rich, war profits for Halliburton, or support for our troops - which does the Bush Administration choose, time and time again?
Bush Administration cuts $1.5 billion from military family housing. The Bush Administration cut $1.5 billion for military family housing, despite Department of Defense statistics showing that in 83,000 barracks and 128,860 family housing units across the country are below standard. ("Nothing But Lip Service," Army Times, June 30, 2003; "House Appropriations Committee Approves $59.2 Million for Ft. Hood," U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards Press Release, June 17, 2003)
Bush Republicans support millionaires instead of military veterans. Bush allies in Congress stopped efforts to scale back the tax cut for the nation's millionaires by just five percent - a loss of just $4,780 for the year - in order to restore this funding for military family housing. ("The Tax Debate Nobody Hears About," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)
Bush Administration underfunded veterans' health care by $2 billion. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget underfunded veterans' health care by nearly $2 billion. ("Vets Health Low on Bush's Priority List," The Hill, September 17, 2003; "Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003; U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, September 2002)
Bush Administration proposal would end health care benefits for 173,000 veterans. More than 173,000 veterans across the country would be cut off from health care because of Bush Administration proposed budget cuts and its plan requiring enrollment fees and higher out-of-pocket costs. ("Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)
Bush Administration budget cuts force more than 200,000 veterans to wait for health care. Over 200,000 United States veterans have to wait more than six months for a medical visit because of health care shortages. ("VA Health Care Funding Alert," Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Press Release, January 31, 2003)
Bush Administration opposed plan to give National Guard and Reserve Members access to health insurance. Despite the war efforts of America's National Guard and Reserve Members, the Bush Administration announced in October 2003 its formal opposition to give the 1.2 million Guard and Reserve members the right to buy health care coverage through the Pentagon's health plan. One out of every five Guard members lacks health insurance. ("Bush Opposes Health Plan for National Guard," Gannett News Service, October 23, 2003)
Bush Administration cuts $172 million allotted for educating the children of military personnel. The Bush Administration's 2004 budget cut $172 million of impact aid funding. Impact aid funding assists school districts by making up for lost local tax revenue from tax-exempt property, such as military bases. These education cuts will especially affect school-age children of troops serving in Iraq who reside on military bases. ("Support for Troops Questioned," Washington Post, June 17, 2003)
Bush Administration tax cut denies military families increase in child tax credit. The families of 262,000 children of military personnel do not receive the child tax credit increase because the plan fails to cover taxpaying families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625. According to The Washington Post, the House version of the Bush Administration plan "wouldn't help many of those serving in Iraq." One solider who will not benefit is Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, the soldier and single mother who was wounded twice in the same convoy as Jessica Lynch. ("Ex-POW's Family Accuses Army of Double Standard on Benefit," Washington Post, October 24, 2003; "The New Senate Child Credit Legislation - What It Does and Does Not Do," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 25, 2003; "Whose Child Is Left Behind," Children's Defense Fund, July 23, 2003)
sept 1 2010
In Iraq address, Obama gives nod to veteran health care
In his Oval Office address Tuesday night, President Barack Obama announced the end of combat operations in Iraq — and with it a return to challenges at home, especially those faced by veterans. Obama pointed to his Post-9/11 GI Bill http://www.gibill.va.gov/ — which came into effect in August 2009 and has since helped 300,000 veterans achieve a college education — as evidence of his commitment to veteran well-being. Further, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder as a "signature wound of today's wars," Obama highlighted the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (CVOHSA), passed in May, which is designed to improve health care for returning veterans. But what does the bill really say? Below, five ways that CVOHSA should help veterans and their families:
1. Caregivers will be recognized and compensated
As many families of service members know, a soldier who returns from war with brain trauma or a missing limb requires support at home. That can be financially and emotionally taxing. CVOHSA will allow one family member to act as the veteran's primary personal care provider, and to serve as a liaison between the veteran and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Under the new law, the caregiver will earn a competitive salary, paid for by the government, and have access to his or her own medical and psychological support.
2. The VA will study barriers to care of female veterans and improve current services
Given the high rate of sexual assault among women in uniform (nearly one-third of all female veterans report having been raped) http://www.time.com/...1968110,00.html , the bill's provision to increase hiring of mental health professionals who specialize in sexual trauma is overdue. Childcare services for female veterans during any period of medical treatment will also be ramped up.
3. Improvements to veteran health care in rural areas
Forty percent of veterans live in rural areas, where medical innovation and staffing are most likely to lag. In an attempt to retain more doctors in these areas, the VA will increase educational-debt relief and salary maximums for doctors who agree to work in a VA placement for at least three years. Where VA clinics are not available, the bill authorizes the VA to cover most health-care costs for veterans who seek treatment in civilian clinics.
4. Inquiry into suicide rates among vets
The VA will study the increasing trend of suicide among veterans and will improve access to care for those no longer on active duty. VA Secretary Eric Shinseki reported in January that 20% of all suicides in America are committed by veterans.
5. Increase commitment to veterans of previous wars, especially those exposed to Agent Orange
Despite the controversy over the automatic funding of Agent Orange claims by Vietnam War veterans, even claims for disabilities that are not linked to the herbicide by clinical data (a review of the policy is slated for Sept. 23), the authors of CVOHSA evidently did not want to leave Vietnam-era veterans out — or Gulf War vets either. Gulf War vets and Vietnam vets who were exposed to Agent Orange will have increased access to services, including VA hospital care, medical services and nursing home care, for any disability.
Edited by zalternate, 02 September 2010 - 11:04 AM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users