Liberals do like Veterans...

[goofyjumper 0]

WASHINGTON – The government is taking what President Barack Obama calls "a long overdue step" to aid veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, making it easier for them receive federal benefits.

The changes that Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki will announce Monday fulfill "a solemn responsibility to provide our veterans and wounded warriors with the care and benefits they've earned when they come home," Obama said in his weekly radio and online address Saturday.

The new rules will apply not only to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but also those who served in previous conflicts.

No longer will veterans have to prove what caused their illness. Instead, they would have to show that the conditions surrounding the time and place of their service could have contributed to their illness.

"I don't think our troops on the battlefield should have to take notes to keep for a claims application," the president said. "And I've met enough veterans to know that you don't have to engage in a firefight to endure the trauma of war."

Veterans advocates and some lawmakers have argued that it sometimes could be impossible for veterans to find records of a firefight or bomb blast.

They also have contended that the old rules ignored other causes of PTSD, such as fearing a traumatic event even if it doesn't occur. That could discriminate against female troops prohibited from serving on front lines and against other service members who don't experience combat directly.

"This is a long overdue step," Obama said. "It's a step that proves America will always be here for our veterans, just as they've been there for us. We won't let them down. We take care of our own."

A study last year by the RAND Corp. think tank estimated that nearly 20 percent of returning veterans, or 300,000, have symptoms of PTSD or major depression.

A senior official at the Department of Veterans Affairs said the agency doesn't expect the number of veterans receiving benefits for PTSD to rise dramatically, as most veterans with legitimate applications for benefits do eventually get claims. The goal is simply to make the claims process less cumbersome and time-consuming, said the official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity ahead of the VA's announcement.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[Gawain 0]

Anything they can do to make the process easier will be better for these soldiers. Now, they need to adopt a policy that also does this for Traumatic Brain Injuries as well, since the assessments for TBI can be just as obscure (meaning no single Field Manual definition) as assessments for PTSD, and quite often, both are present.

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!

[Gravitymaster 0]

But then they go and do this. Sad


http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m7d4-Wounded-warriors-taxed-by-ObamaCare-for-prosthetic-medical-devices


"You will not see your taxes increased a single dime." - President Barack Obama

"[W]e have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." - Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.


As the nation celebrates Independence Day with parades and barbecues, America's veterans face a new tax on prosthetic limbs and other vital medical devices.

The health care overhaul passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama earlier this year contains a new tax on medical devices such as prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, and wheelchairs. This tax, which its proponents claim will raise $20 billion over the next ten years, contains no exemption for the nation's 22 million veterans. In fact, Senate Democrats specifically refused to exempt veterans from the tax., according to officials from the non-partisan, public interest group Americans for Tax Reform

"Did Americans forget President Obama promising that Americans making less than $250,000.00 per year would not see their taxes go up one cent? Once again a politician is caught lying to the voters," said political strategist Mike Baker.

On March 24 2010, Senate Democrats rejected an amendment offered by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to the healthcare bill. This amendment (SA 3644) would have prevented the medical device tax from hitting veterans covered by the Veterans Healthcare Program or TRICARE for Life.

This amendment was rejected by a vote of 44-54. All but five Democrat senators voted in favor of retaining the tax for veterans.

The medical device tax was one of over twenty new or higher taxes in President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul. This permanent new tax is already being collected by the federal government.

"On March 24, Senate Democrats had the opportunity to exempt our veterans from Obamacare's new tax on medical devices such as prosthetic limbs. But 54 Democrats voted against the measure. They chose to side with the tax-and-spend crowd in Washington over our wounded warriors," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

"This is one of the many reasons Harry Reid and the Democrats did not want Americans to read the 2,500 page health care bill before it was passed," Norquist added.

In addition to those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of Veterans Affairs reports the following number of veterans from America's wars:

World War II: 2,079,000
Korean War: 2,507,000
Vietnam War: 7,569,000
Desert Shield/Storm: 2,254,000

The following senators voted for the tax:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Roland Burris (D-IL)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Edward Kaufman (D-DE)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Joe Lieberman (ID-CT)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Ben Nelson (D-FL)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Arlen Specter (D-PA)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

[goofyjumper 0]

I do not mind my taxes going up. They are always going to up anyways.

-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla

[Andy9o8 0]

I Googled that piece quoted in your post #3. It's one of those viral talking-points scripts that are always circulating in the right-wing blogosphere.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22As+the+nation+celebrates+Independence+Day+with+parades+and+barbecues,+America%27s+veterans+face+a+new+tax+on+prosthetic+limbs+and+other+vital+medical+devices.+%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&as_qdr=all&filter=0

A bit of fact-checking shows that the quoted piece has something for everyone: some truths, some half-truths, some falsities, some fact-twisting and spinning, some outright demagoguery, and some convenient omissions.

Here are the links to just a couple of point-by-point factual analyses (partial rebuttals, really) of that piece, which people can read them themselves:

http://www.bluehogreport.com/2010/07/08/hcr-reform-bill-to-tax-wounded-veterans-for-prosthetics-not-really/

http://www.burnpit.us/2010/07/about-that-tax-on-veterans%E2%80%99-prosthetics%E2%80%A6/

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

But then they go and do this. Sad

Awwwwe, I agree, money over guys who are willing to die for the country. Listen real carefully:

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT IT COSTS, GIVE THE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED, THERE OR HERE.

Now, back to your normally scheduled tax complaining / corporation-loving.

[Gravitymaster 0]

That's quite creative thinking to contend that manufacturers will absorb taxes and not pass them along in some way. I do agree the article was hyped by using "wounded warriors" but that doesn't negate the point.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

But then they go and do this. Sad

Awwwwe, I agree, money over guys who are willing to die for the country. Listen real carefully:

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT IT COSTS, GIVE THE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED, THERE OR HERE.

Now, back to your normally scheduled tax complaining / corporation-loving.

I'm sure the Vets appreciate your support on this. Good on you, Lucky.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I do not mind my taxes going up. They are always going to up anyways.

That is a dangerous opinion.... IMO

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But then they go and do this. Sad

Awwwwe, I agree, money over guys who are willing to die for the country. Listen real carefully:

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT IT COSTS, GIVE THE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED, THERE OR HERE.

Now, back to your normally scheduled tax complaining / corporation-loving.

I'm sure the Vets appreciate your support on this. Good on you, Lucky.

Well, don't they deserve it? I'm sure you agree, no sarccasm meant. I think the military is vastly overbuilt and needs immediate downsizing, but that's a diff issue than that of vet needs and/or current military member's needs.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But then they go and do this. Sad

Awwwwe, I agree, money over guys who are willing to die for the country. Listen real carefully:

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT IT COSTS, GIVE THE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED, THERE OR HERE.

Now, back to your normally scheduled tax complaining / corporation-loving.

I'm sure the Vets appreciate your support on this. Good on you, Lucky.

Well, don't they deserve it? I'm sure you agree, no sarccasm meant. I think the military is vastly overbuilt and needs immediate downsizing, but that's a diff issue than that of vet needs and/or current military member's needs.

ok, not disagreeing here... (though the definitions of vastly likely vary)

Though how would you continue to give our current servicemen & women what they need (jobs, money, food, shelter) and at the same time implement immediate downsizing?

Accelerating retirement only hurts us through retraining costs and doesn't help the $$ bottom line immediately.

Layoffs aren't the answer to that question.

Extracting us from current conflicts reduces expenditures, but doesn't downsize. So that's an answer to a different question. Cutting back on equipment would leave a bunch of support people without jobs to do.

I'm seriously wondering of you've put thought into this. I don't know the answer and don't think it's an easy one.

Lowering recruitment targets would be a likely first step, but that's not immediate downsizing is it?

Not shitting on your idea, just wondering how you might implement it.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But then they go and do this. Sad

Awwwwe, I agree, money over guys who are willing to die for the country. Listen real carefully:

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT IT COSTS, GIVE THE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED, THERE OR HERE.

Now, back to your normally scheduled tax complaining / corporation-loving.

I'm sure the Vets appreciate your support on this. Good on you, Lucky.

Well, don't they deserve it? I'm sure you agree, no sarccasm meant. I think the military is vastly overbuilt and needs immediate downsizing, but that's a diff issue than that of vet needs and/or current military member's needs.

ok, not disagreeing here... (though the definitions of vastly likely vary)

Quote

Though how would you continue to give our current servicemen & women what they need (jobs, money, food, shelter) and at the same time implement immediate downsizing?

Attrition; don't induct more service members for a while. Imediate doeasn't mean to chop them now, there's a transitional process for troops and for military manufacturers. Design programs to transition the gross military projects to civil projects and eventually phase away.

Quote

Accelerating retirement only hurts us through retraining costs and doesn't help the $$ bottom line immediately.

Nothing along these lines really has an immediate effect, other than post-war chops, but I'm talking basic military ops here. As for accellerating retirement, we won't have the need for nearly as many positions, so I don't see that being a factor.

Quote

Layoffs aren't the answer to that question.

I would venture to say that the biggest military costs are in teh toys, B-1, B-2, tanks, arms, etc and in military retirement pay. Active troops are a bargain sinc ethey are so grossly underpaid.

Quote

Extracting us from current conflicts reduces expenditures, but doesn't downsize. So that's an answer to a different question.

Or a diff part of teh same question; I think teh 2 are intertwined.

Quote

Cutting back on equipment would leave a bunch of support people without jobs to do.

That's why I said above that there needs to be a transitional process.

Quote

I'm seriously wondering of you've put thought into this. I don't know the answer and don't think it's an easy one.

I have. Look at the GHWB and Clinton approach to downsizing, it worked well and didn't create a riptide. Base closures / realignment phased in and ot worked great until GWB came in and blew teh fucker open fascist Ronnie style.

Quote

Lowering recruitment targets would be a likely first step, but that's not immediate downsizing is it?

With attrition the way it is, it would be immediately felt. Ever been in the military? Ever seen the size of basic training facilities / number of inductees?

Quote

Not shitting on your idea, just wondering how you might implement it.

- Base closeures / realignment based upon military need / technology

- Kill teh B-1 as they are now talking about

- kill any excessive / redundant programs

- Get out of the M.E.

- Close many bases around teh world

- Early outs dependant upon MOS

- Chop inductees for a while

• Quote

[DanG 1]

If the need for the medical device is service connected, the device and its upkeep are provided by the VA, free of charge to the veteran.

This piece is propaganda.

- Dan G

[Gawain 0]

Quote

If the need for the medical device is service connected, the device and its upkeep are provided by the VA, free of charge to the veteran.

This piece is propaganda.

Only part of your statement is correct.

The VA has, in the past, attempted to bill back to third party insurers if the veteran has other coverage. There was discussion about making this policy last summer.

For active duty wounded veterans, who require medical devices, the VA does not cover that. It is covered by TriCare and apparently would be subject to the tax.

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]

Quote

For active duty wounded veterans, who require medical devices, the VA does not cover that. It is covered by TriCare and apparently would be subject to the tax.

I'm not sure this is correct. If the need was service connected, I would expect that the military medical facility would take care of the device. If the need was not service connected (Snuffy broke his leg skiing on leave), then I don't see why a servicemember should be treated any differently than a regular citizen.

- Dan G

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

For active duty wounded veterans, who require medical devices, the VA does not cover that. It is covered by TriCare and apparently would be subject to the tax.

I'm not sure this is correct. If the need was service connected, I would expect that the military medical facility would take care of the device. If the need was not service connected (Snuffy broke his leg skiing on leave), then I don't see why a servicemember should be treated any differently than a regular citizen.

For part of my time, TriCare had to refer me to prosthetists since the Army doesn't have any. My statement was correct. For stuff that can be handled in-house, TriCare is not an issue, but the Army even bills TriCare some times (my wheel chair at Walter Reed is an example).

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]

Okay, I never experienced that. I guess the real question is, were any of those costs passed on to you?

- Dan G

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Okay, I never experienced that. I guess the real question is, were any of those costs passed on to you?

Directly at the time, none. As those costs to insurers go up, it passes to premium increases or cuts later. Simple. You're familiar with TriCare, there are limits in certain instances.

For most instances for active duty, the MTF can handle most of the stuff, but the Army does have it's own prosthetists or orthotic designers, etc. So some medical devices will hit some people. There are a small number of amputees still on duty, other device necessities may impact as well.

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!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If the need for the medical device is service connected, the device and its upkeep are provided by the VA, free of charge to the veteran.

Not 100% correct. I have a service connected disability and the VA is charging my private insurance for "co pays".

Now if I didn't have HC, they would not charge me. But they are charging my insurance company and that is taken into consideration when I buy insurance.

[DanG 1]

I guess it must depend on your level of disability. My private insurance (or Tricare) don't get billed by the VA for anything, or if they do, I've never been notified.

I actually had the reverse problem once, I went to a private provider (with VA referal) because the VA was unable to fix my device. The private provider tried to bill my private insurance, and I had to play middle-man to get all three entities talking and get the bill sent to the VA where it belonged.

One thing I think everyone can agree on is that the VA system is confusing as hell. Of course, the private insurance world is no better.

- Dan G

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I guess it must depend on your level of disability.

Tier I over 50%.

Quote

My private insurance (or Tricare) don't get billed by the VA for anything, or if they do, I've never been notified.

Or they don't know you have private insurance, or you didn't make enough that year to be required to pay anything.

Quote

One thing I think everyone can agree on is that the VA system is confusing as hell. Of course, the private insurance world is no better.

Your opinion... mine is my private HC is faster, better, and less BS than the VA.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I guess it must depend on your level of disability.

Tier I over 50%.

Unfortunately, the VA shouldn't be doing it to begin with. I'm at 70% and thus far appear not to be pinging any TriWest paperwork with my service-connected stuff.

Quote

Quote

My private insurance (or Tricare) don't get billed by the VA for anything, or if they do, I've never been notified.

Or they don't know you have private insurance, or you didn't make enough that year to be required to pay anything.

I thought that was for Group 8 veterans (?)

Quote

Quote

One thing I think everyone can agree on is that the VA system is confusing as hell. Of course, the private insurance world is no better.

Your opinion... mine is my private HC is faster, better, and less BS than the VA.

What miffs me about this is that I agree with you. Though it's not apparent from the people I meet, it always ends up being some faceless bureaucrat in the background that no one can find...etc.

I wonder what disposition of VA personnel are vets themselves?

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]

Quote

Tier I over 50%.

Me too.

Quote

Or they don't know you have private insurance, or you didn't make enough that year to be required to pay anything.

They know about both Tricare and my private insurance. I probably make enough from Army retirement alone to pass any means test. Still, I've never been billed.

Quote

Your opinion... mine is my private HC is faster, better, and less BS than the VA.

I guess we can't even agree on that. I find the VA bureaucracy a giant pain to deal with, but if I skip the gatekeepers and call my providers directly, I can get things done quickly and easily. It's the same with my private insurance, right up until I get the paperwork in the mail, then you can't get away from the desk jockeys.

- Dan G

[Channman 2]

Quote

I do not mind my taxes going up. They are always going to up anyways.

You don't mind your taxes going up?? Hell thats just plan Goofy

[Channman 2]

Quote

I do not mind my taxes going up. They are always going to up anyways.

I noticed a bumper sticker on a car the other day, "PISS OFF A LIBERAL, GET A JOB"

I found it interesting, maybe thats why so many of them live in New York, well at least when it comes to paying taxes. Just an observation