Battle Lines Drawn. Insurance Industry 1. The President 1 - and Vets and our own scored their goal.

[TheBigotBasher]

The faux outrage by some Vet Groups hid the real news that VA funding went up by $1.3 billion MORE than what was asked for and as a result many of the promises made by President Obama during the campaign are now well on the road to being met.

No other President has ever given a VA spending award that was more than the "Independent Budget" presented to Congress by veterans groups. President Obama’s VA budget outline is set to raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. An increase of $15 billion on the current budget.

In addition, the plan will allow the VA health care system to enrol 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 President is also making good on lifting a ban on concurrent receipt of both military retirement and VA disability compensation for disabled retirees. In 2010 concurrent receipt will be allowed for the most seriously disabled veterans forced to retire.

However the hard right allowed the Press to lose sight of these achievements. Importantly though this faux outrage is highly indicative of the lies that the Insurance lobby will use against UHC.

The battle was about a small proposal to make insurance companies pay for non military sicknesses where the Vet had ALREADY paid insurance premiums. There were no extra co-pays and tapping "third party" insurance already EXISTS within the system. The proposal was an extension of what existed already.

The VA already taps "third party" insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in 2008 were at $2.4 billion. For 2009, the VA expects to collect $2.5 billion.

The amendment would mean that total would have risen to around $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.

This was to be met by Insurance companies that Veterans have already paid fees to. The Insurance companies are very happy to take those fees. Now that plans to recover this money have been dropped, the Insurance Industry will be able to carry on STEALING premiums from Veterans knowing that they will not be forced to pay anything out as the Government will pick up the tab.

The hard right of course partied on the backs of sick veterans to divert attention from their failure. All of the dirty Republican lies came out, spread by everyone from neo strormfront Larry Johnson

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/03/17/just-words/

to Rethug Senators and then those that should have known better or quite simply - have asked. Our own Democratic Members of Congress.

The reaction of the hard right and their insurance paymasters to this proposal was predictable, but too many Democratic Senators walked right in to his one and saw it as an attack on veterans. As ever, the usual suspects were ready to be rentaquotes against the President.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/dems-fuming-over-white-ho_n_176006.html

Democratic Members of Congress need to remember, the GOP will use every lie going to get their way and hey will be joined by powerful lobby groups. It is their job to make sure the truth is heard.

(update - for typos)

[Top Cat]

1. Kick

[ProSense]

2. Thanks for the explanation. I tried

but not as eloquently.

[amandabeech]

3. I'm confused.

The Huffington Post article that you link starts out as follows:

Democrats in Congress are organizing to squash a White House proposal that would require veterans to use private insurance to pay for treatment of their combat and service-related injuries.

You wrote:

The battle was about a small proposal to make insurance companies pay for non military sicknesses where the Vet had ALREADY paid insurance premiums. There were no extra co-pays and tapping "third party" insurance already EXISTS within the system. The proposal was an extension of what existed already.

Which was it? "Combat and service-related injuries" or "non-military sicknesses?"

Would you please clarify?

[TheBigotBasher]

4. There was no additional requirement on Vets

The administration was considering charging health insurance plans earned through civilian employment for costs in treating service-connected injuries or ailments where those ailments were already covered by their existing plan.

There would have been no break in treatment. This would have recovered insurance costs that had already been paid for. The total raised would have amounted to $.5 billion. Small fry. The Insurance lobby quite simply did not want to pay what they should have bee paying for and they won this small battle.

I trust that they will now reduce the fees that they charge, given that they do not have to pick up that cost.

[bemildred]

5. A classic case of the Mighty Wurlitzer in action.

"pay no attention to the little man behind the screen."

[wmbrew0206]

6. So completely wrong. The insurance companies would pass on the extra expense to the vets

Insurance companies are not going to pay for the service related medical charges of veterans out of the goodness of their heart and they should not be obligated to. The insurance companies did not make a promise to pay for any injury that occurred during a vets service, the federal government did.

The insurance companies are going not going to simple take that the hit to their bottom line. They are going to pass the expense on to their customers and mainly the vets themselves in the form of higher insurance premiums. Veterans that don't do twenty and retire are going to have high premiums since they have put their bodies through more than 80% of the population. This will cause a several follow on problems: Vets who try to start their own businesses will be at a disadvantage due to their health care costs, veterans will be less competitive against non-vets due to their insurance costs to the potential employers.

The idea that insurance companies do not want this is a smoke screen, because they know a losing battle when they see one and this makes it look like they are looking out for the vets. Insurance companies would increase their volume and possibly their profit margin by being able to up their premiums and blame it on the government.

I know a lot of people will say that you could incorporate something into the budget or pass a law that says the insurance companies can't raise their premiums or pass on the cost to consumers. Unfortunately, unless the law locks in current premiums forever, then the insurance companies are going to find a way to pass these costs back to the vets and other customers.

The good news is it is a moot point now.

[ProSense]

7. "The insurance companies would pass on the extra expense to the vets"

Cut it out. You're dealing with hypotheticals. The VA already collects money this way, and no one was complaining about it:

The VA already taps "third party" insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in fiscal 2008 totaled $2.4 billion. The VA expects to collect $2.5 billion this year. The total could jump to $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.

APPLICATION OF THIRD-PARTY REIMBURSEMENT TO VETERAN COPAYMENTS

VA Health Care: VA Increases Third-Party Collections as It Addresses Problems in Its Collections Operations

Why wasn't the American Legion screaming about this for the past eight years? Why are they pretending this is something new?

[noamnety]

11. Read more carefully.

you quoted something about insurance companies having to pay for NONservice related conditions.

The new proposal was for private companies to have to pay for SERVICE-related injuries, which the federal government has an obligation to pick up the tab for.

I didn't understand the problem with this at first - it was only after reading about it on a veterans' board that I "got" it. The issue is that some insurance companies have an annual cap (or lifetime cap) on what they will pay out for a person, or for a family.

So if a vet spends X amount of dollars on a combat related injury - they might use up ALL their benefits, and then when they are sick or injured as a civilian, the insurance company might not be willing to pay anything else for that - in effect leaving the vet (or possibly their family) effectively without insurance at all. (Or some insurance companies might be unwilling to ensure a person and their family altogether if they have serious service-connected conditions that require a ton of care.)

In a nutshell: The folks opposing it understood it didn't require vets to get private insurance - and that it's not a direct charge to the vet. That's not the issue. The issues are: 1) it's unethical for the government to send a person to war, and then shift the burden of care for those war injuries to a private company, and 2) it puts the vet at risk of drying up their insurance payouts on the shit the government should be paying for, leaving them without insurance they might need if something new arises.

[ProSense]

13. What you do no seem to understand is that

the furor was a rumor created over an account from a meeting that was taken as the official account.

The consideration that Shinseki discusse at the March 10 hearing was a determination about, as the OP stated, the $500 million in revenue collected by expanding the exisiting program.

[noamnety]

19. And what you don't understand

is that the "rumor" was a very real discussion of a very real thing being proposed, and that the most effective time for vets to make their voices heard was in exactly that stage of the process.

[wmbrew0206]

20. Amen!

[Egnever]

8. imagine that

more fuax outrage spawned by the media and the republicans. Who'd a thunk it.

[sampsonblk]

9. The idea was stupid and was wisely dropped

What you fail to note in your OP is how behaviors would change if this idea (or a similar one) was passed. Lucky for you, that you don't have to worry about that part. But I do, and other veterans do as well.

How would my insurance company behave if they knew that they might end up having to foot the bill for my possible combat injuries?

[TacticalPeek]

10. Wrong on the facts, wrong on their interpretation and wrong on the conclusion.

This idea sucked.

No veteran I know wants this including myself, and some I know who voted for Obama are livid about it.

Political capital up in smoke - for what?

Stupid move.

[noamnety]

12. Thank you.

The OP missed the boat on this, it was not "faux" outrage, it was well-placed outrage with the potential to seriously screw over vets injured while on duty.

I fully support the shit-storm that was raised over it, and it was an example of an EFFECTIVE and WELL-TIMED shit-storm that got the desired results. Sorry if it inconvenienced anyone who wanted a celebration without criticism, but the focus should always be on fixing injustices before they occur.

[babylonsister]

14. Are you familiar with IAVA?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8271359&mesg_id=8271359

[marions ghost]

15. Does this mean my Dad might get covered?

"In addition, the plan will allow 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."

My Dad is an 82 year old WW2 vet in Priority Group 8. He developed a life-threatening illness recently (CML Leukemia). It is treatable very successfully by the chemo Gleevec in pill form. But the pills cost $120 each and you must take one everyday for life. People are living at least 5-8 years on this drug with good quality of life. Dad is in good health otherwise.

The VA refused my Dad because his income is around 30-35K per year. (The cutoff is 28K). So does this mean he might be able to reapply after October with some hope of getting this? That's what I'm understanding.

It's very difficult to pay 45K annually for a drug on a 35K income (and still eat and all that good stuff). Our family is in a state of despair about this. (Medicare isn't covering it in pill form--they would cover the other treatment for this, a bone-marrow transplant, but he's too old).

We may be facing the prospect of Dad not being able to buy this drug, and nobody in the family can afford to buy it for him. :cry:

[babylonsister]

16. There has got to be a way to find out.

I wish you'd write our President with your concerns, too. Seriously. Maybe he might even read it.

I hope you will post this in the VA Forum here. Someone might have some insight.

[marions ghost]

17. good ideas, thank you

since my Dad is a vet of such an old war and hasn't needed medical care at all for 40 years, I'm out of touch with these issues. This came up very suddenly. Nobody imagined that medicare and supplemental would not cover a catastrophic illness like this.

I was thinking to write the congress critters and maybe I should write Obama too.

Thanks so much for your suggestions. :)

[TacticalPeek]

18. If you fall through the cracks in the system, you have to grab for what you can.

Sometimes these folks can help with prescriptions:

What is PPARx

The Partnership for Prescription Assistance brings together America's pharmaceutical companies, doctors, other health care providers, patient advocacy organizations and community groups to help qualifying patients who lack prescription coverage get the medicines they need through the public or private program that's right for them. Many will get them free or nearly free. Its mission is to increase awareness of patient assistance programs and boost enrollment of those who are eligible.

https://www.pparx.org/Intro.php

I think one way they work is directly through the manufacturer of your medicine, if your income/insurance coverage fits their range, to provide free or subsidized products.

Good luck to you and your dad.

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. Your Dad can appeal the VA's decision - did he do that yet?

An initial turndown but then winning on appeal is very common. The DAV, American Legion, or your state's Veterans' Commission rep could help him file the claim. You could call, and talk to them for him.

(My late husband was a 100% disabled vet, and I did all of his VA and Social Security claims for him - both denied him several times before being overturned in full on appeal.)

[jody]

22. If "funding went up by $1.3 billion MORE than what was asked for" Congress did it not Obama. n/t