OT-Patriotic? Obama is defining who is patriotic?
Lone Haranguer
In conjunction with meeting with several veterans groups in March 2009,
the Obama administration floated a proposal to save the federal
government an estimated $540 million per year by billing veterans'
private insurance companies for the treatment of their combat injuries
and other service-related health problems. (Currently only
non-service-related medical treatments are so billed.) The proposal
would not have, as was often misreported, forced veterans to pay for the
treatment of their injuries out of their own pockets or required them to
buy private insurance; but it did raise the prospect that injured or ill
veterans might find it harder or more expensive to purchase health
coverage, or to obtain employment in the private sector if
employer-funded private insurance plans had to cover the additional
costs of treating injuries and other service-related health problems.
The plan was heavily criticized by veterans almost from the moment it
was presented to them, as the Washington Post reported in an account of
a meeting between President Obama and veterans' groups:
[T]he leaders of veterans service organizations warned the president
that their goodwill would vanish if he pursued a budget proposal to bill
veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of amputations,
post-traumatic stress disorder and other combat-related injuries.
One Vietnam veteran summoned his deep voice to address Obama, calling
the change "a dumb move." An Iraq veteran said the move would be "a
deal-breaker" because it would represent an abrogation of the
government's responsibility to care for the wounded and could jeopardize
veterans' insurance benefits.
Within 48 hours, the White House announced that the proposal had been
dropped, but the President still came in for his fair share of criticism
from those who maintained that he failed to anticipate how his proposal
would be received and should have known better than to even raise the
subject:
However, many said that they were surprised by the ham-handedness of the
private insurance effort because it seemed that no one in the White
House or the [Veterans Administration] took into consideration how
veterans would react — or Congress, where several members called the
plan "dead on arrival."
"The president needs to drop this," [Paul] Rieckhoff [executive director
of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America] said of Obama. "The longer
we wait, the more it hurts his relations with the [veterans service
organizations] and with vets. This is a no-brainer. We were all shocked.
We don't understand why he's picking this fight."
A Newsday editorial summed up many Americans' feelings about the matter
in opining that:
This load-shedding device would have saved the government about $540
million. But whoever proposed it to Obama was politically tone-deaf.
To Obama's credit, he appears to have backed away from this insensitive
proposal. But veterans still can't figure out how he let someone in the
administration persuade him to try it. Frankly, neither can we.
Last updated: 28 October 2009
The URL for this page is
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/veteranshealth.asp
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2009 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.
Sources:
Goldstein, David. "Lawmakers, Groups Blast Obama Proposal to Cut
Veterans Benefits."
Boston Herald. 18 March 2009.
Rucker, Philip. "Obama's Turnabout On Vets Highlights Budgeting
Nuances."
Washington Post. 21 March 2009.
FOXNews.com. "Veterans Groups Blast Obama Plan for Private
Insurance."
17 March 2009.
Newsday. "Obama Needs to Get Veteran Health Care Right."
27 March 2009.
********************
LZ
Squire
>
> Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2009 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.
> This material may not be reproduced without permission.
> snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.
>
> Sources:
>
> Goldstein, David. "Lawmakers, Groups Blast Obama Proposal to Cut
> Veterans Benefits."
> Boston Herald. 18 March 2009.
>
> Rucker, Philip. "Obama's Turnabout On Vets Highlights Budgeting
> Nuances."
> Washington Post. 21 March 2009.
>
> FOXNews.com. "Veterans Groups Blast Obama Plan for Private
> Insurance."
> 17 March 2009.
>
> Newsday. "Obama Needs to Get Veteran Health Care Right."
> 27 March 2009.
> ********************
> LZ
Linus....If you would do some checking on this "stuff" you
would see its big lies from the Neocon's who can't stand they
lost the elections...Try This:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/veteranshealth.asp
Thats all ya'll have left is to post this Shit....You post it so
much....You start to believe it...
Eddy
Lone Haranguer
I posted that URL above. If you weren't so stupid you would have seen
it. What I posted is NOT the story that made the rounds on the internet
but
how Snopes tried to explain THE FACTS.
THE FACTS are what I posted.
>
> Thats all ya'll have left is to post this Shit....You post it so
> much....You start to believe it...
GAWD but you are one dumb swamp-dweller. Go to the Snopes URL and see
that I posted THEIR explanation.
What a maroon. Painting buildings and cutting grass must have made you
even dumber.
LZ
>
> Eddy
John Kinney
> Linus....If you would do some checking on this "stuff" you
> would see its big lies from the Neocon's who can't stand they
> lost the elections...Try This:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/veteranshealth.asp
>
> Thats all ya'll have left is to post this Shit....You post it so
> much....You start to believe it...
Oh, LZ checked it all right. That's how he knew exactly where to start
his misleading partial quotation. Then he posted the Snopes URL,
confident that his nut buddies would take the partial quotation as the
whole story and ignore the URL.
Regards, John Kinney
Bob Hatch
legend, but posted only the facts of the story. He then posted the link
to that same story, and you're bitching and whining about that.
Am I close?
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism
of the President, or that we are to stand by
the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
Theodore Roosevelt
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
John Kinney
> John Kinney wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:05:11 -0800, Squire wrote:
>>
>>> Linus....If you would do some checking on this "stuff" you would see
>>> its big lies from the Neocon's who can't stand they lost the
>>> elections...Try This:
>>>
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/veteranshealth.asp
>>>
>>> Thats all ya'll have left is to post this Shit....You post it so
>>> much....You start to believe it...
>>
>> Oh, LZ checked it all right. That's how he knew exactly where to start
>> his misleading partial quotation. Then he posted the Snopes URL,
>> confident that his nut buddies would take the partial quotation as the
>> whole story and ignore the URL.
>>
>> Regards, John Kinney
>>
>>
> I just want to make sure I understand this. LZ "did not" post the urban
> legend, but posted only the facts of the story. He then posted the link
> to that same story, and you're bitching and whining about that.
>
> Am I close?
Not even in the same ball park. The "urban legend" that the LZ troll
carefully omitted represents the actual facts of this Republican cult
fantasy.
The "facts" are that Snopes was commenting on a more or less typical
Republican cult effort to slam Obama by maliciously misrepresenting what
he said and did. The fictional words of the urban legend represent the
President as accusing disabled veterans of whining, selfishness, and
lacking patriotism. Those lies are what the LZ troll took off on with his
header "Obama is defining who is patriotic?"
The facts of the story include the Snopes clarification that "President
Barack Obama did not utter the words attributed to him above, nor did he
propose a plan to 'let the military pay for their war injuries.' The
quoted example is a bit of fictional dialogue excerpted from a satirical
piece by conservative humorist John Semmens..."
By omitting those facts about the lies perpetrated by con satirist
Semmens, the LZ troll perpetuates the lies, e.g. "Obama is defining who is
patriotic" and carefully arranges not to inform RORT readers that Obama
did *not* accuse veterans of whining, did *not* accuse veterans of
selfishness, and most importantly, did *not* accuse veterans of lack of
patriotism.
The explanatory background information from Snopes about what the Obama
administration actually did say and do speaks to the facts of the real
Obama proposal, not to the Republican cult lie that is the reason for the
Snopes article and the lie yhat the LZ troll is attempting to perpetuate.
Hence it has little to do with the LZ troll's reasons for posting about
"defining who is patriotic" and is only a backdrop to the essential "facts
of the story" -- the Republican Cult lies found in this particular urban
legend.
Y'know, if you guys could just learn to distinguish between fantasy and
reality, you might not get so agitated about the political fantasies your
nutbuddies think up. Which Congress critter was it that held a teabagger
rally the other day, misquoted the Constitution, misstated the pledge of
allegience and decided that 20,000 people attending proved that there was
a real rebellion going on in America?
Hey, down in Louisiana, 20,000 people in attendance proves that some folks
weren't on time to the tailgating party at an LSU football game.
Regards, John Kinney
Bob Hatch
guys" crap and just post to me.
Since LZ did not post the urban legend, only the actual facts of what
the Empty Suit did, why do you have your tit in the wringer?
The Empty Suit "did" propose to stop paying for service connected
injuries if the vet had private insurance. You must find that to be an
OK deal to screw our vets, I don't. I for one think that a move like
that by the guy who claims to support our troops is the unpatriotic thing.
I read the post, then clicked the link to snopes and compared the two.
LZ did leave out the urban legend part of the urban legend, but if he
had left it in you would be whining like a first grade girl. Oh, wait,
you're doing that now, so it doesn't seem to make a bit of difference to
you.
You're the kind of guy who seems to believe that the Empty Suit if
immune from criticism. He's not and with his track record so far it's
going to get worse, just like unemployment, the national debt, the
deficit and soon the inflation rate.
John Kinney
So, what did the partial quote that the LZ troll posted have to do with
the lie incorporated in the Subject header of the post? Spin it however
you like, it's still LZ-fantasy speak, based on an outright lie published
about Obama by another one of "you guys".
> You're the kind of guy who seems to believe that the Empty Suit if
> immune from criticism. He's not and with his track record so far it's
> going to get worse, just like unemployment, the national debt, the
> deficit and soon the inflation rate.
Nope, I just don't care for people who post intentional lies to
intentionally mislead other people.
Regards, John Kinney
elmer
>
>
He's done it. I'm there and now have to get done outside something that
they made an appointment a couple of months ago to do. Oh thet do turn
in for any insurance you have.
Carl A. in FL
news:pan.2009.11.09....@smoke-island.com...
>
> Nope, I just don't care for people who post intentional lies to
> intentionally mislead other people.
>
> Regards, John Kinney
>
Then you must have a very bad case of self-loathing.
BTW, I'm still waiting for your response to my enumeration of objectionable
provisions in the Pelosi bill.
To refresh your memory:
"John Kinney" <jwki...@smoke-island.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.07....@smoke-island.com...
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:22:23 -0500, Carl A. in FL wrote:
>
>> http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583
>
> Republicans, the party that cries "wolf".
>
> This sort of fear-mongering is getting a little old.
>
> Regards, John Kinney
Well. if ignorance is indeed bliss, then you must be a very happy person.
But let's be specific and look at the Pelosi abomination:
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified
plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace
period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance,
there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon
as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or
benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan"
covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a
banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the
interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will
likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his
own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in
out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his
pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to
pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300
total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less
than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their
insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan"
is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill
claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits
are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to
enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and
your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must
include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined
thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for
their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family
coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from
$500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500
billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and
hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment
system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid
for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A
primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic
tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to
settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care
provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS
secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national
basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical
homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if
cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in
overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for
patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country.
This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care)
for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by
20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions
in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness
research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors
electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of
dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague
standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no
required qualifications except having "documented community activity and
experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and
provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor
nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program
receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural
context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health
services and health related social services under Federal, State and local
programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in
receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and
translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically
appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform
Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times
and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic
preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating
secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing
schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the
diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of
the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools
"graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and
ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns
who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
-----------------------
Have a nice day...
--
CHA in FL
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
John Kinney
Your reading comprehension sucks that bad, eh? Pay attention, Bob, and
try really really hard to read what I actually wrote instead of whatever
your RNC issue sunglasses are passing through.
> The Empty Suit "did" propose to stop paying for service connected
> injuries if the vet had private insurance. You must find that to be an
> OK deal to screw our vets, I don't. I for one think that a move like
> that by the guy who claims to support our troops is the unpatriotic
> thing.
>
> I read the post, then clicked the link to snopes and compared the two.
> LZ did leave out the urban legend part of the urban legend, but if he
> had left it in you would be whining like a first grade girl. Oh, wait,
> you're doing that now, so it doesn't seem to make a bit of difference to
> you.
>
> You're the kind of guy who seems to believe that the Empty Suit if
> immune from criticism. He's not and with his track record so far it's
> going to get worse, just like unemployment, the national debt, the
> deficit and soon the inflation rate.
It took your guy Bush 8 years to screw things up this badly. I'll pass
judgment on Obama after he's had more than a few months to clean up the
mess.
Regards, John Kinney
Lone Haranguer
Which sucks.
not to the Republican cult lie that is the reason for the
>> Snopes article
The Snope justification article is simply an attempt by Snopes to
whitewash what Obama & crew actually proposed. I left off the urban
legend since
their real plan is egregious enough and I knew that the nitwit fringe
would claim what you are claiming.
and the lie yhat the LZ troll is attempting to perpetuate.
How can that be when I posted what Snopes claims are the "real" facts?
>> Hence it has little to do with the LZ troll's reasons for posting about
>> "defining who is patriotic" and is only a backdrop to the essential
>> "facts
>> of the story" -- the Republican Cult lies found in this particular urban
>> legend.
Which I deliberately left out so people could judge for themselves the
Obama original proposal. He's such an ignoramus he thought he
could actually get away with his proposal and only backed off when the
vets started venting.
>>
>> Y'know, if you guys could just learn to distinguish between fantasy and
>> reality, you might not get so agitated about the political fantasies your
>> nutbuddies think up. Which Congress critter was it that held a teabagger
>> rally the other day, misquoted the Constitution, misstated the pledge of
>> allegience and decided that 20,000 people attending proved that there was
>> a real rebellion going on in America?
Smelly red herring.
>>
>> Hey, down in Louisiana, 20,000 people in attendance proves that some
>> folks
>> weren't on time to the tailgating party at an LSU football game.
More diversion. Obama showed his ignorance once again, was quickly
slapped down and immediately ran away from his plan.
Honesty is not one of your traits, John. You don't even know what it means.
LZ
Bob Hatch
John is a bigoted propagandist. If he's not getting paid by the DNC
and/or the Empty Suit Group, he should be.