"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It's not the first time he's had second thoughts about how health care
works. We'll see what he thinks when he gets back.

I hope he gets back. Darn sad news if it is true Gunner went back in.

I noticed that our current commander in chief, wants private insurance companies to cover
veterans with service connected needs in order to save money. That is so wrong on so many
levels.

Ultimately we, the taxpayers, have to honor that debt but passing in though private
companies is wrong. An example of now government sponsored health programs has distorted
the health care market. In the later case by forcing discounts instead of just raising
taxes to pay for it. I guess that model is what Obama wants to use in the case of
veterans.

Today, I can honestly say I have more respect for James Earl Carter as President than Mr.
Obama. I served in the military under Carter. I'm not a big fan of President Carter but
he was a serving member the military. If he had not left the military on the death of his
father to manage the family business after honoring his military obligation he would have
likely been a serving line officer in short time. I seriously doubt President Carter
would have proposed this damnable dishonoring of promises made.

Wes

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:43:53 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It's not the first time he's had second thoughts about how health care
works. We'll see what he thinks when he gets back.

I hope he gets back. Darn sad news if it is true Gunner went back in.

I noticed that our current commander in chief, wants private insurance companies to cover
veterans with service connected needs in order to save money. That is so wrong on so many
levels.

Ultimately we, the taxpayers, have to honor that debt but passing in though private
companies is wrong. An example of now government sponsored health programs has distorted
the health care market. In the later case by forcing discounts instead of just raising
taxes to pay for it. I guess that model is what Obama wants to use in the case of
veterans.

Today, I can honestly say I have more respect for James Earl Carter as President than Mr.
Obama. I served in the military under Carter. I'm not a big fan of President Carter but
he was a serving member the military. If he had not left the military on the death of his
father to manage the family business after honoring his military obligation he would have
likely been a serving line officer in short time. I seriously doubt President Carter
would have proposed this damnable dishonoring of promises made.

Wes
-----------
It is not only the dishonoring of promises made and the
abandonment of the men and women maimed in their counties's
service, but from a political viewpoint a most dangerous
expansion and the latest of a series of end-runs around certain
Constitutional provisions on levying and expending taxes. The
Estimated [always a low ball number] start-up cost is 540 million
$US outside the normal appropriations and audit processes, which
have proven to be too weak anyhow.

Make no mistake about it, the money to cover veterans'
health-care will have to come from somewhere, and under the
administration's plan, everyone will in effect pay a hidden "tax"
on their health/accident insurance benefits to pay for the
veterans benefits. [My preference is a special excise tax on
Halliburton and the other "war profiteer" contractors in Iraq and
Afghanistan.]

The alternative is to load as much military medical related costs
onto the existing Medicare programs, intend for retirees. Many
U.S. corporations have already phased out their promised, and
indeed contractual, obligations to provide medical/drug coverage
for their employees/retirees. Why is it that the bonus payment
contracts for the top executives at AIG are sacrosanct, while the
people at the bottom, both the vets and those with insurance,
must take it in the shorts [again].

This is another hidden agenda item that has existed for years,
namely the elimination of the tax exemptions for health benefits,
and yet another effort to evade Congressional oversight/control.

Congress must take a good look at this, and realize that unless
they act, they are as redundant and as dispensable as assembly
workers when all the manufacturing has moved offshore. It is one
thing to kick a Cocker or Poodle, but quite another to kick a
Doberman or Rottweiler, and I know which one I want in Washington
watching my interests [and my back]. SIC-EM SIC-EM SIC-EM


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It's not the first time he's had second thoughts about how health care
works. We'll see what he thinks when he gets back.

I hope he gets back. Darn sad news if it is true Gunner went back in.

I noticed that our current commander in chief, wants private insurance
companies to cover
veterans with service connected needs in order to save money. That is so
wrong on so many
levels.

Ultimately we, the taxpayers, have to honor that debt but passing in
though private
companies is wrong. An example of now government sponsored health
programs has distorted
the health care market. In the later case by forcing discounts instead of
just raising
taxes to pay for it. I guess that model is what Obama wants to use in the
case of
veterans.

I don't get it. I would have thought you'd favor a privatization scheme.

The idea behind it is something I'm not following, but I suspect it's part
of a larger plan. Obama makes a point that private insurers who cover vets
are getting a "free ride." I don't quite follow that, either, but having
worked with the unsurance industry from the other end, with them as
customers, it wouldn't surprise me. In my experience, they're in exactly the
same league as investment bankers, only they screw with peoples' health as
well as their money.


Today, I can honestly say I have more respect for James Earl Carter as
President than Mr.
Obama. I served in the military under Carter. I'm not a big fan of
President Carter but
he was a serving member the military. If he had not left the military on
the death of his
father to manage the family business after honoring his military
obligation he would have
likely been a serving line officer in short time. I seriously doubt
President Carter
would have proposed this damnable dishonoring of promises made.

Again, I don't get what you're upset about. The way I read the plan, it just
switches private insurers to being the primaries. Are you suggesting that
uninsured vets wouldn't be covered under the VA, as secondaries?

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:39:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
The way I read the plan, it just
switches private insurers to being the primaries. Are you suggesting that
uninsured vets wouldn't be covered under the VA, as secondaries?
snip
-------
There's a few small items such as co-pays and total lifetime
benefit limits/caps.

Well, I think the whole thing is still in the talking stages, so I don't
think those issues would be unsurmountable. For example, if VA benefits
operate as the secondary insurer, there will be no co-pays. The VA will pay
them. As for total lifetime benefits, those are almost sure to be outlawed
with any reasonable change in the way health insurance works in this
country. They probably won't survive the first round of change.


Note that this will be another "off budget" item that would be
very difficult to track, and is an indirect "Robin Hood" tax,
administratively levied bypassing Congress on company
health/pharma benefits that Congress has said repeatedly are to
be tax exempt.

I'm not following you. The idea is to knock about $540 million off of VA
benefits, to pay for the 11% INCREASE in overall VA benefits that Obama has
proposed. What "item" are you referring to? The fact is that a high
percentage of vets now have private insurance and the private insurers are
offloading anything they can onto the VA.

The most important things to remember when you're talking about private
health insurers are these: First, their strongest incentive is to find an
excuse not to pay claims. Second, they have a very powerful and effective
lobby.

In other words, don't ever believe a single word they say.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:39:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
The way I read the plan, it just
switches private insurers to being the primaries. Are you suggesting that
uninsured vets wouldn't be covered under the VA, as secondaries?
snip
-------
There's a few small items such as co-pays and total lifetime
benefit limits/caps.

Note that this will be another "off budget" item that would be
very difficult to track, and is an indirect "Robin Hood" tax,
administratively levied bypassing Congress on company
health/pharma benefits that Congress has said repeatedly are to
be tax exempt.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:50:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:39:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
The way I read the plan, it just
switches private insurers to being the primaries. Are you suggesting that
uninsured vets wouldn't be covered under the VA, as secondaries?
snip
-------
There's a few small items such as co-pays and total lifetime
benefit limits/caps.

Well, I think the whole thing is still in the talking stages, so I don't
think those issues would be unsurmountable. For example, if VA benefits
operate as the secondary insurer, there will be no co-pays. The VA will pay
them. As for total lifetime benefits, those are almost sure to be outlawed
with any reasonable change in the way health insurance works in this
country. They probably won't survive the first round of change.

Key word is reasonable -- its not reasonable that people who run
their company into bankruptcy should get "performance bonuses"
either, or that people who have already let the company should
get "retention bonuses," but this is exactly the situation at
AIG. This is Washington DC you are dealing with.

Note that this will be another "off budget" item that would be
very difficult to track, and is an indirect "Robin Hood" tax,
administratively levied bypassing Congress on company
health/pharma benefits that Congress has said repeatedly are to
be tax exempt.

I'm not following you. The idea is to knock about $540 million off of VA
benefits, to pay for the 11% INCREASE in overall VA benefits that Obama has
proposed. What "item" are you referring to? The fact is that a high
percentage of vets now have private insurance and the private insurers are
offloading anything they can onto the VA.

Operationally this is a tax in that it takes money away from one
group [directly the private insurers, indirectly their policy
holders and stockholders] and gives it to another group [the
Vets.

Article I, sect 7 states
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills." but the Congress has not been
involved.

Article I, section 8 states
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;" Not some numb-nut bureaucrat.

Article I, sect 9 states:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account
of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be
published from time to time."

As proposed this bypasses any accounting of the money so shifted
as it does not go through the Treasury.

Additionally, imposition of this proposal is a direct
contradiction to the expressed intent of Congress
http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/News/...+Exclusion.htm
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34767_20081121.pdf


The most important things to remember when you're talking about private
health insurers are these: First, their strongest incentive is to find an
excuse not to pay claims. Second, they have a very powerful and effective
lobby.

In other words, don't ever believe a single word they say.

In other words if you can see their lips moving, their lying.

The private health insurers will not take a 540 million dollar
hit, it will be passed along in the form of reduced benefits,
higher co-pays and higher premiums for their existing insured,
and then because the business volume went up the executives get a
bonus for their hard work.

Nothing here that the summary dismissal of a few dozen GSA super
grades from the IRS and DHS wouldn't cure for a few more years.
They have plotted for years on how to finesses Congress and tap
the health insurance benefit boodle bag.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:50:03 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:39:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
The way I read the plan, it just
switches private insurers to being the primaries. Are you suggesting
that
uninsured vets wouldn't be covered under the VA, as secondaries?
snip
-------
There's a few small items such as co-pays and total lifetime
benefit limits/caps.

Well, I think the whole thing is still in the talking stages, so I don't
think those issues would be unsurmountable. For example, if VA benefits
operate as the secondary insurer, there will be no co-pays. The VA will
pay
them. As for total lifetime benefits, those are almost sure to be outlawed
with any reasonable change in the way health insurance works in this
country. They probably won't survive the first round of change.

Key word is reasonable -- its not reasonable that people who run
their company into bankruptcy should get "performance bonuses"
either, or that people who have already let the company should
get "retention bonuses," but this is exactly the situation at
AIG. This is Washington DC you are dealing with.

We risk going far afield here, George. g I have just a couple of comments
about the retention bonuses and the contracts, and what Congress, the
Treasury, the administration in general, and the Fed did about them in
regard to AIG.

First, I'm not surprised the bonuses were overlooked. Those bailouts were
done under extreme duress and the bonuses amount to less than 1/1000 of the
money we've invested in AIG. At that time, any potential political fallout
from leaving the contracts alone was a flyspeck on the wall compared to the
financial threat they were trying to deal with: a series of domino collapses
that would befall the idiot banks that bought piles of AIG's derivatives,
and the thousands of smaller dominos that would fall as a result.

Second, although I agree completely with the outrage, and I think something
should be done to recover that money, I recognize that the money itself is
not the issue -- see above. There is the damned unfairness of it all, which
is over the top. And there is the perpetuation of the business culture that
has put us in this bind in the first place. Recovering those bonuses won't
directly fix the money problem but it will make us feel there is some
justice, and it will put the whole corrupt, degenerate finance system on
notice. They need a kick in the teeth.

Of course, there is some chance of criminality involved in AIG's
misrepresentations to stockholders, but that's a separate issue, IMO.

But I think the government -- the previous administration -- acted
reasonably under the circumstances. They had a shark attacking the boat and
I'm not going to get upset with them for letting the bait die while they
were fighting the real battle. Nor am I going to complain that the current
administration, and both sides of the aisle in Congress, are yelping about
it as if the money itself is a big deal. They have to play the political
game and the whole country is outraged. So they have to do something. I just
hope they don't get distracted from the financial problem while they're
making us all feel better about one tenth of one percent of the total money
that's at risk.

The relevance is that the financial mess does not mean that a progressive
reform of insurance that will bring us up to the standards of every other
civilized country is going to be mishandled. It may be, but it will be
because of political conflicts, not because of sheer incompetence. And there
is going to be some experimenting, some of which won't work. That's
inevitable. A lot of the reform is going to have to be invented as we go.
There is no ready-made model that will work ideally in the US.



Note that this will be another "off budget" item that would be
very difficult to track, and is an indirect "Robin Hood" tax,
administratively levied bypassing Congress on company
health/pharma benefits that Congress has said repeatedly are to
be tax exempt.

I'm not following you. The idea is to knock about $540 million off of VA
benefits, to pay for the 11% INCREASE in overall VA benefits that Obama
has
proposed. What "item" are you referring to? The fact is that a high
percentage of vets now have private insurance and the private insurers are
offloading anything they can onto the VA.

Operationally this is a tax in that it takes money away from one
group [directly the private insurers, indirectly their policy
holders and stockholders] and gives it to another group [the
Vets.

Oh, well then, you're saying that reforms aren't going to simultaneously
produce free money. No kidding. g I don't know exactly what they're
thinking with this program but it sounds to me like part of a plan to
integrate the entire health care system into some kind of whole. Right now
it's the Balkans in spades. It does need to be brought under a big umbrella,
and one thing that's clear about this administration is that they're not
planning their changes in isolated bits and pieces. The whack-a-mole
approach they're taking to the financial mess (the only approach there is,
IMO) may distract attention from the bigger policy changes, but there is a
plan, and the outline of it was contained in the campaign platform.

Article I, sect 7 states
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills." but the Congress has not been
involved.

Article I, section 8 states
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States;" Not some numb-nut bureaucrat.

Article I, sect 9 states:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account
of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be
published from time to time."

As proposed this bypasses any accounting of the money so shifted
as it does not go through the Treasury.

I don't think so. You're just doing some imaginative accounting of your own.
This is just a case of regulating commerce.


Additionally, imposition of this proposal is a direct
contradiction to the expressed intent of Congress
http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/News/...+Exclusion.htm
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34767_20081121.pdf

If the proposal passes Congresses, they'll have changed their minds, right?
g



The most important things to remember when you're talking about private
health insurers are these: First, their strongest incentive is to find an
excuse not to pay claims. Second, they have a very powerful and effective
lobby.

In other words, don't ever believe a single word they say.

In other words if you can see their lips moving, their lying.

The private health insurers will not take a 540 million dollar
hit, it will be passed along in the form of reduced benefits,
higher co-pays and higher premiums for their existing insured,
and then because the business volume went up the executives get a
bonus for their hard work.

Nothing here that the summary dismissal of a few dozen GSA super
grades from the IRS and DHS wouldn't cure for a few more years.
They have plotted for years on how to finesses Congress and tap
the health insurance benefit boodle bag.

Your reasoning on this escapes me. As with everything else, the money for
health care comes out of the same pockets -- ours. The "proposals" that the
vets' groups are getting excited about haven't actually been raised before
Congress yet. They're just in the discussion stage. And nothing they do, or
can do, will change the fact that we're still paying for it.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:51:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
First, I'm not surprised the bonuses were overlooked. Those bailouts were
done under extreme duress and the bonuses amount to less than 1/1000 of
the
money we've invested in AIG. At that time, any potential political fallout
from leaving the contracts alone was a flyspeck on the wall compared to
the
financial threat they were trying to deal with: a series of domino
collapses
that would befall the idiot banks that bought piles of AIG's derivatives,
and the thousands of smaller dominos that would fall as a result.

Second, although I agree completely with the outrage, and I think
something
should be done to recover that money, I recognize that the money itself is
not the issue -- see above. There is the damned unfairness of it all,
which
is over the top. And there is the perpetuation of the business culture
that
has put us in this bind in the first place. Recovering those bonuses won't
directly fix the money problem but it will make us feel there is some
justice, and it will put the whole corrupt, degenerate finance system on
notice. They need a kick in the teeth.

Of course, there is some chance of criminality involved in AIG's
misrepresentations to stockholders, but that's a separate issue, IMO.

But I think the government -- the previous administration -- acted
reasonably under the circumstances. They had a shark attacking the boat
and
I'm not going to get upset with them for letting the bait die while they
were fighting the real battle. Nor am I going to complain that the current
administration, and both sides of the aisle in Congress, are yelping about
it as if the money itself is a big deal. They have to play the political
game and the whole country is outraged. So they have to do something. I
just
hope they don't get distracted from the financial problem while they're
making us all feel better about one tenth of one percent of the total
money
that's at risk.
snip
----------
An emergency is defined as an event that is unexpected in
occupance and limited in duration.

What you say is correct, but this "emergency" was six months or
so ago, more than ample time to trim off the loose ends.

I find the following statement by the GAO to be expected but
outrageous.

----------------
$170 Billion and No Exit in Sight
March 18, 2009, 12:51 pm

The United States government is into American International Group
for $170 billion or so. But so far, the insurance giant has
offered little in the way of a plan for paying American taxpayers
back.

snip
Tom Price, a Republican representative from Georgia, asked Ms.
Williams if A.I.G., which is 80 percent owned by the government,
had presented them with an exit plan.

"At this point, the plan is for restructuring," she responded.
"There are real questions on what the exit strategy is, but our
work in this area is ongoing."

The statement seemed to strike Mr. Price as a bit bizarre.

"The American people can't look at it and say, 'There is an exit
strategy in place' - is that an accurate statement?", he said.

Ms. Williams' answer: "Not that we have seen."
---------------
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...exit-in-sight/

I have a suggestion. Contact the nearer universities with an MBA
program, and assign the development of exit/resturcturing plans
for AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citigroup, BoA, Freddie, Fannie, etc. to
the business plan classes as class projects.

I'm sure they'll come up with an endless supply of plans that are as useless
and unrealistic as whatever AIG could come up with itself.

Because nobody knows where this is going. Any "plan" is a joke -- or it will
be, in hindsight, when this is all over. When the problem is a hole in the
boat and you're in blue water, the only thing that matters is stopping the
leak. You aren't going to get involved with matching the patch to the finish
on the hull.

This is exactly what they've been facing.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:51:50 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
First, I'm not surprised the bonuses were overlooked. Those bailouts were
done under extreme duress and the bonuses amount to less than 1/1000 of the
money we've invested in AIG. At that time, any potential political fallout
from leaving the contracts alone was a flyspeck on the wall compared to the
financial threat they were trying to deal with: a series of domino collapses
that would befall the idiot banks that bought piles of AIG's derivatives,
and the thousands of smaller dominos that would fall as a result.

Second, although I agree completely with the outrage, and I think something
should be done to recover that money, I recognize that the money itself is
not the issue -- see above. There is the damned unfairness of it all, which
is over the top. And there is the perpetuation of the business culture that
has put us in this bind in the first place. Recovering those bonuses won't
directly fix the money problem but it will make us feel there is some
justice, and it will put the whole corrupt, degenerate finance system on
notice. They need a kick in the teeth.

Of course, there is some chance of criminality involved in AIG's
misrepresentations to stockholders, but that's a separate issue, IMO.

But I think the government -- the previous administration -- acted
reasonably under the circumstances. They had a shark attacking the boat and
I'm not going to get upset with them for letting the bait die while they
were fighting the real battle. Nor am I going to complain that the current
administration, and both sides of the aisle in Congress, are yelping about
it as if the money itself is a big deal. They have to play the political
game and the whole country is outraged. So they have to do something. I just
hope they don't get distracted from the financial problem while they're
making us all feel better about one tenth of one percent of the total money
that's at risk.
snip
----------
An emergency is defined as an event that is unexpected in
occupance and limited in duration.

What you say is correct, but this "emergency" was six months or
so ago, more than ample time to trim off the loose ends.

I find the following statement by the GAO to be expected but
outrageous.

----------------
$170 Billion and No Exit in Sight
March 18, 2009, 12:51 pm

The United States government is into American International Group
for $170 billion or so. But so far, the insurance giant has
offered little in the way of a plan for paying American taxpayers
back.

snip
Tom Price, a Republican representative from Georgia, asked Ms.
Williams if A.I.G., which is 80 percent owned by the government,
had presented them with an exit plan.

“At this point, the plan is for restructuring,” she responded.
“There are real questions on what the exit strategy is, but our
work in this area is ongoing.”

The statement seemed to strike Mr. Price as a bit bizarre.

“The American people can’t look at it and say, ‘There is an exit
strategy in place’ — is that an accurate statement?”, he said.

Ms. Williams’ answer: “Not that we have seen.”
---------------
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...exit-in-sight/

I have a suggestion. Contact the nearer universities with an MBA
program, and assign the development of exit/resturcturing plans
for AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citigroup, BoA, Freddie, Fannie, etc. to
the business plan classes as class projects.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't get it. I would have thought you'd favor a privatization scheme.


Not for this. The VA is the appropriate provider, that is the promise. Unka George
covered the rest better than I can. Thanks George.

As to the secondary with VA. That would mean that whatever insurer was primary would be
able to shove the vet into a HMO or whatever arrangement. That would mean every vet had
different rules depending on employeers health insurance.

This is bad on multiple levels. Honor the promise. The military is pretty strong on
honor. Sorry if you don't get it, this is not a put down, but loyalty up and down the
line is part of the ethos.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I don't get it. I would have thought you'd favor a privatization scheme.


Not for this. The VA is the appropriate provider, that is the promise.
Unka George
covered the rest better than I can. Thanks George.

As to the secondary with VA. That would mean that whatever insurer was
primary would be
able to shove the vet into a HMO or whatever arrangement. That would mean
every vet had
different rules depending on employeers health insurance.

This is bad on multiple levels. Honor the promise. The military is
pretty strong on
honor. Sorry if you don't get it, this is not a put down, but loyalty up
and down the
line is part of the ethos.

Wes

Yeah, I get that, but it still isn't clear to me how it would work. It looks
like most of the comments on it are based on jumping to conclusions, because
nothing really is settled about it.

Don't misunderstand me here. I'm not passing judgment on the plan, only
pointing out that looking at it narrowly may miss the point. Or maybe not,
because we really haven't heard how it fits into the larger idea of health
care reform.

It's clear from things I've seen over the years that the VA is getting
screwed by private insurers who manage to offload a lot of things they
should be paying for. Whose fault that is, I don't know.

--
Ed Huntress