Obama to charge injured war vets for their treatment

[jmdrake]

Just heard this on Alex Jones and looked it up for myself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_ s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment

[Conza88]

Maybe they should have refused to be pawns of the State.

And maybe those thinking of doing the exact same thing, won't.

I see it as the same argument for AIG exec's pay. They deserve 0 pay. Zip, nada - they do NOTHING worthy of pay. They steal taxpayers money, prop up the WarFare state. Kill people overseas. They support the Empire, not America.

And before anyone gets all sentimental, private charities should help out.

[jmdrake]

I disagree. A lot of vets joined not knowing what they were signing up for. Don't forget that Dr. Paul is a Vietnam era vet (another illegal war) and vets gave more to Dr. Paul then they gave to any other candidate. Some vets have refused to go back and have gone AWOL. Many more have come out publicly against the war after leaving the military. And it was vets who exposed the evils of Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay.

Anyway, regardless of your views I think it's ironic that Obama is pushing for "universal healthcare" while seeking to break healthcare promises already made.

[Master]

Barack Obama supports our troops – both in combat and at home. He voted to provide armored vehicles and body armor for our troops fighting abroad, and will fully fund veterans’ medical care and restore competence to VA planning to ensure our veterans have the resources they need when they return home.

[satchelmcqueen]

Barack Obama supports our troops – both in combat and at home. He voted to provide armored vehicles and body armor for our troops fighting abroad, and will fully fund veterans’ medical care and restore competence to VA planning to ensure our veterans have the resources they need when they return home.

hello new guy!

have you watched the news the last few days? Obama wanted and tried to get it to where if a vet needed medical treatment for war time injuries, then they would have to get their spouses or their own private insurance to pay for it. imagine that BS! go to war, get injured, then have to get your own insurance to pay for it...then pay a higher rate from then on of course. seems Obama has decided to back off that notion they say today.

seems obama has had to back up quiet a few times lately on what he wanted to do.

[Conza88]

Barack Obama supports our troops – both in combat and at home. He voted to provide armored vehicles and body armor for our troops fighting abroad, and will fully fund veterans’ medical care and restore competence to VA planning to ensure our veterans have the resources they need when they return home.

He "supported" the troops by sending them away to DIE in an unnecessary, unconstitutional war. He voted to continue funding.

Fail.

[Conza88]

I disagree. A lot of vets joined not knowing what they were signing up for. Don't forget that Dr. Paul is a Vietnam era vet (another illegal war) and vets gave more to Dr. Paul then they gave to any other candidate. Some vets have refused to go back and have gone AWOL. Many more have come out publicly against the war after leaving the military. And it was vets who exposed the evils of Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay.

Anyway, regardless of your views I think it's ironic that Obama is pushing for "universal healthcare" while seeking to break healthcare promises already made.

He voluntary enlisted so he would avoid the draft, so he could be a Dr and not Infantry, were he would murder people.

Ignorance isn't much of an excuse. It can be a reason, but that still doesn't justify theft, to pay for someone elses mistakes... now does it? ;)

[Master]

He "supported" the troops by sending them away to DIE in an unnecessary, unconstitutional war. He voted to continue funding.

Fail.

I should have went further in detail in my post in saying this was one of his (and not last) say one thing and do another.

[torchbearer]

At least the AIG guys got their bonuses.

[jmdrake]

He voluntary enlisted so he would avoid the draft, so he could be a Dr and not Infantry, were he would murder people.

Ignorance isn't much of an excuse. It can be a reason, but that still doesn't justify theft, to pay for someone elses mistakes... now does it? ;)

Well maybe in 2012 the troops will keep the money that would have donated to Ron Paul or whatever candidate he supports so you can feel better. :mad:

The simple fact is that even if the military is being illegitimately used, raising an army is a proper constitutional function, so paying soldiers for their injuries is NOT theft. And even if Dr. Paul had been drafted he STILL would have been a doctor! And even draftees that aren't doctors can get conscientious objector status and become medics. Google "Desmond Doss" for more on this.

[Conza88]

Well maybe in 2012 the troops will keep the money that would have donated to Ron Paul or whatever candidate he supports so you can feel better. :mad:

Maybe less troops will die for no good reason other than to usher in a new world order, one world government through expanding the US Empire in the Middle east.

Maybe those who didn't die will campaign for Ron, instead of raping and pillaging innocent civilians.


The simple fact is that even if the military is being illegitimately used, raising an army is a proper constitutional function, so paying soldiers for their injuries is NOT theft. And even if Dr. Paul had been drafted he STILL would have been a doctor! And even draftees that aren't doctors can get conscientious objector status and become medics. Google "Desmond Doss" for more on this.

No standing army is Constitutional. Hence malita's.

Taxation is theft. The Law of Reality says so. >.< The Constitution isn't > reality.

[reduen]

Soldiers get paid for the work that they do just like most other hard working Americans!

Why should they get their injuries paid for when they get hurt and not everybody else in America. I mean either directly or indirectly we all work for the security of our country right?

I certainly believe that most everybody in these forums is doing more to save our country right now than those soldiers who are around the world fighting..... (Just keepin it real...)

I know, I know, I must be a terrorist.... blah blah... Remember, the report out of Missouri puts you there right with me......

[jmdrake]

Maybe less troops will die for no good reason other than to usher in a new world order, one world government through expanding the US Empire in the Middle east.

Maybe those who didn't die will campaign for Ron, instead of raping and pillaging innocent civilians.



No standing army is Constitutional. Hence malita's.

Taxation is theft. The Law of Reality says so. >.< The Constitution isn't > reality.

Go back and read your constitution. Note I did not say "standing army". I said a right to RAISE an army. The fact that the government has unconstitutionally left the army standing between wars does not mean it doesn't have the right to raise armies and send them off to war. But never mind. I don't expect you to actually be logical. ;)

[axiomata]

Absolutely disgusting. If paying for the medical care is to expensive, why not try not sending them into unconstitutional wars in the first place.

Obama was likely just throwing this balloon out there to gauge public reaction, which rightly has shot it down, but it still sickens me.

[jmdrake]

Soldiers get paid for the work that they do just like most other hard working Americans!

Why should they get their injuries paid for when they get hurt and not everybody else in America. I mean either directly or indirectly we all work for the security of our country right?


Ummm....no. We're not all "directly or indirectly working for the security of our country." Also not all jobs are defined in the constitution. (The government has a right to raise an army and a Navy express in the constitution. Maybe if we were talking about the Air force you'd have a point.)



I certainly believe that most everybody in these forums is doing more to save our country right now than those soldiers who are around the world fighting..... (Just keepin it real...)


How do you know none of those soldiers are on this forum? Besides (as I pointed out) without HONORABLE soldiers we wouldn't have even known about Abu Graib or other abuses. And frankly I don't see how verbally attacking soldiers in general helps "save our country." (Just keeping it real.)



I know, I know, I must be a terrorist.... blah blah... Remember, the report out of Missouri puts you there right with me......

Naw. I don't think you're a terrorist. Just counter productive. ;) I'm hoping that if the crap ever hits the fan enough soldiers will stick with their oath to the constitution and ignore any oaths to the U.N. or Obama.

[jmdrake]

Absolutely disgusting. If paying for the medical care is to expensive, why not try not sending them into unconstitutional wars in the first place.

Obama was likely just throwing this balloon out there to gauge public reaction, which rightly has shot it down, but it still sickens me.

Exactly! And thanks for keeping this thread on track! It works to our advantage to show how these politicians are sending the troops to war and then stabbing them in the back. It is not to our advantage to hand the politicians the knife.

[revolutionary8]

Break out the pitchforks and torchoise' this is outrageous !
Sure, Look at WALTER REED and this BUCKET OF SHIT legislation if you want to "catch a glimpse" of Government controlled "health care"...
People say that Eugenics is a "thing of the past". I beg to differ.

[reduen]

"
Ummm....no. We're not all "directly or indirectly working for the security of our country." Also not all jobs are defined in the constitution. (The government has a right to raise an army and a Navy express in the constitution. Maybe if we were talking about the Air force you'd have a point.)"

I would simply have to say that you are being somewhat short sighted in this statement...



"How do you know none of those soldiers are on this forum? Besides (as I pointed out) without HONORABLE soldiers we wouldn't have even known about Abu Graib or other abuses. And frankly I don't see how verbally attacking soldiers in general helps "save our country." (Just keeping it real.)"

I know for a fact that there is at least one of those soldiers here with me right now on this forum and my daughter is currently in Korea....! I am not verbally attacking anyone here, I am simply stating that the government should not pay in either case...


"Naw. I don't think you're a terrorist. Just counter productive. ;) I'm hoping that if the crap ever hits the fan enough soldiers will stick with their oath to the constitution and ignore any oaths to the U.N. or Obama."

You know what they say, hope in one hand and spit in the other etc....

[Dripping Rain]

this

Maybe they should have refused to be pawns of the State.

And maybe those thinking of doing the exact same thing, won't.

I see it as the same argument for AIG exec's pay. They deserve 0 pay. Zip, nada - they do NOTHING worthy of pay. They steal taxpayers money, prop up the WarFare state. Kill people overseas. They support the Empire, not America.

And before anyone gets all sentimental, private charities should help out.

and this

I disagree. A lot of vets joined not knowing what they were signing up for. Don't forget that Dr. Paul is a Vietnam era vet (another illegal war) and vets gave more to Dr. Paul then they gave to any other candidate. Some vets have refused to go back and have gone AWOL. Many more have come out publicly against the war after leaving the military. And it was vets who exposed the evils of Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay.

Anyway, regardless of your views I think it's ironic that Obama is pushing for "universal healthcare" while seeking to break healthcare promises already made.

+10

[Conza88]

Go back and read your constitution. Note I did not say "standing army". I said a right to RAISE an army. The fact that the government has unconstitutionally left the army standing between wars does not mean it doesn't have the right to raise armies and send them off to war. But never mind. I don't expect you to actually be logical. ;)

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"


Yes. And? You didn't defeat my argument at all, you didn't even address it. So don't accuse me of not being 'logical'.

Taxation = theft. Taxes are being used to support war / given to those who fought in one. = Using the money that was stolen from taxpayers.

I'm saying, there should be no more theft. :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

Washington Post

Obama Drops Plan to Bill Veterans' Private Insurers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031803394.html

By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 19, 2009; Page A03

President Obama yesterday abandoned a proposal to bill veterans' private insurance companies for the treatment at VA hospitals of combat-related injuries amid an outcry over the measure from veterans' service organizations and members of Congress.

The proposal would have authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs to charge private companies for treating injuries and other medical conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, that are related to military service. The measure was intended to save VA about $530 million a year, but the administration's pursuit of third-party billing sparked resistance from leaders of veterans groups, who met this week with Obama.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement yesterday that the president has "instructed that its consideration be dropped."