Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Wounded vets to lose health benefits

President Obama's plan to require private insurance to reimburse the government for treatment of wounded veterans will have unintended consequences. While the government looks forward to getting money from the insurance industry, one problem will be that employers will be even less likely to hire wounded vets, because that will drive up their cost of health care. Veterans already have an unemployment figure 10 points higher than average. And vets would be expected to pay deductibles on this care.

This is immoral. The mandate from our forefathers is 'to care for him who shall have borne the battle.' Not to squeeze every penny out of them. The government chose to send these men into harms way. Blue Cross didn't do that. The government, we the people, should take full responsibility.

This, plus the 10% across-the-board budget cut already placed on the military, cause me to conclude that President Obama is an anti-military president. He can say what he likes about supporting the troops, but I judge a man on his actions, not his words.


LL said...

Whether he's Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Obama, the problem I have with him is that I keep wishing him good health. Should he stumble, the line of succession runs: Slow Joe Biden -> Nancy Pelosi -> the senile 92 year old former Klansman, Sen Byrd and Hillary (vote for me because I'm a scorned woman) Clinton.

Look, B. Hussein Obama only had one job before being elected to public office. He was a community organizer in what is arguably the most corrupt city in America. He never served in the military and military people do not tend to vote for him with the exception of a hand full of black service men who vote race. So there's no constituency, no love, no way to relate to men and women under arms. I'm not at all surprised that he tugged the rug out from under them.

Am I being too subtle in my comments?

Six Feet Under Blog said...

I have to agree.

LL said...

While the Obama Administration hoped to balance the budget at the expense of combat wounded, one Democrat stood up to them. I feel it my duty to give credit where it's due. Bob Filner, D-California, said his committee wouldn't take up the proposal either. In a statement released by his office, Filner said the idea is "DOA" and said the budget "cannot be balanced on the backs (or legs, or kidneys, or hearts) of our nation's combat-wounded heroes."

Clay Bowler said...

Once again we see an Obama plan that makes no sense. After spending billions to increase the welfare roles, whe takes away from those who earned it. It almost seems staged at this point that he has all these issues he knows will cause great controversy across the United States, and you have to ask what is going on behind the curtains. I never was a conspircy guy, but there are so many things that don't make sense, and considering he is a student of Alinsky, you have to consider more about his strategies.