As a lifelong recipient of government health care, I've been educated this last week or so on many of the nuances of private health care that were undiscovered country to me.
And, I suspect, new territory to many of the government people who were involved in floating the idea that Secretary Shinseki mentioned to Congress.
I bet Secretary Shinseki missed a bunch of the nuances, too - being a member of the same health care system I am. I rather suspect his education has been rather more brutal and direct than mine. Most of ya just treated me like a kid who rides the short bus and can't help himself when he drools on his shirt.
I still think there is utility in understanding where that proposal likely came from - i.e., how TRICARE operates - when trying to make the argument against it. It makes it easier to limn the differences, and highlight the injustices, rather than just saying "No! Never!" which has been the level of discourse in some places.
Admittedly, some of the targets of "No, never!" have to be spoken to in short, direct sentences. But many do not, and are right smart people themselves, and we should work to engage them on that level.
While I never *endorsed* the proposal (as I said, I wanna see the details), I'm pretty sure at this point I'm not going to support the details, either.
We'll see. This may be the issue that gets me past the door with Congresswoman Jenkins, much as it was VA issues that got me past the door with Congresswoman Boyda. While it happens in the political realm, this isn't politics for me.
And, I suspect, new territory to many of the government people who were involved in floating the idea that Secretary Shinseki mentioned to Congress.
I bet Secretary Shinseki missed a bunch of the nuances, too - being a member of the same health care system I am. I rather suspect his education has been rather more brutal and direct than mine. Most of ya just treated me like a kid who rides the short bus and can't help himself when he drools on his shirt.
I still think there is utility in understanding where that proposal likely came from - i.e., how TRICARE operates - when trying to make the argument against it. It makes it easier to limn the differences, and highlight the injustices, rather than just saying "No! Never!" which has been the level of discourse in some places.
Admittedly, some of the targets of "No, never!" have to be spoken to in short, direct sentences. But many do not, and are right smart people themselves, and we should work to engage them on that level.
While I never *endorsed* the proposal (as I said, I wanna see the details), I'm pretty sure at this point I'm not going to support the details, either.
We'll see. This may be the issue that gets me past the door with Congresswoman Jenkins, much as it was VA issues that got me past the door with Congresswoman Boyda. While it happens in the political realm, this isn't politics for me.
That said, I hope the President tries to push this, and that there is a nasty fight in Congress over it. Expose it, and give it airtime. Then everyone will see.
so you can just imagine what kind of monkeyshines THEY would be getting up to in implementing a mandatory healthcare system for the hoi polloi.
This plan could do that when applied to a seriously injured Soldier or Veteran.
That's why this is a bad ida.
it sure seems as if they do if your rating is below 50%.
Those of us above 50% are entitled to full coverage, but everybody with a rated injury is entitled to coverage for service-connected issues.
Or have I missed an eligibility change?