Comments for President Obama @ work.

President Obama @ work.

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:44:37 -0600

Steve Schippert of Threatswatch, Matt of Blackfive, John of Op-For, and Ace (of Spades) and I have been chatting in email regarding the fallout of Secretary Shinseki's testimony before Congress that ignited the shite-storm that is spreading around. Steve made a nice "wrap-it-all-up" observation (and I don't like it just because it opens so well...):

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-17

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:39:53 -0600

Looking at the list of unforced errors they've piled up in the last two months, there may not even be a plan, which is going to make everything worse.

That would be my take on it. They're flailing.

Just another data point for the thesis that Senators who've never held an executive position of any consequence usually suck at... administration.

I freely admit, I prefer, thus far, my Presidents to come from the ranks of the Governors and similar people.

Which includes Clinton.

For the record, I think a Hillary Clinton administration would probably have been a flailex too, seeing as how it would likely contain a lot of the same people.

I'm not sure McCain would have been hugely better, but his talent pool might have been better.

Comment from htom on 2009-03-17

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:09:52 -0600

I think we're going to see a lot of "unintended consequences" from this administration. Real ones, not just claims of those.

As life-time benefit limits fall, and payouts for vets rise, this will force more and more vets into the VA system for all of their health care, causing "empty beds" in the private sector, the closing of more private facilities, and more overloads and expansion in the VA system. Perhaps that's the plan.

Looking at the list of unforced errors they've piled up in the last two months, there may not even be a plan, which is going to make everything worse.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-17

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:36:58 -0600

Htom - I honestly doubt that, but the possibility is there as an unintended consequence.

Comment from htom on 2009-03-17

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:26:24 -0600

The problem is that my health insurance (like almost all private health insurance) has a life-time spending limit. My (service-connected, non-combat) head injury treatment would have exhausted this within several years of my discharge, leaving me with no coverage for any other medical care, and as I am now, with pre-existing medical conditions consequent to that treatment that make private medical insurance more expensive than just paying retail for medical services. (The medical insurance coverage I have now is through my wife's employment.)

I'm inclined to think that this is just a way to de-populate the military, so that there will be a "need" to re-institute the Draft.

Comment from jsallison on 2009-03-13

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:15:11 -0600

TRICARE has already been doing this for quite some time. As mentioned upstream, TRICARE, by law, is positioned to be the last payer in the event that you have other health coverage. And since they won't reduce their premiums to reflect their lessor exposure I refuse to aquire any further coverage.

Comment from lamigra on 2009-03-13

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:39:44 -0600

Open letter from Shinsecki to Vets:

http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=1658

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-03-12

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:32:07 -0600

Armorer, SIR, request permission to do a cranial rectal extraction on me. The hard part is breaking the suction seal. I WAS WRONG! VA Secretary Shinseki, himself, made the comment. I heard it on C-Span on Wed morning. I still have trouble with the fact that he said it. With the demands on today's Military, I figured he would be more aggressive on the needs of today's Military and veterans.

For many, the question comes up, "Why the anger and and aggression?" The thing to remember is this- When it comes to processing claims, people talk about a long time, in terms of years. But for some of us, it was in terms of decades.

Casey, it has been a bad week, about your comment, "Master Curmudgeon at Arms", this sounds something like what people call me most of the time, A BOARD CERTIFIED PAIN IN THE A$$". You just say it in a rulez compliant manner.

To all of you, thank you, for your patience. Let's take the "Old Timer's counsel and just chill out and see what they come up with for the final paperwork at the end of April. Everything is still being figured out. Let's see what the VA says to John.

V/R Grumpy

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:34:36 -0600

This is what makes this so difficult to talk about...

1. DoD Retiree Healthcare: If you are enrolled in TRICARE, *and* you have other health insurance, BY LAW, TRICARE will bill the other health insurance. You will pay only those co-pays and cost shares required under the flavor of TRICARE that you are enrolled in. If you do *not* have other health insurance (as I do not) then you are only dealing with TRICARE costs (that's all you ever deal with) and TRICARE doesn't bill anyone else.

2. Medicare-eligible DoD retiree healthcare: Used to be, when you were eligible for Medicare, you could no longer use TRICARE. That was usually a net loss to retirees. So they instituted TRICARE for Life, which treats Medicare as a bill payer. So, TRICARE bills Medicare and gets what it can, and the rest is covered under TRICARE (which has better coverages than Medicare).

3. The VA: Right now, if you qualify for VA health-care for a service connected disability, you are not billed beyond whatever cost shares there may be in the VA process. The proposal is to make it like TRICARE. Meaning, if you *have* health insurance (and many people covered by this would, as they aren't DoD retirees) then the proposal would mean that VA would bill your health insurer, and eat any costs not reimbursed. Meaning that if your health insurer only paid %50 of the costs, then VA would get reimbursed for 50% of the cost. The veteran would *NOT* be billed for the remainder, ergo, in that transaction, it's no cost to the veteran, and VA costs are subsidized by the insurer (and, ot course, by the premiums of the people in the insurance pool).

So, techincally, no cost to the veteran. As AFSis points out, there are ways in which there will end up with costs creeping in.

The insurance companies, if they costs are extreme, will up premiums, which means everybody in the pool will pay more. As it is now, those costs are either paid by all taxpayers, or are passed on to veterans anyway, in the forms of restrictions to access to timely care due to underfunding.

There is no requirement under the proposal as I've seen it thus far (I have asked the VA for more info) that would require the veteran to obtain insurance, it's essentially just looking to stick a straw into the private insurance pool for those veterans who already have private insurance.

Comment from Casey on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:16:09 -0600

Grumpy (curmudgeon in training?) sez

John, as it started out, you appeared to be saying, the Government were going to require Veterans to buy medical insurance for their service-connected disabilities.

Um, no. He said that if you have private/other insurance, as well as TRICARE, then they will bill the other provider. If you have no other insurance provider, then TRICARE won't have anyone to bill.

Did I read you right, Master Curmudgeon of Arms? :)

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:15:44 -0600

As I look at this and another thread, "Much ado about nothing (for now)", I'm trying to fathom the issues out. I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb. John, as it started out, you appeared to be saying, the Government were going to require Veterans to buy medical insurance for their service-connected disabilities.

Now, you look at VA and D.O.D., in many ways, they are docked and locked, they have become one. The question becomes will TRICARE in some way try to follow the example of the VA?

The simple answer is NO! We need to have incentives to draw people to the Military into the "all volunteer force." Nobody wants the alternative, the draft. If you want to grow an all volunteer force, then both parties need to find answers, *yesterday*! Yes, John, this qualifies as a "royal fuster cluck!"

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:40:36 -0600

I'd like to remind everyone of one thing.

Our collective fibre runs way to DEEP for them to transform our soul with their superficial visions gleaned from foreign philosophies.

As long as this nation keeps replenishing itself with Americans like THESE, my belief for America will not die.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:50:06 -0600

NDS - I think you do the President a disservice.

He would divide that 8 foot two-by into 96 smaller pieces, and have 96 people, each with their own lathe, produce the toothpicks.

And at least a fifth of them would be illegals. Half of them women, 10% here on H1B visas, one quarter black, one third hispanic, all employed by a minority-owned business, with the production of the lathes financed by a gov't-owned bank, and built by a supplier to the auto industry.

That's stimulus.

Comment from NevadaDailySteve on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:42:40 -0600

It is a given that liberal double-speak means the opposite of what is said. The ban on human cloning does nothing of the kind, it just redefines it. Likewise, the statement about science, not politics driving the decision to overturn the ban is nonsense, it was an entirely political move that science had nothing to do with.

Although I don't like Obama's policies I don't wish him ill, I just want his policies stopped.

Speaking realistically I don't care if a politician takes an opportunity to profit politically from a decision, as long as the decision was made with the best interest of the country mind.

What chaps my backside is a politician who makes such decisions on strictly political grounds, sacrificing the good of the country in the process.

I think there is ample evidence that Obama is the latter type politician.

It just seems to me that many of Obama's decisions are arbitrary and are inefficient, like using a lathe to produce a single toothpick out of a two by four.

Comment from Fishmugger on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:30:33 -0600

My speak and spell failed me again.

Comment from NevadaDailySteve on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:19:04 -0600

Speaking as a self-proclaimed apprentice curmudgeon I have to wonder if Fishmugger likes trial mix. Sorry, it had to be done. :^)

Comment from Fishmugger on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:11:44 -0600

Curmudgeness is an art form in itself only after years of trail and error.

Comment from BillT on 2009-03-11

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:15:17 -0600

CJ referred to me as "He's an old, grumpy and retired veteran! hehe." Matt came back with "Curmudgeonly is the term I was thinking of..."

CJ and Matt always *did* have trouble telling John 'n' me apart.