Attention ALL Veterans

I can't help but to give this one a "so what?". In the course of any political action, several to dozens to hundreds of alternatives will be "considered".

I've "considered" retiring to London and living aboard a canal boat. But, it's very, very unlikely, mainly because there is almost no residential docking available. It would be more interesting to see what other options are being considered and how they are stacking up instead of picking out one talking point for the media to promote into Obamaphobia.

Let's wait to see which option is actually selected. Any good executive always puts a options on the table, including "do nothing" proposals for debate. It allows people to analyze and pick the one that is best for a situation.

There is no official plan yet, so I see no point in judging an "if". Instead of listening to speculations, let's wait and see what's brought up to the table - then we can have an opinion about it...

Perhaps that it's even being considered is the issue.

IF...taking away benefits from any other segment of society, hmmm...let's say maybe domestic partners were on the table, would you have an opinion simply because it was being considered?

The point in judging an "if" is, do you think it's appropiate? Do you support it?

I will support it or not when there is an official proposal out - for me, before that, it is just one more case of speculation.

It is a poor politician that fails to consider every available or known angle, for the good or the bad. Hopefully, the days of "my way or the highway" administration are over.

But we don't know what exactly was being considered. For all we know during the discussions it was an expressed requirement that whatever proposal was made could not have a negative impact on the veterans.

Don't you think such judgements should be made based on what exactly "it" is?

What promises, exactly, has he broken? He has been on the government for less than 2 months - what is any president supposed to achieve in this time frame? It seems to me that, if he has been judged like this 2 months out, clearly nothing he does will ever be good enough. Actually, in this case, he is being judged preemptively...

Since Momofmany's post makes no mention of any promise I assume you are are now trying to change the subject. Does that mean you're conceding your original post was baseless?????

Wow. Just wow.

I can't believe that is even being contemplated. Reasons? Because a member of the military has medical coverage through the military. Once they are out, and attempt to get private insurance if they have serious injuries or illness they will be DENIED. The only exception is if they get insurance through a group policy through a workplace, and even then the condition, if known, would likely be denied as a pre-existing condition.

Thankfully the Senators are kicking some sense into them. It should be denied. It's a slap in the face to all veterans to even consider such a thing, and a real slap in the face to all those serving in active COMBAT currently.

I don't understand if the reaction here is just because of who posted the thread (because she's a conservative and proud) or because Obama must have a good reason (not just to get a large amount of money out of the budget, no matter if it is for an actual worthy cause) and thus shouldn't be questioned.

You're assuming that what was being comtemplated was that veterans would be required to use private insurance for all of their service sustained injuries and that if they were unable to get private insurance they would be SOL. You can't know that that is what was being considered. That is the point of the responses. We don't know what was being considered.

I don't know if there's been a single President since, oh, Eisenhower maybe, who's done justice to our military veterans. Have we already forgotten the Bush administration's unfavorable positions toward PTSD ("battle fatigue") and brain trauma? It's really nothing new; nothing remarkable. Politics as ususal.

If something like this were to happen there would be no way whatsoever to justify it. Personally, given the way the government treats its veterans, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it was discussed.

How is it an assumption when Shinseki confirmed that it was being considered? Shinseki is a former Army Chief of Staff, he should know better, and should be fighting this tooth and nail if it is true.

"Considering" means very little in all actuality. You could fill hundreds of volumes the size of PDR's with things that have been "considered" by the government just over the last few years. In the 1960's, there as consideration given to nuclear distruction of American cities in the event of an uncontrollable disease outbreak to prevent a pandemic. That didn't fly too far either.

I'm not going to argue semantics. If that was the plan being considered it's abhorrent.

No one has said it was.

No one said that it wasn't. All that's being said is, "being considered" most likely means that someone included it as idea number 648 on a list of 1001 ideas. (or thereabouts) There isn't anything anywhere giving it any credibility as anything other than a partisan talking point.

Partisan? The link was from CNN, who is getting more and more slanted to the left by the day. I read FoxNew.com daily, which is slanted to the right (and I fully acknowledge this, but it doesn't make their reporting any less than any other news agency with a slant), and I didn't see this story reported. If it was, it was definitely not a headline on their main page. So what's the partisan reporting? Is it to the left - where all those hard-core anti-military radical liberals are rejoicing that this Administration wants to leave Veterans out in the cold? (Note, I don't mean everyone who supports Obama, I made a lot of specifiers to "liberal".)

I also acknowledge that IF this horrid idea is actually proposed in legislation, it won't pass. Congress wants to keep their jobs, and they are elected. The Administration, other than the President (and theoretically Vice-President) are appointed. Congress has to actually think about the people this would affect. The Administration is either being horribly anti-military (you volunteered for it, deal with the consequences) which I don't think is the reality, or they are looking for ways to reduce the annual federal deficit that Obama has promised. This would not reduce the social programs that they want to expand, but would take a large amount out of the budget.

It's still a bad idea and a slap in the face of those who served our country with valor to even be considering such an idea.

Wow, all I can say to this is wow. IMO, this is a very twisted image of what a liberal is. Liberals are not anti-military, or anti-troops. As far as the veterans goes, on the contrary, we want them to be taken care of, and well. Speaking for myself, we are against irresponsible use of the military, and the troops, such as what it was done in Iraq.

I made the note to clarify that I didn't mean ALL Democrats or Liberals. I meant the EXTREME HARD-CORE liberals, and there are most definitely those who are anti-troops and anti-military but those are the extremists of that viewpoint. I thought I had made that clear enough, but of course I should have known it would be misconstrued, and taken out of context. You even QUOTED the part that I clarified that I did NOT mean everyone who is a liberal or who supports Obama.

To say that what I said is aimed at all liberals is the same as saying that all conservatives are racist homophobes who are members of the KKK. I was pretty clear in what I said, and I don't know how I could make it any more clear.

Extremist Liberals - isn't that an oxymoron?
If you think that exists, please define what it is. Usually the ones who call a group extremist are extremists themselves...

So there are no liberals that are extremists? Think of the political viewpoint as a spectrum...Red on one end, Violet on the other. Most people fall somewhere in the middle and lean more towards one side or the other. But, there is that small minority that are strictly red or strictly violet. Those would be the extremists and they exist on both ends.

I think Heidi explained herself very well about HER definition of the "extremist liberals" and gave enough clarifiers in her post to let everyone know she wasn't talking about every liberal. You quoted her yourself.

"Is it to the left - where all those hard-core anti-military radical liberals are rejoicing that this Administration wants to leave Veterans out in the cold? (Note, I don't mean everyone who supports Obama, I made a lot of specifiers to "liberal".)"

Personally, it makes me sick that this is idea is even up for consideration. I don't care if they are "just considering" it, it is not right, and to me it says alot about our present administration.

I sincerely hope that by "considered" the good Secretary does not mean "seriously considered".

The article is short and without much detail; I'm reminded of an episode of The West Wing where Danny (a member of the White House Press Corps) asks CJ (the Press Secretary) if the President is considering something. She waffles, if I recall the episode correctly, and Danny asks her to ask the President.

Later, she acknowledges walking into the situation; after all, once she's asked the President, by defination he's "considered" it, regardless of what he later decides.

I would like to say that I'm disappointed by CNN's tabloid-style reporting, but realistically, this is just CNN-style reporting.

If you read through the article a second time, you'll realise there's almost nothing there. It's almost pure speculation.

If the President is seriously considering forcing military personnel to pay for treatment for service related injuries, then public outrage is not merely deserved, but surely required.

However, this may well be - and, indeed, reading the detail-scant article, I suspect it is - an example of, essentially, media creation of a story where none exists, particularly given Michelle Obama's many clear statements of support of miliary personnel and their families.

Friends, this thread is not about defining "liberal" or "extremist" in any context, and those comments are in danger of becoming too personal. Can we please get back to the topic? Thanks.

ETA: Thanks to Satai for taking us in that direction while I was writing the above.

I didn't say "partisan reporting". I said "partisan talking point". , which from the looks of this thread, is exactly what it is.

It's the government that places our fellow citizens in harm's way, it's the government's responsibility and duty to pay for any and all medical care our veteran's require in relation to their service related injuries.

If this unconscionable plan is brought forward, I hope that Congress will show a very rare moment of common sense and unanimously reject it.

I don't get the reimbursement part between the private insurance carriers and the DVA. Someone care to explain that to me?

I saw a representative from one of the veteran's groups on a news show on MSNBC. Several representatives from different groups including himself met with the President about this. He said that he was disappointed that the President didn't reject this plan while they were talking to him. He also didn't say that he was supporting it either. The representative said that it has no support from either Republicans or Democrats so he didn't think it was going to get anywhere.