Some ideas should not even be considered. As far as citizens and corporations doing their part for veterans I thought that part of the taxes we pay was to pay for the armed services and the other associated costs.

Exactly JG. We are all distressed about something that should already be budgeted and paid for - but I have a better, pot-stirring idea.

Our military is designed to do two things - destroy things and kill people. Because they are really good at destroying things, certain corporations have gotten huge construction/consulting/logistics, etc. contracts as a result. Since these companies owe their good fortune (and profits) to the military, why not have them supplement veteran's benefits out of those profits? Think of it as setting aside workmen's comp. and it won't seem so fascist/socialist/democratic/republican, or whatever you might use as an excuse to look for problems instead of solutions. Just a athought.

Works for me, Mike. But we all know that corporate profit is sacrosanct, can't spare any profit. So instead we'll have to raise taxes on those corporations to cover the cost of caring for the wounded vets the bush administration didn't plan for, but created.

Of course that will be met with howls of scorn from the repubs for taxing coporate profits, which is evidently more valuable than our vets to some here.

So either way, in the repubs eye profit trumps vets. Someone here said it was the American way.

Crickets........

gh, insurance companies wouldn't exist if not for a profit to be made. The fact is such a move wouldn't only effect Vet rates, but everyone elses too. The more frequent users you have, the more expensive a medical policy becomes and everyone, to include the in-frequent users would pay for it.

It's a dumb arse idea and typical of the federal goverment; trying to push costs on to the private sector and smaller goverment entities.

I'm not really sure that most private insurance policies would cover the cost that occur from treating wounds/injuries from combat. I'm sure there is some stipulation in most policies about high risk behavior or something. I know my secondary life insurance does not pay out if I am killed in combat, I would need a different type of policy for that. Although I may be wrong since I have never had any other type of health insurance.

THE WHITE HOUSE


Office of the Press Secretary

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 18, 2009


Statement from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the President’s Strong Commitment to America’s Veterans:

The President has consistently stated that he is committed to working with veterans on the details of the 2010 VA Budget Proposal. The President demonstrated his deep commitment to veterans by proposing the largest increase in the VA budget in 30 years and calling VSO and MSO leaders into the White House for an unprecedented meeting to discuss various aspects of the budget proposal. In considering the third party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans; however, the President listened to concerns raised by the VSOs that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families’ ability to access health care. Therefore, the President has instructed that its consideration be dropped. The President wants to continue a constructive partnership with the VSOs and MSOs and is grateful to those VSOs and MSOs who have worked in good faith with him on the budget proposal.

I've never done it on this forum... so I was kinda just lookin' to see if it would work.

I coulda made it red too... now THAT would have been REALLY annoying!

Looks like you ain't got much to b!tch about over the issue anymore though.

+1 and then some.