BKSir
Posts: 4037
Joined: 4/8/2008 From: Salt Lake City, UT Status: offline
|
Okay, breaking down the facts here. The V.A. has different levels of coverage, on a percentage scale related to the injury and how it affects the veteran. Example, 70% disability, 80%, 100%, etc, for service connected issues. Those issues then directly relate to what would be considered, in simplest terms, a 'co-pay'. 70% = 30% 'co-pay', which is already charged to insurance companies, out of pocket, etc. Granted, to get considered 100% is next to impossible, much less 'total and permanent'. T&P is different. 100% means there is a chance of improvement or recovery with treatment, and has to be reassessed every so often. T&P is just that. However, that being said, this proposal really isn't putting anything out on the table that isn't already there, aside for some much needed budget increases for the V.A. Now, I will admit that I would much rather see ALL retired and honorably discharged veterans get 100% coverage. They already paid, in my opinion. So, in that sense, I am still a bit upset about this. Also, it does, admittedly, sound as though the plan would indeed increase the 'co-pay' that is charged to insurance and out of pocket cost, and I agree that it could and probably will put a larger burden on the veterans affected, as well as, as others have mentioned, employers and insurance companies. What dismays me the most though, is that this is coming from the one candidate that was on the Veterans Affairs Committee, and, in the past has done all he can to raise benefits and services. This is a complete about face from that, and makes me wonder if there isn't some confusion on the bill itself. Being breaking news I'm willing to wait for a few days to see about any clarification in the matter, as it just makes no sense at all.
_____________________________
We'll begin with a spin, traveling in a world of my creation. What we'll see will defy explanation. I am the voices in your head. BiggKatt Studios
|