Breaking faith

Just last Monday, on March 16th, the President gave encouraging remarks regarding Veteran's Affairs

You know, 20 years ago, on the day the Veterans Administration was officially elevated to a Cabinet-level agency and renamed the Department of Veterans Affairs, a ceremony was held to swear in the administrator of the old entity as Secretary of the new one.  And in his remarks that day, President George H.W. Bush declared that the mission of this agency is "so vital that there's only one place for the veterans of America:  in the Cabinet Room, at the table with the President of the United States of America."  I could not agree more....

I intend to start that work by making good on my pledge to transform the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 21st century.  That's an effort that, under Secretary Shinseki's leadership, all of you have already begun -- conducting a thorough review of your operations all across this agency.  And I intend to support this effort not just with words of encouragement, but with resources.  That's why the budget I sent to Congress increases funding for this department by $25 billion over the next five years.

With this budget, we don't just fully fund our VA health care program -- we expand it to serve an additional 500,000 veterans by 2013; to provide better health care in more places; and to dramatically improve services related to mental health and injuries like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly obvious that what the President says and what he does are two completely different things. Regardless of what the President said, he does not plan to expand and improve care Veterans with combat-related injuries. No, his plan is to out-source their care.

The proposal -- intended to save the Department of Veterans Affairs $530 million a year -- would authorize the VA to bill private insurance companies for treatment of injuries and medical conditions related to military service, such as amputations, post-traumatic stress syndrome and other battle-related conditions. The VA already pursues so-called third-party billing for non-service-related conditions.

Veterans groups said the change would abrogate the government's responsibility to care for the war-wounded. And they expressed concern that the new policy would make employers less willing to hire veterans for fear of the cost of insuring them, and that insurance benefits for veterans' families would also be jeopardized.

One of the problems with this approach was expressed succinctly by the Editorial staff of the Buffalo News

Even if veterans aren’t expected to come up with any copays or other out-of-pocket expenses for their service-related needs, charging any of those considerable costs to the insurance plans they buy themselves or get through their post-military employment stands to quickly eat up whatever coverage limits they may have. That could mean that they, and their dependents, would have little or no coverage for their next, non-military, medical bill.

But it is not just the editorial staff of the Buffalo News that is opposed to this; every Veterans Organization out there thinks it stinks and they expressed that opinion to the President in a meeting on Monday after the President's remarks.

Like the Veterans of Foreign Wars

"Charging wounded and service-connected disabled veterans for their VA healthcare breaks a sacred trust that this nation has with her veterans," said [Glen M. Gardner Jr leader of the VFW], who fears that the initiative could lead to higher insurance premiums, as well as make it more difficult for veterans and their families to obtain or retain private health insurance. He said it could also discourage civilian employers from hiring disabled veterans...

Gardner, a Vietnam veteran from Round Rock, Texas, is greatful for the president's willingness to sit down and address the issue face-to-face, but he said after yesterday's meeting that "the VFW still believes that the proposal is clearly the wrong thing to do."

The VFW national commander voiced the VFW's opposition to the third-party collection proposal in meetings today with congressional leadership, and will again tomorrow in testimony before a joint House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.

And the American Legion

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

In a letter to the President, the leaders of The American Legion, AMVETS (American Veterans), Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A., Inc., Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. expressed their disapproval

On behalf of the millions of veterans represented by the veterans and military service organizations that have joined our effort, we write to express our serious concerns about a policy proposal that has been discussed this week in conjunction with the release of your first budget. We have been told that your Administration may be considering a proposal that would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system to bill a veteran’s insurance for the care and treatment of a disability or injury that was determined to have been incurred in or the result of the veteran’s honorable military service to our country. Such a consideration is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government’s moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms.
As you know, the mission of the VA is “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.” Similarly, the VA emphasizes that it will “provide veterans the world-class benefits and services they have earned—and to do so by adhering to the highest standards of compassion, commitment, excellence, professionalism, integrity, accountability, and stewardship.” Unfortunately, the proposal to bill veterans for the care of their service-connected disabilities ignores the most important aspect of this vision—that their care has been earned.

This proposal ignores the solemn obligation that this country has to care for those men and women who have served this country with distinction and were left with the wounds and scars of that service. The blood spilled in service for this nation is the premium that service-connected veterans have paid for their earned care.

We understand and accept that the VA bills third-party insurers of veterans who are treated for non-service connected conditions. However, we cannot and would not agree to any proposal that would expand this concept any further. There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.

There is a reason why we leave no one behind on the battlefield. Why the military goes to great risk and expense to rescue a single airman shot down behind enemy lines even though it might cost the lives of some or all of the rescuers.

We do this because when we ask the men or women of our armed forces to do the dangerous mission, they have to know they will not be abandoned when they get in trouble if it is humanly possible to bring them back alive.

What the President is proposing is a fundamental breach of that rule of war and is no different than abandoning service member in combat or failing to rescue that downed airman because it is too costly to extract him.

Sorry. That may be how it works in Chicago.

But that's not how it works in America.