Plus, it has the amusing benefit of getting Republicans to cry out in support of socialized medicine.

Nice try. They are treated as separate groups. There is no way you can equate the contract soldiers make to the US government to the masses of non-soldiers requiring health care.

Absolutely Yes- This was a huge plus for Obama. He did EXACTLY as he should have. I hope it doesn't get buried with all the other crap thats out there right now.

I didn't. I just thought it was amusing that the Republicans thought that a move making a socialized medical plan more like the plan the rest of us have would be a bad thing for the veterans.

I mean, it obviously would be, but it's fun to see the Republicans admit it.

You can't compare apples and oranges. Soldiers do something for their health insurance. The rest do not.

They do something to get it, and their reward is socialized medicine. Government-run medicine is a reward. Having to use private insurance and pay deductibles would be a diminishment of their reward.

It's fun to see Republicans touting government-run healthcare as a reward.

It is not a reward. It is a contractual relationship. It is funny to watch people try to compare groups who do nothing and expect the goverment to give them free handouts to people who have a contract to give their life away for periods of years and say they are somehow the same.

:D

Hmmm, I view the VA in the same way I see my dad's insurance plan. He retired from a company where he had a contract (UAW negotiated). Part of that contract was insurance for life paid for by the company he entered the contract with.

Military members have an enlistment contract that provides for medical care for life (with limitations) provided by the employers they entered into the contract with.

I don't see the socialized medicine angle.

Is it? Is the VA actually in the contract, or is it legislatively mandated that veterans get in the VA? I don't know, but either way the distinction isn't particularly relevant. I wasn't using "reward" in a sense that is incompatible with a contractual relationship; I was using it in the sense of being a good thing provided in return for another good thing, which certainly can apply to a contract.

What I am drawing attention to is that this has forced the Republicans to tout socialized medicine as a good thing. Instead of saying how bad socialized medicine is, they have to say that the rest of us don't deserve it.

Another thing the Republicans love to attack - paying for retired workers? We have to renegotiate those contracts to save the car companies!Not only is it paid for by the government, it is also administrated by the government, and not run through private insurers. I don't know the specifics of your dad's UAW deal, but I would guess they paid premiums on your dad's behalf to a private insurer.

but but The thing what you said was wrong, BECAUSE!

I'm not sure on your angle there. He worked for a farm implement company and they did renogiate their contracts repeatedly. The benefits were significantly less than what the original agreements allowed for but at least now they actually can expect to get what they've agreed upon indefinitely.Fair point but I don't really see the relevance. I've worked for companies that had large group plans that were serviced by a name brand insurance company even though the company self insured 100% of the payouts. How is that any different than this employer (military/government) deciding they can self insure for less than they would have to pay another organization?

All insurance by nature is a form of socialized medicine in that we pay a fee to a company to spread the risk over greater numbers so the obligation isn't too great for any one individual. I believe that is different than the single payer government run medical system some seem to want.

Because SOCIALIZED MEDICINE is BAD!!! Didn't you hear? The government can't do anything right! lol

I know you're joking because... well you're Flint, but there are two very good points in your post.

1) socialized medicine is bad. It isn't bad. Good and bad are subjective labels thrown at things we either like or don't like. I don't like it because I don't believe it is consistent with the focus on the individual that our country was founded on. That's just my opinion. Socialized medicine has some excellent points and under different circumstances I would support it. It would have to operate in a vaccuum free from personal agendas and political maneuvering, and the other important part takes us into your second important point.

2) The government can't do anything right! While a truism it isn't really the truth. The government can't do anything efficiently - and sometimes that is right. When we are making international agreements I don't want a quick efficient process with too much opportunity for mistakes and misunderstandings. As frustrating as it is, the slow, seemingly unproductive nature of international interaction is useful in that each government has time to choose words and positions carefully with plenty of opportunities to clarify and reclarify until they reach a point where noone is really happy, but each can live with the agreement.
Things like the military, legal system, and currency are areas which ONLY a government can do right.

It is in every other area that the government falters. While intentions may be good the tendency to build up personal empires for the sake of personal power is what makes the government horribly inefficient at most tasks they take as their own. It isn't the idea but the execution that is flawed usually.