A couple of interesting articles

[Secretariat]

Pakistan and US:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4249525.stm

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-2-2005_pg1_6

And Bush socks it one more time to the Vets:

http://www.military.com/Content/Printer_Friendly_Version/1,11491,,00.html?str_filename=FL%5Ffee%5F022605&passfile=FL%5Ffee%5F022605&page_url=%2FNewsContent%2F0%2C13319%2CFL%5Ffee%5F0 22605%2C00%2Ehtml

[46zilzal]

In times of war, HISTORICALLY, most of the population acknowledged what "had to be done," and , even grudgingly, supported the whole idea. That kind of wholehearted support (akin to WW II or even Korea) had disappeared.

Wonder why that is?

[sq764]

In times of war, HISTORICALLY, most of the population acknowledged what "had to be done," and , even grudgingly, supported the whole idea. That kind of wholehearted support (akin to WW II or even Korea) had disappeared.

Wonder why that is?
Because only strong people stay around when the going get's tough..

That's what makes America the greatest country in the world.. And people like you, how do you say, 'French-like'

[46zilzal]

Some conflicts have a REAL basis and other don't???

Strength should be USED reponsibly..... not as a "bully" might.

[lsbets]

I like the technique of teeing the ball up as Sec, and then changing shirts to hit the drive as 46. Its pretty entertaining.

[46zilzal]

(re: Sec)our posts are mutually exclusive

[sq764]

Some conflicts have a REAL basis and other don't???

Strength should be USED reponsibly..... not as a "bully" might.
Point being no matter where the decision leads, you have to stick with it to resolution. You don't back out like a coward..

Someone had to clean up Clinton's messes and we paid for it, and had to subsequently deal with the afteraffects.. Bush handled that quite well

[46zilzal]

Clinton...interesting..guy gets frisky with a young broad and now it is ALL his fault

[sq764]

Clinton...interesting..guy gets frisky with a young broad and now it is ALL his fault
He can get frisky with all the fat chicks he wanted to, just protect the country when terrorists strike our embassies.. Don't be a pussy..

But I guess that would have made him a Republican..

[46zilzal]

The Black and White syndrome with NO SHADES OF GRAY IN THE REAL WORLD.... only ONE side or the other...along with that same demented logic that you are "with us or with the terrorists" (except the rutabaga can't pronounce it that well)..I see it is alive and well.

[Tom]

46, as seen in Israel this weekend, the first homacide bomber in 4 months trying to derail a peace process the BOTH sides are trying to achieve. Yup. When it comes to terrorists, you are either wtih us or them. NO GRAY areas. And you NEVER, EVER try to make peace with terrorists, as some here have suggested. You kill them. You kill those harbouring them. And that is ALL you do wtih terrorists. It has been suggested that we will never be able to kill all of them. It was also suggested once that we would never walk on the moon.
We can do anything when we put our minds to it.

[46zilzal]

I just wanted to know why support is falling off...could it be because of???

Just going to lurk from now on anyway and let the rest sort this out.

You kill terrorists, not entire countries

[sq764]

I just wanted to know why support is falling off...could it be because of???

Just going to lurk from now on anyway and let the rest sort this out.

You kill terrorists, not entire countries
where is this major falling off of support?

[doophus]

Sec, those vets who are not poor and have no service connected affirmities (paraphrased from military.com link, par #2) will be charged the $230.00 annually.

With your comments, you now lead me to think you are against a progressive tax system. Gosh, are your spots changing? :confused: :confused:

[lsbets]

I do like how Sec phrased that "socks it to the vets", but the article says not poor and no service related injuries. Plus, they would only be paying what retirees on Tricare currently pay.

Sec - I thought you believed in people paying their fair share. Or does that only apply when it suits your agenda. I would refer you to the other thread where people who use the vet health care system seem to have some pretty good things to say. I guess you would favor a Canadian system? I seem to recall someone pointing out some kind of connection between you and Canadian doctors .......... JR, what was that?

[Secretariat]

No, Isbets, I belive in people paying their fair share, and I think wounded vets have already done that without hitting them with a new 250.00 fee.

[Secretariat]

He can get frisky with all the fat chicks he wanted to, just protect the country when terrorists strike our embassies.. Don't be a pussy..

But I guess that would have made him a Republican..

I shouldn't take the bait but I will. Does that include the Republican Reagan who withdrew all our troops from Lebanon after the terrorists struck us there, and we never went back. A nation currently struggling over Syrian control, and the Syria from which Israel says terrorist operations occurred at a recent night club bombing? btw... in my book Clinton was a moderate Republican, most Dixie Dems are..

no takers on the pakistan article?

[sq764]

No, Isbets, I belive in people paying their fair share, and I think wounded vets have already done that without hitting them with a new 250.00 fee.
Do police and fireman pay for any healthcare? I honestly do not know, I am asking..

[sq764]

I shouldn't take the bait but I will. Does that include the Republican Reagan who withdrew all our troops from Lebanon after the terrorists struck us there, and we never went back. A nation currently struggling over Syrian control, and the Syria from which Israel says terrorist operations occurred at a recent night club bombing? btw... in my book Clinton was a moderate Republican, most Dixie Dems are..

no takers on the pakistan article?
I'll assume with your diversion to Reagan that it's assumed to acknowledge the predicament Billy C put us in by doing nothing..

[JustRalph]

Funny, A Canadian lecturing the U.S. on how to use "Strength"

How the hell would you know? How the hell would anyone in Canada ever know what it would be like to negotiate from a position of strength.........

LS..........
He is a Doctor in Canada..............at least he purports to be on some other boards.

[GameTheory]

No, Isbets, I belive in people paying their fair share, and I think wounded vets have already done that without hitting them with a new 250.00 fee.But wounded vets won't have to pay it, only non-poor, non-disabled (i.e. non-wounded) vets.

[Tom]

Funny, A Canadian lecturing the U.S. on how to use "Strength"

How the hell would you know? How the hell would anyone in Canada ever know what it would be like to negotiate from a position of strength.........

LS..........
He is a Doctor in Canada..............at least he purports to be on some other boards.

Dr. Demnto!

[Tom]

GT....if you think Sec will listen to logic, then you are doing this: :bang:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[46zilzal]

not a Canadian..not lecturing anyone but simply posed a question that SHOULD have been a separate thread. I don't know how it got mixed up here.

[Secretariat]

But wounded vets won't have to pay it, only non-poor, non-disabled (i.e. non-wounded) vets.

Wounded does not necessarily mean they wil be classified as disabled and may very well be paying that fee.

I guess what bothers me is that we give the wealthiest people in this country a friggin tax break, and then the ones going over and doing the fighting are asked to pay an increase on enrollment fees BECAUSE we expect more new veterans to return home with severe injuries. If you don't beleive me read the quote below:

"Both Craig and Buyer, in separate letters to their budget committees, said difficult choices have to be made this year, given a tight VA budget and the number of new veterans returning from war with severe injuries. Against that backdrop, they defended enrollment fees against the stiff criticism expected from veterans' service organizations. "

It is morally unconsciousable for the wealtihest people in this country to be getting tax breaks while fellow vets pay the bills due to vet's who left their familes and went abroad and suffered disabling and severe injuries.

It is not only indefensible. It's disgusting. And I'm astonished that anyone would defend it. Thank God the veterans organizations are at least challenging this offensive action.

[Tom]

pssst! Sec......

We all got tax cuts. You too. Didn't we cover this already?
You have to pay more attention. :bang:


So, are you going to do anything about it, other than post and whine?
When they threatened to close our VA Hospital ,we rallied the troops, soto speak, wrote letters, made call, held rallies, got people to help us (Hillary and Schummer!) and we saved the place. It is not closing.
There is more to life than griping - go out and do something.

(Hint: leave Michael Moore out this time, you might have some credibility. Rolly Polly, Daddy's little fatty, gnawing on a biscuit all the day....)

[Secretariat]

Who mentioned Michael Moore in this thread?

I have written my congressman and Senators. My congressman has written me back and has promised to fight this obscenity on the floor.

I intend to write to VFW groups about this and hope their voices will be heard so that the heads of Halliburton pay their share for the profits they've garnished from our vets.

btw.. if it meant giving up a penny of my paltry tax cut, I'd give it up so those vets wouldn't have to pay the fee. Maybe those millionaires could afford a dime apiece.

[Tom]

Who mentioned Michael Moore in this thread?


I did, just a post ago.
See?
You just are not paying attention! Sheez! :bang:

[sq764]

btw.. if it meant giving up a penny of my paltry tax cut, I'd give it up so those vets wouldn't have to pay the fee. Maybe those millionaires could afford a dime apiece.
How much of your tax cut did you give to the troops? Just curious..

[lsbets]

Sec, read what you link to and do a little research. If you are wounded, you get a Purple Heart. If you have a Purple heart, you pay nothing - for life. The fee does not apply to Purple Heart recipients, only to category 7 and 8 where they do not pass the means testing. Are you that blinded by hatred for Bush that you don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments? We all know the answer to that one. A big, resounding yes.

[GameTheory]

It is morally unconsciousable for the wealtihest people in this country to be getting tax breaks while fellow vets pay the bills due to vet's who left their familes and went abroad and suffered disabling and severe injuries.

It is not only indefensible. It's disgusting. And I'm astonished that anyone would defend it. Thank God the veterans organizations are at least challenging this offensive action.I'm not defending it, I'm rejecting your spin put on it. I think that vets in this country are in general treated poorly by the government, but I think it has been that way for decades. It is not Bush's doing.

You think it is disgusting that wealthy people got some of the same tax break everyone else got because apparently we should be using that money to avoid adding this fee. I would much prefer we do something more constructive to gain some extra cash rather than further fleecing the people that earned it, for instance shutting down the Dept. of Education or some other useless and unconstitional part of the government....

[sq764]

Sec, how many other healthy, non-poor people in society would be overjoyed at paying $230 a year for healthcare?

[Secretariat]

[QUOTE=GameTheory:LYou think it is disgusting that wealthy people got some of the same tax break everyone else got because apparently we should be using that money to avoid adding this fee. I would much prefer we do something more constructive to gain some extra cash rather than further fleecing the people that earned it, for instance shutting down the Dept. of Education or some other useless and unconstitional part of the government....[/QUOTE]

So taking a portion of the tax cut from the rich to pay a Veteran's Health cost increase is too much, eh? God forbid we ask the Halliburton's of the world to pay for something that helps vets.

And I wholeheartedly agree vets have been screwed by other administrations. However, "continuing" to screw them with a 250.00 health fee is abhorent. This argument that the vet's been scrwed before, why shouldn't Bush be allowed to do is a weak position. Why not ask those who have benefited the most over the last four years to chip in? It's not like this is a huge amount. Why not support the veterans organizations like the VFW that are asking for this? The perception here is that I'm some way out liberal wacko asking for this. Contact the VFW and ask them waht side of the fense they're on regarding this. Or perhaps they're also too far left for you.

[sq764]

Sec, how much have you donated to vets in the past year? past 4 years? 10 years? Just curious

[lsbets]

Sec - do you concede that you were wrong in what you said and no vet who was wounded is being looked at to pay the fee?

And, using your logic, they are talking about Category 7 and 8 verterans who do not pass the means test, presumably people who would fit in your category of those who benefitted the most from the tax cut.

[Secretariat]

Sec, how much have you donated to vets in the past year? past 4 years? 10 years? Just curious

Why do you continue to make this a personal issue? I did not ask you how much "you" personally gave to the vets. THis is not the issue. I am a member of the VFW and have given money at my church as well to support our troops as well as the tsunmai effort. Frankly, that has nothing to do with this. This is your tact, and it doesn't address the issue which is why should ANY vet be asked to pay an additional 250.00 fee while the wealthiest Americans who reaped the biggest benefit continue to be given tax breaks. Because that 250.00 fee to those vets is in essence a tax increase to them.

[Secretariat]

Sec - do you concede that you were wrong in what you said and no vet who was wounded is being looked at to pay the fee?

And, using your logic, they are talking about Category 7 and 8 verterans who do not pass the means test, presumably people who would fit in your category of those who benefitted the most from the tax cut.

I am surprised you are in support of this fee as a soldier. The VFW is certainly opposed to it.

In answer to your question above any vet who is wounded is NOT necessarily taken care of by this fee. Yes, those who received a Purple Heart are reclassified as priority 3 and do qualify to avoid the fee. However, I remember a discussion a little while back here that not all soldiers who are wounded receive the Purple Heart. This was part of the criticism of Mr. Kerry if I remember correctly, that his shrapnel wounds did not merit receving a Purple Heart, and that many CO's did not put their soldiers in for medals they were deserving of. Please go back and review some of your own comments in those threads.

But this again is a diversion from the issue that the VFW adamantly opposed. The issue that servicemen in a time of war should be given a 250.00 tax increase fee while the wealthiest of Bush's homesteaders are given a tax break. It's unconsciousable and I agree with the VFW response. Obviously, you continue to stand by President Bush no matter what.

[Bobby]

yea, and these are the people who can't afford health insurace. They ain't got Blue Cross
& Blue Sheild. The effect is that this really is ANOTHER tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. The poor subsidise VA while the wealthiest no longer have too.

[sq764]

Why do you continue to make this a personal issue? I did not ask you how much "you" personally gave to the vets. THis is not the issue. I am a member of the VFW and have given money at my church as well to support our troops as well as the tsunmai effort. Frankly, that has nothing to do with this. This is your tact, and it doesn't address the issue which is why should ANY vet be asked to pay an additional 250.00 fee while the wealthiest Americans who reaped the biggest benefit continue to be given tax breaks. Because that 250.00 fee to those vets is in essence a tax increase to them.
No, you are asking rich people to foot the bill. Why should they just because they are rich?

I think your rationalization of this is ridiculous and you are totally off the mark with this whole tantrum..

[Secretariat]

SQ,

Bobby posted the perfect response to your question. I'll add one more. Because the number of wealthy participating in the war on terror is much smaller than the poor and middle class. The least they could do is chip in.

[sq764]

SQ,

Bobby posted the perfect response to your question. I'll add one more. Because the number of wealthy participating in the war on terror is much smaller than the poor and middle class. The least they could do is chip in.
So have you always felt this way or did this just graze your mind as you read about Bush suggesting the $250 payment?

You're really getting quite sad with this Bush bashing.. Get over it man.

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

Bobby posted the perfect response to your question. I'll add one more. Because the number of wealthy participating in the war on terror is much smaller than the poor and middle class. The least they could do is chip in.

(Sigh...Reason 105 coming up for keeping my controversial avatar....)

Sec...listen up, my man. Gird up the loins of your mind. Err...could this fact have anything to do with another very closely related fact that the "wealthy" are far outnumbered by the combined numbers of the "poor" and "middle class"? Just a thought for you to ponder, if it isn't too much work. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

btw.. if it meant giving up a penny of my paltry tax cut, I'd give it up so those vets wouldn't have to pay the fee. Maybe those millionaires could afford a dime apiece.

And I'll raise your miserly one cent to a nickel, sir! So there!

Boxcar

[Tom]

Sec, if you are sooo unhappy, you should go out and vote against Bush and hope for a better guy.
Oppps! You already did that!
Sorry. :lol:

[Secretariat]

Sec, if you are sooo unhappy, you should go out and vote against Bush and hope for a better guy.
Oppps! You already did that!
Sorry. :lol:

Tom, you're inconsistent. One minute you're saying I don't think our soldiers should have to pay for these healthcare costs, and in the next you're supporting the SQ's and Boxcars praising Bush's tax fee on our vets which keeps the Cheney's of the world from contributing to it.

What exactly is your position on this? Is it just because I disaprove of Bush that you decide to defend every inane decision he makes. If it helps here I'll start supporting him, then more of you will take the opposite position and at least realize he's smoke and mirrors.

[sq764]

Is it just because I disaprove of Bush that you decide to defend every inane decision he makes.
Is this the reason you bitch and moan about every single decision Bush makes? It would explain a lot..

[lsbets]

Sec, if you are wounded in action you get a Purple Heart. Hell, I have a guy who's getting a Purple Heart for a small hearing loss due to an explosion. I never said that I supported the fee or I didn't, I said that the spin you were putting on it was dishonest, and it is. I pointed out where you were off base. You make crap up all the time. You are a man without honor and integrity.

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

Tom, you're inconsistent. One minute you're saying I don't think our soldiers should have to pay for these healthcare costs, and in the next you're supporting the SQ's and Boxcars praising Bush's tax fee on our vets which keeps the Cheney's of the world from contributing to it.

Whoa...Dude! Can you show me when and were I praised "Bush's tax fee on our vets"?

Since you won't be able to, I can't do any better than echo LSBETS perception of you, to wit:

"You are a man without honor and integrity."

I'm beginning to think that Libs are [morally] allergic to truth.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Secretariat wrote:

[b]Whoa...Dude! Can you show me when and were I praised "Bush's tax fee on our vets"?

Since you won't be able to, I can't do any better than echo LSBETS perception of you, to wit:

"You are a man without honor and integrity."

I'm beginning to think that Libs are [morally] allergic to truth.



I beleive the man who is charging vets a new 250.00 fee is a man without honor and integrity as well as those who defend such an action.

First, let's look at what Isbets actually has posted:

"Sec - do you concede that you were wrong in what you said and no vet who was wounded is being looked at to pay the fee?

Sec, read what you link to and do a little research. If you are wounded, you get a Purple Heart."

Let's then look at one of your other posts in a different thread. your words not mine.

"My first post here asked about the cause of his Purple Hearts, and I stated that I always thought you had to get wounded to get one. I never looked up the reg before, I never had someone come to me and say "I got bruised I want a Purple Heart". I looked at the reg, and yes, a bruise would qualify, but your statement that friendly fire qualifies is incorrect. Friendly fire only qualifies if the primary cause of a friendly fire incident was the presence of enemy fire. A negligent discharge of someone's weapon does not qualify. Explosive devices from the enemy are considered enemy fire."

You then proceed to list some causes where wounded vets are not eligible for not eligible for the PH. Others have posted they beleived Dole's remarks in that one had to bleed to get a PH. Obviously, the criteria has fluctuated among the understanding of CO's and whether various soldiers qualfied. Many here questioned Kerry's PH's even after the Navy confirmed he was deserving.

Your statement above says "No vet who was wounded has to pay the fee." Perhaps you meant wounded in action AND received the PH. That would be true, but an injury which did not qualfiy for the PH does not automatically take a vet out of the 250.00 fee and they were still wounded.

Here's a comment by Delayj regarding a wounded denied PH.

"Isbet,
I don't have access to the regs, but I recall an enlisted Marine who was denied a purple heart after being shot in the leg while on duty in Somalia. I think he accidently shot himself or was accidently shot by another sentry due to his own neligience."

So I'll again state there are wounded vets who will be charged that fee.

However, all of this is away from the issue, and that is the immorality of charging vets who may have gone into combat risking thier lives and being charged a fee while the wealthiest people in our country reap the benefits of a tax windfall. It's morally wrong in my opinion, and smacks of, using your words, a lack of honor and integrity.

Your defense of Bush earlier in the thread: Isbets

"Sec - I thought you believed in people paying their fair share. " implied to me that you beleived that Priority 7 and 8 soldiers should be paying the fee. If you are against the fee, great, I'm in agreement 100%.

SQ's typical staunch defense of Bush sounded like he was defending Bush's decision, and Box...well, perhaps I am wrong, but I thought he agreed with Bush on everything. Box, I apologize if in fact you are against the veteran's 250.00 fee. If not, well then forget my apology.

[lsbets]

Yes Sec - wounded in action. If you are wounded in action you get a Purple Heart. In most circumstances, friendly fire wounds occuring while enemy fire is present qualify for the Purple Heart (the only reason that I do not say all, is although i have never heard of one, I am sure there are some out there). Wounds resulting from negligent discharge when no enemy fire is present do not qualify for the Purple Heart - they qualify the person who had the negligent discharge for some pretty serious punishment. When most people here the word "action" they understand the implication that there is an enemy involved. Most people would not say that someone who is wounded at a clearing barrel was in action, regardless of what country they might be in at the time. A wound that does not qualify for the Purple Heart is not combat related, plain and simple.

Let me ask you - how many Purple Hearts have you recommended people for in your lifetime? I think its fair to say that I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do. I have recommended people for Purple Hearts for gunshot wounds, shrapnel wounds, glass fragment wounds from blown out windows, hearing loss, small cuts, and deep bruises. I've gotten to know the reg pretty well. And everyone of those soldiers will qualify for free health care from the VA. You attempt to tell a story that is not true, and it is unfortunate for you that there are others here that know better.

I stand by every word that I said - you intentionally try to mislead. You are dishonest and devoid of integrity.

[Secretariat]

Isbets,

I never questioned your ability to determine who gets PH or who doesn't. That's your slant. In fact I used your own quotes posted here so as not to disparage anything you said. I posted an article from military.com which is the Bush policy is it not? What I said was that Bush socks it to the vets.

The question is simple: are you in agreement with Bush on this fee and therefore in opposition to the VFW position on it?

You may not think much of my integrity, and personally I could care less. Actually, I think you have a great deal of integrity. Anyone over in Iraq I respect as far as their heroism and courage. I may not agree with their political stances, and I'm sorry that posting military.com articles, and quoting yourself bothers you. But, I would be interested in your actual answer to the question I pose rather than the rush to defend Bush at all costs generally posted here by many of the neo-con personalities.

[Tom]

I am not inconsistent. I have always maintained that when it comes to treatment of our vets, al the presidents of our time are morons. I think Bush is the worst because he is sending them to war and back-stabbing them on the homefront. I agree fully with your assesment that he has no integrity or honor. I also think that he, Chenney, and Rummsfeld should all move to Baghdad and run their offices their until it is time for all to come home. Perhaps they would do a better job if they got a taste of bile everytime a car drove by. I would have more repsect for leaders who were on the front lines not the rear.

[sq764]

Isbets,
But, I would be interested in your actual answer to the question I pose rather than the rush to defend Bush at all costs generally posted here by many of the neo-con personalities.
What's really sad is that you never once stop to listen to yourself and realize how anti-Bush you really are..

It's bordering on an obsession.. You may need help/

[lsbets]

Sec - use my words, I don't care, there is no discrepancy. What I have a problem with is the way you painted this fee. The military.com article didn't say Bush socks it to vets - those are your words. Then you said soldiers wounded in action would have to pay the fee. I pointed out where you were wrong, and you seem to have taken great offense to that. You are trying to make this fee something that it isn't. The fact is, this fee is the equivilant to what military retirees pay while they are on Tricare. I don't have an opinion of it one way or the other - I really don't care. No one is socking it to vets or making wounded combat veterans pay for healthcare. The fee is aimed at people with no service related disabilities who do not pass the means test. I said I was suprised that you did not support it - its right up your alley, a fee on the rich veterans. I would think that most people who would be categorized as 7 or 8 would not even use VA health care because of the reputation that it has. Most people prefer the ability to choose their own providers, even if it costs them more money. So this fee is not really an issue for me. What is an issue is how you try to make it something that it is not, simply because you hate Bush and everything that he does. You need to remove yourself from the cloud of hate, it is not healthy.

[Equineer]

Lsbets,

The original Military.Com article, taken at face value, seems to answer many of the questions you guys continue to argue about.

Whether you approve or not, is it fair to blame Bush for the VA changes?

"The Bush administration proposed the enrollment fee to hold down costs. The VA committees rejected another Bush proposal to raise co-payments on VA-filled prescriptions for these same priority 7 and 8 veterans."

Who will have to pay?

Of 7.2-million eligible for VA benefits, the targeted categories are priorities 7 and 8, or 2.4-million veterans, including 1.2-million who used VA benefits in 2004.

I agree with your reasoniong that category 7 and 8 vets who have alternative medical benefit plans (or can pay out of pocket) will seldom elect to use VA facilities.

But who are the 1.2-million vets in categories 7 and 8 that did use the VA in 2004? I rather doubt they were the "rich" vets.

I would suggest there is a significant population overlap with millions who are classified as poor and homeless in the national census.

Also, what will be the ultimate economic impact in all states, but especially in Florida, New York, Texas, and California?

Many of these federal cost-cutting measures simply shift social welfare burdens from federal to state and local budgets.

IMHO, I would rather see vets who have fallen on hard times retain their current subsidized federal benefits... let the cities and states cope with those who never served!

[Equineer]

A comprehensive study by Businessweek magazine projected that average health care costs in 2008 will be more than double 2001 costs.

The average cost per day for hospitalization was $1,289 in 2001, according to statistics gathered nationwide from community hospitals. Estimates of average 2005 daily costs exceed $1,600 because hospital expenses have been inflating at nearly double-digit annual rates.

Chronic conditions can incur huge annual expenses, and a really serious health problem will run up costs at a rate substantially above average. Of course, this is why medical insurance premiums have been skyrocketing.

Furthermore, medical insurers routinely reject applicants with chronic problems or specifically excluding coverage for chronic conditions.

Without even considering what might be adequate medical insurance coverage, this is why tens of millions of Americans have NO health insurance even though they work!Washington Post - By Dina ElBoghdady - Sunday, February 27, 2005; Page K01

So you have a job or a job offer, but no health insurance to go with it?

You're definitely not alone.

About 74 percent of the nation's 45 million uninsured people worked in 2003, the most recent available U.S. Census data show. Most of them worked full time, year-round in small businesses. Others worked part time or in seasonal jobs.Fewer and fewer employers are footing insurance costs, and millions of working Americans cannot afford insurance, even if it is offered at group rates.

Also from 2003 data (http://www.workplacefairness.org/sc/incomegap.php): "more than 28 million people, about a quarter of the working-age workforce, work full time yet still earn less than the income that marks the federal poverty line for a family of four: $9.04 per hour, a full-time salary of $18,800 a year. Child care workers can't afford the care they provide for their own children, and retail workers cannot pay for the goods they sell to others."

The bottom line is, if you don't have considerable financial assets or one of the increasingly rare health insurance plans with adequate catostrophic benefits, you are living a pulsebeat away from bankruptcy! This certainly includes many of the category 7 and 8 vets.

In my view, the new VA fees are really designed to discourage enrollment for VA benefits.

And believe it or not, polls have shown that a majority of Americans cannot correctly name the last five Vice Presidents, so I would guess that a lot of vets never find out about benefit requirment changes until it is too late!

[Secretariat]

Sec - use my words, I don't care, there is no discrepancy. What I have a problem with is the way you painted this fee. The military.com article didn't say Bush socks it to vets - those are your words. Then you said soldiers wounded in action would have to pay the fee. I pointed out where you were wrong, and you seem to have taken great offense to that. You are trying to make this fee something that it isn't. The fact is, this fee is the equivilant to what military retirees pay while they are on Tricare. I don't have an opinion of it one way or the other - I really don't care. No one is socking it to vets or making wounded combat veterans pay for healthcare. The fee is aimed at people with no service related disabilities who do not pass the means test. I said I was suprised that you did not support it - its right up your alley, a fee on the rich veterans. I would think that most people who would be categorized as 7 or 8 would not even use VA health care because of the reputation that it has. Most people prefer the ability to choose their own providers, even if it costs them more money. So this fee is not really an issue for me. What is an issue is how you try to make it something that it is not, simply because you hate Bush and everything that he does. You need to remove yourself from the cloud of hate, it is not healthy.

Let's clear up some inaccuracies. First, I never said that military.com said that Bush socks it to the vets. That was my impression from reading the article and I never stated otherwise. Second, I never said PH recipients would not qualify to avoid the fee, or that those wounded in action would avoid the fee. If you can show me WHERE and WHAT post I said the things you assert, please do so. This is what I said.

"No, Isbets, I belive in people paying their fair share, and I think wounded vets have already done that without hitting them with a new 250.00 fee."

By your own quote I posted earlier, not "all" wounded vets receive the PH. Some of those wounded via friendly fire, or those who are not put in for the PH do not. Additionally, there are many traumatized vets who the VA recognizes as emotionally wounded, but will be hit with this fee.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=4&u=/usatoday/20050228/ts_usatoday/traumaofiraqwarhauntingthousandsreturninghome

I don't beleive vets should be paying ANY healthcare fee regardless of income. Their service to the country should count for something. I simply beleive the fee is better paid by those who chose not to serve, and can afford to pay. It's the least they could do to support veterans. With VA hospitals closing, and the wealthy getting tax breaks, I am perplexed how a veteran could say "I don't care" about a fee (in essence a tax) added to other vets. Well, I'm a vet and I do care. It has nothing to do with Bush, if Clinton was doing the same thing I'd be bitching about.

As to this perception of Bush, yes, I despise what he is doing to our country. Building huge deficits and switching the war on terror to a war about bringing democracy to the world. Bin Laden encourages Zarqawi to strike at Americans and we're no closer to capturing Bin Laden or Omar than we were three years ago. The mission has changed to democractic nation buliding since the WMD speculation has been unable to be proven. His ignoring of the destruction of our environment, etc.

Can I honestly say I approve of some of Bush's actions? Probably many more than most neocons could say of Clinton?

Here's a few I do approve of.

1. No Child Left Behind. - A good intiative and first step. My complaint was it was not fully funded as he stated.

2. AIDs in Africa - His speech to eradicate AIDs in Africa is critical for the stability of the country.

3. His staunch opposition to arms sales by the EU to China - I'm a 100% in agreement with him on this.

4. The invasion of Afghansitan. Total agreement. I just wish he had stuck to finding Bin Laden and not fully caving to Pakistan's wishes. We should be saying to Pakistan, "They invaded us on 911 and our troops are going to go across your border to capture fleeing Al Queda." I think his priority got us involved in the wrong conflict, but I did support his invasion of Afghansitan.

Now, let's see the neocon list of all the things Clinton did that you liked, and see who are the true haters.

[Bobby]

I think the larger point is about the overall cost of health care, be it prescriptions or doctors. Eventually, the powers that be are gonna have to either nationalize the health care system (like other countries) or provide affordable health insurance to everyone. People aren't gonna be able to afford health care, especially if costs are gonna double between 2001 and 2008

[sq764]

Sec, I didn't hate Clinton..

I just thought his absolute lack of protecting this country from terrorists put us in a horribly vulnerable position and led to a lot of what has happened over the past few years.

Also, NAFTA turned out to be a joke..

[lsbets]

Sec - when you say a wounded veteran most people assume wounded in combat. That seemed to be what you were implying. Now you want to argue what the definition of is is.

PTSD - full coverage, no fee. There you go again, misleading.

And I don't think its a big deal because like I said - that is the same fee that military retirees already pay with Tricare. Why are you nout outraged by that? Because Tricare wasn't a Bush program?

In terms of Clinton, why do you have to make everything about Clinton? Get over it, he's not President anymore. :D

[Bobby]

Sec, I didn't hate Clinton..

I just thought his absolute lack of protecting this country from terrorists put us in a horribly vulnerable position and led to a lot of what has happened over the past few years.

Also, NAFTA turned out to be a joke..


I'll agree w/ ya on Clinton, though I don't 9/11 is anyones fault. What I mean is that I think starting w/ Clinton the CIA, FBI, and NSA started to fail. That's probably ONE REASON why Bush was wrong on IRAQ WMD. Anyway, It'll take years to reestablish our intelligence capabilities.

[Equineer]

Sec, I didn't hate Clinton..

I just thought his absolute lack of protecting this country from terrorists put us in a horribly vulnerable position and led to a lot of what has happened over the past few years.

Also, NAFTA turned out to be a joke..While Clinton may deserve criticism, Bush's strategic bungling has funded more terrorist training than anyone since Ho Chi Minh.

The Bush administration cited links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th hijackers as a main reason for invading Iraq. However, administration officials admit that no real evidence of contacts between Iraq and the hijackers have been found. This was hardly news where Saddam's Iraq was truly understood as a rogue among Islamist nations (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.).

After the invasion, as a consequence bungled strategic planning, Iraq became a terrorist training camp sophisticated beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams... conveniently located where suicidal "walk-on" recruits are in plentiful supply.

In February, CIA director Porter Goss warned the Senate about the consequences of Iraq:

"Unrest in Iraq is providing Islamist militants with training and contacts that could be used in new attacks abroad."

"While not a cause of extremisms, [Iraq] has become a cause for extremists."

"Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism."

Do you really think bin Laden or other terrorist leaders view Iraq as a long-term strategic setback?

Dirt-cheap Jihad volunteers who "flunk training" in Iraq merely become propaganda and recruiting assets as "martyrs."

As in Viet Nam, values established in Western democracies are warping our perception of the enemy. The hardcore terrorists that we are kill are "dead men (and women) walking" whose lives were discounted the day they left their families.

All credible studies project that terrorism, which is really a worldwide class and culture conflict, will persist as long as the underlying causes for conflict are not addressed... and that a military solution is not globally feasible.

While we spend millions per capita to kill "dead" men, a preposterous lonewolf in the media world is winning the propaganda war. Internet web portals (such as Lycos) have reported that "Al Jazeera" searches consistenly rank near the top in worldwide popularity, sometimes even outpacing "sex" by a three-to-one margin.

The Middle East is keenly attuned to Al Jazeera's version of the news, and Al Jazeera news footage and stories are propagated worldwide. Meanwhile, the administration awarded our propaganda contract to the same "well connected" government contractor that built the notorious $175-million FBI Case File System which had to be junked because it simply never worked. And because this company lacked media and broadcasting expertise, the original equipment delivered to launch radio broadcasts in Iraq and elsewhere had to be scrapped and replaced due to technical compatibility problems. Furthermore, media/intelligence analysts and Congressmen have subsequently been sharply critical of the effectiveness and quality of what we have been broadcasting to Arab/Islamic audiences.

It seems to me that America should be the least likely nation to bungle propaganda by contracting with a company that is not qualified to do the job. We certainly do not lack media technology or qualified propaganda spin doctors.

[Tom]

Listening to the daily sound bites from Bush's barnstorming to get support for his new agenda, I can only conlcude that he is drinking again. Heavily. The man has losty touch with reality.