Veteran Groups were upset and are up against Barack Obama's new proposal regarding to have the "treatment for service-connected injuries" charged. Obama says that this would help and provide our nation in accumulating and saving up revenues. The veterans were discouraged with grief as they now will have to pay and be charged for their injuries in battle. During Obama's campaign in the race for presidency he did announce to enhance and reshape the country's financial crisis, however he didn't explicitly define his means of how he was going to change it. And now there is a dispute and struggle between the charged veterans and the president of the United States.
" 'The vets are paying premiums to insurance companies and that is a free ride that needs to stop,' Gorman said in describing the president's message to the group. " And the troops replied:
" 'Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans. If the president and the OMB want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA,' said Paul Rieckhoff "
Honestly I think that this proposal that Obama's tends to pass is a good effort in the attempt of good recovery of the economy, however I have to agree and support the veterans groups since they did struggle out in the armed forces for our protection and safety. What do you guys think? Should Obama continue his plans in raising revenues by charging the veteran's treatment for service-connected injuries? Would you support it?
5 comments:
I feel that it is very important to honor veterans and give them the utmost respect for the service they have payed to this country. However, we are in a dire situation that needs to be taken care of. If cutting the costs of veterans health care will lessen the immediate financial crisis then maybe that is what should be done. In an ideal world we wouldn't have to cut veterans benefits while giving billions of dollars to greedy banks. However, if bankx start failing the entire economy can collapse like it did during the Great Depression. In my mind there is no question to who deserves the money more, clearly the veterans deserve to continue receiving their health benefits, but unfortunatly the banks will receive this money because that is best for the health of the economy.
I don't like this proposal, not one bit. sure, we're in a financial struggle, but just think of the financial burden that would be dumped on veterans if this were passed. this is very similar to the incident at Flint, except even worse. Wounded veterans, people who fought for our country, lost hands, feet, organs... these people are not only more mentally unfit for getting jobs and paying for their medical bills than the Flint workers, as they are more often physically UNABLE to earn money.
I think it's ridiculous to think of supporting AIG before veterans, if the veterans were wounded while serving then I think that our country owes it to them to take care of them, that I feel really strongly about, whereas AIG... done what for our country? I think that in terms of giving health care forever to veterans who werent wounded, that's maybe an unnecessary cost that could be cut, but for injuries or orders that developed because of serving, those they have a right to have taken care of free. So I think Obama shouldn't cut that in the extreme, maybe everything needs to be cut a little, but this doesnt need to go.
I can't say I like this. We do need to show our gratitude to the men and women who have fought and potentially wounded/died for our country. This feels like an excessive burden for a group of people who already have troubles finding good work or re-integrating back into their past way of living. Dumping money into companies like AIG and cutting things may be necessary to get our nation out of the crisis, but in a sense of "fairness" this shouldn't have happened.
Veterans should receive free health care from the government, period. How can the government expect anybody to sign up for the armed forces knowing that if they happen to undergo an injury, they will not be covered? Sure, we could save some money, but what would happen to our overall defense system? I agree that the government should focus on cutting costs in other sectors of the economy, such as AIG. There is enough arbitrary spending that can be cut. Sacrificing a veteran's safety, not only physically, but mentally and financially should be out of the question. They are courageous enough to risk their life to fight and defend for a country and they should be honored and paid back. The government should just feel obligated to aid a veteran that was wounded in battle, since you can technically say the fault lies within the government's policies for getting the soldier there in the first place.
Post a Comment