Obama Flip Flops Again

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • 4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    Surprising what falling Poll Numbers can accomplish :rockwoot:

    Obama Nixes Charging Combat Wounded for Healthcare


    Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:38 AM

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has decided to drop any consideration of billing veterans' private insurance companies for the treatment of combat-related injuries, the White House said Wednesday.

    Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said the idea was on the table as the administration sought "to maximize the resources available for veterans."

    Veterans groups complained that the proposal would reverse government policy of taking responsibility for caring for the war wounded and said it could cause difficulties for veterans in getting future insurance or even jobs.

    Members of Congress leapt in to join the criticism.

    Leaders of about a dozen veterans groups met at the White House on Monday to discuss it with Obama and top administration officials. They returned for more talks with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

    Gibbs' announcement that the idea was officially out was released by the White House in the afternoon.

    "The president listened to concerns raised by the VSOs (veteran service organizations) that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families' ability to access health care," Gibbs said. "Therefore, the president has instructed that its consideration be dropped."

    Gibbs has noted that the administration is seeking an 11 percent increase in discretionary funds for the VA for this year. The proposal would have saved the Veterans Affairs Department hundreds of millions of dollars a year

    The VA already pursues third-party billing for conditions that are not service-related. The process only applies to those veterans who have private health insurance.


    Feds Deny Obama Will Take Guns Away from Pilots


    Thursday, March 19, 2009 9:37 AM

    By: Jim Meyers


    Federal officials and the airline pilots union are denying a report that the Obama administration is seeking to end a program that trains pilots to carry guns in jetliner cockpits.
    An editorial published in the Washington Times on Tuesday stated that “President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.”
    About 12,000 pilots have been authorized to carry handguns while flying aircraft as part of the Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program, and the Times article called the administration’s move “completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots.”
    But Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), told Fox News of the editorial: “It’s inaccurate. This program continues to grow. TSA continues to recruit and put new FFDOs on planes, and we continue to train them and do recurring training.”
    Congress authorized the gun program following the 9/11 attacks to help prevent terrorists from turning jetliners into flying bombs that could be used to attack key sites like the White House.
    The Airlines Pilots Association International, representing more than 52,000 pilots in the U.S. and Canada, issued a statement saying the Times story “couldn’t be further from the truth.”
    Union representatives “met with TSA executives and were told in no uncertain terms that TSA embraces the FFDO program, that there are no plans to reduce or restrict its growth, and that in fact the agency fully intends to grow and expand the program,” according to the union statement.
    “Government representatives acknowledged that the program needs additional funding to achieve these goals, and that they are actively seeking same.”
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    4Sarge, when you post these articles could you post links to them please? It helps when I want to pass the information along.
     

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    BINGO...that's what I did.:D

    Just call me Ward Churchill :dunno:

    Ward-Churchill-Gun.jpg
     

    txgho1911

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    274
    16
    DFW
    This and many other hot button topics will again be floated when they need a large distraction.
    Do not mind the curtains.
     

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    Yeah & if he would have stuck to the idea against the wishes of the people then you would have either accused him of subverting the will of the people or being George Bush (they are synonymous).

    Seems to me that him outsourcing care (along with the costs) to the private sector would be what the free-market junkies here would love to see...unless this time government is the best way to handle it.
     

    Integraholic

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    1,808
    38
    At home
    Yeah & if he would have stuck to the idea against the wishes of the people then you would have either accused him of subverting the will of the people or being George Bush (they are synonymous).

    Seems to me that him outsourcing care (along with the costs) to the private sector would be what the free-market junkies here would love to see...unless this time government is the best way to handle it.
    It's not about who would better handle it. It's about the government taking care of the people who signed up to fight. If you were injured at work, you'd rather have your work pay for it than have to cover it with your own insurance and co-pays. This is the same thing. Veterans injured at "work" should be treated at the expense of their employer. I'm happy that my tax dollars go to treat veterans injuries. I am not happy that my tax dollars help those too lazy to get off their behinds and work for themselves.
     

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    39,069
    113
    Uranus
    ............
    Seems to me that him outsourcing care (along with the costs) to the private sector would be what the free-market junkies here would love to see...unless this time government is the best way to handle it.


    Uh, yes. Outsourcing care and cost to the private sector would be GREAT.
    Let's just use our heads for more than a hat rack, shall we?
    Make congress pay for their own health care.

    You DO NOT make soldiers in harms way pay for their own freakin healthcare
    when that are injured in the line of DUTY. :nuts: Bad form.
    What message does that send. "F. U. Joe!" - that what that says. :noway:
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Yeah & if he would have stuck to the idea against the wishes of the people then you would have either accused him of subverting the will of the people or being George Bush (they are synonymous).

    Seems to me that him outsourcing care (along with the costs) to the private sector would be what the free-market junkies here would love to see...unless this time government is the best way to handle it.

    Sure, that would be fine-outsource the care of the vets to the private sector. Have you ever seen the inside of a VA hospital? But the employer of those veterans needs to pay the associated costs, and that would be the US Gov't and by extension, the American people. I have no problem with the tax money I pay going to help fund the care of those who put their names on the line... and yes, Jeff, that would even include you, if, as I recall you said once, you served.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    It's not about who would better handle it. It's about the government taking care of the people who signed up to fight. If you were injured at work, you'd rather have your work pay for it than have to cover it with your own insurance and co-pays. This is the same thing. Veterans injured at "work" should be treated at the expense of their employer. I'm happy that my tax dollars go to treat veterans injuries. I am not happy that my tax dollars help those too lazy to get off their behinds and work for themselves.

    Bingo. The question isn't who's doing the treatment, but whether the government keeps its contractual obligations and takes care of the folk injured in its service. If they said, go to Methodist Hospital (or St. Vincents, or Community Hospital North, or whatever) and we'll pick up the tab, that would be fine.

    Well, there are some types of injuries/illnesses that military people are exposed to that the general population doesn't usually face and, therefore, civilian hospitals may not be equipped to handle, but that's a different story (if anything, it's a reason to refer more ordinary care--like say the knee injuries I suffered in the service--to civilian hospitals which are quite capable of handling those kinds of injuries and let the VA hospitals concentrate on the more military specific types of injuries and problems).

    OTOH, I've seen VA "health care," and, to be blunt, much of "health care" in the military. I've also seen health care through medicaid. Not old enough to have experienced Medicare first hand, but folk who have report it's much the same. If this is the kind of "health care" the government provides, that's the best argument against any kind of "national health care plan" I can think of.
     

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    It's not about who would better handle it. It's about the government taking care of the people who signed up to fight. If you were injured at work, you'd rather have your work pay for it than have to cover it with your own insurance and co-pays. This is the same thing. Veterans injured at "work" should be treated at the expense of their employer. I'm happy that my tax dollars go to treat veterans injuries. I am not happy that my tax dollars help those too lazy to get off their behinds and work for themselves.

    I think you missed the memo from the guy on here who said that employers shouldn't be forced to pay for their employees injuries.

    Just to be clear : I do not advocate military people paying for their own healthcare.

    The majority of people who don't have health care aren't the ones who are "too lazy to get off their behinds". They are normal everyday middle-to-lower-middle class people who can't afford the exhorbitant prices charged by insurance companies who have to cover the exhorbitant expenses charged by the health care system. Is government health care great, no, but if its that or none, most people would be glad to get it. There were a lot of people when I was in the Navy that were very jealous of the military health plan I had (free for me, CHAMPUS for the family).
     

    jeremy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 18, 2008
    16,482
    36
    Fiddler's Green
    finity if government health care was such a great idea, then why are so many people coming from Canada and Europe to the states for care? If you would really like to give it a trial run move to Europe.
     

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    finity if government health care was such a great idea, then why are so many people coming from Canada and Europe to the states for care? If you would really like to give it a trial run move to Europe.

    Is government health care great, no, but if its that or none, most people would be glad to get it. There were a lot of people when I was in the Navy that were very jealous of the military health plan I had (free for me, CHAMPUS for the family).

    Nothing like changing the other guys words to enhance your own argument. It's OK, though. A lot of people here seem to do it.

    My brother is a prime example of someone who would be glad to have that "terrible government health care". He had to have surgery last year. The company he works for (Walmart) doesn't offer a very good insurance plan. It's very expensive & hard to afford on the little pay they give their employees, but he got it anyway. Then they say it was a pre-existing condition & refuse payment. So now he's got overpriced insurance that he can't afford on Walmart pay & $50,000 in medical bills for a procedure that if he didn't have he could've died from heart problems ("then why don't they just do it & decrease the surplus population" - E. Scrooge). Great huh? You think he can afford to pay them? Nope. So lets say he files bankruptcy (yeah I know, what a deadbeat), Who do you think ends up paying for his health care in the end? We do.

    He is a 50 year old guy who's always worked, not some lazy welfare recipient.
     

    jeremy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 18, 2008
    16,482
    36
    Fiddler's Green
    I have seen how several countries have ran their health care programs. Growing up my family had no insurance like most small farmers. However we done what has been done by countless numbers of Americans. We made do. When times got tough you worked harder. I am already tired of paying for other people with all the government programs out there. How much of my time does your brother deserve?
     

    finity

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 29, 2008
    2,733
    36
    Auburn
    He's already got your time because he can't pay it anyway. It's not for lack of trying. He works & bought insurance just like he was 'supposed to' but the insurance company screwed him. On second thought they screwed us all.

    So when you were back on the farm did anybody have a $50,000 medical bill? If so then I guess you just 'worked harder' to pay it off then, huh? Uh-huh.
     
    Top Bottom