On the topic of VA funding, two weeks ago, I wrote a piece in response to fears that the Obama administration was going to enact policies that would hurt veterans. As my last sentence, I said this:
The White House is, in fact, working with veterans groups, and there's no reason to think they won't get this right.
Now, as we all know, in the meantime, the Obama administration began pushing an exceedingly. . .let's say "inappropriate" plan to make some service-connected veterans pay for VA healthcare with their own insurance. When veterans groups--allied with lawmakers on Capitol Hill--united against the proposal, President Obama invited many of them to meet with him in the White House on Monday. That meeting didn't go well as far as the vets were concerned. According to those inside the meeting, President Obama said he intended the press the issue. But after public outcry and scathing pieces launched in places like the Washington Post and on Comedy Central's Daily Show, President Obama re-invited the same groups back to the White House for a second meeting. This time, the results were different. According to The Hill newspaper:
The White House on Wednesday backed off a controversial plan that would have dramatically altered the way the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) handles insurance claims, after veterans groups staged an all-out fight against such a proposal.
President Obama will not pursue a proposal that would have allowed the VA to charge private insurance companies for the treatment of veterans with service- and war-related injuries. The proposal raised the ire of prominent Democrats on the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs panels. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was the first to announce Wednesday afternoon that the president won't pursue such a proposal.
Now, this is a good thing. Period. It was a problem, and now it's not. But I want to address the way in which it's being portrayed by some in the media. Some conservative mil-bloggers are using this near-debacle to argue that President Obama is out to "screw" veterans. Take for instance this passage written yesterday by an anti-Obama mil-blogger who cites my piece from two weeks ago:
Friday, I found this from VetVoice (Soltz' organization) that said veterans shouldn't worry about the Obama administration - it's all just rumors. The day before Obama tells the VSOs he's going to charge vets for their service-connected treatment. So VoteVets is STILL providing partisan cover for the Administration.
Fortunately, that's a misunderstanding of what's actually happening. The facts remain the same: The Obama administration met with veterans groups, like I said they were going to do. The two sides presented their cases over the course of two meetings and, we can presume, backchannel communications. The administration listened to the veterans, like I said they would, they were persuaded, and the policy proposal was scrapped. End of story. The Obama administration listened to veterans and this bad idea went to wherever bad ideas like this go when everyone decides not to use them.
For those bloggers who might not be aware, this is how politics is supposed to work. That's why we have think tanks, advocacy groups, lobbyists, town hall meetings, and it's why the office phone number of every member of Congress is publicly available for any concerned citizen: To provide feedback to policymakers.
So to recap, let's take a look at who listens to the troops and veterans and who doesn't. First, we have the last commander-in-chief, President George W. Bush:
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement yesterday that the president has "instructed that its consideration be dropped."
"In considering the third-party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans," Gibbs said. "However, the president listened to concerns raised by the [organization leaders] that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families' ability to access health care."
The fact is, neither of our last two presidents have served in combat, and neither are veterans. But that's where we come in--conservatives, liberals, and moderates alike. And our job as advocates is even more important this time around, because we have a president willing to listen.
Now, next up is the coming battle over advance appropriations for medical care at the VA. And I expect the administration will again do the same in this case, too. It's not only smart politics. It's the right thing to do.
"The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic."--Military Times
"Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature."--Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire
"A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration."--General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State
"This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life."--Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)
"Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq."--Booklist
". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle."--Publishers Weekly
". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq."--Bookmarks Magazine
Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.
