Author Topic: Wounded Warriors Taxed by ObamaCare (Read 1715 times)

teamnelson · « **on:** July 10, 2010, 10:11:27 PM »

http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m7d4-Wounded-warriors-taxed-by-ObamaCare-for-prosthetic-medical-devices

Wounded warriors taxed by ObamaCare for prosthetic, medical devices

Looks like they'll be wanting taxes on my hearing aids - and I know I got it easy. My SgtMajor and a couple hundred of our boys will be paying taxes on arms & legs. Some of them were put into special programs to develop advanced hybrid prosthetics - very expensive, so the taxes will be exceptionally high on those. Read the article ... all but 5 Dems voted against an amendment to protect vets, yet Afghanistan is now the Democrats' war. Oh yeah, that tax goes for them pretty BCGs we all love so much.

How high does the pile need to get? Seriously ... what exactly will be the one issue that folks will say enough is enough? I read the threads here, the news, listen to the radio, etc. I see things happening almost every minute in this country that 230+ years ago would've ... well, we're definitely a gelded nation by comparison.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2010, 12:15:46 AM »

.........gelded nation.........Sadly, not an understatement. Most folks now days are worried. Worried if their chosen sports consortium will win the weekends big game, if they can get financing to over extend themselves, who to blame it on if they can't make the payments, how can they get more money without working harder, and how they can appear that they are "all that". Easy to see how people no longer have the time to write their elected or stay somewhat in tune to what is going on in this nation. They are more worried about ringo's birthday, or other garbage that passes for news.

A crying shame that a nation is so willing to send its warriors off to war and not have the decency to give them FREE first class care if they are wounded. Grrr.

wreckhog · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2010, 02:51:29 AM »

Hasn't it been this way for 50 years?

subdjoe · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2010, 02:57:58 AM »

Quote from: Pat/Rick on July 11, 2010, 12:15:46 AM

A crying shame that a nation is so willing to send its warriors off to war and not have the decency to give them FREE first class care if they are wounded. Grrr.

It ain't free....they paid for it with their blood and pain. Now we need to provide it for them

Wreckhog wrote:

Quote

Hasn't it been this way for 50 years?

Much longer than that, at least back to the Civil War.

highwayman · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2010, 06:07:38 AM »

citizenship for mexican that are here illegal, free health care for people who willnot get off their butts, but lets tax soldiers who fight for their country. this is just sick.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2010, 07:56:04 AM »

Yessir,so right. they HAVE paid for it already and it now needs providing.

IIRC awhile back somebody in gooberment wanted soldiers to pay back a pro rated share of any (re)enlistment bonus' if they were wounded before their hitch was up. Messed up isn't it?

blind ear · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2010, 11:42:03 AM »

[quote author=Pat/Rick

IIRC awhile back somebody in gooberment wanted soldiers to pay back a pro rated share of any (re)enlistment bonus' if they were wounded before their hitch was up. Messed up isn't it?
[/quote]

Ever who/what committee thought this up and every politician that knew about it that didn't make public protest should be burned at the stake. eddiegjr

teamnelson · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2010, 03:48:12 PM »

Quote from: wreckhog on July 11, 2010, 02:51:29 AM

Hasn't it been this way for 50 years?

No, taxing veterans for medical devices given for combat or service related care is brand new under Obamacare. I read the bill.

Brett · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2010, 03:52:57 PM »

I wish that I had not opened this thread...My blood is boiling.

wreckhog · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2010, 04:45:22 PM »

Just did some research, This whole thing is a fakeout where vets are concerned.

Vets don't normally pay for the bulk of the cost, and often, they don't pay for any of it. The tax payer foots the bill. As they will for any additional sales or use tax. Fakeout.

Now if this is being paid for by private insurance or out ofr pocket. Well, that is a different story. Are any of you paying for your leg lost in battle 100% out of pocket? That would be a problem.

It looks like the taxpayer will normally pay the additional tax and I suppose, get it back. Net zero where vets on vet bennies are concerned.

wreckhog · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2010, 04:49:19 AM »

Whatever the tax is, will apply to anyone. The vets are talking about not getting a pass. Ultimately, taxpayers are the ones paying the vet's bills anyway.

teamnelson · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2010, 07:41:55 AM »

If that is the case, then why would Hatch propose legislation to protect veterans from paying the medical device tax, and why would Democrats oppose it? Did you read Hatch's bill?

Its like printing money though ... they can send servicemembers into harm's way, and control the gear and the ROE which translates to regulation of casualties, and tax the prosthetics as a result.

teamnelson · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2010, 07:59:53 AM »

Also, this is for those receiving care post-duty if you missed that, under TRICARE for Life (wraparound medicare coverage) or the Veteran's Health Program. Active duty do not pay, but in the case of loss of limb the vast majority are separated for being medically unfit for duty, and therefore no longer fall under active duty benefits. So if they need a qualifying medical device after active duty, that coverage is seldom 100%, and they have to pay deductibles, find participating providers, who often charge over what TRICARE or VHP provide. The reality of this legislation is that disabled veterans will see the cost of their care go up as a result, but not the coverage of their insurance, so yes the cost is being passed to the veteran.

powderman · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2010, 12:19:22 PM »

Quote

If that is the case, then why would Hatch propose legislation to protect veterans from paying the medical device tax, and why would Democrats oppose it? Did you read Hatch's bill?

Simple answer. The dems are anti military, they seem to do all they can to discredit and cause problems for our brave men and women in uniform. Thousands have died so they can act like jerks, but they don't appreciate it or acknowledge it. POWDERMAN.

wreckhog · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2010, 03:35:56 PM »

You are talking about an exception to possibly prevent a vet from being charged sales tax on his co-pay. What is that? 3 bucks? Sadly, there is a price on waking up, leaving the house and going to the VA. Electric for turning on the lights, gas in the car, wear and tear, the opportunity cost of missing calls from salespeople, etc. I'm guessing that it probably costs you $30 to spend the day at the VA. You don't see a lot of legislation on recouping those costs either.

teamnelson · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2010, 05:21:41 PM »

wreckhog, I get your point, really. What SA3466 was shooting for was to ensure that no cost would be passed to the Vet for fear of limiting access to necessary medical care related to combat or service disability. The touted $20 billion in revenue will be paid by the device makers - the tax is at the manufacturing level, however like all great profit driven entities, that cost will be passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices on the items, so the vet won't be "taxed" directly true. VA benefits will not be increased to match cost (so VHP or TRICARE for Life) and the VA will not receive more $. In fact, the VA is anxious that our current congress is on a path to cut their funding, specifically to force disabled vets onto the government HC plan. The proposed amendment was also intended to insure that if the VA was defunded or slashed, that veterans placed on the government HC would still have their service disabilities covered. A guy who lost his leg in fallujah serving his country should get a prosthetic device before a guy who lost his leg to Type 2 diabetes associated with self-inflicted obesity, but Government HC makes no such distinction, so this amendment would've laid the path to protect the vet.

And we're talking significantly more than $3 depending on the item. This current war is producing much higher rates of veterans requiring prosthetics than previous - a blessing of course, they're not dead. But the lifetime cost of a prosthetic user is in the several hundreds of thousands, to millions depending on the number and nature of the devices. Never mind economic predictions in the short and long term ... with no increase in benefits, and increase in costs and demands on costs (as more folks lose limbs in Afghanistan) it will become very attractive to put the burden back on the vet. Obama has already said as much.

Spirithawk · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2010, 05:52:49 PM »

Want to see just how much the government really cares about caring for veterans? Spend a day in most any VA Hospital. Or worse yet. Be a veteran in need of serious help and try dealing with the bull!

beerbelly · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2010, 02:51:06 AM »

I am sure Wreckhog hates the military as much as his liberal friends. To bad they don't still have the draft so he could join them in Afghanistan!
Beerbelly

wreckhog · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2010, 05:25:12 AM »

Makes sense yet it might not happen. These guys are not getting prosthetics at retail, they are paying contracted rates. Lowest bidder contracted rates. I suppose that there is enough padding in the system to split the difference. As a snorer, I used a $4k CPAP. The deal was they only lease them. Hmmm 20 year lease is better than selling it once. Padding...... What do durable medical equipment manufacturers have to say.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2010, 06:37:48 AM »

Well hell if the vet has to buy the new leg he should be able to set the price the Govt. has to pay him back for the one he LOST FIGHTING THEIR WAR !

Spirithawk · « **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2010, 07:25:52 AM »

Before someone banties around how much a Veteran should pay, or what they should pay for, try serving your Country yourself, getting shot at and hit, losing a body part or more, coming home in pieces both of body and mind, and then you'll have earned the right to decide! Or at least see that happen to a close friend or family member! Untill then just sit on your throne and find something else to judge if you've nothing better to do.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #21 on:** July 13, 2010, 08:46:49 AM »

A vet who is hurt in a war should recieve health care related to the injury for life . It should include any and all care aval.

Spirithawk · « **Reply #22 on:** July 13, 2010, 10:46:15 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on July 13, 2010, 08:46:49 AM

A vet who is hurt in a war should recieve health care related to the injury for life . It should include any and all care aval.

100% correct!

teamnelson · « **Reply #23 on:** July 13, 2010, 03:59:42 PM »

TM7, I concur that ours is and should remain a free society in ideas and marketplace, in which case socialism (welfare) of any form for any citizen should be viewed very skeptically.

But ... if the military is an extension of the policies set by a participatory government, then the costs accrued from such a policy should also be shared by all participants. It is immoral to vote in favor of an action for which you are unwilling to accept consequences or costs, especially if the life or limb of another is at risk. You may say, "I did not vote for the war"; yet you retain your citizenship and all its benefits, therefore while you may not have been in majority of that vote, you are still a participant and a beneficiary. Such is the cost of democracy to even the minority voice.

Go back to the militia model of our earliest years ... sacrifice of some for the good of all. Those not able (or willing) to serve bore the responsibility to support those who did; interdependence for the community. If farmer John is killed while serving in the militia, the community would figure out a way to keep his family, farm, etc. going. Its the moral thing to do. If farmer John lost his leg, the community would figure out a way to help keep him, his family, farm, etc. going. Its the moral thing to do. A free society in the absence of morals is French, and we rejected their model a few hundred years ago.

mechanic · « **Reply #24 on:** July 13, 2010, 04:09:51 PM »

The tax will apply to all medical "devices" including glucose monitors, blood pressure monitors, prostetics, wheel chairs...you name it. It is supposed to be 1.6%.

That is supposed, along with other taxes and fees, to pay for those who cannot or will not pay...like the illegals who already get it free.....

I really don't remember if there are exemptions or not. It has been a while since I tried to read this monster of a bill, and it keeps changing day by day.

Apparently vets are surely not exempted.

I have a friend who lost a leg in an industrial accident 40 years ago, and the prostetic has to be rebuilt or replaced often. In his case the insurance company still picks up the tab as he would never accept a settlement they offered...smart man. Some of the bills exceed $20,000 dollars. Add another 1.6%.

Ben

Spirithawk · « **Reply #25 on:** July 13, 2010, 04:30:42 PM »

Folks, you know what is really sad? It's not that we are speculating about such things as are filling this forum every day, nor that we feel more and more parinoid. The true sad part is that we actually have reason.

wreckhog · « **Reply #26 on:** July 13, 2010, 04:31:52 PM »

Makes sense. So Obamacare is really taxing everyone so that Wounded Warriors can keep getting prosthetics. Seem like Obama is really taking care of the vets.

mechanic · « **Reply #27 on:** July 13, 2010, 04:54:39 PM »

Quote from: wreckhog on July 13, 2010, 04:31:52 PM

Makes sense. So Obamacare is really taxing everyone so that Wounded Warriors can keep getting prosthetics. Seem like Obama is really taking care of the vets.

I can't believe you wrote that. A man writes a check, payable by his life and gives up part of his being and what? You expect him to pay for his own prostetic? We have always paid for that as a country and should. We should not pay for people who have never given anything..such as illegals and those who could, but will not work.

wreckhog · « **Reply #28 on:** July 13, 2010, 05:08:22 PM »

We have already established that the vets will not be subject to any additional line item charges. Obamacare increases tax revenue. In part to pay for the vet's medical costs. Yes, the cost of the vet's medical equipment can rise, but it can then be paid for by the additional tax revenue that the far greater number of non vets will be paying. Makes sense to me.

Spirithawk · « **Reply #29 on:** July 13, 2010, 05:12:01 PM »

Obama bows to our enemies. He apologises for all the sacrifices made by our armed forces. He does what he wants while disreguarding anything the American public might want. It's questionable he even has a legal right to be president and here you all sit trying to aply logic where none exists. Guys, you'll just give yourselve's headaches. Any who don't think the American serviceman and woman derserves full health care for service related ilnesses and injuries needs to take their place for a while and then they might feel a bit differant. Give this a thought. We could solve health care for vets real easy. How about they all just stay home, forget about serving their Country, and never get hurt nor ill in the first place? But then that wouldn't work would it? Because then no one would have health care nor a lot of other things you hold so dear. Like say ahhhh......FREEDOM! If polititions can raise millions to get themselves elected then I think they should be able to find ways to care for those who sacrificed so much that they might even have an office to run for in the first place!