Veterans get better coverage from “Obamacare”

A random thought for Memorial Day, which seems to have become one of national support of all things military: There is an interesting study by the Urban Institute that says veterans (click) would be better off under so-called Obamacare because it expands eligibility for Medicaid.

The study, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the uninsurance rate of veterans is lower than among the nonelderly population as a whole (10.5 percent compared with 17.9 percent). Nonetheless, 41 percent of uninsured veterans report having unmet medical needs, while nearly 34 percent say they have delayed care due to cost.

Veterans have hugely high unemployment and homelessness numbers. Because of huge demand, the VA has even had to cut back on their eligibility to use VA medical centers.

Veterans are just one group that stands to benefit, of course. Any senior who hated paying the prescription “donut hole” is benefitting. Anyone with kids between 21 and 26 years of age in college benefits, and anyone with a preexisting condition benefits.

But of course, in order to pay for it, the law requires almost everyone to join, which is socialism so we have to toss the whole thing out. Funny, lawmakers don’t seem to mind making eveyone pay for highways even thought not everyone drives a car. 


This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Veterans get better coverage from “Obamacare”

  1. Brent Glines says:

    According to Wikipedia, I think you are wrong about highways, Charles.

    “About 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States have been paid through user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments. To a much lesser extent they have been paid for by tolls collected on toll highways and bridges. The Highway Trust Fund, established by the Highway Revenue Act in 1956, prescribed a three-cent-per-gallon fuel tax, soon increased to 4.5 cents per gallon. In 1993, the tax was increased to 18.4 cents per gallon, where it remains as of 2012.[39]

    The rest of the costs of these highways are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, designated property taxes, and other taxes. The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), and it makes up about 60 percent of the contributions by the states.”

    So most of the the taxes used to fund Highways come from mothr vehical taxes and fuel taxes. For the rest, even for those who don’t drive, they still benefit from the road system, otherwise how would the food they eat and the other goods they purchase wind up in the stores?

    Wikipedia isn’t an infallible resource, but it makes a good starting point for discussion. If anyone has conflicting data, then by all means, post it.

  2. On the Road says:

    Interesting point for discussion. The wiki article discusses Interstate Highways, not state, county and city roads. These roads are paid for through a plethora (ok, had to look that one up in the dictionary!) of non-user-fee taxes–although I agree with your comment that everyone is really a user as they benefit from our roads.

    The same point of course can be made about health care; it benefits everyone. Seems to me, regardless of the position taken on Obama Care (OBC), everyone benefits from it. I retired from the AF and use Tricare but still benefit from OBC: Parents and in-laws from the closing of the doughnut hole, one child paying off college loans and one kid with a pre-existing medical condition that would have made her uninsurable. Lots of stuff wrong with OBC; my fellow Republicans should step up and fix it, not “throw it out with the bath water.”

    • Brent Glines says:

      The comment Charles made concerned highways, not state, county, or city roads, which is why I linked the Wikipedia article. Had he mentioned the other roads, I would have discussed other things.

      Back to health care, the problem I have with ObamaCare is that it is unaffordable as currently structured. The goal is laudible, but the approach taken is unfeasible, which is hardly surprising is such a huge complex law. Our first warning in this respect was when Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass it to find out what is in it.”

      Well, now we know what is in it, and a majority of Americans don’t like it, and want to see it repealed. It’s unworkable. Time to get rid of it.

    • Brent Glines says:

      Oh, and and most Americans think the Obamacare Insurance Mandate is unconstitutional, and want to see the Supreme Court overturn it, so there is that objection, too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>