John Galt Underground | John Galt Underground

OK, I didn't give too much thought to a proposal that would charge veteran's personal insurance companies for treatment of service-related injuries, rehab and illnesses. It was simply a non-starter. No one would take it seriously, right? I blogged about it earlier here: Obama to Wounded Troops: Pay for It Yourselves.

Well, apparently Obama is going to gun for it anyway.

Again, it was mentioned in passing even by many in the Democratic rank and file that stated that any such bill would be dead on arrival; if Obama has his way, so would the troops.

The only thing I can expound upon more is that the likely effects this is likely to have on the military, after the jump.

Married and Head of Family service members will think twice about re-upping if it means that injuries could likely bankrupt a family.
Dramatic lowering of induction rates to new troops. I know several that know that injuries are a distinct possibility, but they also know that medical care (outside of inactive service member VA systems, which is another conversation entirely) is top notch.
If private companies are on the hook for war related injuries, if I was a director of such an insurance company I would either charge a significantly higher rate or deny coverage to those entering the service; amputations, explosive and penetrative injury treatment and lifetime-term rehab can be quite expensive.
If a private payer is similarly on the hook for treatment, there is really no reason for the existence of the VA. And as bad a rap as the VA system has, it does lend considerable experience to conditions and treatments that are of particular attribution to wounded troops. Taking away this resource could eventually destroy decades of medical knowhow. The VA system could easily find itself on the chopping block.

The Obama administration has to be aware that this is would be a wildly unpopular stand to take, yet the tone deaf amateurs on Pennsylvania Avenue think this is still a good idea. How is it that a Commander In Chief can take a look at the very troops under his command, and deny them care for injuries that would be obtained from action that he himself sent them into.

I've gotta say that I really haven't looked at politics as anything else as a hobby. It's a big hobby for me; I get into the minutae as much as anyone. Yet I've never taken it, or made it, personal in nature. At the end of the day I've always seen the pols and pundits and lobbyists and actors as just the "other side". A nemesis, an opponent. I haven't felt disdain on a human level for them; I haven't "hated" those on the other side.

I am starting to hate the effect of the policies of this administration upon those who would sacrifice anything and everything for this country. Previously they could expect not more than a thank-you; if these policies are inacted then they could only expect a slap in the face and an insult for good measure.

Hot Air is similarly concerned with this tripe; Cap'n Ed is also angling on the impact of the troops being able to gain insurance in the first place if the main costs aren't unloaded on the military picking up service-related costs.

UPDATE: Just a few further thoughts brought on by reading a post on this same subject over at Max Conservative. He worries that some conservatives might find fault with him now recommending that he not advise acquaintances to enlist or re-up. However, I believe that he is correct on two terms:

1) Enlisting in any of the branches of the armed forces of the United States is a covenant between the Country as a whole, and symbolically with the government that runs it. Historically, a moral contract existed between the country and the soldier both would sacrifice themselves and their treasure for the well being of the other. If this contract is willfully broken, then it is by no means unpatriotic that someone refrain from military service. So, if this blood covenant doesn't exist, then the only reason to join the military is for political issues, which takes us to-

2) War is simply "politics by other means" or violence that is wreaked in the furtherance of a political goal. If one does not support or agree with a political agenda or ideology, and absent a mutual covenant between the state and the soldier (see the point, above) then it is by no means unpatriotic to withhold service from advancing that agenda.

Link to Post.