An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« AIG: The Populist Outrage Wave Breaks On The Shore

Obama Set the Bar, But GOP Embraces Defense Mechanisms to Thwart His Efforts »

Jon Stewart Rips Obama on Troop Insurance

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Arts & Entertainment, Politics.
Mar 18th, 2009 | Comments

Ever since I caught the business end of a verbal Louisville Slugger for asking if late night comics would begin criticizing the Obama administration, I’ve been carrying this guilty feeling as if it’s my responsibility to keep watch over the late night comedians. Last night, more signs of life were breathed into my hopes for even handed satire in the age of Obama when Jon Stewart looked at the Obama plan for having wounded U.S. soldiers use their own health insurance for medical costs. (Hat tip: Hot Air) In response, Stewart unleashed his new series of editorial reports, titled, That Can’t Be Right.

STEWART: You know the veterans? The men and women who risk their lives defending our country? They’re about yay tall, wear green… sometimes tan. They’re this brave. Well, when they get injured, you know who foots the bill? You. The taxpayer. It’s incredibly… fair.

That’s why it struck me as a little odd when I read that one of the money saving proposals from the Obama administration was to remove veterans with private insurance plans from the V.A. rolls. So I guess what the government is saying is that if you still need a little rehab after you got that leg blown off in Iraq, the government will cover you! Unless your wife as a little COBRA left over from her substitute teaching gig. In that case, you’re going to have to go with her and the whole deductible thing. Unless, of course, your spouse is in Congress, and then you can get their sweet, sweet government plan.

I’ve got some other ideas they might want to try out to save a little money in the military. How about sponsored commendations? For your service, I offer you the Frito Lay Medal of Honor. Here’s another one… how about actual Navy seals? (A picture is shown of a Sea World seal with a sailor hat on.) People would totally pay to see that! Or how about the Arlington National Cemetery and Water Park?

WHAT THE F*&K ARE YOU GUYS THINKING!!??? Veterans having to use their private insurance to pay for their combat related injuries? THAT CAN’T BE RIGHT.

Unlike some of the complaints about Stewart’s pasting of Obama for not getting out of Iraq soon enough, (seen by conservative critics as nothing more than a complaint about the president not being liberal enough) this is one criticism being taken up from both sides of the aisle. Good job, Jon. You keep your credibility as one of the trenchant (and hilarious) voices in American politics as long as you take after both parties with the same ax. Well done, sir. Well done.

  • christoofar
    It's appearing more & more evident that the Obama Administration & Congress will be providing plenty of fodder (the AIG bonuses, the fact that a bill introduced to block them was pulled in a late night closed door session, etc) for the comics to work with.

    In with the New Boss, same as the Old Boss......
  • superdestroyer
    It would help if Stewart actually understood what he is talking about. For years, military retirees who were receiving care at military treatment facilities had their insurance billed if they had any. It did not cost the retiree since the military (TRICARE Management Agency) wavied co-pays.

    It soulds like that the Obama Administration is proposing the same thing for the VA. If a care eligible veterans receives care at a VA facility but has insurance through an employer, the VA could bill the insurance company and wavie the co-pay etc.

    The real question are if the veterans has a lifetime cap on benefits. It could actually help the veteran since he would get past all of the treshholds for not having to pay anymore.
  • AustinRoth
    I actually think, as others have opined, that the Obama administration is actually looking other concessions, but putting forth an untenable proposal to eventually get them to agree to something only slight less onerous.
  • Leonidas
    "President Betray Us" ads in the NYT anyone?
  • Loviatar
    Good job, Jon. You keep your credibility as one of the trenchant (and hilarious) voices in American politics as long as you take after both parties with the same ax.

    Another one of these stupid equivalency posts. This is one of the things I hate (absolutely hate) about this site, for the so called "moderates" here everything has to be equivalent. If Jon Stewart bashes a Republican on Monday, then by Friday he has to bash a Democrat, how stupid is that.

    When someone does wrong they get bashed, its as simple as that and you know what folks the Republicans have been doing a whole lot of wrong the last 8 years.
  • AustinRoth
    And of course the Democrats have been Saints, beyond reproach in their benevolence towards protecting America, right?
  • AustinRoth said: "And of course the Democrats have been Saints, beyond reproach in their benevolence towards protecting America, right?"

    Not even close. In fact, I don't want to hear the words "beyond reproach" associated with any politician. Especially President Obama. He's at the helm and gets "the business". That's the way it goes.
  • elrod
    Obama has already changed his position on the VA bill - perhaps partly in response to some of the outrage channeled by people like Stewart.

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/indiv...
  • Lovitar, it has nothing to do with "must bash a Dem and Pubby" to be "moderate." That's idiotic. It's the ability to be equally critical when either party does something bone headed. As has already been pointed out in comments here, Obama has backed off this idiotic idea.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/18/obama-adm...

    It was stupid, and it does Jon Stewart credit to point out stupidity no matter where it resides.
  • SteveK
    Jazz said: "That's idiotic."

    Jazz has a way of responding to comments that doesn't really invite a reasoned, reasonable reply... or did I just miss something?
  • Steve, it's hard to say what you may or may not have missed. I simply grow tired of everyone deciding that they have the ultimate definition of what "moderate" means and deciding the whole site, which has authors representing the full spectrum of political ideology, can't possibly be "moderate" if you disagree with one post. If Stewart is willing to call out political missteps no matter which party commits them, then it simply means that he's open minded and able to bring attention to foul play no matter where he finds it. Claiming that one must "criticize one Republican and one Democrat" etc etc is, in fact, "idiotic."

    You're free to skip any of my "idiotic" entries in the future and best of luck to you.
  • AustinRoth
    Elrod - that is certainly very good news. As I have mentioned, I have served two tours (Air Force and Navy), but was lucky enough that this does not directly impact me. Yet.

    Just yesterday my daughter had her swearing in ceremony for the Navy (she is going in as an AEFC, and reports to boot camp April 13), and my son is seriously considering applying to the Air Force OTC program when he graduates from Texas A&M in May.

    Hopefully I will continue to not directly need to worry about this VA issue, but that doesn't change one bit my ire at the crass politics Obama tried to play with our commitment and promise to those who have sacrificed severely to secure and defend our country's liberty.
  • Don Quijote
    This is one of the things I hate (absolutely hate) about this site, for the so called "moderates" here everything has to be equivalent.


    No, No, No ...

    That's not the way it works. To be a real moderate you have to kiss republican ass until you can figure out exactly what they had for lunch unless they do something really stupid like start a war of choice to find weapons of mass destruction that don't exist, in which case you can stop kissing ass and criticizing, by which point it's too late to do anything but attempt to mitigate the damage, but remember next time they propose something equally stupid you must give them the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand you must nitpick every thing a democrat does, and never ever give them the benefit of the doubt.

    That 's a real moderate.
  • Haha, Don. Interestingly, Michelle Malkin and co. routinely do the opposite of what you're doing here. For example, they say that John McCain does the same thing...for Democrats.
  • Don Quijote
    That's not accurate, Malkin and company come up with the stupidest ideas imaginable, wrap them up in the ugliest language possible and throw them out to the mob, the moderates then come along, clean up the language, wrap the ideas up in some nice wholesome language and sell them to the public, which is how we ended up in Iraq, how we ended up in the greatest recession since the 1930's, how we ended up bailing out to the tune of a few hundred billions dollars, how we ended up in hock to the Chinese and how we are going to spend a few more billions in Afghanistan with nothing to show for it.
  • AustinRoth
    Oh dear God, DQ, you have let your meds lapse, and have entered fully into DU territory.

    So now Malkin, et. al., the pundits and commentators, are responsible for "how we ended up in Iraq, how we ended up in the greatest recession since the 1930's, how we ended up bailing out to the tune of a few hundred billions dollars, how we ended up in hock to the Chinese and how we are going to spend a few more billions in Afghanistan with nothing to show for it"????

    Well, at least it is no longer SatanCheney and BushHalliburtonHitler who caused that!

    For DQ's next revelation, Rush Limbaugh caused AIDS.
  • Don Quijote
    AR,
    Please make a list of commentators/pundits who wrote op-eds or appeared on TV prior to March 2003 telling the public that invading Iraq would be a bad idea. Links required.
  • AustinRoth
    I need to do no such thing. YOU are the one claiming that the 'media and pundits' drove national policy, that they set the agenda, and that the Bush Administration was simply following their orders.

    It is incumbent on the paranoid schizophrenic, i.e., you, to try and prove the validity their nonsensical ramblings (btw - the normal way for those in your state to try and accomplish that is to have a shopping cart full of random magazine and newspaper clippings. I do realize that is difficult to display on the internet, though).

    It is also not the job of the sane to try and cure people with your malady - that is for professionals who can prescribe anti-psychotic drugs to treat your chemical imbalances.
  • Don Quijote
    Thank You for making my point!

    YOU are the one claiming that the 'media and pundits' drove national policy, that they set the agenda, and that the Bush Administration was simply following their orders.


    That's not quite what I am claiming.

    What I am claiming is that the right wing of the Republican party drove National policy, and that the so called moderates went along with the program with nary a peep, you can always rely on a moderate to parrot Republican views.
  • AustinRoth
    Really? I misrepresented your own words?

    You are the one that said, and I quote, "Malkin and company come up with the stupidest ideas imaginable, wrap them up in the ugliest language possible and throw them out to the mob, the moderates then come along, clean up the language, wrap the ideas up in some nice wholesome language and sell them to the public, which is how we ended up in Iraq, how we ended up in the greatest recession since the 1930's, how we ended up bailing out to the tune of a few hundred billions dollars, how we ended up in hock to the Chinese and how we are going to spend a few more billions in Afghanistan with nothing to show for it."

    So, unless you are now saying that I posted as you, you are flat out lying. Which does not surprise me in the least, frankly. You didn't say 'the right wing of the Republican party'; you said "Malkin and company".
  • Don Quijote
    And if Malkin isn't a member of the right wing of the Republican Party, then there is no such thing as a right wing in the republican Party
  • AustinRoth
    She certainly isn't part of the Republoan apparatus, any more than Olbermann is part of the Democratic apparatus.

    You know, you made a stupid, overly broad smear statement, and now are trying desperately to show you did not. I certainly have said things here at times that I realized were over the top, and have copped to it. You, I guess, are just too bat-shit crazy and stubborn to admit you made a dumb statement.

    This is tedious, and no longer worth pursuing. Go on and think whatever psychotic conspiracy theories you need to you can feel better about your pathetic little existence.
  • CStanley
    What I can't understand is how you can claim that moderates listen to Michelle Malkin, when she was practically apoplectic about John McCain being nominated. They certainly didn't agree to nominate a more conservative Republican as she had wanted ('ditto' for Rush- he was unhappy with the McCain pick as well.)

    And on top of that, why in the world would moderate DEMOCRATS listen to right wing pundits? You seem to be saying that everyone who supported the Iraq War did so because they were afraid of going against the right wing media, but how does that make any sense at all for the Democrats who voted to authorize use of force, and didn't speak out about any reservations until after it wasn't going well?

    Even if you for some reason think this is what happened (that they were influenced by the conservative opinionators) then why wouldn't you hold them responsible for such idiocy? Don't you elect people from your party to think for themselves, and don't you want to hold them responsible if they're afraid to speak their own mind?
  • Don Quijote
    She certainly isn't part of the Republoan apparatus,


    Which is undoubtedly why her columns can be found on Townhall.com
  • CStanley
    I don't think anyone is arguing that Malkin isn't influential on the right, DQ but th point is that the party apparatus isn't the same thing as the punditocracy/opinionators even if one is influenced by the other. I'm sure that a lot of GOP politicians do read Malkin and follow what her fans are thinking- but it still remains that she has zero power to write the party platform, decide which candidates are run, who gets funded, etc. Which is why I was pointing out that her preferred candidate wasn't nominated in '08, and in addition to that, she's been very outspoken against the immigration bill that Bush/McCain et al constructed several years ago, as well as other 'moderate' policies- but people who are part of the GOP apparatus didn't cave in to her whims.
  • Don Quijote
    Even if you for some reason think this is what happened (that they were influenced by the conservative opinionators) then why wouldn't you hold them responsible for such idiocy? Don't you elect people from your party to think for themselves, and don't you want to hold them responsible if they're afraid to speak their own mind?


    As far as I am concerned, any Democrat who voted for the Iraq war should be out of office. If they believed the bull that was coming of the Bush administration, they are to stupid to be elected officials, and if they didn't believe it then they are too cowardly to hold elected office.
  • CStanley
    OK, at least your putting the responsibility where it would belong, even though I disagree with you. Those Democrats weren't just listening to what was coming out of the Bush administration, it was what had been coming out of the intelligence community for more than a decade, and what had come out of the Clinton administration as well. If the decision was wrong, it was because the decision was only as good as the quality of the evidence gathered by CIA.
  • Me and Christine don't often agree, but here I agree wholeheartedly. It was a failure of intelligence by both administrations. I suppose where we might disagree is how that intelligence was handled, though I don't know her opinion on that (Google Downing Street Memo).

    DQ, I now await your characterization of me as a right-wing neocon.
  • Don Quijote
    It was a failure of intelligence by both administrations.


    Bullshit...

    It wasn't a failure of intelligence, with the Clinton Administration it was pure cowardice, the "let's throw a bone to these right winger so they'll just shut the f**k up and leave us alone" and with the Bush Administration it was pure "manufacturing of intelligence", they just wanted to go to war.

    Congressional Record: January 28, 2004 (Senate)
    Page S311-S312


    I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure
    room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of
    mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was
    looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the
    means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass
    destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles.
    Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could
    be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern
    seaboard cities of the United States.


    ROTFLMAO...


    DQ, I now await your characterization of me as a right-wing neocon.


    That pretty much describes the Republican Party as it exists today and has for the last thirty years, and you forgot to mention that it's full of Chicken Hawks.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    To get back to the original topic of Jazz' post:

    (from "Defense Potpouri #1")

    VETERANS

    There had been reports that President Obama was considering billing veterans’ private insurance companies for the treatment at VA hospitals of combat-related injuries .

    According to the Washington Post:

    The proposal would have authorized the Department of Veterans Affairs to charge private companies for treating injuries and other medical conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, that are related to military service. The measure was intended to save VA about $530 million a year.

    There has been a huge public outcry against such proposals.

    Yesterday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said 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.”

    Under the “bigger picture,” Obama has proposed, in his fiscal year 2010 budget, a 15 percent increase to VA’s budget, from $97.7 billion this fiscal year to $112.8 billion for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2009 on top of the $1.4 billion already set aside for VA projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

    Now, that’s good news for veterans.

    House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Filner said this about the budget recommendations:

    “I applaud President Obama’s budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. After sixteen years on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I am very encouraged that this outline is consistent with recommendations made by the veterans’ groups who co-author the Independent Budget. This has never happened in the 23-year history of the IB!”

    Dorian
  • preshuzdolphin
    I know that this point is basically moot since Obama decided to pull the proposal, but the plan was nothing of what the TRICARE plan is for retirees in response to the superdestroyer comment. What the plan proposed as what was described to the American Legion was that for any combat related injury, the veteran would have to use a private insurance plan that was not government controlled to cover combat related medical expenses at the VA . Therefore, there would be a copay and a cap on benefits for the veteran and his or her family. This would have put the burden on the soldier and also could have caused companies not to higher a prior soldier as they would have to provide a greater private insurance plan to cover his or her combat related injuries instead of now where their injuries are covered. so really, Jon Stewart was right.
  • retired_disabled_veteran
    However, what military service member or veteran would be able to be accepted for private health insurance? Many life insurance policies have a "military service member" clause, which prevents payment of life insurance if the insured dies in an act of war. (read - terrorist attacks. check YOUR life insurance).

    Have you ever heard of workman's compensation? Do non-federal employees pay a premium to have that? What is the difference between workman's comp for a union factory worker or a Soldier - aside from the fact that there is no Soldier's union?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC