About-face was right move

By Nicole Lucht

Friday, March 27, 2009 | 2 a.m.

When I was younger, I remember one frozen winter morning bidding farewell to my father, then a major in the U.S. Army, as he departed with his green canvas duffel bag from a train station in Germany. My dad, Maj. Gregory Lucht, was headed to Hungary to set up support for U.S. soldiers deployed to a peace-enforcement mission in war-torn Bosnia.

Despite the winter cold, he slept in a seven-man tent and ate those infamous MREs (meals ready-to-eat), or dined at a mess hall if he could get to it. He didn’t complain. He was doing his job and remains proud of what he accomplished there.

My dad was trained to maneuver tanks on a battlefield and load Pershing missiles, along with other physical activity that troops on the ground are expected to endure, including paratroop airborne training. Over the course of 20-plus years, he lost much of his hearing, and suffered injuries to his knees and shoulders and an illness to his lungs. The government has classified him as 70 percent disabled from his service to his country.

Now retired, he can seek the health care he needs through Veterans Affairs. But on March 17, President Barack Obama proposed requiring disabled vets to use their private insurance first when seeking care for injuries sustained during active duty. This, he said, would save the government $530 million.

Then, just a day after it was proposed, after veterans groups raised a collective sound of protest, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement announcing that the proposal was being shelved.

“In considering the third-party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans; however, the president listened to concerns raised by the (veterans service organizations) that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families’ ability to access health care,” Gibbs said. “Therefore, the president has instructed that its consideration be dropped. The president wants to continue a constructive partnership with (veterans and the military).”

This suggestion by the president would have passed the cost of caring for veterans on to insurance providers and, ultimately, health insurance consumers (who, by the way, probably already pay taxes to support the military).

And employers may have thought twice about hiring a veteran whose disability would only increase the cost of a company’s health care premiums.

Obama’s proposal was just plain wrong — and surprising. When the military enlists a soldier, seaman, Marine or airman, it has a responsibility to see if that person is disabled while on active duty that his or her disability is taken care of for life. But at least he changed his mind quickly after hearing from critics.

Although my dad is disabled, he at least has all his limbs and has not been otherwise disfigured. Others are not so fortunate, especially as the Pentagon continues to send troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thankfully, some of our congressmen in Washington spoke up against this change to the budget. Nevada Reps. Shelley Berkley and Dina Titus, both Democrats, co-signed with six others a letter to the president expressing their disapproval.

“We cannot compromise on the promise we have made to those who serve our nation,” the letter read, later adding, “In the desire to cut costs we cannot lay the burden on those veterans who have already given so much.”

A spokeswoman for Sen. John Ensign said that he would not have supported the change. A spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid said the Senate majority leader also opposed the proposal. But it never ceases to amaze me that veterans always have to fight to gain that which is rightfully theirs, regardless of which party is in charge.

For example, there’s this sham of a government concept that offsets veterans’ retirement pay from their disability pay. Veterans for years have been fighting to get all of their pay, called concurrent receipt. When a disabled veteran collected his or her retirement and disability payments, that vet would actually lose his or her disability payment when the government offset the veteran’s retirement pay with disability pay.

So, if a veteran was eligible to receive $1,000 monthly in disability pay, and $2,000 in retirement pay, that veteran would actually only receive $2,000, although half would not be taxed because disability pay, unlike retirement pay, is not taxed.

That, right there, was not fair.

Well, Washington in 2004 started phasing out concurrent receipt for disabled vets with more than 50 percent disability, although veterans’ pay is stilling getting hit.

My dad was eligible finally able to collect his back disability payments since he retired from the military in 1996.

Those with lesser injuries are still trying to get their full disability payments.

A spokesman for Berkley said she supports concurrent receipt, and Reid has also been fighting that battle.

Nicole Lucht covers health care, workplace and banking issues for In Business Las Vegas and its sister publication, the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-8832 or at [email protected].