Something many have missed is that this is about funding, not veteran care. So in essence, the ones making the most noise about this are complaining that the administration is discussing ways to continue the same care to veterans while saving taxpayer dollars.

The argument against this sort of action--if it were come to pass--is that if private insurers were charged for combat related injuries, the insurance company would raise their rates or veterans would be denied employment because it would raise the employers rates.

Now doesn't that sound anti-American to take advantage of wounded vets? Yet those companies are not villified for putting profit ahead of war veterans. Instead, the president is villified for imagining that US insurance companies would willingly provide service to our wounded vets without exploitation.

But I guess to some, private industry profit is more important than our combat wounded vets.