And now you know, the rest of the story......

[Straydog]

Wounded U.S. Soldiers Maltreated
Date Wednesday, February 18 @ 03:33:58
Topic Articles & Essays


Maimed in Iraq, then mistreated, neglected, and hidden in America.
By Frederick Sweet

Combat veterans wounded in Iraq were left waiting weeks and even months for proper medical attention at military bases. According to an officer, their living conditions were so unacceptable for injured soldiers he said they "were being treated like dogs." Then the Pentagon underreported the number wounded.

The Bush administration, referring to veterans of the war in Iraq, told a House panel that they would avoid last year's "mistakes" of leaving sick and injured troops at U.S. bases to wait for months to be properly treated by doctors. Adding insult to injury, Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. James B. Peake told the House panel that he "was not aware" that last fall soldiers were waiting for medical care at U.S. bases and under substandard living conditions.

Wounded "treated like dogs"

Mark Benjamin’s investigative report on Oct. 20, 2003 for UPI, revealed that many wounded veterans from Iraq had to wait "weeks and months at places such as the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, for proper medical help." They had been kept in living conditions that are "unacceptable for sick and injured soldiers." One officer characterized conditions for the wounded by saying, "They're being treated like dogs."

In January, 2004 Benjamin reported that the largest American troop rotation is now underway. Daniel Denning, assistant secretary of the Army, testified to the House Total Force Subcommittee, "We recognize that last fall, we temporarily lost sight of the situation. It is likely that during this period of force rotations, patient loads at some installations may exceed local capacity. The Army has developed a series of options to handle this surge."

Subcommittee chairman John McHugh, R-N.Y. said, "In October of last year a series of articles revealed that many mobilized Reserve and National Guard soldiers in a medical holdover status felt the Army was not treating them as equals to their active component counterparts. The articles described substandard living conditions at two Army posts in particular -- Fort Stewart, Ga., and Fort Knox, Ky. Many of the ill and injured soldiers interviewed at these posts reported having to wait for long periods of time -- sometimes weeks or months -- before receiving the medical care they needed."

More than 1,000 National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers at Fort Stewart and Fort Knox, including hundreds who had served in Iraq, had waited weeks or months in "medical hold" to be seen by doctors. At Fort Stewart in Georgia, they waited in hot concrete barracks with no air-conditioning or running water.

Sgt. Craig Allen LaChance, a soldier who was on medical hold at Fort Stewart, told the panel that it "took months to get appointments" with specialists while sick and injured soldiers waited in what he said were substandard barracks. "We lived in deplorable conditions," LaChance said. "We were made to feel like we had failed the Army."

Col. Keith Armstrong, garrison commander at Fort Knox, told the congressional committee "we were stretched pretty thin" last fall. Fort Stewart Garrison Commander Col. John M. Kidd said, "We recognized that we had some difficulty here. We recognized that we had a problem with medical hold." Both commanders said they had asked for help from the Army and both described it as slow in coming.

How many wounded?

Combat deaths were accurately reported, but according to an article in July, 2003 by Editor & Publisher Online and later in October by National Public Radio, the numbers of wounded, in and out of battle, were being underreported. The news media had accepted that the military high command kept the number of wounded from the American public. "There could be some inattention to [the number of injured troops]," answered Philip Bennett, assistant managing editor of the foreign desk at the Washington Post when questioned by E & P Online.

As American casualties increased during the summer of 2003, US military officials suppressed discussion of the total number wounded. Only by July 10, 2003, nearly four months after the invasion of Iraq had been launched, did CNN report that for "the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, Pentagon officials have released the number of US troops wounded from the beginning of the war through Wednesday [July 9, 2003]."

However, Seth Porges wrote in Editor & Publisher (10/23/03) that coverage of injured and wounded U.S. soldiers gets very little media attention. "For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds," writes Porges. "Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely."

But newspapers neglected to report or keep a tally on the wounded, as an informal survey of some top papers has shown. This comes on the heels of reports that attacks on American troops in Iraq had increased in recent weeks from an average of 15 to 20 attacks per day to about 20 to 25 attacks a day, with a peak at about 35 attacks in one day, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo *******.

Julian Borger, writing in the British Guardian last August, cited the comments of Lieut. Col. Allen DeLane, in charge of airlifting injured GIs into Andrews Air Force Base near Washington.
According to Bolger, DeLane, who had already seen thousands of wounded flown in, told National Public Radio, in regard to the sharp increase in the number of US wounded last autumn, "the official number of combat wounded alone averaged nearly 100 a week between mid-September and mid-November (lunaville.org)." This made the resistance of the military to giving out accurate figures increasingly suspicious.

As the US media began to request injury figures, the Pentagon put up as much resistance as it could. In September, 2003, the Washington Post noted, "Although Central Command keeps a running total of the wounded, it releases the number only when asked" making the combat injuries of US troops in Iraq one of the untold stories in the war.

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, had complained in September 2003 that he was unable to find out how many US soldiers had been wounded in Iraq because the administration refused to release this information.

Higher Survival Rates

Because of the higher survival rate of injured soldiers compared with previous wars, information about the seriously wounded is essential to any accurate assessment of the success of the war in Iraq.

But Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote in the October 13 New Republic: "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, US Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured total either."

Kaplan’s report cited the condition of many injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, pointing out that modern medicine and rapid response techniques allow many wounded soldiers to survive injuries that would otherwise have killed them in previous wars. Kevlar body armor also reduced deaths. Still, many of these wounded soldiers are left with debilitating injury or loss of limbs.

Kaplan wrote: "The near-invisibility of the wounded has several sources. The media has always treated combat deaths as the most reliable measure of battlefield progress, while for its part the administration has been reluctant to divulge the full number of wounded."

Last December, Congressman Gene Taylor (Dem.-Mississippi) complained that the Pentagon deliberately undercounted combat casualties. He cited the case of five members in the Mississippi National Guard who had been wounded in a booby-trap bomb explosion. Incredibly, their injuries were listed by the military as "non combat." The truth emerged only because Taylor spoke face to face with the most seriously injured of the five at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. Taylor sent a memo to the other members of Congress to "ask if anyone has had a similar incident."

On October 3rd UPI reported that 4,000 soldiers had been medically evacuated from Iraq for non-combat reasons. As for the tally of total deaths in Iraq, most of the media continue to cite only those killed in hostile action. The administration’s numbers game of "combat" and "non combat" injuries, however, is far from the whole story. That still leaves out the thousands who have become physically or mentally ill in Iraq not resulting from bombs and bullets. Estimates of the real number of US servicemen and women evacuated for medical reasons from Iraq by the end of 2003 vary widely.

Last January 7, National Public Radio’s Daniel Zwerdling reported on the difficulties in finding out the truth about US casualties in Iraq. He said few Americans are aware of the surprisingly large number of US wounded in Iraq. Questioning several dozen people on the street about the total number of American soldiers who had died in Iraq, he had found that most could answer correctly. But when the NPR reporter asked about the number of US military personnel that had been wounded, no one came close to the actual figure. The answers ranged from a few hundred to a thousand.

The actual estimates are between 11,000 and 22,000 for the number of US soldiers, sailors and Marines medically evacuated from Iraq by the end of 2003 because of battlefield wounds, illness or other battlefield reasons.

Trying to get more accurate casualty figures, Zwerdling said he contacted Sen. Chuck Hagel (Rep.-Nebraska), a Vietnam veteran and former deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration. Hagel had tried to obtain the "total number of American battlefield casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq" from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The senator had also tried to find out: "What is the official Pentagon definition of wounded in action? What is the procedure for releasing this information in a timely way to the public and the criteria for awarding a Purple Heart [awarded to those wounded in combat or posthumously to the next of kin of those killed or those who die of wounds received in action]?"

Hagel had been seeking an accurate, updated count on the number of Purple Hearts and the dates they were awarded to US military personnel in Iraq. That number is significant because it is an official record of the total number of battlefield casualties. After six weeks, the reply Hagel received was, "the Department of Defense does not have the requested information."

Stars and Stripes (November 5, 2003 European edition) noted that the Landstuhl military hospital in Germany had "treated more than 7,000 injured and ill service members from Iraq." But at the same time, the military had recorded some 2,000 combat casualties. This discrepancy is 3.5-times (350%) between the number of wounded in combat listed by the military and the number of service personnel medically evacuated from Iraq for treatment in Germany!

The Landstuhl facility, located near the huge US air base at Ramstein Germany, reported on January 23, 2004 that the total US medical evacuations from Iraq to Germany by the end of 2003 was 9,433. The number of hostile and "non-hostile" wounded listed by the Army at that point was approximately 2,750. The under reporting of wounded continues.

Figures don’t lie, but . . .

Clearly, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld don’t really care about the US servicemen and women casualties from their war on Iraq. They rarely acknowledge it publicly.

But why did the Bush administration knock itself out to conceal the number of combat veterans injured in Iraq? Answer: To avoid the appearance of a Vietnam quagmire. The seemingly low, "acceptable" number for American loss of life in Iraq looks much better than Vietnam, but the injury figures are much worse. That’s why.

The Bush administration claims an overwhelmingly popular support for its war on Iraq. But the political and media establishment can see that the public’s opposition to the war is constantly growing. Like the sensation caused by recent revelations of Bush being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard in 1972-73 during the Vietnam war, the tide of public opinion would further turn if the true picture entered the public mind of the war’s real effects on American troops. But how can the "success" of Bush's war be measured?

Comparing the war in Iraq with that in Vietnam, the total number of combat troops in Vietnam was 550,000. As many as 155,000 of them were wounded while 10.7% were killed during 10 years. In Iraq, so far, the total number of combat troops total 150,000 and between 11,000 and 22,000 of them have been wounded during nine months. Thus 28.2% of combat troops were wounded in Vietnam while in Iraq "only" 0.3% died in combat, so far, and as many as 14.7% had been wounded in combat.

At first glance, Bush's war in Iraq seems to be much more "successful" than the war in Vietnam -- especially when the number of wounded are eliminated from the equation. The proportion of combat troops killed in Vietnam appears to be 35-times more than in Iraq. By contrast, the proportion of Vietnam wounded is only two-times that sustained in Iraq. That's getting pretty close.

A fairer comparison of casualties in the Vietnam war, lasting ten long years, and Iraq, now less than one year old, should include how long each of the two wars has lasted. While the war in Vietnam has been over for more than three decades, American soldiers in Iraq are still being killed and wounded on a daily basis. The casualty figures in Iraq are still rising -- and there's no end in sight.

Clearly, if Bush's war continues for another two to five years, according to most estimates, the casualty figures from the Vietnam debacle could make it look even more "successful" than Bush's war!

With the specter of the Vietnam quagmire hanging over them, Bush and Rumsfeld can only talk about a "successful" war by emphasizing the relatively low number of Americans killed in Iraq, and hiding the extraordinarily high number of wounded. But for those who had sacrificed their lives and limbs to preemptively protect the U.S. against Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Bush’s war has been a complete failure.

(Wednesday, February 18, 2004)

Frederick Sweet is Professor of Reproductive Biology in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. You can email your comments to Fred@interventionmag.com


Agree? Disagree? Suggestions? Click "Post comment" below and tell us what you think.

This article comes from Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/

The URL for this story is:
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...rticle&sid=654

Intervention Magazine's Mission Statement

If this was really happening CNN as well as ABCNBCCBSMSNBCPMSNBCMOUSE would be screaming about it nonstop.

[ 02-21-2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Big TULE]

Easier to complain about it on a web site then actually researching the facts and doing something about it...

[Big TULE]

Hey STRAYDOG, Have you ever been to that region of the world???

[Straydog]

Thumper,

Your posts implies that is my quote. I'm calling for at least a warning if not a technical foul! :tongue: :grin:

I agree there is some journalistic liberty being taken for attention. Effective but probably not real ethical. They all do it but I agree that dosen't make it right.

However, what I find lacking in all replies so far is any attempt to dispute the fact that there is an ugly "price" to this war that will be paid forever by many that we are pretty much blind to.

I haven't read much in "mainstream liberal press" about the number of wounded and seriously messed up individuals we are producing in this war.

Maybe I am still too sensitive about the friends I lost in Vietman and the friends that I have seen pretty much messed up forever, those that are still alive.

I think any discussion about the "cost/benefit" of war needs to take this into acount. It is not all dollars and cents folks, these are real people getting screwed up. Saddam was evil and made his people endure horrible atrocities for his own power and benefit. What about the atrocities we are subjecting our own too in the name of "security". Do you really feel more secure today? If so, is it enough to justify the THOUSANDS of our neighbors that are going to die, be physicaly maimed, mentally destroyed and likely "discarded" by their own government when and if it is all over? Do you feel we are taking as good a care as we should and could of our Vets? Why are VA hospitals looked upon as an inferior place to secure health care? What price are we paying for the paltry support we give our Vets now? Why did it take Representative Walden to have The Domicilary in White City be reconsidered for closure?

I am just suggesting we look at all the costs and have open minds and think about what war is costing and what it is likely to benefit us.

:smile:

Why did it take Representative Walden to have The Domicilary in White City be reconsidered for closure?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[Big TULE]

Believe me i think war is ugly, and very destructive... But in some instances war is necesary. But who determines when it is necessary and not??? We the people determine who is the president and we elect our other leaders that make that decession, Bush alone cannot declare war, unless i was taught wrong. So maybe we need to look into every entity that made this war happen...
And stop blaming the whole thing on bush. Yeah he had something to do with it but not all his fault. I think congress has to approve it and we determine who is in congress and who is not...

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Do you really feel more secure today? If so, is it enough to justify the THOUSANDS of our neighbors that are going to die, be physicaly maimed, mentally destroyed and likely "discarded" by their own government when and if it is all over? Do you feel we are taking as good a care as we should and could of our Vets?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, that is quite a leap.

Yes, I feel more secure. Yes, it is worth the 380 combat-related deaths and the several thousand injuries. Yes we are caring for our vets.

And your insinuation that the U.S. government is going to "likely discard" the injured is uncalled for.

[DanS]

Yes we are caring for our vets.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not well enough, we aren't.

For the way the military budget has expanded in the last 25 years, the amount going to the care of injured soldiers and veterans has not kept pace. It's an outrage that our soldiers and veterans aren't cared for in this country.

However, this has been going on for years. VA hospitals do not become delapidated wrecks overnight. The current administration is just one more in a line of adinistrations that have not given enough priority to the care of soldiers and veterans.

I find it surprising that more people don't feel the way I do about this. Having a strong military means more than having gobs of the latest weaponry..........it means taking care of those that operate and support that weaponry when it is put to use.

The Bush administration SHOULD be embarassed about the state of affairs of the VA. Not that the Clinton administration was better, but the Bush administration is occupying the White House now. The lack of quality care for our soldiers and vets is their problem now.

[ 02-21-2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: DanS ]

[Big TULE]

As a soon to be disabled Vet I am very concerned about the state of affairs of out VA...

[CATCH AND EAT]

[img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

[Thumper]

I would be interested to know more about the "inferior" treatment available to our veterans at VA facilities.

[Boedy]

I blame Clinton.. He cut the military so much that it has limited the ability of the Army to take care of the wounded as well as they should be.

I am sure it is not the policy of the administration to screw over wounded soldiers as this implies.

As far as reporting the casualty figures could the reason be that they didn’t wish to give the Iraqi’s still fighting or the terrorists in country those figures? Could it be that they didn’t want to give the enemy the casualty numbers because that would only serve to boost their moral dragging this thing on longer?

Heck there are enough people here boosting the enemies moral over there by posting garbage like that article.
:grin:

[Big TULE]

Boedy

[sturgn]

Whatever, cant wait till the election is over, along with all the President Bashing that comes with it!

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Clearly, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld don’t really care about the US servicemen and women casualties from their war on Iraq.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And there's a quote from a truly factual news story. Come on Straydog. Be a little more discerning.

[crabbait]

Boedy.....I am so surprised! You...blame Clinton, gosh whoed a thunk it!

[Straydog]

The election mantra was that King Bush would fix all of the evils of the Clinton Admin. with the caveat of bringing honesty and integrety ( ) back to the office of President. That is one of the reasons I voted for him. That is also one of the reasons I will not vote for him again. He too has let us down by not doing what he said he would do during the campaign.

You can look back and point fingers all you want, the fact remains the buck stops at Bush's dsesk today. The fact is too, that he is doing little or nothing to improve the care of Vets. Closing Vet facilities across the country is but one example of the reduction in importance placed on those making the ultimate sacrafice for our country and our people. I suppose some will attempt to blame that on past administrations as well. That is all meaningless. We can only learn from the past, otherwise dwelling on it is counterproductive.

It seems that some feel that if it is Clinton's fault it is then OK to continue to turn our backs on our Vets. How sad. I like to move forward and make things better rather than remain wrong just 'cuz it is perceived to be a past President's fault. :whazzup:

[ 02-22-2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

A little perspective ---

The Veterans Administration Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill for FY 2004 provides $25.2 billion for veterans’ health care, an increase of $1.4 billion over last year. Hardly a lack of commitment by the Bush administration. The problem is that this increase still does not keep pace with hospital cost increases. Something has to give. Closing the smallest VA facilities and consolidating patients to the larger facilities makes a great deal of sense and will actually improve the quality of care.

For example, the administration plans to close the Vancouver VA facility, which is logical considering that there is a full-service VA hospital in Portland, perhaps 12 miles away. Seriously ill vets are now routinely relocated to the Portland facility as the Vancouver facility is obsolete. Yet the Democrats see this as another example of Bush sins against our veterans.

Weird, eh?

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by Boedy:
I blame Clinton.. He cut the military so much that it has limited the ability of the Army to take care of the wounded as well as they should be.

:grin:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Amazing how so many love to forget who had control of Congress for much of the Clinton administration, yet continue to put the blame on him.. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

TR

Hang in there Big Tule. A lot of psuedo- intellects have never seen haze grey, a wire brush or the Gulf of Tonkin. :depressed:

Just be thankful at this point that "it ain't grey and don't get underway." :smile:

Rick

[Fish-n-Fever]

This is why I don't like talking "politics"

Bush alone cannot declare war, unless i was taught wrong. So maybe we need to look into every entity that made this war happen...
And stop blaming the whole thing on bush. Yeah he had something to do with it but not all his fault. I think congress has to approve it and we determine who is in congress and who is not...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

Amazing how so many love to forget who had control of Congress for much of the Clinton administration, yet continue to put the blame on him

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I am not saying there is anything wrong with either statement I am simply making the point that...
It always ends up with... Taking ALL the credit for what makes people happy....
Passing ALL the blame for anything that angers.
Ron
(I blame my fathers side of my family for my political views)

[Boedy]

Stray,

As a Vet let me tell you that these types of stories are seldom if ever as bad as these types of articles makes it sound. It’s clearly just another Bush bashing over exaggeration. This reporter (and I use the term lightly) is only taking an isolated incident and blowing it up to serve his agenda. When ever you start moving the numbers of troops around that we have been things get stretched and it takes time to get things running properly. I am not saying that his report is totally with out merit as I am sure there have been isolated incidents where some troops have had to wait to see a specialist but that is the case anywhere you go. There are only so many doctors that deal with some of the types of injuries that are common on the battlefield. I am sure no wounded troops are suffering as this implies only waiting. That’s nothing new as anybody that has been in the military knows. Their accommodations I am sure are not the Hilton but I am sure they are fine for a temporary situation.

The thing that gets me going with this type of trash is that I have talked to many friends that are currently on active duty and the guard who are in country and or training up to deploy and they all tell me that reporters like this run around all the time talking to the troops. They don’t want to hear anything positive only things that shine a bad light on the situation they are in. They spend all there time trying to get them to bad mouth Bush and the war just so they can right up garbage like this. They don’t care about the conditions of the troops only what makes good cover. I have seen this over and over and it makes me sick. I can’t believe how far the left is willing to go to get at Bush and the war.

[AuntyM]

DanS is right on the money. Underfunding of the VA and not enough oversight has been around a very long time. My dad tried to get some medical care as he was a WWII Vet in the 60's.

Things weren't much better when my terminally ill father in law sought care from the VA in the early 80's.

Thank goodness hubby did the 20 year stint and can receive care from the Navy hospital or choose private care.

As long as these soldiers are active duty, they will receive better care than most of you do if you have an HMO.

It would not surprise me in the least if this were a highly exaggerated article. I have 26 years of experience dealing with Navy, Air Force and Army medical care. While the earlier years weren't that hot, staff is now top notch and so is the care. With that said, active duty personel not only get priority, but the treatment is caring and compassionate to the point that's it's almost as good as having your mom there to nurse you.

I'd put money on it that injured soldiers are angry NOT because of the care, but because they are still separated from home and family. They wanted their treatment "yesterday" so they can go home ASAP. I don't blame them.

[happybrew]

This isn't something that is unique to the Bush Administration. Having served in the National Guard during the Clinton years, I can tell you it happened under Clinton as well. I had two members of my unit injured during training, suffered temporary disability as a result, and the Guard did not cover their medical expenses, or cover any sort of salary while they couldn't work. One of them lost his house. Their claims were denied. So much for Clinton feeling their pain. I have no doubt the same thing is going on right now. I don't blame Bush for it. I blame bureaucracy, which won't change for any administration.

happybrew

[freespool]

Any of you veterans out there in ifish land that are having any problems with the trials and tribulations of the bureaucracy please contact Sen. Ron Wyden. This man can work miracles in a very short period of time.


salmon hugger

[Big TULE]

Hey ******, i am not to worried...
Yes i have a medical condition that came about while i have been on active duty. They do not know what causes it and they do not know how to cure it. The only way to keep me alive is to stay on blood thinners the rest of my life and be checked every month. Yes it suck. But i will live. I go tomorrow to Bangor for my last physical i will ever receive while on active duty. I just pray that my family will be taken care of. I cannot receive unemployment if i receive disability and disability will not cover what i make now or my monthly expenses. So i need to find a job fast. But my condition does not stop me from working, but it does mean i need to be a little more careful. Yeah it sucks but that is life, I need to go fishing...

[AuntyM]

BT,

If you're job hunting in the Kitsap area, send me a PM or email. I know of a defense contractor that will be hiring for several different job types in the near future. :smile:

[Straydog]

BT,

Best wishes for a positive future.

Aunty,

It is very gracious of you to post possible job opportunities and I am by no means discounting your good deed. However, isn't it more than a little ironic that it is Defense Contractors that will be hiring soon, given the topic at hand??? :depressed:

I am also left wondering if maybe we should rename that industry to the "Offense Industry", given our current premptive approach to war.

[ 02-23-2004, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[AuntyM]

Straydog,

This contractor has been fullfilling needs for the Navy long before the Iraq war and will continue to support the Navy for many years to come. The additional work was contracted for quite some time ago to be started and/or completed in a specific time frame. What do you find ironic about that?

[Straydog]

I just find it ironic that a person seeking employment with a condition aquired while in active duty posts to a thread about Vets having tough times and one possible answer being that he get a job with a defense contractor, because that sector of the economy is strong.

[AuntyM]

a condition aquired

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Kind of a big medical assumption there Straydog. BT said it "came about" during his active duty.
Many things not connected to his service could be the cause the way it sounded to me.

As for him needing employment, would you prefer I not try to help him if he is interested?

Defense contract work is usually planned for so far in advance, the rest of the economy or even wars don't necessarily factor in. I could tell you more, but I'm sure your security clearance isn't high enough.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by AuntyM:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> a condition aquired

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Kind of a big medical assumption there Straydog. BT said it "came about" during his active duty.
Many things not connected to his service could be the cause the way it sounded to me.

As for him needing employment, would you prefer I not try to help him if he is interested?

Defense contract work is usually planned for so far in advance, the rest of the economy or even wars don't necessarily factor in. I could tell you more, but I'm sure your security clearance isn't high enough. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Aunty, I have no desire to fight with you.

Sorry you chose to ignore the positive I wrote and pick a fight over the rest. Speaking of jumps, how did you get from me telling you how gracious it was to offer a possible job opportunity to "would you prefer I not try to help him.............?"

Find someone else to nit pick with and throw personal attacks at, we are trying to be more grown up around here.

[ 02-23-2004, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Cool Texan]

(never mind)

[img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

[ 02-23-2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Cool Texan ]

[AuntyM]

Aunty, I have no desire to fight with you.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Who's fighting? :whazzup:

Find someone else to nit pick with and throw personal attacks at, we are trying to be more grown up around here.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm not nitpicking. I was correcting some misconceptions.

HEY CONGRESS Lifetime full healthcare for any veteran and immediate family, who is a VFW, not just retired military, would be the right thing to do. Are you listening?

[img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

[Big TULE]

Aunty that would be awefully nice of you to let me know, when they are hiring. I work on radar and missile/gun fire controll systems. Yes i aquired this condition while on active. What i have they do not know what causes it or how you get it. It does not stop me from doing anything yet. I just have to be on blood thinners the rest of my life.
And it is very nice of you to offer up some help.

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by ******:
HEY CONGRESS Lifetime full healthcare for any veteran and immediate family, who is a VFW, not just retired military, would be the right thing to do. Are you listening?

[img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">One of the best ideas that has been on this board in a long time!!

My uncle is currently battling "the system". He, like so many others, was exposed to Agent Orange on the front lines in the Vietnam War. Multiple illnesses...all directly or indirectly linked to this nasty stuff... and it's like pulling the nails off a bear trying to get anything done.

It's just plain criminal how we treat our vets...and now, we're making hundreds of thousands more.

TR

[ 02-23-2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[happybrew]

I think the military needs an actual medical insurance system, where the gov't collects premium on an ongoing basis, establishes and grows the fund through investment, sets aside reserves for each claim, and pays out as needed. None of this garbage where injuries of years ago are dependent upon funding today, if there is any. They need to do what Worker's Comp does and set aside money today to pay the expenses that will inevitably result tomorrow. It should be part of the cost of doing business. If there's a war, then the premium they bill themselves ought to go up, so that the true cost of military action is reflected.

happybrew

[AuntyM]

Happybrew,

We do have medical insurance that we pay into for the retirees and their dependants. It is thought that recruiting and retention would suffer if changes were made for active duty personel or their dependents.

Rest assured, the military medical system does what they can to recover taxpayer dollars. If you have seperate insurance for medical, they always get billed for treatment rendered in a military treatment facility. If a patient has an on the job injury, the service will bill workmens comp. If a patient is involved in an auto accident that was someone elses fault, the services will seek payment from the other party and their insurance.

Just thought I'd share that. :grin:

[PapaHog]

I hope the veterans of today are taken better care of than we, the Vietnam Veterans were and are.

I fear they are not and will not be well cared for.

As a disabled Vietnam veteran I pray that the Veterans Adminstration gets the funding necessary to care for its wounded and disabled heros of this and all wars of the past.

I am lucky to be in Portland with its state of the art VA Hospital. All VA Hospital are not as good as Portland VA Medical Center.

[happybrew]

Aunty M: the military does not have a specific fund paied into for insurance. The U.S. government is self-insured, which means it pays out of present funds. Thus, the quality of the insurance is based, not on the reserves set aside when the risk was incurred, but on how much Congress is willing to give it.

happybrew

[AuntyM]

the military does not have a specific fund paied into for insurance.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Perhaps because we are the ones paying? It goes to the company that contracted with the military.

Health Net Federal Services is now the company contracted for providing coverage to us.

[ 02-28-2004, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: AuntyM ]