Not too long ago I heard on the radio about a mother raising money for her son's legal defense. The son had been in the military and is up on some kind of charges for behavior stemming from something I am sure someone is calling a massacre.
Then, more recently I heard about an insurance company that was habitually refusing to cover their clients health problems based on the condition being pre-existing in nature. The insurance company is the Veterans' Administration and the pre-existing condition is post-traumatic stress disorder; you know, the one that they used to call shellshock.
Just the other day I heard that a company was denying retirees a benefit because their time in the company was structured so as to expire just short of vesting. The company is the Army and the benefit is the GI Tuition program. Seems many, many soldiers tours are just a hair too short to qualify.
Really, I guess it's possible that these guys are really in the wrong and they shot up a bunch of civilians without cause. I guess it's possible that all of these stressed out soldiers did have some previously existing underlying susceptibility to stress. I guess it's possible that the normal standing procedure is for a tour to end short of vesting in many programs. I guess it's possible.
I don't think it should matter.
Seems to me that if someone enlists (or is drafted, gulp) into our military and they see combat (and yes I am sure THAT definition could become very convoluted) then we pretty much have to write their ticket. Nobody should have to take up a collection for an attorney, US Soldiers ought to have the very best representation provided to the at no cost. We shouldn't be putzing around with pre-existing conditions. All conditions re-set when you push an individual in front of gunfire; US Soldiers ought to have federally funded health insurance for life and the insurance should be good, and simple. Do we really need to be nickel and diming over the GI Bill? Isn't there someplace we can look up that says that the investment is worth more than the fight? Besides, we very nearly got these people killed. Sending them to school seems like the very, very least we can do.
Maybe this sort of thing is ok during peacetime. Maybe in that case we can afford to make sure every letter of the regulations is followed. But it just seems that once combat is involved that a paycheck is no longer sufficient. For going into harms way these people deserve our respect and indulgence. We should take care of them. They took care of us.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Do The Right Thing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow- I'm suprised to read this from you. I thought this sort of thinking only came from us crazy country music, USA loving people.
To be honest, I'm more disgusted that a US soldier would need a lawyer for activities he did while he was fighting for our country...
I totally and completely agree. And Izzy, i think the issues are less black and white than that. But we have gone back and forth about the meaning of patriotism already. ;)
But yes, no matter how your politics fall, supporting the welfare of soldiers is only decent. Issues like these make me even more steadfast in my belief that I support the soldiers, not the armed forces.
there was an interesting story on the (decline of) the GI bill on NPR the other day (maybe you heard it?) regarding, specifically, how the GI bill for WWII veterans would pay for them to go to any school that they could gain admission to, whereas the current iteration is much stingier (unfortunately i don't remember many specifics.) the WWII GI bill then resulted in veterans being able to go to ivy league, and other top-tier schools giving us minds like Norman Mailer, Elia Kazan and Bob Dole (um..ok, bad example.) In any case, it seems unlikely many of our veterans (if they even qualify for the GI Bill) will be able to obtain a comparable education.
Post a Comment