Panel Calls for More Benefits for Vets

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The leaders of a presidential commission that reported on poor treatment of wounded war veterans recommended Wednesday expanding and streamlining the benefit system for those with potentially life-altering injuries. Former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., and Donna Shalala, health secretary in the Clinton administration, outlined changes that would require action by Congress. They include payments for wounded troops to help with the transition into civilian life; compensation for loss in earnings their injuries might cause; and coverage that, for the first time, takes into account changes in quality of life."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3uNjZJGHfbDAcylz9yV3dtMBIBwD8SB7CU80

Well, implementation of these much-needed improvements has taken too long--and continues to take too long. And it shouldn't have taken a special presidential commission to figure all this out.

But it appears to have been a bipartisan effort, and improvements are being made. So, this is better late than never, I suppose.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You can't be hawkish as hell and not provide for the warriors, especially the wounded warriors, and their families. In the past--and maybe even today--I think some Republicans have made the mistake of looking at veterans' benefits as some sort of free-lunch entitlement system--except that the veterans earned their rewards through service and sacrifice. The Republicans would do well to remember that fact.

10/18/2007 2:13:53 AM

I guess relatively good news and bipartisan accomplishments just don't sell here in TSB. Or maybe some of you just have never heard of the Dole-Shalala Commission. Either way, it's a pity.

10/19/2007 1:49:30 AM

Wounded veterans are among the very short list of people who legitimately deserve to be taken care of for the rest of their lives. I hate gov. care programs, but we owe it to veterans to ensure that they are taken care of.

10/19/2007 1:53:26 AM

Quote :

"In the past--and maybe even today--I think some Republicans have made the mistake of looking at veterans' benefits as some sort of free-lunch entitlement system--except that the veterans earned their rewards through service and sacrifice."

Well -- I mean, on some level, military service is considered "sacrifice" for a reason.

If it's just a job where you get "equitable" compensation for putting your life on the line, then -- well, it's a job. We should be paying every soldier based on some MBA's formula; for example, the discounted present value of their life's earnings considering the probability they'll be wounded or killed. Maybe then we can up the ante and pay soldiers per enemy head they kill, or some such.

As it stands I think the premise is -- you are in the military, you are making a selfless sacrifice for your fellow man, without the expectation of much in return. And it's a volunteer service.

So -- I think that veteran care should be improved as much as practicable. I'm dubious about paying people for compensation from lost earnings; I mean, again, it's a sacrifice they chose to undertake, not a market-driven job. That's just the reality of the situation. The government should pay for health care, of course -- to do otherwise would be ridiculous and cruel.

10/19/2007 3:13:29 AM

^ That's a damned simplistic observation. Without the military, the "market" here--as we know it--would not exist. And the service and sacrifice made by members of the military are not just for their "fellow man"--it's also for this construct that we call the United States of America.

10/19/2007 3:39:05 AM

^

OK, so we're in "blindly lionize The Troops" mode. Fine. I bow before The Troops. Congress shall make No Practical Considerations when considering The Troops. We must consider all things military or veteran related sinkholes of money wherein every dollar spent necessarily sprouts goodness because it's directed at The Troops.

I get it, already. Your impassioned defense of the abstract construct of the United States of America is not lost on me. I certainly have never heard it before in my life; it's completely new to me that every last one of The Troops servers a Greater and Juster Cause than I can imagine in my tiny head.

And I shall certainly never again consider the role of The Troops in context; for example, I shall from now on believe that the construct of the United States of America came entirely from The Troops and not from, say, a civil insurrection that only later congealed into a formal state with a military.

Thank you for the enlightenment. I shall never attempt to have a serious discussion of what the limits on military spending are ever again. Instead I shall assume that 100% taxation directed at providing The Troops with belly dancers and grapes for the rest of their lives is appropriate, as they have sacrificed for the construct that we call the United States of America.

10/22/2007 2:43:04 AM

Quote :

"Without the military, the "market" here--as we know it--would not exist. And the service and sacrifice made by members of the military are not just for their "fellow man"--it's also for this construct that we call the United States of America."

That too is a damned simplistic observation.

10/22/2007 2:47:09 AM

^^ Good--now you have it.

^ STFU, troll.

10/22/2007 2:53:08 AM

for both ideological and personal reasons, i'm all for having the American military and its veterans well provided for, but I'm always wary of going overboard. Part of this is a desire for fiscal discipline in our government, and part of it is a desire to never have military service of our country seen as something to pursue simply because it is lucrative, regardless of the hardships (a la Blackwater, etc). While it is impossible to truly compensate military personnel from a standpoint of civilian equivalency (as by definition, they are fundamentally not equivalent), that is what we should strive for (and obviously I don't mean Blackwater-style "how much would you have to pay a civilian to go to war").

That said--and I don't think this is actually what Smoker4 was suggesting--we shouldn't construct our military's and veterans' pay and benefits packages from a standpoint of "Fuck 'em, they volunteered, and it's called SERVICE for a reason."

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 2:59 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/22/2007 2:58:59 AM

As with every other job ever, if people do the job and don't plan on leaving it any time soon, by their actions, they reveal that they believe the compensation is adequate.

To complain after-the-fact that you didn't evaluate your compensation correctly smacks of a lack of personal responsibility and liberal whining.

If the government continued to pay compensation that was too low, it would have problems recruiting. It would then be forced to raise compensation to meet recruiting goals. The BEST thing people could do to increase military benefits is to refuse to do military work until the compensation became adequate.

10/22/2007 3:20:59 AM

^^

I think I was just suggesting that those evvvilll Republican congressmen were, like most congresspeople, doing their jobs and setting the bar somewhere. That's what congresspeople do after all the smoke and mirrors are removed -- they set bars. Then I tried to take a stab at where the bar should be. And of course the reply was the same-old, same-old.

10/22/2007 3:30:21 AM

^^On one hand, you're absolutely right.

but on the other, the nature of the business is that some will perform this job regardless of how much it sucks and how inadequate the pay is. however, precisely due to the nature of the business--despite my free-market ideologies--I maintain that they shouldn't have to and that, as a country, we shouldn't exploit the fact that so many will.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 3:35 AM. Reason : ^^]

10/22/2007 3:35:00 AM

Quote :

"While it is impossible to truly compensate military personnel from a standpoint of civilian equivalency (as by definition, they are fundamentally not equivalent), that is what we should strive for (and obviously I don't mean Blackwater-style "how much would you have to pay a civilian to go to war")."

My viewpoint is that the military provides "subsidized" insurance to its members. Basically it's fair because no private insurance company would insure such a group of people (at least not for a reasonable amount of money).

But the one above about compensation for loss in earnings -- that one makes me bristle a little bit. I guess it's basically the same as long-term disability insurance. But I don't see how it works -- like, you joined the military, so what "career path" is the insurance based on? The one where you leave the military unscathed, go work for an advertising firm, and become a CEO? A lot of people who join are just 18 and have basically no career prospects to base a long-term disability plan on.

On some level the "opportunity cost" of joining is infinitely high and you have to accept that there won't be a fair monetary return for your effort if you're seriously hurt. That's the "sacrifice" part -- it's a volunteer military, not a mercenary force, as you say.

10/22/2007 3:40:22 AM

^x5 Can you provide a time period that the United States of America has gone "overboard" for its veterans? Yeah, me neither. Until such a time actually occurs, I think we should err on the side of properly supporting service members and veterans that have defended our country versus "fiscal discipline."

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 3:40 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 3:40:23 AM

Quote :

"Can you provide a time period that the United States of America has gone "overboard" for its veterans?"

Objection -- leading the witness! We can't talk intelligently about what's "overboard" until we establish what the reasonable limits are.

10/22/2007 3:42:12 AM

^ Ah, but one person's idea of fairness is another person's idea of unfairness. Clearly, we can't leave this up to the military or the VA alone to decide--or they would have solved these sorts of problems already.

And this leads us to a blue-ribbon panel, which is what the Dole-Shalala Commission is. If the military and the VA will just follow all of the commission's recommendations, things will certainly be a lot better--Congress must provide the funding, of course.

10/22/2007 3:51:17 AM

Quote :

"OK, so we're in "blindly lionize The Troops" mode. Fine. I bow before The Troops. Congress shall make No Practical Considerations when considering The Troops. We must consider all things military or veteran related sinkholes of money wherein every dollar spent necessarily sprouts goodness because it's directed at The Troops. I get it, already. Your impassioned defense of the abstract construct of the United States of America is not lost on me. I certainly have never heard it before in my life; it's completely new to me that every last one of The Troops servers a Greater and Juster Cause than I can imagine in my tiny head. And I shall certainly never again consider the role of The Troops in context; for example, I shall from now on believe that the construct of the United States of America came entirely from The Troops and not from, say, a civil insurrection that only later congealed into a formal state with a military. Thank you for the enlightenment. I shall never attempt to have a serious discussion of what the limits on military spending are ever again. Instead I shall assume that 100% taxation directed at providing The Troops with belly dancers and grapes for the rest of their lives is appropriate, as they have sacrificed for the construct that we call the United States of America."

that was awesome

10/22/2007 4:21:30 AM

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 2:24 AM. Reason : since these guys want TWW to be work-suitable (???), i'm taking the pic down.]

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 2:24 AM. Reason : -theduke866]

10/22/2007 4:38:06 AM

can we stop with the gay porn in here? one of the reasons we ask for sboy to be kicked was that his shit wasn't even remotely safe for work and was creating an unhealthy environment for any actual debate. i'm failing to see how posting gay men in a circle jerk is much different.

10/22/2007 9:20:04 AM

^You are under the mistaken impression that hooksaw is interested in healthy debate.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 9:27 AM. Reason : cue desperate name-calling...]

10/22/2007 9:24:00 AM

That image is blocked for me at work, but the link points to fleshbot?! Why is that allowed in TSB? Why is he not being suspended? I've been suspended for much less before.

10/22/2007 10:10:07 AM

Suspend.

I realize it's rather symbolic of what normally comes out of his mouth, but I just opened that shit up at my office. I avoid Chitchat for a reason.

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 10:44:49 AM

^^^^, ^^^, ^^, ^, and others

So says the left-wing circle jerk. Pardon me if I mock your fucking little TSB echo chamber.

BTW, no private parts are shown in the image at issue. Just a bunch of shirtless liberal guys expressing how they feel about one another--you know, like some of you do here.

10/22/2007 11:44:53 PM

^ Fuck you - the image is clearly nsfw.

I'm not a liberal - but you clearly crossed the line. I'm sure nothing will happen to you since Duke feels it necessary to protect anyone that gets flamed in here no matter how far they cross the line back.

10/23/2007 12:57:47 AM

^ Fuck you, too. When you're at work, maybe you should try. . .um. . .working instead of fucking around on the Internet.

10/23/2007 1:42:22 AM

Clearly lunch breaks do not exist you dumb piece of shit.

10/23/2007 1:50:05 AM

^ Sure, sure. Because everybody takes "lunch" at "10:45 AM."

10/23/2007 2:25:52 AM

ok, that's enough.

10/23/2007 2:27:00 AM