A home fit for heroes

[Skunk]

This is outrageous. You fight for your country and you are wounded in combat, awarded a Purple Heart...and handed a bill!

Wounded billed for hospital food

WASHINGTON - After a grenade exploded inside his Humvee in Iraq, Marine Staff Sgt. Bill Murwin was treated at a military hospital in Germany and spent four weeks at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. Part of his left foot was amputated.

His medical care was free, but the government billed him $243 for the food.

Then, just three days after he received his first bill for the hospital food in Germany, he got a stern letter saying the bill was overdue. It warned that his account would be referred to a collection agency...

...Murwin, 31, a sheriff's deputy in Nevada with 10 years of active duty in the Marines and three years in the Reserves, says he was flabbergasted the government would bill him.

"Holy smokes," he said. "I'm in the hospital - and they're going to charge me for my food?"

He says he was willing to pay but thinks it's unfair that young soldiers get billed.

"What made me so hot is that (it applies to) privates and lance corporals - guys who barely make enough money to pay for their own food, let alone take care of this," Murwin said.

Kiley, the Army medical commander, said the costs can add up. "If you're here for a couple of months, you could rack up a thousand dollars," he said..."

[Rokenn]

And this is from the same administration that slashes Vetern Benefits while the so-called 'Commander and Chief' takes a joy ride in a jet to land on an aircraft carrier and declare that we 'won' the war in Iraq and that major hostilities were over.

[Ronn_Bman]

It does seem silly, but...

The rule was established because most military personnel receive $8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are double-dipping. Military officials have long disliked the rule but felt they had to enforce it because of the 1981 law. "If I could be king for a day, I'd stop it in a minute," said Maj. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who commands the Army hospitals in the eastern United States. The government already bends the rules for soldiers in combat. They are allowed keep the $8.10 even though they are also getting free food, according to Young's office.

They actually paid him $243 for food during the period he was eating in the hospital.

[ 09-12-2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[john]

No matter Ronn I'd roll the bill up and tell them where they could shove it!

[Timber Loftis]

Good post, Ronn.

[Chewbacca]

Well since the trend on this thread is to post selected bits of the article, I'll join the fray. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

When Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Largo, and his wife, Beverly, heard about the problem, they personally paid Murwin's tab. Then the congressman introduced a bill to change the rules. Rep. Young said Wednesday that the soldiers "were sent to war by their country. Many of them will be handicapped for the rest of their lives - and we're asking them to pay $8.10 a day for their food! There's something really wrong with that."

Good! A fight is afoot to change the rules, and for the partisan crowd, spearheaded by a Republican no less.

I could careless if the soldiers get a food allowance, giving them a hefty bill shortly after leaving the hospital just feels wrong.

The rule was established because most military personnel receive $8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are double-dipping. Military officials have long disliked the rule but felt they had to enforce it because of the 1981 law. "If I could be king for a day, I'd stop it in a minute," said Maj. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who commands the Army hospitals in the eastern United States. The government already bends the rules for soldiers in combat. They are allowed keep the $8.10 even though they are also getting free food, according to Young's office.

Seeing as how the rules are bent already, logic and compassion serve that the rules should be bent for our state-side wounded as well.

[Skunk]

They actually paid him $243 for food during the period he was eating in the hospital.

I would call that payment for the pain endured from his injuries, and write it off - wouldn't you? Call it a small combat bonus or something.

I don't know - it just makes me angry: it doesn't matter what side of the political divide you are on, whether you believe that they should be there or not. The man did his duty, and lost his left foot. Handing him a bill is really adding insult to injury: literally.

[Ronn_Bman]

As I said, it seems silly.

You will note though that while he was in Iraq, like others in a combat area, he was allowed to keep the extra money.

I think we all know, that I'm an "all for the military" kind of guy, but I'm not a "$500 military contractor's hammer" kind of guy [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] . I also don't think guys who get an allowance for living off-base should continue receiving that money if they move back into the barracks. It's the same deal. No one should be paid twice for the same thing.

The only real value to this story is that it can be used as an *example* of how poorly the average US military man is treated when, in reality, it isn't an example of that at all.

Poor timing? Yes, to get a stern letter only 3 days after getting the bill is stupid. Poor treatment? No.

There is more than enough to argue about regarding the war in Iraq without trying to make something trifling seem diabolical by skipping the most salient point in the story. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: They actually paid him $243 for food during the period he was eating in the hospital.

I would call that payment for the pain endured from his injuries, and write it off - wouldn't you? Call it a small combat bonus or something.

I don't know - it just makes me angry: it doesn't matter what side of the political divide you are on, whether you believe that they should be there or not. The man did his duty, and lost his left foot. Handing him a bill is really adding insult to injury: literally. [/QUOTE]No, I wouldn't call the food stipend payment for any injury. I would call the monthly disability checks he will receive for the rest of his life payment for the injury. That check and the checks his wife and children get will be the payment. Of course nothing can replace his foot, but he will be compensated. It's just that the compensation won't come in the form of a food allowance.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by john: No matter Ronn I'd roll the bill up and tell them where they could shove it!

That I can agree with.