A home fit for heroes

[Timber Loftis]

Some good news. Reservists are returning home and being replaced. No reservist will be asked to go for more than 1 year henceforth.

[Ronn_Bman]

Thanks, TL!

I also heard that because of our new found heavy reliance on the reserves that there is a bipartisan effort to given them full-time medical insurance.

I've heard people say that the long-term stays in Iraq for reservists would hurt recruitment, but there has actually been an increase. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: The point of this story was to show how badly the US treats it's soldiers, and I'll reiterate that it does nothing of the sort.

The point of the story was to show how rules are being applied unevenly and arbritarily. The point of the story was to show how wounded and maimed soldiers are getting bills from the government as well as recieving these bills three days out of the hospital. The story also illustrates how a lawmaker is acting to change the rules, that aren't fairly or evenly applied. You might have missed these points but I sure didn't.

I would hate to see the food bill of a soldier who had a prolonged hospital stay...say a month or more. I mean geez its not enough to lose an arm or a leg, but to get charged one as well.

[Ronn_Bman]

You arbitrarily see what you want Chewie, but these bills are not applied unevenly or arbitrarily. Far from it. It's quite a clear-cut, easily defined, and long standing practice. Soldiers in a combat zone keep the food allowance; all other soldiers are billed.

Those who are maimed are paid disability for the rest of their lives.

As to the points of the story, I got them all, even the salient ones you didn't list, so I find it ironic that you would actually point out how someone would ignore the true point(s) of a story in order to further their viewpoint. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Of course, I wasn't clear enough in the statement you quoted. The point of this story being posted in this forum was to point out how poorly the US treats it's military men and women. I think skunk will back me up on that.

By the way, a soldier in the hospital for a month would be charged...um... $243, but they would only be billed after they'd received $243 dollars to use for food. Let's see, they are given $243 to buy food for a month, and they are then billed $243 for a month's worth of food they haven eaten. Yep, it's diabolical.

[ 09-16-2003, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Skunk]

---Ronn_Bman Of course, I wasn't clear enough in the statement you quoted. The point of this story being posted in this forum was to point out how poorly the US treats it's military men and women. I think skunk will back me up on that.

Not entirely my point - it was more to get support for the troops that I felt had been mistreated as a result of these bills. It certainly was *not* to demonise the US government for maltreatment, rather to point out that the policy of submiting bills at the end of hospitalisation is thoughtless - even if it is legal.

This is not a partisan issue; it has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. This is not a pro/anti-war issue; once the troops are there they should have our support regardless of which divide you stand upon.

While I agree with you unreservedly that the troops have effectively been 'over-paid' as a result of their hospitalisation and that the demand for repayment was legally correct and valid; we disagree on substance.

I believe strongly that such a bill should never arrive at the end a hospital stay for injuries gained in the line of duty. Having seen people wounded, having witnessed the fear in their eyes and knowing the stress that the families are placed under (esp. immediate family), the policy upsets me. The family should not have to worry about putting away $8.10 a day in expectation of a bill - they're not likely to be that cool headed - and I suppose I was not so cool-headed when I created this thread either.

If they're going to reclaim the 'over-payment' then fine - but why not do it in a less painful manner. How about deducting it from the soldiers pay from the moment of hospitalisation or or arranging a repayment schedule that only deducts a nominal amount each month, like $50 or something (if the soldier opts for it). It doesn't have to be quite so harsh, does it?

[ 09-16-2003, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Skunk: If they're going to reclaim the 'over-payment' then fine - but why not do it in a less painful manner. How about deducting it from the soldiers pay from the moment of hospitalisation or or arranging a repayment schedule that only deducts a nominal amount each month, like $50 or something (if the soldier opts for it). It doesn't have to be quite so harsh, does it?

You won't get any argument from me on that.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: You arbitrarily see what you want Chewie, but these bills are not applied unevenly or arbitrarily. Far from it. It's quite a clear-cut, easily defined, and long standing practice. Soldiers in a combat zone keep the food allowance; all other soldiers are billed.

Where is this easily defined and clear-cut if the law says all the soldiers should be billed for overpayment when food is already provided?

Those who are maimed are paid disability for the rest of their lives. As to the points of the story, I got them all, even the salient ones you didn't list, so I find it ironic that you would actually point out how someone would ignore the true point(s) of a story in order to further their viewpoint. [img]smile.gif[/img] Of course, I wasn't clear enough in the statement you quoted. The point of this story being posted in this forum was to point out how poorly the US treats it's military men and women. I think skunk will back me up on that.

Your opinion is that the article is all about how poorly the U.S. treats it's soldiers. It is my opinion that was not the point of the article. I think the article reported some facts and viewpoints on the topic and we are allowed to come our own opinions on the issue. I could careless why the article was posted in this forum. The substance of the article is what I'm discussing, not the intentions of the poster(s).

By the way, a soldier in the hospital for a month would be charged...um... $243, but they would only be billed after they'd received $243 dollars to use for food. Let's see, they are given $243 to buy food for a month, and they are then billed $243 for a month's worth of food they haven eaten. Yep, it's diabolical.

I never said it was diabolical. I think it is a flawwed practice that lacks sensible compassion. A soldier in the hospital for 6 months would get a food bill for well over a 1000 dollars. Like it has been mentioned, I think we need an alternatives, perhaps not paying the soldier a food stipend while in the hospital or perhaps making it a long standing tradition to bend the rules for soldiers with injuries that occured in a combat zone.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Where is this easily defined and clear-cut if the law says all the soldiers should be billed for overpayment when food is already provided? It's easily defined because only soldiers who are in a combat area are exempt. That is one very specific group of soldiers who receive one very specific benefit. It's very clear cut. Your opinion is that the article is all about how poorly the U.S. treats it's soldiers. It is my opinion that was not the point of the article. I think the article reported some facts and viewpoints on the topic and we are allowed to come our own opinions on the issue. I could careless why the article was posted in this forum. The substance of the article is what I'm discussing, not the intentions of the poster(s). No Chewie, that is not my opinion of the ARTICLE. I took in all of its nuances quite clearly. The paragraph of mine you didn't respond to in my previous post was the paragraph in which I stated that perhaps I was not clear enough. It was not the ARTICLE that stated how poorly the soldiers are treated, it was the purpose of this article appearing in this forum to show how poorly they are treated. Now while skunk denied his *main* objective was to make that point, his admittedly emotion responses, including the one about selling the soldier's Purple Heart to pay the bill since it "OBVIOUSLY meant nothing to his country" prove the point I was making. By the way, I'm not questioning skunk's posting of this article nor his response to my musing about its purpose, but I think he will admit(help me out here "stinky one" [img]smile.gif[/img] ) that the "flavor" this thread took on WAS about how poorly the US is treating it's soldiers. I think it is a flawwed practice that lacks sensible compassion. A soldier in the hospital for 6 months would get a food bill for well over a 1000 dollars. Like it has been mentioned, I think we need an alternatives, perhaps not paying the soldier a food stipend while in the hospital or perhaps making it a long standing tradition to bend the rules for soldiers with injuries that occured in a combat zone. Again, on this issue, we are in perfect agreement. It was handled in a crappy manner and had to feel like a kick in the teeth to the guy who was dealing with his loss. Fortunately, they are trying to eliminate this practice. If it can't be eliminated, then the smart money is on withholding the food payment in similar situations, or at least letting the soldiers know BEFOREHAND how this deal actually works, so they won't end up spending the money. I vote for eliminating the practice all together though because it seems right, it's simpler, and if the truth is known, it would probably be cheaper. Based on the bureaucracy involved, it would probably cost more money for the paperwork and red tape involved in withholding the payment, than it would to let the guys keep the money.

[ 09-16-2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Davros]

Chopping up posts and inserting coloured replies - geesh Ronn - you gave me a flashback there

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Davros: Chopping up posts and inserting coloured replies - geesh Ronn - you gave me a flashback there

Don't start none... won't be none. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You should have seen that monster before I took out the oldest set of quotes and added color. Now that was scary.