"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Tuesday ruled that the U.S. government does not owe free lifetime medical care to World War II and Korean War veterans who agreed to serve 20 years in exchange, despite promises made to them when they were in the armed forces. "
A promise, made in writing by our government is worth nothing it seems. This tells the millitary that they can promise anything to troops - anything at all, even in writing, and they won't be obligated to stick to it.
On the other hand, if you're in the armed services or thinking about joining, if YOU go back on your SPOKEN WORD; i.e. your Oath you swear to defend this country, then they can hang you!
Beats me why anynone would want to spend their time in the military anymore under any circumstances. Betrayal, it seems, is endorsed by the Supreme Court. So much for High Moral Standards!
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Nov 19, 2002 11:10 PM ]
posted on November 20, 2002 02:46:45 PM new Disgraceful!
Now it will be a Supreme Court case...Probably not much hope there either.
"The veterans will seek a Supreme Court hearing, said their lawyer, George "Bud" Day, a retired Air Force colonel who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam with Sen. John McCain R-Arizona."
"We're not down," Day said by telephone from his Florida office. "We have to fight."
posted on November 20, 2002 10:38:18 PM new
We'll see this as a litmus test of the Supreme Court. Should they F**K the millitary this way, their support of the Republicans will dwindle. Some of those generals are pretty sleasey politically, but not a one of them would backstab the troops in this fashion!
If you ever saw the movie "Heartbreak Ridge" with Clint Eastwood, image that Gunny Sarget retiring after all of those years of service and dedication, only to discover that he'd been stabbed in the back by his own government! What about him, his risking his life for 20 years in cobat and thay dedication to this country? What of the millions like him? Whether they come out whole after 20 years or in pieces after a day, they both deserve everything that the government can give them in the way of care.
And Bush has not spoken out publically about this. Maybe he likes the savings. "The ruling will potentially save the government billions of dollars in health care costs." That would add a drop or two to his War Budget for Iraq Oil.
posted on November 21, 2002 05:25:39 AM new Earlier versions of the bill included a “concurrent receipt,” plan, which allowed disability pay on top of retirement pay for all disabled military retirees, [b]BUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD THREATENED TO VETO THE BILL IF THAT PROVISION WAS INCLUDED, ANGERING VETERANS' GROUPS AND SOME LEGISLATORS.
“Unfortunately, under pressure from the Bush White House, the bill's conferees dropped the ball when it came time to help our disabled retirees,” said Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-Texas, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “Though the bill includes nominal changes to the current restrictions on 'concurrent receipt' of disability benefits and retirement pay, the changes won't really help. It's truly a shame that we again missed this opportunity to do the right thing by our disabled retirees.”
What will it take to bring it to the attention of the average American that they are being led by a ruthless administration only interested in the pockets of the weatlhy?
posted on November 21, 2002 05:30:12 AM new
Guest Column by: U.S. Representative Tom Allen November 15, 2002
On November 11, we honored America's veterans. However, unless we fulfill our promises to these brave men and women who gave so much to our nation, parades and speeches in their honor will be hypocritical gestures.
One such promise, enunciated by President Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address, is "To care for him who shall have borne the battle...." Yet, for more than a century, America's disabled veterans have not been treated fairly, and recent efforts to rectify the problem have met with an astonishing roadblock. When Congress reconvenes in a "lame duck" session in mid-November, I hope political considerations will be laid to rest and justice finally done. The issue in controversy is known as "concurrent receipt." Under a law enacted in 1892, veterans eligible for both retirement pay from the Department of Defense and disability benefits from the Veterans Administration have every single dollar of their disability benefits deducted from their retirement pay. In effect, these veterans are funding their own disability compensation. Military retirees are the only federal retirees subject to this ban. If, for example, an Army veteran with a service-connected disability becomes eligible for civil service retirement benefits after working in the U.S. Commerce Department, he or she is entitled to both retirement and VA disability payments in full. In many cases, individuals can include their military service time in their federal retirement calculation. The concurrent receipt ban ignores the different purposes of disability and retirement benefits. Disability benefits are intended to compensate the recipient for pain, suffering and loss of earning capacity. Clearly, a veteran who has suffered service-connected injuries or illnesses so severe as to warrant disability benefits has a more limited choice of gainful employment opportunities. In many cases, these veterans are unable to work at all Retirement pay, on the other hand, is an earned benefit, based on a service member's years of service and highest pay level. Indeed, the military retirement system (which allows active duty career personnel to retire at any age with an immediate annuity upon completing 20 years of service) is essential to recruiting and maintaining sufficient high quality career personnel. Without this benefit, too few personnel would be willing to put up with the great difficulties of a military career. By encouraging retirement, the system also prevents the armed services from becoming overloaded with over-age or unfit officers and NCOs. (At the same time, however, the Defense Department can coax personnel to stay beyond 20 years service through special pay, bonuses, and other incentives.) This year, it looked like this discriminatory policy would finally be abandoned. The House Armed Services Committee, on which I serve, adopted in the FY2003 Defense Authorization bill a gradual phase-in of full concurrent receipt for veterans with a 60 percent disability rating or higher, starting in 2004 and fully phased in by 2007. The Senate then endorsed a full repeal of the offset. Shockingly, the Bush Administration lodged an objection and stated it would veto the Defense Authorization bill if it contained either the House or Senate versions. I wrote the President to urge him to drop the veto threat. As a conferee on the Defense Authorization bill, I have advocated inclusion of concurrent receipt, and hope that the President sees fit not to veto the bill over Congress' effort to restore pay fairness to veterans. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership, ignoring the seemingly veto-proof, bipartisan support for this change in the law (92 percent of House Members are cosponsors), has sided with the administration. They have blocked progress on the important defense bill unless concurrent receipt is taken out, which not only denies restored pay to disabled veterans, but denies certain active duty personnel targeted pay raises, bonuses and incentive payments that would be authorized under the bill. Now that the elections are over, and Republicans are in control of the Senate and House, the prospects for reform are even less clear. With two years before the next national election, some Members of Congress may feel they can support the President by reversing their positions. I hope they do not abandon our disabled veterans, and I will continue to work hard to bring this matter to a successful vote. With about a thousand World War II veterans dying every day, we cannot wait much longer to keep our promise.
posted on November 21, 2002 05:56:52 AM new
Teach a few hundred thousand men how to kill and rain all sorts of mayhem on the enemy - make promises to them and then screw them over.
Does not sound like a smart thing to do to me.
Some one of them might just get pissed enough to rip your intestines out and strangle you with them after you give them both skills and motive.
