Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government helps the vets!!!!!! Have you not heard of the scandals with the veteran's hospitals that no one would take their dog to?
You call THAT care,and how about all the experiments the government has done to enlisted personnel oh and most recently the threats made to our soldiers and their families to keep their mouths shut about their tour of duty in the middle east?
As a retired vet, the VA does help, I'm at 70% disabled. Do you think that all VA offices are like that?
Provide REPUTABLE links to your second paragraph...
As a retired vet, the VA does help, I'm at 70% disabled. Do you think that all VA offices are like that?
Provide REPUTABLE links to your second paragraph...
My own limited use of the VA system left me very impressed with the quality of care. So far any PCP I ever had took way less interest in my well-being than that VA doc.
If I hire on at a dangerous job- say as a lumberjack- and lose a leg... well that's my choice and I have to live with it.
Why are soldiers exempt from that choice?
To the bold part....have you ever been a Soldier?
Of course not, a "lumber jack" can walk away, now be honest, can a Soldier walk away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
If they were drafted, or if we were actually in danger as a nation, I could see it. But people going to fight in wars of choice because they want that nice combat paycheck?
That looks like opportunism to me. Not sure why I should subsidize that.
WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
SO please tell us how YOU subsidize this? How do you subsidize a person who DONATES money, to ANY charity?
So, what choice does any Soldier have to go to war? Or is this like you subsidize donations...
My own limited use of the VA system left me very impressed with the quality of care. So far any PCP I ever had took way less interest in my well-being than that VA doc.
Agreed, I use VA for the 7 things I was provided the appropriate % for....
I looked up their mission statement, and i have no issue with what they do. I understand that it's a charity. Fine and good.
But WHY is this necessary? This organization was made to serve veterans (disabled) of actions post 9.11, and if i remember right, the American people in majority numbers were quite gung-ho about going to these wars and actions. Some still want to go back over there and fight ISIS and one poll i saw showed that a majority of Americans would support it.
So since we were so gung ho to go to war, why aren't we paying for these soldiers needs with our tax money? Why is a charity obviously needed to fill the gaps that we as tax payers aren't filling ourselves? I don't give a damn if our taxes have to go up...if that's what's needed then our taxes should be raised until there's enough to money to take care of every last need these vets have. And they shouldn't have any co-pays either.
I'm not sure why, but although i find this charitable organization to be noble, i'm annoyed that there's a need for its existence. Maybe i'm out of line here, but i'm sure that i'll be straightened out by some of the more informed people that might chime in on the thread if i'm wrong.
No veteran should be homeless unless by choice, no veteran should have to fight for medical care, no veteran that is able and needs to work should be unemployed. What burns my ass is how freely our tax dollars go to Syria and other terrorist countries, to able bodied people who sit on their ass all day and ***** while sucking entitlement teet all the while teaching their children how to game the system. Billions of dollars to house rapists, thieves, arsonists, pedophiles and murders. Corporations that get tax credits. Yet, through all this, the very people who fought for this country suffer.
I looked up their mission statement, and i have no issue with what they do. I understand that it's a charity. Fine and good.
But WHY is this necessary? This organization was made to serve veterans (disabled) of actions post 9.11, and if i remember right, the American people in majority numbers were quite gung-ho about going to these wars and actions. Some still want to go back over there and fight ISIS and one poll i saw showed that a majority of Americans would support it.
So since we were so gung ho to go to war, why aren't we paying for these soldiers needs with our tax money? Why is a charity obviously needed to fill the gaps that we as tax payers aren't filling ourselves? I don't give a damn if our taxes have to go up...if that's what's needed then our taxes should be raised until there's enough to money to take care of every last need these vets have. And they shouldn't have any co-pays either.
I'm not sure why, but although i find this charitable organization to be noble, i'm annoyed that there's a need for its existence. Maybe i'm out of line here, but i'm sure that i'll be straightened out by some of the more informed people that might chime in on the thread if i'm wrong.
Of course not, a "lumber jack" can walk away, now be honest, can a Soldier walk away?
Soldiers know what they're signing up for. They sign up knowing damn well that it's a term of indenture and that it's their job to mindlessly follow orders. That includes using them as cannon-fodder in service of corporate profits. Or torture and killing of innocent civilians.
This is something they either know or damn well SHOULD know when they sign up. It's a free choice.
Why should I subsidize another man's free choice?
Quote:
WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
SO please tell us how YOU subsidize this? How do you subsidize a person who DONATES money, to ANY charity?
So, what choice does any Soldier have to go to war? Or is this like you subsidize donations...
Desertdetroiter and I were talking about veteran's benefits in general. Try to keep up.
If I hire on at a dangerous job- say as a lumberjack- and lose a leg... well that's my choice and I have to live with it.
Why are soldiers exempt from that choice?
If they were drafted, or if we were actually in danger as a nation, I could see it. But people going to fight in wars of choice because they want that nice combat paycheck?
That looks like opportunism to me. Not sure why I should subsidize that.
bolded: Workers' compensation is a state-regulated insurance program that provides covered employees with income and medical benefits if they sustain a work-related injury or illness.
Soldiers are government property, if they are injured at work (e.g. lost an arm or a leg in combat) Why shouldn't they be compensated?
With all due respect, can you give me a valid reason why should soldiers be discriminated against simply because they signed up to serve their country? If some of you you argue that they signed up for a pay check, then you should agree that they are employees, You do the job, you get paid. Employees deserve to be protected under labor law, they deserve workers' compensation just like everybody else.
Only fair.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 07-05-2015 at 04:46 PM..
bolded: Workers' compensation is a state-regulated insurance program that provides covered employees with income and medical benefits if they sustain a work-related injury or illness.
Soldiers are government property, if they are injured at work (e.g. lost an arm or a leg in combat) Why shouldn't they be compensated?
With all due respect, can you give me a valid reason why should soldiers be discriminated against simply because they signed up to serve their country? If some of you you argue that they signed up for a pay check, then you should agree that they are employees, You do the job, you get paid. Employees deserve to be protected under labor law, they deserve workers' compensation just like everybody else.
Only fair.
That's a great argument. In principle I can't disagree.
It's been my experience that the vast majority of PEACE-TIME military disability is little more than welfare for veterans. But really that's more a problem of administration than principle.
That's a great argument. In principle I can't disagree.
It's been my experience that the vast majority of PEACE-TIME military disability is little more than welfare for veterans. But really that's more a problem of administration than principle.
Good job Lily!
Thank you.
bolded: My own bro is a peace time Marine. He injured his knee during training. He also did ops overseas, so he was a combat Marine served in peace time. He didn't apply for any "benefits" because he did not need it or want it. (or maybe he just didn't know what he was qualified for. Lol) But I can see why some peace time soldiers or Marines apply for benefits, I feel I cannot really judge them. Just because you served during peace time, doesn't mean you haven't been in combat, actually, many peace time Marines did very dangerous ops overseas, just because you served during war time, doesn't mean you have seen combat. As long as it is service related injuries, I think they can apply for benefits, Government can always say no. This is just my opinion anyway.
Soldiers cannot give the government their 2 weeks notice. So I feel they should be well taken care of.
I volunteer at VA hospital, I see a a lot of homeless "veterans" on weekend. (we have this "feed the homeless vet" program on weekends ) My friends (real veterans) told me that many of these homeless "vets" don't look like vets at all. LOL So a lot of times, it is the veteran community help the civilian homeless, The food we use to give the homeless are turkey sandwiches, oranges, milk that were donated by companies. So it is not like we are using government's money.
It is always the veterans helping other veterans. My brother's restaurant only hires veterans. My retail shops hire a lot of veterans too. A gentleman hired a lot of jobless veterans (He is a contractor who served in the military. So he is a veteran himself. He just knows what others went through I guess)
Most civilians don't care about veterans, I feel only veterans and military families care. In my most humble opinion.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 07-05-2015 at 06:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you not heard of the scandals with the veteran's hospitals that no one would take their dog to?
He injured his knee during training. He also did ops overseas, so he was a combat Marine served in peace time. He didn't apply for any "benefits" because he did not need it or want it. (or maybe he just didn't know what he was qualified for. Lol) But I can see why some peace time soldiers or Marines apply for benefits, I feel I cannot really judge them. Just because you served during peace time, doesn't mean you haven't been in combat, actually, many peace time Marines did very dangerous ops overseas, just because you served during war time, doesn't mean you have seen combat. As long as it is service related injuries, I think they can apply for benefits, Government can always say no. This is just my opinion anyway.
