Posts
Taken in its entirety from Task And Purpose:
Normally, Thanksgiving is synonymous with food, family, friends, and giving thanks. For @TheEconomist, Thanksgiving apparently means taking a turkey-sized dump on disabled veterans. The other day I had the unfortunate opportunity to read an unattributed article on The Economist titled, “American veterans now receive absurdly generous benefits” and it left me with a lot of thoughts. (You can read it for yourself here: https://econ.st/3D0Nk87, just be ready to sign up for a subscription.)
The piece on The Economist has no author and reads like it was poorly run through ChatGPT. And the title of the piece is insultingly stupid. The definition of absurd is “wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.” I’d challenge the anonymous cowards at The Economist to illuminate us on which parts of veterans’ healthcare and benefits are inappropriate, illogical, or wildly unreasonable?
I am a disabled veteran. I had my right leg blown to pieces on September 4, 2006, in Fallujah, Iraq. Since that time, I have had to walk with an above the knee prosthetic and I have not had an easy day physically for as long as I can remember. Hey, The Economist, which portion of my healthcare or benefits are wildly unreasonable?
Service to our country can be an incredibly uplifting and positive experience for many who wore the uniform, but that service can also involve hazards. Some disabled veterans struggle physically or mentally with the effects of their service. Bullet wounds, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Post Traumatic Stress, and other effects of a service can sometimes cause chronic issues for veterans, and providing care and benefits for those issues is certainly not inappropriate or illogical.
While the AI assisted “journalists” at The Economist boldly chose not to put their name on this piece, they did attribute a quote to another non-expert in veteran benefits, Mark Duggan from Stanford University. Mark foolishly stated about VA Disability and Compensation, “Once you qualify you have an incentive not to get better.” An incentive not to get better?!?!? Hey Mark, any clue how I can get my right leg back? I’d gladly give back the money I’ve received so I can get up out of bed without the assistance of a wheelchair or a prosthetic.
The meandering poorly structured article in The Economist highlighted a lot of increased numbers and statistics, many of these figures quoted began back in 2001. It highlighted the increased number of veterans with high disability ratings beginning to increase in 2001. However, nowhere in the article does it state what else began back in 2001. These dopes conveniently left out the Global War on Terror that began in 2001 lasted for TWENTY YEARS! A full 20 years of the same all-volunteer force serving over and over, and over again in the same toxic hellholes fighting the same brutal terrorists. Gee, I wonder why today’s veterans are presenting with more chronic ailments than generations that came before us.
Ivy League elitists like Mark Duggan and the pretentious wankers at the Economist clearly didn’t bother to do much research on veteran disability or bother to speak to one of the millions of disabled veterans like me. We would have told these arrogant snobs that certain injuries and illnesses are with us for life, and no disability rating is worth the difficulties that come with some of the aftereffects of service.
The real cherry on top of this turd sundae was the lazy suggestion (possibly lifted from the fools at the @washingtonpost Editorial Board) that VA should means test veterans before receiving benefits. As in, if you make enough money after service, you won’t be taken care of for the costs of war. If The Economist had bothered to attribute a name to this drivel, I would ask that idiot, “how would you means test my inability to teach my son to ride a bike?” It’s a pretty routine joy that most parents get the privilege of taking part in. However, my prosthetic leg doesn’t really function in a way that allows normal bike riding. So that is a simple joy I won’t get. How exactly do buffoons like Mark Duggan and the dollar store journalists at The Economist suggest factoring in that loss?
The last paragraph of this loosely compiled puddle of garbage juice included the statement, “Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise. America’s veteran obsession has gone too far.” — TOO FAR?!?!? Holy hell, this sounds like it was written by a jealous also-ran who every veteran has probably met. The guy or girl who “totally would’ve joined…but I didn’t because I would’ve told-off a Drill Instructor if they got in my face”. Losers…
In the future, if any major publication wants to embarrass themselves by anonymously taking shots at disabled veterans, I’d like to offer my services. I can start by helping you research this subject to learn about the actual effects of service-connected injuries and illness. I can also connect you with other disabled veterans so you can hear first-hand accounts of some of the difficulties veterans face. I could even help google image search pictures of actual veterans, instead of the stock photo of firefighters The Economist used at the top of its trash piece on veterans. Then finally, if you are still intent on disparaging disabled veterans, I can assist you in removing your head from your ass…free of charge.
Patrick Murray, national legislative service director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars office in Washington, D.C.
I can't find a lot (or anything) to disagree with here. Spending on veterans is among the first things DC nukes when they go towards balancing budgets.
I was there when Clinton was spending the peace dividend and noticing that a homeless people got better care from a for-profit hospital than a veteran got from the supposed-to-be-dedicated-to-them hospital.
I cannot help but wonder if there'd been proper care and therapy for my legs if I would be spared the constant pain from neuropathy.
I'm sure that FuzzyGeff and Technomad can relate stories about how bad I was hurting and what a charming fellow it made me.
But too many people think that because veterans will stoically suffer that we SHOULD.
I won't even get into the weeds of talking about how the same people talking about cutting off support for veterans are the same assholes that tie the military's hands and prolong conflicts and assure there be no victory, lasting or fleeting.
Billions, trillions for illegal aliens. Billions, trillions for drug abusers and criminals of all variety.
ReplyDeleteBut not a cent for Veterans?
Well, "The Economist" is a lefty rag.
And anyone who thinks socialized medicine is a good thing really needs to talk to Veterans about the VA or dependents and service members who have used base/post/fort military hospitals.
I remember after both the Gulf War and the start of the GWOT that Walter Reed, the main hospital for treating big wounds, had sections that would have been condemned if they were found in a 'civilian' hospital. Sure, the part the President and dignitaries go was nice, but the hell wards that were for service members were as bad or worse in physical condition (and often staff and materials) than your average ghetto health clinic.
Anyone, of either gender or any orientation, who suggests cutting veterans' benefits in print should be immediately sentenced to a non-negotiable five-year term of enlistment, with one year in each of the four primary services in the lowest enlisted grade, after an initial year completing basic training in all the services' respective recruit training establishments, one after the other, regardless of their current age or physical capabilities, then being assigned to a year apiece at the furthest-flung outposts of hell on the planet, one of them being a full year (including wintering over) at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. A substantial portion should also involve cleaning ships' bilges by hand. All injuries or disabilities being suffered being entirely subject to the whims of reality, and no grounds for so much as a gripe, let alone mitigation of the sentence. They should all be fully subject to the UCMJ during this enlistment, and receive the exact same treatment for any defects or failures to abide by standard service discipline and order.
ReplyDeleteWhen an even 1000 of such shit-headed mewling and previously never-served punk bastards had completed such terms of service, they should be re-polled about veterans' benefits, and the majority opinion at that point should become federal law regarding veterans' benefits for the next century, which benefits they authorized would also become their mandatory system for life upon reaching retirement age, or earlier if and when disabled.
I'm pretty sure they'd mandate that the profits from the various state lotteries, and the entire budget of the BATFE, should be moved from the broken education system and that worthless agency, straight over to the VA, at that point.
No wonder the gutless communist pukes at The Economist were too chickenshit to sign such a screed. They're justifiably afraid of finding out the meaning of the military term "blanket party" from the tens of thousands of disabled veterans they insulted.