Veterans fight provision in bill

Washington Times ^ | Thursday, September 11, 2003 | By Joyce Howard Price

[JohnHuang2]

Veterans groups are calling a proposed provision to the 2004 defense authorization bill "outrageous and shameful" because it would limit benefits for disabilities sustained during military service in exchange for providing better pensions for disabled veterans.

At issue is a plan proposed by House Republicans that would deny disability compensation and health care to those who sustain injuries while in the service that are not related directly to performance of their official duties. The bill is in conference.

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, September 11, 2003

Quote of the Day by ALASKA

[bicycle thug]

Now this is a touchy subject. America needs to take care of her veterans better. Shaving benefits is simply not the way to do it.

I know I am still angry at the Reagan administration for denying unemployment to ETSing (exiting) troops on the grounds it was a voluntary departure from a job much as if we were 'at will' employees.

This was in that administration's early days, and they caught a great deal of flack and back up restoring only half of earned unemployment insurance.

Military service is done by the 'term' of emlistment. One contracts on the way in for a set amount of years. If I had known the government would change the rules of the game, I would have thought twice about going in in 1976.

It made it very hard for me to get established back home and to get into school to use my GI Bill.

If you want the all volunteer military to work, you have to take care of the troops and veterans. Period.

[FlyVet]

For years, veterans organizations have demanded that the 19th-century law that limits the retirement income of disabled veterans be changed, but they want nothing to do with a provision under consideration that would limit the "concurrent benefit" to veterans whose injuries are not a "direct result of the performance of duty."

Not? It seems backwards to me. If there is to be any benefit increase, I would think those who were injured in performance of duty, especially in combat, should be first in line.