Posted on 09/10/2003 10:13:59 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:07:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.