Replies

That system is diseased. A soldier wounded in combat should have greater benefits than one wounded in training or non-conflict duty. It shouldn't be based on length of service, it should be based on a system that values battlefield injuries received by veterans higher than routine workplace injuries regrdless of time of service.

I am so sorry for your condition ... you have my utmost gratitude and humble honor. But your injury is not comparable in any measurable way to a guy who pops a knee lifting a case of motor oil from a supply truck. Your injury is more important and deserving of tribute than the normal skeletal and muscle injuries that happen with all physical labor.

hetzman, your unfair situation is something I can get behind. My Senator Paul Wellstone is a freak, but he DOES chair the Veterans Affair committee I do believe (or he's a member, they're all equal Olympic Gods in that place). I'll be happy to place a call to his office on your behalf. Private e-mail me if you want me to, I can usually get to someone there who can rattle cages. I'll give him your phone number ... I thinks someone will call. That's a policy that needs review. Regards!

Indeed, as much as I hate to consider people for consumption, that is the fact of war and the military (pure consumption of the enemy's fighting and health abilities). In finance there is a risk reward ratio that is not perfect but at least sizable through a benchmark. A private company would do much better than the government is in pulling out a truly scientific benefit scenario. A healthy soldier who goes back to civilian life is a very liquid asset too. The loss of this liquidity needs to be accounted too. Then there are accounting, market and liquidation values, and many other values, that all conflict with each other.

In the end a government by the people has to fight on two fronts:

1. jurisdictional duty and care forces someone somewhere to help the ones in real need. This is the work of individual and local groups for veterans that have a claim that should be mandated.

2. Fighting against chaotic forces as a nation means one cannot fully rely on market values, since the market sometimes does profit from the unfortunate situations of some, as price gouging proves. This is of a wider more general job that Federal jurisdiction could undertake.

But I think many are losing the purposes of government and what is a reasonable jurisdiction of the Federal and a reasonable demand of duty from individuals.