Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The LA Times reports:
In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.
Sen. Levin says this is not what they intended:
The group, which has called the policy revision a "shocking level of disrespect for those who stood in harm's way," is lobbying to have the change rescinded.Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for some veterans. "That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.
He added: "When the disability is the same, the impact on the service member should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred while training for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat in Iraq or Afghanistan."
Pentagon officials argue that benefits should be greater for veterans wounded in combat than for "members with disabilities incurred in other situations (e.g., simulation of war, instrumentality of war, or participation in hazardous duties, not related to combat)," Carr wrote.
The examples cited in the article certainly sound combat related:
Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.
In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not combat-related.
Politics
Comments
If those aren't combat injuries, then what is? Maybe the new definition means you have to be standing on your feet, facing an enemy, who shoots you with a gun? Hey, if we can exclude enough injuries, then we won't have to provide benefits to *anyone*! Go us!
Seriously, it is a *disgrace* the way we fail to take care of our veterans. From the lack of mental health care, to the long waiting lists for other needed services, and now this. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Mara | November 30, 2008 9:35 AM
Spending money on the cannon fodder means there will be less money to give to Halliburton and Blackwater.
Posted by: blf | November 30, 2008 10:04 AM
[sarcasm]Well, women are - by definition - not allowed to be in combat, so the Pentagon is merely following the dictates of their reality. [/sarcasm]
Of course, this is a stupid reason, since we all hear again and again that there is no such thing as a "front line" in Iraq.
Posted by: Umlud | November 30, 2008 10:45 AM
See, you're only "engaged in combat" if you're out there attacking terrorists, not if the terrorists are attacking you. Better to fight 'em there than to fight 'em here, right?
Only a hard-core cynic would ever suggest that they would do this merely to save money, right?
Anyone?
Buehler?
Posted by: BaldApe | November 30, 2008 10:47 AM
You know tht if you had univesal health coverage then veterans wouldn't have to beg for scraps from Halliburton's table just to survive.
Posted by: Graculus | November 30, 2008 10:53 AM
I don't think it's necessary to blame the policy change for this.
LA Times:
Reason: Bureaucrats reviewing case are incompetent.
LA Times:
Reason: Bureaucrats reviewing case are incompetent.
LA Times:
Reason: Bureaucrats implementing the policy are incompetent.
Posted by: Ex-drone | November 30, 2008 11:04 AM
Posted by: WScott | November 30, 2008 11:15 AM
Posted by: WScott | November 30, 2008 11:21 AM
"Actually, the military already has what amounts to universal, single-payer health care. And it sucks. Which is why so many veterans think universal health care is a terrible idea. But that's a different conversation."
So that leaves the question, does it suck because it cannot work or does it suck because we have had 12 years of Congress and 8 years of Bush, neither of whom believe in any role for government except stuffing the pockets of their campaign contributors?
FWIW, I visit a VA facility about 4 times a month with my 92 year old, WWII veteran, father. He has been getting care at least the equal to that I get for my family at around $15K/year. The people working at the VA facility are, almost without exception, competent, helpful, and cheerful. They are in marked contrast to the staff of any hospital or doctor's office that I have been in for the past 20 years.
-ct
Posted by: central texas | November 30, 2008 11:36 AM
Posted by: Pieter B | November 30, 2008 12:21 PM
Posted by: WScott | November 30, 2008 2:07 PM
Well, my uncle (ex-Navy) has a fairly good impression of the military's medical organization. Some VA hospitals, of course, are terrible (Walter Reed anyone?), so it sounds like the quality of care is inconsistent. Of course, even if on average it's good, if sometimes it's better than average, and sometimes lousy, that still means a bunch of people get royally screwed.
Posted by: MPL | November 30, 2008 3:37 PM
My experience is limited to being a single soldier in the Army. From that limited experience it's decent care...the quality seems to be better for service members families and dependents than for the actual service member.
Posted by: Laen | November 30, 2008 3:47 PM
Jeez, why would you want to fix broken toys when the recruiters can always get more, specially with the sucky new economy we've got.
Of course, the DoA saying that the sergeant's injuries might have been pre-existing, never let that stand in the way of letting her sign up. Fuck the fuckers.
Posted by: democommie | November 30, 2008 4:19 PM
Actually Demo brings up an interesting legal* point. Could Sgt Meshell sue the army for falsely stating that she was in good health before she served? Are the Army doctors lying about the health of recruits, or are they merely incompetent? If either are true, then that suggests "criminal negligence", but if untrue, then clearly she didn't have this bone-degeneration issue before serving and therefore the Army is responsible for the problem.
Time for the Army to deploy the legal mine clearing team. -DJ
*Disclosure - I am not a lawyer, I'm just asking the questions. I'm sure those who are better qualified than I can answer them.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 30, 2008 4:42 PM
the quality seems to be better for service members families and dependents than for the actual service member.
That's because the Feres Doctrine does not apply to them.
Posted by: I am so wise | November 30, 2008 4:51 PM
I never ceased to be amazed at how determined the Pentagon and for that matter the entire political establishment seems to be to screw over veterans, given that "supporting the troops" is the ultimate third rail in US politics. We can spend trillions of dollars prosecuting pointless wars, but we can't spend a few million looking after the people who fight them for us. It's a fucking disgrace.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 30, 2008 6:12 PM
I have never been in the service. My life timing was not right for that. Nevertheless, I believe that if a person hands over their life to their government - whether it be by draft or choice - and the government accepts, then the government is responsible for that person's life until death. Period. It is no longer the recruit's choice as to what situations to enter and what to avoid. Or what dangers may be encountered. Entering service should result in health care, pension, and housing, for life. Maybe not in luxury, but certainly the basics, and not reduced by extra income either. And I have no problems agreeing that my taxes be used for that purpose.
Do the bureaucrats who make these benefit determinations benefit personally in any way? How? Why? Who is better off for denying medical care to veterans? Where exactly does the "Follow the Money" trail lead and what can we do about it?
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | November 30, 2008 6:35 PM
FWIW I worked in the navy medical department for many years. The quality of care was very good--it birthed my children, fixed my knee and other medical and surgical problems, and provided excellent teaching hospitals with residencies for all the major specialties vetted by their relative colleges (profesional associations). We also sent patients to civilian medical centers as needed.
Oh, MPL, Walter Reed is an army hospital, not a VA hospital. The systems are entirely separate but both socialized (owned and operated by the government). The military also provides single-payer services through the insurance-like Tricare program (NOT >socialized medicine, despite what the Republicans say), which provides my wife and me (now retired) with civilian care at a very low cost.
Posted by: JakeR | November 30, 2008 7:00 PM
Re Ginger Yellow
Don't judge the military brass/management/bureaucracy's attitude toward veteran care solely on news articles decrying certain situations. This is indicative of the media self-selecting stories they feel are newsworthy.
Tornados do not veer toward trailer parks. Tornados that add an extra furrow to a farm field just are not as mediagenic as tornados which tear apart flimsy buildings constructed with staples and anchored down with some cinder blocks. Yet a survey of news articles over the course of a year would give an impression that trailer park seeking tornados do exist.
Did anyone read the news articles about the Pentagon regs concerning increased pay for injured soldiers? Soldiers now continue to receive bonus pay during injury rehabilitation, even though they technically no longer qualify for bonuses such as hazardous duty while back stateside undergoing rehab.
Nope. Probably did not read that, since it is not a news story likely to appeal to your local news editor looking for something to fill a few column inches. Just like that article on the tornado which hit nothing isn't likely to be widely printed.
Posted by: Sean | November 30, 2008 8:17 PM
To the bean-counters, troops are equipment. Like all other army equipment, they are intended to have a short lifespan but to be reliable within that lifespan. After, they are discarded.
Posted by: Paul Murray | November 30, 2008 8:37 PM
Like Jake, I'm retired military. I want to note that even injuries/illnesses that are judged non-combat are still compensated and treated through the VA as long as they are service-related. There are ADDITIONAL benefits for combat-wounded, but a veteran with service-connected injuries is not normally left completely out in the cold.
That being said, I can see how a sufficiently narrow-minded bureaucrat could judge SGT Meshell's injury as non-combat - basically, it probably resulted from a poor choice of where to take cover, rather than DIRECTLY from enemy action. She probably didn't get a Purple Heart, either. Cpl. Dixon, though...that's completely insane to me. Details in the story are sketchy - is it possible that his injuries came from a vehicle accident while fleeing the bomb zone, rather than directly from the mine/IED?
His comments about how his head injury and PTSD made it more difficult to fight his case are something I've heard in a LOT of cases. The military is trying to do better about getting such troops some representation, but apparently that's getting limited results. (99%+ of military people are very intent on getting these people everything they can. Even most of the bean-counters are okay with it...partly because most of the money comes out of VA funding, not DoD.)
If any of you know a veteran of ANY war who might be entitled to any form of compensation, but the VA is being difficult, please make sure they've talked to the volunteers at one or more of the service organizations - like the American Legion, VFW, etc. They'll help fill out paperwork, give (non-legal) advice, and help out however they can, even if the veteran isn't a member. I'm not a member, as the national groups are pretty intolerant of atheism...but give them their due, they do try to help all veterans.
Posted by: BobApril | November 30, 2008 9:44 PM
Yeah. Short lifespan.
That would explain why requests for proposals for new equipment never include sections of lifespans, longevity, upgrade paths, and future proofing. Them military elites are always using their unlimited budgets to purchase all new hardware constantly. Heck, those B-52s and C-130s have barely been used by the grandchildren of their original operators and the brass are already talking replacement!
Seriously. Just as the right wingers need to stop taking the talking points of talk radio as gospel, the left wingers need to examine some of their own capitalized Truths. Some ordnance dropped in the grand War on Terror dates back to Vietnam. The powder used in the main guns on battleships in the eighties came from World War II. KC-135s are 1950s airframes and are expected to fly for several more decades. I am not sure how modernizations programs are going, but at least as of the early nineties, military electronic techs still had to have knowledge of vacuum tubes for some legacy systems. Our local reserve unit uses, and deploys to combat zones, with engineering equipment dating to the sixties. The M1 Abrams came into service in 1980, and thanks to upgrade and refurb programs, is expected to be the American main battle tank well into the 2020s. Short lifespans?
And where the hell do you source your implication that considering troops as disposable items is somehow endemic in the US military. Never mind the hundreds of millions spent on medical care. The dedicated medical battalions. The specialized features in equipment which sacrifice performance for crew survivability. In your world, why do aircraft have ejection seats? Why the safeties on personal firearms? Why the self-sealing fuel bladders? Why the reinforced armor around crew positions?
Posted by: Sean | November 30, 2008 10:02 PM
If the policy change caused unintentional changes, steps should be taken to rectify the situation, but since that wasn't mentioned, it's kind of hard not to be cynical.
As a veteran of 8 years in the USAF, I have found that the care I got while on active duty (as an unmarried airman and NCO) was pretty much on par with what I've gotten as a civilian. That includes dental.
I feel I got the best care as a student in the Cal State system, though, FWIW.
Posted by: twincats | November 30, 2008 11:19 PM
I am retired Navy. My health care cost is $230 a year for TriCare. MY wife is on Medicare and our cost for TriCare for Life, the equivalent of additional insurance, is zero. The best part is that her dependant ID has an expiration date while my retiree ID does not. When she asked about that, the reply was "You may not always be a dependent. He will always be retired." LOL.
Posted by: JimS | December 1, 2008 8:06 AM
I enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in January, 1963 and retired from the U.S. Navy in August, 2007. (Was out from 1969 to 1980 to complete college and graduate work.) I have nothing but the highest regard for Navy medicine. From the battlefields of Vietnam until my retirement, and now into my retirement, I have received/am receiving medical care that I consider at least on a par with and, in my biased opinion, better than that offered through civilian facilities. I have had 7 surgeries resulting from wounds and injuries and have had no complaints in either case. My children received the best of care as long as they were dependents and my wife continues to receive care through the military Tri-Care Prime system. At age 65 we will both enter the Tri-Care For Life system and will pay the Medicare Part B premium (about $200.00 per month for both of us) and Tri-Care will cover the balance not covered by Medicare (no cost for Tri-Care). Under the Tri-Care For Life system we will be treated at civilian facilities rather than at Navy medical facilities. Personally, I would stay with Navy medicine if that were a choice.
I have had considerable experience with the VA system and have found it to be adequate in coverage and care; however, the VA system does seem to move a little "slower" than is desired.
I have noticed that some folks like to criticize any government system simply because it is a government system (and I understand the irritations that provoke these kinds of responses!). However, I would encourage critics to know what they are talking about so that their criticisms reflect truth and credibility. Military personnel are awarded disability compensation for service-connected disabilities regardless of whether or not they are combat related. Broken bones as a result of a parachute jump during a training exercise are viewed in the same light as broken bones resulting from a combat wound. However, one wouldn't expect to be awarded a Purple Heart for breaking an ankle during a jump at Camp Lejeune (my experience), whereas a Purple Heart is in order for wounds received as a result of direct combat with a designated enemy. I am aware of many veterans who were injured during their time in Vietnam but were not awarded the Purple Heart because their injuries did not result from direct combat action.
I concede that the military and VA systems are cumbersome and complex; however, they are not designed as evil systems that intend to deny military personnel and veterans the medical care that they need and have been promised. Finally, are there anecdotal horror stories about military/VA medicine? Indeed there are, and I have heard many of them but they are no more numerous or "horrible" than the anecdotal stories I have heard from those who receive civilian care.
Posted by: Norm Holcomb, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 1, 2008 9:36 AM
I've been fortunate to have had access to the best possible dental care I desired for my entire life; I've also lived in several zip codes across the U.S. (San Diego and San Jose CA, Clearwater FL, and Southern & now Northern Michigan).
The best dental care I've ever received is now and comes from a husband and wife team in private practice who received their initial experience serving as Navy Dentists, where the Navy funded Dental School for them. They claim they were exposed to and trained in the newest technologies and practices during their Navy stint and their care for my family correlates to our experience as well.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2008 11:35 AM
I have no doubt that VA or Military medical care can be of the highest quality. I also know that it can be abysmal. It's not the fault of the medical or VA personnel in most cases. I would lay the blame squarely at the feet of the pols. They're the ones who love to wave the flag before the elections and then turn their backs on the vets (especially the messily fucked up ones) when the sound bites are done.
Posted by: democommie | December 2, 2008 10:05 PM
than'k's's
Posted by: netlog | January 24, 2009 12:47 PM
I was injured in mosul iraq dec 21 04 when the chow hall was blew up by a suicide bomber, the VA has taken care of me, but I don't feel like Washington has. they give all typess of money away to bail out auto companies, banks but the ones whom defend the freedom so they can have these things they want to cut cut cut!!!
Like CRSC, I have a friend who never seen combat, was injuried in a training exercise. Not even a combat related exercise. He recieves and qualified for CRSC...because he did 20 years in the air forcce. I have 23 years of servvice split 6yrs regular army 17yrs reserve, was deployed with the reserves. Got injuried and disable from a bombing attack and I don't qualify. Who in Washington with there suit and ties on are making these rules. Sound to me like they need to strap on some camo and get them alittle action so they will have a better judgement of how the qualification need to be laid out! IT'S A B/S
Posted by: ssg phil elkins | February 5, 2009 12:06 AM