In our 6th year of the Middle Eastern wars, our military has revived and utilized a dirty trick they used during the Vietnam War. When the soldiers and Marines returned to bases back in the states, they experienced the symptoms of PTSD, they tried drinking the nightmares away, they were late to work in the mornings due to hangovers, they became "problem soldiers" and the military had them labeled as "troublemakers" sent them to the military hospitals and their doctors gave them the diagnosis of "Personality Disorders" a condition that is attributed to their childhoods, problems with parents, siblings, school authorities, local police, etc.
A disgnosis that absolved the government from any liability for medical care or compensation due to the veterans PTSD caused by traumatic events they endured during their time in the war zone.
There is a lot being written right now on this subject and it has also been part of the focus of Congressional hearings this week as part of the VDBC follow up
Committee members and Terry spent much of the hearing agreeing that the military needs more doctors who can identify and competently address PTSD. Joshua Kors has chronicled for The Nation has how some military doctors avoid dealing with PTSD by falsely diagnosing veterans with a pre-existing personality disorder instead.
As Kors reported, if the military diagnoses a personality disorder as a pre-existing condition, then it does not have to pay for medical benefits. According to the commission's report, in the mid-1980s, the Pentagon, as a cost-cutting measure, encouraged military doctors to diagnose veterans with only one condition. That means that if a military doctor can diagnose a veteran suffering from PTSD with another pre-existing condition, the pentagon does not have to provide treatment for PTSD.
Committee chair Bob Filner, a California Democrat, said he hoped he could add an amendment to this year's military spending bill that would deny the Pentagon this dodge. What about overhauling the entire dysfunctional veterans' health care system? Filner said that while he strongly agrees with the commission's recommendations for fundamental change he doubts Congress can take up this matter until next year.
The Nations Joshua Kors has documented in this story and this April 9, 2007 article about a Specialist Jon Town and his battle with a PDO disgnosis at Fort Carson, Colorado where a lot of the national story has focused.
This Stars and Stripes article explains the motivation for the creation of the VDBC and the people pushing the idea, it shows how "Republicans" really mean with the term "Support the Troops"
In 2004, House Republican leaders, pressured by the Bush administration, opposed expansion of benefits for disabled retirees and surviving widows. When forced to reverse course that election year, the Republican majority insisted on creation of a bipartisan commission to study disability benefits. House leaders believed it could be a tool to get veterans’ entitlement growth under control.
Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., as he assumed chairmanship of the House Veterans Affairs Committee in 2005, said he looked for the commission to consider tightening the definition of service-connected disabilities and whether Congress went too far in lifting the ban on concurrent receipt for all retirees rated 100 percent disabled.
That's right they wanted a commission to recommend CUTTING Compensation this is really the way to support disabled soldiers and or their widows.
This goes along with DOD's Under Secretary DR David Chu's longstanding opinion of the cost of disabled veterans and military retiree's as shown in this Wall StreetJournal article
With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan badly straining its forces, the Pentagon is facing an awkward problem: Military retirees and their families are absorbing billions of dollars that military leaders would rather use to help troops fighting today.
"The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself," says David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness.
Rising veterans' benefits are a big factor behind the billions of dollars in weapons cuts to be proposed when President Bush unveils next year's budget blueprint early next month. New retiree entitlements also are crimping the Pentagon's ability to increase incentives for enlistment at a time of dangerous, yearlong Iraq deployments.
Today retirees account for about 50% of all Tricare beneficiaries, up from 40% in 2000. To cover the cost of these new enrollees, the Pentagon has had to shift about $2 billion a year into its health-care accounts primarily from new weapons-program accounts. "It is quite painful to reallocate that money," says Dr. Chu.
Painful, to the point they are hurtful, Military retirees and their families are absorbing billions of dollars that military leaders would rather use to help troops fighting today. hmmmmm whats wrong with these comments?
To throw a war and to be expected to actually pay for the damage they do to the volunteers that serve this nation conjure up statements like these from political appointees, without reprimands from the Secretary of Defense or the President of the United States, would make me beleive that they agree with them, I don't know about the rest of you but WTF?
Our nations disabled veterans, and military retirees and their families are owed medical care and compensation, we can NOT give them back their health, or the years they spent in service. Benefits are the only way to show our gratitude to the veterans for serving.
Discharging war veterans on PDO discharges is just flat wrong and Congress needs to stop this practice after combat vets come home and start suffering symptoms of PTSD.
UPDATE Hat tip to Worried Dem, I saw the commercial on TV today but he provided a link to the IAVA web page please watch the video and sign the petition to Congress thank you