Gaming the System

[s_stabeler]

So, none for people who are legitimately serving, but happen to be injured on the job but outside of combat?

depends, but they generally would.

[siead_lietrathua]

So, none for people who are legitimately serving, but happen to be injured on the job but outside of combat?

i would assume, from the way the thread was going, that they meant the restriction while people are in these 'training academies' where they aren't yet fully trained soldiers.
there's a difference between saying kids in a prep school that can fast track them to the military should have restrictions, VS people serving in the actual military should have restrictions.

[HYHYBT]

i would assume, from the way the thread was going, that they meant the restriction while people are in these 'training academies' where they aren't yet fully trained soldiers.
there's a difference between saying kids in a prep school that can fast track them to the military should have restrictions, VS people serving in the actual military should have restrictions.

Which is exactly why I was so surprised to see a post apparently wishing to extend the restrictions even to many genuine veterans.

[wolfie]

My uncle who is a Navy Vet refuses to even get a vetran's license plate because he didn't see active duty,

Do you mean:
1) Uncle enlisted, but something happened (wash out, injured and medically discharged, etc.) before he finished training?
2) Uncle enlisted in the Naval Reserve, but other than the routine weekend per month and 2 weeks per year, never saw service?
3) Uncle served, but his ship never went into a combat zone?

If 2 or 3, he's definitely entitled to a vetran's plate - at any time, he COULD have been sent into a combat zone, just the roll of the dice that he wasn't.

Why is it that the REAL veterans are reluctant to take what's owed to them, but slime are allowed to stretch things to grab benefits? See Maj. Burns' (M*A*S*H) Purple Heart for "injury due to shell fragment" when it was an EGG shell.

[lordlundar]

Because the real veterans realize that simply getting out alive is reward enough while the slime think the world owes them everything?

[s_stabeler]

Which is exactly why I was so surprised to see a post apparently wishing to extend the restrictions even to many genuine veterans.

I worded it rather poorly, and no, I don't think actual veterans should face harsh restrictions on disability benefits. What I was thinking of was situations like in the OP, where the injury had very little to do with the military.

[hinakiba777]

Wolfie, his ship just never went to a combat zone. I think lordlundar summed it up pretty well. I think that my uncle feels honoured to have served his country, but doesn't feel he's sacrificed enough to be worthy of the plate. Then are some people who think about what they can do for others, and some people who only wonder what others can do for them.

[Panacea]

Wait, he got disability for a football injury after having continued to play football?

How can they possibly know that his injury as a cadet was what caused his disability and not further injury sustained over the next X years?

Exactly. They can't know.

I don't even care if it is a football injury. If he were to be paralyzed or severely shatter something, I could understand. But a twisted ankle is not a valid reason for benefits.

If the injury is service connected, I have no problem with including it. Many seriously disabled vets need to accumulate a list of problems in order to reach full disability, and I don't consider that gaming the system. I consider that following through on the promises we made our veterans when they signed up or were drafted.

So, none for people who are legitimately serving, but happen to be injured on the job but outside of combat?

If the injury is service connected they can and should get benefits. If the injury happened on their part time job at McDonalds, then it's not service connected. But if the injury happened while performing military duties, then yes it should be included even if it wasn't in a combat zone.

Wolfie, his ship just never went to a combat zone. I think lordlundar summed it up pretty well. I think that my uncle feels honoured to have served his country, but doesn't feel he's sacrificed enough to be worthy of the plate. Then are some people who think about what they can do for others, and some people who only wonder what others can do for them.

My Dad was like your Uncle. He served on a troop transport during the Korea War. He was involved in one major military operation: the landing at Inchon. He never came under direct fire; by the time he landed troops (he was in the LV) on shore the fighting had moved inland.

He couldn't have missed the bodies, though. He wouldn't ever talk about it.

He would not apply to the VA for benefits, he felt the VA was for the guys who'd gotten hurt in combat.

[s_stabeler]

If the injury is service connected they can and should get benefits. If the injury happened on their part time job at McDonalds, then it's not service connected. But if the injury happened while performing military duties, then yes it should be included even if it wasn't in a combat zone.

That, more or less, is what I was getting at. If the injury was done while performing military duties, then someone should be entitled to veteran disability benefits. If they are not performing military duties, then they should not be. (in the case of the part time job at McDonalds, then it's McDonalds that should be forced to pay.)

[HYHYBT]

I worded it rather poorly, and no, I don't think actual veterans should face harsh restrictions on disability benefits. What I was thinking of was situations like in the OP, where the injury had very little to do with the military.

Thanks for clearing that up. I figured you probably either meant it that way or else, possibly, hadn't thought it through that far, but better to ask than to assume.