Frontier 40th video
Giant Book Sale

Article Tools

Use the form below to share this article via email.


Your name:

Your email:

To email:

Message:

Possibly Related:

Veterans of the armed forces earn benefits by their service

Last updated: 09/01/09 10:47pm

Editor,

As a veteran of the U.S. armed forces, two emotions came to mind as I read James N. Post’s letter on veterans benefits.

The first emotion was that of pride. The Constitution guarantees not only the freedom of the press, but also the freedom of speech. When taking the oath of enlistment, you swear an allegiance to your country and the defending of the Constitution. Since Post used two of his entitlements, he let me know that my brothers and sisters in arms are doing their job.

The second emotion was outrage. As an incentive to defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, I was promised health care for my service. If your employer does not offer health care, that is your problem. Mine did, and I took advantage of it. As an incentive to stay in the military until retirement, I was offered health care for life. Just as an employer pays workers’ compensation, the government is responsible to compensate for injuries incurred on active duty.

What it comes down to is the veterans of the armed forces are given benefits for their service and sacrifice. I proudly served and am now attending UNM using my GI Bill. So, for defending your freedoms, I am able to educate myself for continued service.
Thank you, Mr. Post, and God bless America.

Thom Tolbert
UNM student

Published September 1, 2009 in Letters, Opinion

8 comments



chayal

September 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Flag this comment

And G-d bless you and thank you for your service Thom. Obambies such as post just don’t get it. Fortunately, he and his ilk are in the minority, while real freedom loving Americans like yourself are still in the majority, which bodes well for the future of our great nation. G-d bless America indeed!


Margaret King

September 2, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Flag this comment

I voted for Barach Obama because he epitomizes in an eloquent, caring way all that I feel about my country. He is a true patriot who salutes and treasures our service men and women. Our veterans are assured of continued health care, finacial assistance for education, and much more under his administration. Unfortunately, the previous administration tried to minimize contributions of veterans, and sought to reduce some of their benefits. My cousin was a Marine. He fought in Vietnam. My brother was a Marine. He fought in Korea. My Uncles fought in World War 11. In addition, my nephews, nieces and other family members were/are soldiers, sailors, airmen and members of the Coast Guard. All hail to our service men and women. Thank God for President Obama and his patriotism. We shall overcome GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all of his other cowardly “hawks”.


Tait

September 2, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Flag this comment

Considering the sorry state of his vaunted health care proposal, President Obama’s promise this week that there will be a health care overhaul by the end of this year – bipartisan support be damned – may sound like so much bluster. But there is reason to believe that the president intends to make good on his plans for a government-run health care system. Indeed, Obama is so desperate to his nationalized health system that this spring he tried to save money by having wounded veterans pay their own medical bills.

It may sound like the invention of Obama’s worst political enemies, but it is true. This March, Obama proposed that veterans’ insurance companies should be made to pay for their treatment of service-connected injuries and disabilities suffered in battle. The insurance companies then would reimburse the Veterans Administration for such costs. (Presently, veterans’ private insurance is charged only when they get VA health care for medical problems not related to war injuries.)

Read more …

The plan would have put about $540 million on backs of veterans and their insurance companies, and the men courageously defending the country overseas would have been saddled with the added cost of paying for the injuries they sustained in battle.

The outrageous plan ignited an instant firestorm from veterans organizations. They pointed out, accurately, that the cost of treating expensive war injuries could raise their insurance costs. “It’s a betrayal,” Joe Violante, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, told one interviewer. “My insurance company didn’t send me to Vietnam, my government did. The same holds true for the men and women now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s the government’s responsibility.”

Bringing additional pressure to bear on the administration, the head of the nation’s largest veteran’s organizations, Commander David Rehbein of the American Legion, met with Obama on March 17. He said he was “deeply disappointed” after the meeting. According to Rehbein, it became apparent “that the president intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan. He refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

With a political storm brewing, press secretary Robert Gibbs tried to take the heat off Obama. He insisted that the president has a “deep commitment to veterans,” and that the administration was simply “seeking to maximize the resources available to veterans.” But the defense rang hollow even to the president’s liberal supporters – including television comic Jon Stewart, who bitingly lampooned the administration’s plan on “The Daily Show.” The administration ultimately announced that “consideration be dropped” for any plan to have military veterans and their insurance companies pay their medical bills.

In truth, it had little choice but to retreat. Had Obama not shifted course, his proposal would have been dead on arrival in Congress. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) used exactly that terminology when she told Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki that the controversial plan would be rejected if formally proposed to Congress. “I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by having their lives on the line. I don’t think we should nickel and dime them for their care,” Murray added.

The good news for veterans is that their care may not be under threat in the leading health care legislation in Congress. On August 3, the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), a 1.2 million member non-profit organization founded in 1920, applauded two amendments attached to the nationalized health-care bill “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” drafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One amendment, offered by Rep. Steve Buyer (R-Ind.), ranking member of the Veteran’s Affairs Committee, would let vets getting VA health care to also enroll in a plan through the bill’s proposed Health Insurance Exchange. The second Buyer amendment would guarantee the Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs authority to operate the VA health care system without interference from any new organization or agency created by the legislation.

The United States has a long history of providing benefits for those who have served and been wounded in battle. American colonies paid benefits to injured soldiers even before the Revolutionary War. In 1636, Plymouth Colony ordered that any disabled soldier injured while serving the colony would be maintained for life by the Colony. The Continental Congress tried to raise recruitment levels by promising officers half pay for seven years after the war. Enlisted men were offered a mustering out bonus of $80 (a large wad of money back then) if they stayed the course until the war ended. Congress also paid pensions to those disabled in combat. Still others were promised land grants for their service. In the Republic’s early years, states were charged with providing disabled veterans with medical and hospital care. In the early 19th century, benefits and pensions ere extended to widows and dependents of veterans as well.

By the end of the war with Mexico in 1848, U.S. veterans numbered in the hundreds of thousands. The tragic toll taken on Americans in the North and the South during the Civil War is well known. The government founded the National Home for Disabled Veterans after that war. After World War I, 200,000 wounded returned to the U.S. Besides disability compensation, insurance was provided for veterans. The Veterans Bureau was established which became he forerunner of today’s Department of Veterans Affairs.

In 1932, 12,000 to 15,000 veterans and their families reportedly converged on Washington to demand payment of the bonus they had been promised. According to the Library of Congress, by July 1932, 25,000 vets were camped in shantytowns along the Anacostia River, making a powerful symbol of shame for the president who refused them their promised bonuses.

With his plan to make veterans bear the medical costs of serving the country, President Obama followed in this inglorious tradition. Failing in that attempt, he will have to find new ways to finance the enormous expense of socialized medicine. Disabled veterans wouldn’t accept his plan to make them pay their health bills. They may be injured, but they are not willing to take the offense lying down.


Andres Saenz(UNM alumnus)

September 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Flag this comment

I am so glad that someone spoke up against the outrageous comments written by James Post yesterday on this college publication.

To reiterate what I said earlier, those who share the mindset of Mr. Post should do either one of 2 things: permanently move to another country or enlist in one of the 5 branches of military service to America. Because it really pisses me off when people take everything for granted, like James Post.


Chris Harman

September 2, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Flag this comment

I just wanted to respond to the letter “Veterans benefits a form of socialism, should be ended” by James N. Post. First and foremost I would like to say to Mr. James, you are welcome from all of those that have given you the right to your freedom of speech at the expense of being harmed or even killed in action, to express your opinions. The mere fact that your letter was printed in a newspaper publication that addresses the public without government oversight, is something a lot of countries would consider a violation of laws. So what do you call all the men and women that gave you and myself this right? What other word would you use if not Veteran?
Several of your points in your letter seem to be drafted with not much research or understanding of what us “Veterans” go through while we are serving our country. Even if someone is not put in harms way, there is always that chance your unit could be called upon to go when needed. Just the knowledge of that alone is hard on someone. To end this letter I will respond with answering your question “What makes being a veteran so special?” FREEDOM


Joe

September 2, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Flag this comment

As a former 10-year active duty service member AND now an air national guard member, I would like to clarify what Thom Tolbert wrote. I agree with everything he said except that we were not “given” anything- for our service, we EARNED the benefits and we have.
A thanks to everyone else who commented and expressed support for the service member- your warm wishes and guestures of thanks are appreciated.


Daniel

September 4, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Flag this comment

Wow, all you people really need to read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” and then reconsider your criticism of James’ letter.

Here’s a link: http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html


melchor quitoriano

September 24, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Flag this comment

retired last september 13 2007 in norfolk virginia due to acute stroke sustained 2 months after 6 months deployment from iraq. currently reside here in san diego ca. a retired Engineman Chief, but now can no longer work due to totally disabled. does not regret serving his nation, America. will do it again if possible. God gave me this life and am willing to give to anyone. God bless us all.

Comments are closed for this item.