The Cost of War

I don't know... I continue to look. It seems that if he fought in three wars!! According to this, one is enough unless she remarried.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earcutter

I don't know... I continue to look. It seems that if he fought in three wars!! According to this, one is enough unless she remarried.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

---

The survivors pension benefit is apparently only for "low-income, un-remarried surviving spouse and/or unmarried child(ren) of a deceased Veteran with wartime service".
Source: Survivors Pension - Pension

I don't understand what's the issue with not using the health care benefits - I think most people with common sense would rather be healthy; being sick just for the sole purpose of raking up bills that somebody else is going to pay sounds ridiculous.

Qualifying for multiple insurance benefits isn't strange or uncommon - it happens all the time to most people and then they can use the program that works best from them. Having and using a health insurance from one's employer instead of going through the VA is just one example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earcutter

That should read, "I guess all people..."

In a capitalist society all people seek out that which will afford them the most utility. Utility isn't always about cash, it can be measured by lifestyle, safety, patriotism... Whatever.

Hence if a man joins the military for altruistic reasons, his reward for doing so, his utility, comes from altruism... not money. But the point is, joining still provides him a higher level of utility than his next best alternative.

That's all to say that why a man/woman joins the military, short of actually wanting to kill people which many would call a sickness, isn't nearly as important as its made to be unless you can argue that patriotism is a form of brainwashing utilized by "the man" to get people to enroll in spite of their best interests.

Blessed are those who do "believe," but in a capitalist system that isn't drafting, "believe(ing) in your country" isn't a requirement. That's freedom!!

---

You can certainly disagree with any position or opinion that I share here. What you are not entitled to however is to suggest how I should write something or, suggest to edit my original submission. Seeing as how you and are complete polar opposites on any social or political topic, perhaps you could do one of the following: Place me on an ignore status or report my postings as offensive. I'm sure that you have at least two moderators here that would respond to any reported post of mine for an immediate retort.

Otherwise, cite your position, refute mine or ignore it. But, don't suggest any changes to what I share here. You're not a moderator here, yet. But, I'm sure that you're working on it.


Frank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakebound

You can certainly disagree with any position or opinion that I share here. What you are not entitled to however is to suggest how I should write something or, suggest to edit my original submission. Seeing as how you and are complete polar opposites on any social or political topic, perhaps you could do one of the following: Place me on an ignore status or report my postings as offensive. I'm sure that you have at least two moderators here that would respond to any reported post of mine for an immediate retort.

Otherwise, cite your position, refute mine or ignore it. But, don't suggest any changes to what I share here. You're not a moderator here, yet. But, I'm sure that you're working on it.


Frank

---

Oh for the love of Pete Frank!

You don't interest me enough to get into it with you again. But seriously - if you want me to ignore you, why not start by not posting on a thread I started lol!!

I think it has well been shown many folks join the military because they see no other alternatives economically.

Remember the draft riots during the civil war in NYC. In those days if you were drafted you could pay your way out. As I recall around $250 cash which was a lot of money then. You didn't see many rich folks fighting then. Of course that was on the Union side.

The Va is vastly underfunded and always has been. it's just another agency Congress treats like dirt and when focus is brought on it and questions are asked it just becomes a whipping boy.

The VA system has always had a reputation and it was never good. it would be the last place I would go to if I needed medical attention and I'm a Vet. I've known two MDs and one RN who have worked for them and they tell horror stories of gross incompetence and folks dying for lack of care, wrong care, indifference and then there's the techs who bet on who's gonna die in the next so many hours.

I worked In V.A hospitals for years (cardiac surg) The docs get pennys on the dollor so going the extra mile is not going to happen.
The care is worse than the poorest county Hosp for the total down and out.
The vets served their purpose,when discharged, they have no purpose any longer.

So, what is the bigger problem from the underfunding:

A) Poorly qualified doctors/staff who can not get a better paid job elsewhere (in an expensive private hospital)
B) Well qualified doctors/staff who do not care to do their job well because of the lack of monetary incentives

I read somewhere that the medicine has gotten so much better that too many soldiers survive instead of dying from their wounds - here are the numbers
US death/wounded in war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

So, what is the bigger problem from the underfunding:

A) Poorly qualified doctors/staff who can not get a better paid job elsewhere (in an expensive private hospital)
B) Well qualified doctors/staff who do not care to do their job well because of the lack of monetary incentives

I read somewhere that the medicine has gotten so much better that too many soldiers survive instead of dying from their wounds - here are the numbers
US death/wounded in war

---

Gugi, the stats are field survival rates,has nothing to do with U.S based V.A Hospitals.
Most V.A Hospitals are aligned with a major university,In my case,V.A Palo alto cailf, was connected with stanford Hosp.
Great docs, not enough time nor money.
The new genra of Docs are a differant breed, they have huge debt to pay off from govt. loans that got them thru years of med school.
They are saddled with major malp practice ins rates,they have office staff to pay plus rent on said office.
Heres an example,The cardiac surgeon I worked for, for 25 yrs was paid an average of $1250.00 for triple bypass surg for medicare patients.
When our caseload became 70 % Medicare (we did 300 cases/yr) you cannot make expenses anymore,is simple math.

My 2 cents for what it's worth.
My experience is with the Syracuse New York VA hospital. It was for my father in law - WW2 vet. Care better than what I've experienced in other upstate New York hospitals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Gugi, the stats are field survival rates,has nothing to do with U.S based V.A Hospitals.
Most V.A Hospitals are aligned with a major university,In my case,V.A Palo alto cailf, was connected with stanford Hosp.
Great docs, not enough time nor money.
The new genra of Docs are a differant breed, they have huge debt to pay off from govt. loans that got them thru years of med school.

---

Well, presumably these doctors get paid a fixed amount for the teaching/research they do, from that exact big tuition. So even if the medical services they perform are reimbursed at a lower rate, in total they may still make comparable to not having teaching duties. And neglecting the quality of the medical care seems counterproductive - how can you be a good doctor if you're not doing a good job. Especially when you're training the doctors of the future it simply doesn't add up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

They are saddled with major malp practice ins rates,they have office staff to pay plus rent on said office.

---

Everybody has that. US has always been very litigious and lawyers have always done better than doctors. I don't see what's changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Heres an example,The cardiac surgeon I worked for, for 25 yrs was paid an average of $1250.00 for triple bypass surg for medicare patients.
When our caseload became 70 % Medicare (we did 300 cases/yr) you cannot make expenses anymore,is simple math.

---

Couple of things - those must be some old numbers, because when some data trickled in the media last year the reimbursement for colonoscopy was pretty much similar. Of course, cardiac surgery nowadays is far easier than it was in the 1950s.
I don't understand the medicare issue - are the veterans' health care paid though medicare? I thought that it was a separate funding.

Survival rates should matter - from a benefits point of view it is likely cheaper for somebody to die quickly in the battlefield than to incur expensive medical costs for the rest of their life (I don't know the exact numbers, but this is verifiable either way). Plus things like PTSD were not considered medical condition until the 1980s iirc - that's an expense that previous wars didn't incur. So, may be in the old days the society did treat veterans worse than it does now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Everybody has that. US has always been very litigious and lawyers have always done better than doctors. I don't see what's changed.


.

---

Lol, actually... Doctors on average make more than practicing lawyers. Though significantly more doctors claim bankruptcy than lawyers. Funny eh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earcutter

Lol, actually... Doctors on average make more than practicing lawyers. Though significantly more doctors claim bankruptcy than lawyers. Funny eh.

---

That's why you have to compare apples to apples :)

When you compare the numbers at the same levels of academic 'excellence' the lawyers do better, businessmen even better.
I.e. if a smart person is to choose among harvard medical/law/business schools they could expect to be better compensated for their subsequent jobs should they pick the business school over the law school and the law school over the medical.

Lots of google and internet stats expounded.when you actually work, hands on in the system,than you will know the entire story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Lots of google and internet stats expounded.when you actually work, hands on in the system,than you will know the entire story.

---

I am not so sure about that - I notice that the narratives people present tend to strongly correlate with the economic advantages they would derive from such narratives. Looking at all of the competing interests usually presents a better picture of what is going on instead of focusing on a one sided view.

I'm sure somebody who works in medical insurance will tell us how the doctors are greedy and immoral and the patients always want to get cadillacs when they've paid for a trabant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earcutter

Glen - as soon as I read your post I got on the phone with a lawyer friend who actually works VA disability claims for veterans because something about what you are saying rings sour to me... It did to him as well.

There could be a host of reasons why - like mom taking a buy out or whatever... But the fact is laws change and as unusual as what you are stating today... may not have been unusual in the day. Who knows. But it is unusual.

The first place I would go of course is the Veterans Admin Office out in CO and see what they say. After that, short of a good reason, let me know. I might be able to point you in the right direction in CO as many of my wife's grads end up there!

---

Not a host of reasons at all, you are just not understanding the difference...

VA Benefits and Military Pensions are different period end of story..

Hardship / Low Income Benefits are also different..

Healthcare is also separate..


The discussion here is lumping all this together, and therefore getting more and more inaccurate with each subsequent post as it goes farther and farther off course and the reason is the wording in the original article is very misleading...


In the Opening and Title it lumps together 3 things

Benefits
Pension
VA Benefits

These are not all the same, basically the article started the mis-information and this thread is simply continuing it...


But to be as clear as possible my Mom gets Nothing from the Military or from Pops service over 3 wars and 30+years, other then what was paid for separately by my Father like every other Insurance policy that he had..

He had no dealing with the VA, no Disabilities, no Wounds, no PTSD, no issues, he served his country when asked, he retired, and went on with life in the real world and raised a family...

Here is the line from the article that counts

"Payments are based on financial need, any disabilities, and whether the veteran's death was tied to military service"

I understand the distinction - I understand perfectly that my friend isn't "in Military pensions." But he's one hell of a lawyer, and he's in the system.

It's all good. It's really non of my business - I just jumped the gun thinking I might have a guy who could help being your story seemed so incredible. I should have left it be.

I thought the article is pretty good, not misleading at all - it makes it clear from the very beginning that:

1. Expenses of wars continue long after those wars have ended
2. The tail of the time scale is from survivors pension and the bulk of the article is a present example of the child of a civil war soldier
3. These payments are significant - 6.3BUSD in the last fiscal year (explicitly stated any payments to veterans are not included)
4. These expenses are based on "need, veteran's disabilities and whether veteran's death was tied to military service"

I don't see where the article lumps anything else here. If anything one of the contributions to the muddling is the second line of your post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Interesting article and discussion,,, but wondering only one thing

WHERE IS MY MOTHER'S MONEY !!!!!!!

---

Careful reading of the article (the text you posted in bold) and the links at the VA's website provide the answer - either she isn't entitled to it, or she hasn't applied for it.


Of course, as with any other thread, going on related topics is pretty normal. Not sure what's the issue here :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I thought the article is pretty good, not misleading at all - it makes it clear from the very beginning that:

1. Expenses of wars continue long after those wars have ended
2. The tail of the time scale is from survivors pension and the bulk of the article is a present example of the child of a civil war soldier
3. These payments are significant - 6.3BUSD in the last fiscal year (explicitly stated any payments to veterans are not included)
4. These expenses are based on "need, veteran's disabilities and whether veteran's death was tied to military service"

I don't see where the article lumps anything else here. If anything one of the contributions to the muddling is the second line of your post:


Careful reading of the article (the text you posted in bold) and the links at the VA's website provide the answer - either she isn't entitled to it, or she hasn't applied for it.


Of course, as with any other thread, going on related topics is pretty normal. Not sure what's the issue here :shrug:

---

Stated 3 times in 3 posts

After the post you linked see #32 #35 and #55...

The rank and file who work at the VA are all Govt Employees and are well paid with all the Govt benefits. The problem is the attitude there. The cause is complicated.

PTSD has always existed but under different names. During WWl it was shell shock. Unknown to most people after WWll there were military hospitals across the U.S with guys who lived in the wards long term who suffered from this and they didn't know what to do with them and just held them there.

There are all kinds of social and cultural issues that come together and must be considered when discussing veterans and the country's treatment of them. For the record, the current VA budget is $150 Billion/year to provide all benefits and care to about 25 Million living veterans of all eras and their families...including some things you haven't discussed like GI Bill education benefits, home loan support, adaptive housing for the severely disabled, etc. That comes out to about $6,000/year/veteran, which of course is not representative of how the money is spent. It is estimated that 35-40% of US citizens are "potential" beneficiaries of the VA system depending on their circumstances (which includes families of veterans). Is that expensive for what the country asks people to do in the military is a question for much debate. Is it equitably distributed? It depends on your politics/beliefs and other opinions. Are there people who fall through the cracks? Yes, some by choice, some by mental illness, some by where they live and what they believe their relationship with the government ought to be.

I know more about VA and the military than most people, having worked for, with and around both military and VA for the better part of 30 years. Staying clear of the politics and other opinion related parts of the discussion, let me try to clarify some of the concepts, based on the laws that exist.

If you are in the military for 20 years or more you can "retire" get a monthly check, based on your rank/pay and length of service. That also entitles you to some medical care (not VA, but through the military system and contractual extensions of it). If you die, your military retirement checks stop, unless you elected and paid for SBP (survivors benefits program).

On the other hand, no matter how long you serve, if you are disabled by an illness or injury while on active duty, when you get out you can apply for and get VA Disability Compensation, which is based on the % of disability as adjudicated by the law that governs VA. If you die of your service related disability, your spouse (or eligible dependent child) can receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). If you served in wartime and are indigent (make less than the federally defined poverty level -- now about $20,000/year), you can apply for and receive VA Pension, which pays a monthly payment to bring you up to the feral defined property level... in other words, it pays the difference only.

VA health care (for veterans only, no dependents) is among the best in the world, once you're in the system. It is also the largest system in the US, with about 100 places where care is provided. Getting enrolled in the system is complicated and has 8 priority levels from the highest (like former prisoners of war, medal of honor and purple heart recipients), and the service disabled to the lowest level which is veterans who put in their time, and got out with no disabilities and who have means above the federal property level.

It's a large, comprehensive issue, and a large system, but even with the massive cost of caring for veterans, it pales by comparison to the personal costs to service members and families (as others have pointed out) and the direct cost of maintaining a military and furnishing the "tools of war". Look at the price of a fighter plane, and its maintenance if you're so inclined.