Thread: The Cost of War

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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.