Military Personnel being screwed
 

I read not too long ago wounded service men and women were being held financially responsible for their meals when they are returned to hospitals stateside. So thanks for fighting and getting your legs blown off in the process and by the way, you owe us $300.

Today I heard that all the troops that were recently granted a 2 week leave period had to pay for their plane tickets home from wherever the service flew them. For some, that one ticket could cost upwards of $1000! So not only does the Bush administration cut the military personnel benefits, they are finding new ways to screw them? Am I the only one that feels this way?

ok this wasn't a Bush-Hater thread, just an observation!

How is the administration cutting benefits for servicemen? I thought Bush was giving them more take-home pay then Clinton had. I grew up in a military town, and when there are cuts, we usually hear about them in the incipient phases.

I'm not sure of the specifics - my information on benefit pay cuts comes from my friends in the service.

I know that the pay cuts and military spending are from our budget crunch in the country, but still.....I think I would rather pay and extra tax if our servicemen and women didn't have to pay those little extras you know?

just my opinion

This type of travel arrangement is typical of the military. Nothing has changed. In most cases, the individual has always been responsible for such expenses. It would be nice if the military paid the whole thing, but this is nothing new.

A couple notes:

---> Most civilian hospitals make patients pay for meals also, whether they take them or not. It's a flat $8something a day

---> The Military is allowing these servicemembers two weeks of vacation during a war. They flew them to from Iraq to stateside (for most, Baltimore). If the servicemember chooses to go all the way home, they pay their own way. (DUH - we all pay for vacation trip costs don't we?????) There is nothing saying those servicemembers HAVE to go home - they could go stay in Baltimore, etc. Still beats Iraq, IMHO.

Last I heard the Congress decided on military pay and benefits, not the administration.

I agree with Docet...one of my sister's fiancee is coming home in 2 days from Iraq, and they are both thrilled. I know he would pay $2000 to fly home to see her and his family. The last time her was here was over Winter Break (Dec. '02) and he was not supposed to get leave again until Thanksgiving this year. So he feels very fortunate to be able to come home for 2 weeks.

If they're crafty enough, they can take advantage of 'Space-A' (space available) travel; many airlines offer military discounted fares as well.

ok well then I must be the only one that feels this way. Yes Congress cuts benefits......the administration does have the power to override those things.

All I was saying was Bush sends us into a un-necessary war (unless someone here on GC has found the WMD'S?) with our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. These soldiers are seeing the horrors of war, suffering irrevocable mental and physical damage to find Saddam Hussein and these WMD's - - - then they have to pay for their food in the hospital? Some 18 year old with no legs now has to come up $300?

Yes civilians pay for their meals in hospitals, but these servicemen and women are OUR employees if you will. We want them to defend us, fight for us, risk their lives for us, but we don't want to feed them? O-K


Yes civilians have to pay for vacations, but I don't think our daily lives involve mortors, bombs, and roadside attacks. The soldiers shouldn't be taking vacations - they should be home.

but hey just my opinion

That is true, however, I am speaking more of the first Congress during the Clinton administration, which, from 1992-1994 DID push for more cuts in the military. :) Besides, I'm not the first person who mentioned it in terms of the administration.

And, like everyone else is saying, there's nothing really NEW going on. It's not as if Tricare has been cut (it's pretty bad anyway compared to our private insurance), the housing allowance has been cut (in fact, in some areas it has increased), and they still don't have to pay income taxes. I see no problem with paying for one's hospital meals and for one's elective trips.

So because no WMD have been announced as found, the war was unnecessary? First, if any WMD were 'found', you would just label it as 'planted' and blame Bush even more

Forget the important stuff that a oppresive dictator has been removed from power, that repeatedly used chemical weapons on his own people, that has proven to be a threat to the United States, that supported Al Queda. Take the following message from Congressman Roger Wicker:

Several members of the House of Representatives went to Iraq during the August recess. They report that the situation on the ground there is far different from the accounts we have seen on the network news. While isolated attacks on U.S. troops have attracted the headlines, much progress has being made toward establishing a free and independent government.

According to my colleagues who made the trip, the vast majority of the Iraqi people are thankful that our coalition forces are there. They are glad to be free of the terror and oppression of Saddam Hussein. A diverse national governing council has been created, and 90 percent of the towns and cities already have functioning local governments. More than 55,000 Iraqis have been trained and deployed to keep the peace in their country.

These soldiers are protecting us AND the Iraqi people by removing an evil dictator and putting in a functional government

Back to the main topic, though. You say the soldier shouldn't have to pay for meals. Absolutely right. But lets remember this little loophole has existed since 1981, and it is for anyone who gets served in a military hospital. For example: When my two brothers and I were born, all medical service was free except for $8.10 a day for food. Not a bad deal, if you ask me.

You ask where the soldier is going to come up with $300? Don't forget that the soldier was getting paid his regular allowance, plus a food allowance (though he was provided govt food in Iraq), plus a housing allowing (though he was provided housing in Iraq), plus a combat pay bonus, plus a hazardous duty pay bonus, etc. The meals in the hospital should equal out to what he recieves in Subsitence allowance - why should the taxpayers be giving him six free meals a day???




These soldiers should be defending the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, while bearing true allegiance to the same. They should also be obeying all orders of the officers appointed above them and the President of the United States.

I have taken this same oath, and I feel strongly about the war in Iraq being vital to National and International Security. These soldiers knew when they signed up there was a chance they could go to war, and there they are now.

The government feels that getting these troops home for a couple weeks will do great things for morale, and it has. What if the Government said okay, you have two weeks vacation, find your own way home while they were still in Iraq??? Ask any soldier in Iraq if they were given a trip to Baltimore and told they had two weeks off if they would mind paying the rest of the way. I'm sure not many turned the offer down.

BTW, if you feel so strongly about this, why don't you start up a campaign to raise money to help send troops home when they are given leave? Otherwise it would take taxes being raised because the defense budget is already stretched thin right now. And what happens if Bush raises taxes?? You complain more on here!

The Congress approved an increase in the military budget and in pay. IMHO, those in the military STILL aren't paid what they're worth, but, things are getting better...

When I was in the Navy, same policy - we got leave when we returned from deployment, but had to pay our own way home from base if we really wanted to get away. There are good military only travel reps on most bases, and the rates on flights were reasonable, so I always took off to home when I could.

The thing about paying for meals does chide me just a little bit - of course, all their actual health care is free, but the meals thing does look a bit suspicious, and I would venture to guess that if enough publicity is given to it, it'll be revoked (only for those wounded in the line of duty)...time will tell.

Injured Troops Get to Keep Meal Allowance... News Max, Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2003

"The Defense Department can no longer try to recoup meal allowances from sick and injured servicemen while they are receiving treatment in military hospitals.

The U.S. Senate today inserted language prohibiting the practice into the Pentagon's $87 billion request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Servicemen receive a daily stipend of $8.10 for food. Upon leaving a military hospital, where they received all their meals, they had been billed for the daily stipend to prevent double-dipping."

I had not read that yet, thank you Bethany for posting that

and docetboy, I was not personally attacking you and I'm sorry you feel it necessary to go after me for expressing my OPINION, since thats all it is - an OPINION. I'm glad there are still people like you willing to go to war. I'm glad you support this 'Wag the Dog' like war. I hope you still feel that way after more and more of our troops are being killed by those Iraqis who are "so thankful we ousted Saddam"

This wasn't a Bush Hater thread, I was just wondering.....thats all it was.....I really don't like how some people on here can't have a discussion without attacking someone for their OPINION!

I asked in the first post if I was the only one that felt this way - and I got my answer - I am!

Clarification: no income taxes are taken out if the serviceman or servicewoman is serving in a combat zone. If they're serving anywhere else, the Infernal Revenue Service (aka the Tax Gestapo) expect their beaks to be wetted.

BTW, I have two high school classmates of mine serving in the 'sandbox' right now: one's a first sergeant with the 101st Airborne in Iraq and another is a major in CENTCOM HQ in Qatar.

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Wounded service members in U.S. military hospitals will no longer be presented with a bill for meals upon discharge, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

The idea -- not precisely true, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops, some of whom had lost limbs or were gravely wounded, were being charged $8.10 per day for meals while they were in military hospitals outraged some members of Congress.

What was happening was that the wounded patients were being asked to reimburse the government for what is known as their basic subsistence allowance -- money they get in their paychecks to cover meals.

Because they did not have to buy meals in the hospital, they were asked to return that allowance, a step required by law.

But Pentagon officials admit it seemed like adding insult to injury.

Congress quickly changed the law, and effective Wednesday active-duty military patients will get meals free and be allowed to keep their meal allowance.

A spokesman at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington said the hospital has been averaging about 40 patients from the war in Iraq, so the financial impact amounts to about $324 a day.

In addition to military personnel wounded in action, the law also applies to those hurt while "engaged in hazardous service" or "in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war."

It is already the case that some troops in combat get meals and get to keep their allowance.

Technically it's double-dipping, but the amount of money is small, and no one at the Pentagon wants to nickel and dime the troops who put their lives on the line.

Okay, I hope this isnt' too long...but I am able to speak on this topic first hand. I am a military spouse, and my husband has been in Baghdad since May 1st.

For those of you who don't know, Tricare is EXCELLENT insurance for activite duty and retired military. It is better than ANY civilian insurance I've ever had. I know, because I am seven months pregnant and have gotten amazing care with no co-pay. Since, I am away from our duty station (Germany) I am able to choose a doctor where I am. There is far less red-tape than with a regular HMO.

As far as military pay. Deployed military members are paid quite significantly more (although still not enough for what they're doing) for their service. Not only do we recieve separation pay (for service members with dependents), hazardous/combat duty pay, and rations pay (for meals)...they do not pay taxes either, which takes a big chunk of anyone's pay check. (Which IS taken out in during non-combat times, i.e. when we're at our normal duty station.) Bethany1982 is absolutely correct with the 'double-dipping' information. The money 'owed' will actually be taken out of the pay check, and not 'billed' to the soldier.

As far as the two week leave. My husband's leave has just come down, and he'll be coming to the states between December 9-28...which just so happens to fall on my due date. He was originally told that he could only be flown to Germany, because that is our duty station but that was changed. I'm just thrilled that he is able to come to see his son be born. I don't care what the cost!

As far as the 'Wag the Dog' war comment that was made....I'm going to be very civil and just say that my husband and thousands of other men and women are in Iraq right now, as you sit on your computer judging, guaranteeing your right to make those comments. I truly hope that not everyone is naive enough to believe what they hear on TV and read in the paper. I doubt the government has told us everything, and I personally like it that way. It helps make sure that my husband is safe, and he will be able to come home. He believes that he is there for a reason, and quite honestly, that's good enough for me.

aj

Congratulations on getting your husband back in time for your delivery - that is awesome. It is also rare, so count your blessings.

Following deployment, any new father's on board whose children were born while we were away, were always the first ones allowed off the ship for some extremely tearful reunions.

At one point, our local paper did a side-by-side analysis of Tricare as opposed to private insurers (not HMOs or PPOs), and the insurance that I (through Daddy) have was heads and shoulders above Tricare. :) For every story about how great it is, I've heard 10 horror stories. If you compare it to an HMO, yes, then it might be better.

Let it be said now--I don't think non-commissioned officers are paid very well. Whether or not I agree with the war is immaterial. But, some of the benefits (base housing or a housing allowance, access to lower-priced goods through the BX and Commissary, etc) outweigh the relatively low pay. I mean, where else can an 18 year old who barely finished high school have access to such benefits?

I think everyone should take a look at this poem. It is rumored to be written by Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, Sergeant, USMC.

It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

I support our troops - oppose the war

I don't understand why people are taking my comments to mean I'm against the military?!?! I have several loved ones over in Iraq right now - my best guy friend is in the 101st Airborne. I'm not sitting on my computer judging the servicemen and women - I posted an opinion on what I heard from the news and from what my friends had told me.

Docetboy and ajuhdg--

No disrespect toward you or all that you and your significant others do...

But IMHO, I think all of us owe it to our service personnel that did fight for our freedoms to have as much help as they possibly could need given this time of war.

IMHO, I think that Big Business ought to foot that bill to allow our service personnel all the kinds of actions that are needed and not just our government...

Allow any Corporate contractor an amount of tax leniency to give some sort of voucher system that either could be seen as a loan based on military need or an in-kind grant that the personnel can decide to pay back with some type of minor community education and service so that as a whole, our military personnel AND our civilians can come back home and re-integrate in society.

I do not care if some vet double-dips for food. I personally feel I at least owe that vet something... But it is pretty jacked up if that soldier comes back, disabled and unable to receive his or her proper due--then, we turn around and say they cannot eat or go home...

Hayle... Some of these soldiers are lucky if they can utter the words home--like, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder--or whatever they are going to call it, now... Do you really think we should limit these courageous fellows?

Okay, I'm sorry...but I really hate to hear this! To me and to my husband and his whole platoon this is basically like saying," I support you, I just don't support what you're doing."

This topic was heavily debated in this thread: What does it mean to "support the troops"?

aj

Isn't this an oxymoron???

whatever you want to call is it fine

like I said, I support our troops but that doesn't mean I have to agree with this war

In fact, that is EXACTLY what she is saying. But that doesn't imply non support for your husband or his comrades-in-arms. Nor does it say that what they are doing is wrong on their part.

What it says is that she doesn't believe that the politicians who sent your husband over there did the right thing. She has every right to that belief.

I think that's a lot differnt than not supporting him and them.

If you want to see non-support for our troops, take a look back at the Vietnam era. I don't think our troops will be spit on or ridiculed by the any portion of the American public when they return.

For anyone who may be interested, Delta and Southwest Airlines have issued special military-discount rates for soldiers on R and R that drastically cut down the price of plane tickets purchased with little or no advanced warning.

When the public complains, the airlines listen.

I think you have got it right.... in other words she supports the individual troops but not the people that sent them there... they are doing the best that they can do with the job they were handed. However she doesn't support the reasons they are there in the first place..... much like myself.... I know many troops over in Iraq (and Afghanistan like one of the two 2 Canadians killed today) and I have sent them care packages and exchange letters. However they know I was completely against the reasoning that sent them there.... I respect and admire the individuals over there and they respect and understand my objection to the mission.

Part of supporting our troops is supporting the leadership. How can you support the soldier when you openly criticize the people putting their life in the line that they must have 100% trust and faith in in order to complete the task they have been given???

Hey bob - Good luck in Iraq! God Bless! God Bless America! Um, oh yeah - what the hell is bush doing sending you over there???
----Doesn't exactly send a supporting message.

I thought it was the freedom to critize or voice differing opinions was one of the freedoms they are fighting to uphold.....

Sure is...just remember who is giving them their orders and who they have to have 100% faith and trust in in order to get the job done. It's impossible to support a soldier but at the same time criticize why he is over there.

Look I when I served I had 100% faith in trust in my fellow soldiers, and that was and is critical. However I also know that political motivated orders are the most dangerous ones...... So I will no longer place 100% trust on politcal orders (civilian or military), but judge them on their merit and feasiblity.

You and I will just have to differ on the last part because I believe it is possible to seperate the soldier and the mission.

Unfortunately, when I enter active duty, I won't have the option of deciding what orders are political and what are not. Because I will have to obey ALL orders the same, regardless of where they came from. If not, I will be subject to Court Martial under Article 92 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice - which specifically reads

“Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

and carries the maximum sentence of a Dishonerable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and two years confinement.


It's easy for a civilian to judge if an order is a politically motivated one or not, but when a soldier in the field recieves an order, it's motivation is the least of his worries. He has to carry it out just the same, and his life depends on his faith in that order.

I completely agree with you on this... A stong chain of command and discipline is abosolutely important to both your survival but also of your buddies. I'm just saying that it is possible to question/think about the motivations or reasons behind a mission (overall mission staement or goal), but at the same time perform to best of your ability as a soldier.....

I'm not saying you sit there with a thumb up your ass wondering if every command in the field is political or not (though you should consider lawful/un-lawful). Orders in the field should be followed through on a near-instinict level, because delay means death. What I meant was the "big picture", the Why? I disagreed with the original reasoning behind the war, that doesn't mean I disagree with the current mission to help the Iraqis nor the people taking on this mission. I believe a stable and free Iraq is vital to the security of the region, just as a stable and free Afghanistan is..... that is why I support the men and women stuggling to make it happen.

This retired military officer's opinion: Oppose The War = no clue --Just go to Iraq and live in their shoes and THEN say you oppose the war -- what a crock! So then what do you Propose instead??? Leaving Saddam alone?/ Well hey, when he was in power, he gassed children and tortured adults??? Remember those pictures of the bloated dead bodies of children and adults laying all over the streets? That is REAL NICE!!!! That is what opposing the war means -- Saddam stays in power. Okay -- that's not what you had in mind instead of going to war -- well then, what ARE you thinking about? Talking & negotiations were not working -- sanctions were not working -- nothing was working to get Saddam out of power -- but hey WAR did the trick. Children in Iraq will not get gassed anymore, people will not get tortured. Just tell the Iraqis TO THEIR FACES that you oppose the war that rid them of Saddam. Hmmmmm. Wonder how they'd react?

That is VERY well said, GPhiB! I think many people forget what was going on in the first place. Also, as I mentioned before, not everything is what it seems on TELEVISION people! When I get to talk to my husband, once a week if I'm lucky, his first words are, "You would not believe it over here." Everywhere he goes there are smiling faces, thanking him for what we are doing.

Thank you so much, docetboy, for bringing up the point that soldiers are NOT permitted the extreme luxury of questioning their orders. Now, for support, how do y'all think it would've sounded if as my husband was getting on the bus to go to his C5 I said, "Take care of yourself, honey, and screw Bush!" I just don't see that going over well...sure not everyone agrees with their boss, but give me a break!

Now many of you say you have friends that are over there fighting, which is fabulous, and I'm sure you support them completely. Do you write them letters and tell them that if the administration wouldn't have been so 'quick to judge' then they'd be home right now? NO! Because that's the LAST thing they want or need to hear. (And, I'm sorry, but that ('having a friend') ain't close enough to the fire for me. Come walk a day in my shoes!)

Finally, while it sucks that he's there, we both feel that he's there for a reason. For those of you who "Support the troops, but don't support the war." Get over yourself, and pick a freaking side! There is a war going on right now, whether you support it or not! Why not make some productive use of your energy, and whole-heartedly support the troops. If not, I hear that Susan Sarandon's and Martin Sheet are great company.

aj

it doesn't matter - we went to war, Saddam is gone and hopefully for good. I still want to know why these Iraq's who were "so happy" we ousted Saddam are now killing our soldiers? Last "poll" I saw on CNN (yes news I know) only 30% or some low number like that, of Iraqis wanted us there. Hmmmm.

Also, Just because I live in America and vote, doesn't mean I have to support the President we elected. I will admit, I liked Bush when he was Governer here, but now that he is President, I do not agree with his policies - isn't that OK? I mean, he has a domestic policy - the only problem is that its for IRAQ!


Like I said before, I'm glad we have people still willling to defend this country, inspite of the idiot in the White House. I also know that these men and women don't have a choice - they go when and where they are told and then do what they are told to do. Thanks to these men and women, like both my grandfathers and my uncle, I can question my government. Thank You

EDITED to say -

This war effects everyone. I would be devestated if my friend were killed - just anyone else that lost a loved one. I won't pick a side because I don't agree with either one - Saddam was a murderer and Bush is an idiot. My opinion, thats all it is.

I also don't write them letters saying any of this - I usually say things like I love you or I miss you or Noah is walking now......I would truly be full of it if I was if I was to write with all my feelings about government, wouldn't I?

Just because some people have different opinions on something doesn't make them idiotic. We as a country have the duty to question our government! Especially one that has been lying to us (I know not the first gov't to do so, but we questioned them too).

I can tell all of you that war is not fun, and anybody that fully support a war are crazy. War is a neccesery evil, however, war must be engaged only if its according to international norm and regulations. Belived it or not, war is an expression of international relations.

This is from personal experience. I've seen too many death and destruction to realized that people that are gung ho about war do not know what they are talking about.

I hope this is not a hijack. The thread seems to have taken a turn that makes this article fit. Our soldiers, etc, are being screwed in Iraq, but not by our government and certainly not by the president. According to this Democratic U.S. Congressman, the American media is screwing them.

Democrat Congressman: Media's Bias 'Is Killing Our Troops' - Monday, Sept. 22, 2003 - News Max

"U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., went to Iraq to check out the war for himself. What he saw has him angry ... at America's media establishment.


"The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security," he writes in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

"These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: 'Sir, this is worth doing.' No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.

"But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with 'the rest of the story,' the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy. ...


"Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical 'can do' attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.


"Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.

"We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops," concludes Marshall, who shows that Sen. Zell Miller isn't the only decent Democrat in Georgia (call them the antidotes to Sen. Patty "Osama Mama" Murray, Rep. "Baghdad" Jim McDermott and Rep. Marcy Kaptur).

Yes, Iraq certainly is becoming like Vietnam ... in the astonishing bias shown by Big Media."

I don't know if I can take any news organizatons that used attack such as:

too seriously.