Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
I'm going to point something out that I doubt many people know. A veteran can be service connected for disabilities they would have incurred regardless of having been in the service. For example, if a woman gets a hysterectomy in service, she will be awarded service connection and will automatically receive a 50% rating (which is about $700/month tax free) even if she has no symptoms whatsoever from the removal of her uterus and the removal of the uterus had nothing to do with the performance of her duties. She will receive this money for the rest of her life.
Last edited by Dix; 03-18-09 at 07:09 AM.
When America is strong the world is calm, When America is weak tyrants and terrorist slaughter the meek. ~ SgtRock
My argument is two-fold...
One, I am pointing out the obvious hypocrisy innate to the anti-UHC arguments created by Conservatives. Whether or not I agree with the military getting said benefits is not the issue, but rather it is clearly okay for socialized health care to exist in some instances. It's just a matter of who we think is more deserving, and that is subjective no matter what way you slice it. I just happen to fall on the side that thinks giving it to the military is okay.
Secondly, because I come from a nation that supports UHC, I think it is double standard to give it to the military but not to civilians who are in turn paying for military health care anyway. Clearly there is a system of standarized care that can exist in a financially abundant sector of the U.S. (the military), so why is it so unfathomable and controversial to expand this system to everyone else? Like I said, I understand giving it to the military and they should receive it, but on those grounds, so should everyone else.
And so, there is no 'conservative hypocricy' on this matter.
The case for the military offering this has been well made.
Spoken like a true Post 70's Lib.The military shouldn't be a free ride when everyone else has to pay out of pocket. And frankly, in these economic times, the military should not get half a trillion dollars in budget per year. I applaud Obama for seeking cut backs.
These folks and those that came before them fought to preserve your freedoms and way of life.
The weapons systems and readiness are the cost of being free.
Military spending should be increased.
The Clintons claimed we could fight a two-front war.
We learned The Clintons left the military underfunded.
When we went to war the Libs SCREAMED we were over-extended.
They weren't called on the carpet to defend their handling of the military.
No, that was Bush's doing... he should have vehicles up-armored.
Had more body armor for the troops.
Should have had a bigger military.
For what the Screaming Meme's were screaming about, their own failure to pass on a 100% prepared military, we need to spend more and increase the size of the military.
There is Constitutional grounds for the military.
It's a large portion of what The Founders believed our taxes were for.
Self preservation. Military and its related services.
There are no Constitutional grounds for all the social spending/social engineering.
And there are hundreds of billions that could and should be slashed.
But Obama during the campaign could not name one program he would cut.
And he hasn't.
By comparison, his expansion of government would Marlon Brando look like a microscopic spec of dust.
Last edited by zimmer; 03-18-09 at 08:57 AM.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)