• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

reinoe said:
That's not surprising at all and I suspected as much when the military didn't want flag drapped "coffins" being in the newspaper. It's because with enough eyes on it someone might have noticed something suspicious.

But hey we can never cut military spending. What I find remarkable though is that despite all the claims about waste in Medicare or S.S. we rarely if ever get reports of widespread abuse and waste. In the military we get some new story at least once a month, but often much more frequently.
Click to expand...

It really surprised me. Now the ceremony, knowing it is for an empty coffin, will never be the same. Isn't there a better way to honor the fallen?
 
As her POA, I just received Mom's death benefit for Dad yesterday..
He died June of last year..
The backlog is not a partisan issue either but be my guest.
cpwill said:
What the **** what the **** WHAT The ****.
Click to expand...
 
After getting all he wanted in Ryan's budget last May, Cantor could have allowed a clean CR, but he invoked their "False Equivalency' statute..
Grant said:
It really surprised me. Now the ceremony, knowing it is for an empty coffin, will never be the same. Isn't there a better way to honor the fallen?
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
As her POA, I just received Mom's death benefit for Dad yesterday..
He died June of last year..
The backlog is not a partisan issue either but be my guest.
Click to expand...

I was actually referring to dicking around with the remains. I couldn't care less about political involvement (and would frankly doubt any) - this is done by people who should know better.
 
NIMBY said:
As her POA, I just received Mom's death benefit for Dad yesterday..
He died June of last year..
The backlog is not a partisan issue either but be my guest.
Click to expand...

And you think they can handle your healthcare?
 
The Feds are not handling the Healthcare of my worthless retired a$s..
My older wife is still teaching thank you very much.
Grant said:
And you think they can handle your healthcare?
Click to expand...
 
I got a 15-page letter today stamped 10-3-13 from the VA for Mom..
Most would agree that this shutdown has been inconsistent, with many folks working and so on..
Very messy and I don't know the 'real' conversations between what the House, Senate and WH have privately agreed to fund, changes every day.
cpwill said:
I was actually referring to dicking around with the remains. I couldn't care less about political involvement (and would frankly doubt any) - this is done by people who should know better.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Please read this. It's something I certainly never knew about and doubt you did either. I'd be interested in your opinion, Thanks.

The Play's The Thing | National Review Online
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I feel that funerals and such are for the family left behind and them being able to remember their loved one. I think in all honesty, the flying bodies home (or pretending to) and the like is more for the media and the public, and it has been going on for a while. I don't believe I would be all that upset if the military had my husband somewhere here in the states for a while before releasing the body and pretended to fly him home at a time I could make it. In fact, I would rather they simply say "hey, now we will release your husband's body to you". Sure I'm going to be upset my husband is dead, and I would want his body treated with dignity, but I don't need all the "pomp and circumstance". It isn't necessary. And putting on a show about his body "coming home" really isn't undignified, just unnecessary. The problem is I believe the media, politicians, and even the public want that "pomp and circumstance", probably a lot more than most families.
 
Misterveritis said:
Nonsense. They were in the past. What, in your opinion, changed? During the struggle to keep people like me on active duty they were included as a part of the discussion on the portions of my pay and allowances I might not be familiar with. Was I being lied to then? Or am I being lied to now?
Click to expand...

Why would that keep you in? When did you serve?

I started out when the SGLI was either $200K or $250K. That was plenty for my family, parents at the time. Then it got upped to $400K. Plenty for my husband and kids now to bounce back without me. Same for me should it be my husband. I was only told about extra money at death being a certain number of months worth of pays and certain allowances paid to whoever I designated on my Page 2, something I figured was just extra. I didn't even know it was paid so soon after death. I always figured it was likely to come after the SGLI payment, because the military has been notorious from what I have seen in my career for requiring so much paperwork for "extra" benefits, that it takes forever to get them.

And I'm not sure you quite understood what I was saying. I'm saying that they are not budgeted under normal pay and allowances for military personnel in all likelihood. Given the current issue we saw, it would seem this is true and it makes sense. Why budget death benefits with normal pay? How would you even determine how many people would be likely to die and require those death benefits within a given month? It seems much more like it would be a "just in case" budget item, rather than an item included under pay and allowances in the budget.
 
roguenuke said:
In all honesty, I feel that funerals and such are for the family left behind and them being able to remember their loved one. I think in all honesty, the flying bodies home (or pretending to) and the like is more for the media and the public, and it has been going on for a while. I don't believe I would be all that upset if the military had my husband somewhere here in the states for a while before releasing the body and pretended to fly him home at a time I could make it. In fact, I would rather they simply say "hey, now we will release your husband's body to you". Sure I'm going to be upset my husband is dead, and I would want his body treated with dignity, but I don't need all the "pomp and circumstance". It isn't necessary. And putting on a show about his body "coming home" really isn't undignified, just unnecessary. The problem is I believe the media, politicians, and even the public want that "pomp and circumstance", probably a lot more than most families.
Click to expand...

I respect the way you feel, Roguenuke, because we each have to respond in our own way but if it were my son I would not want him treated that way. I'd not attend if it's only to go through motions which are just as empty as that coffin.
 
Grant said:
I respect the way you feel, Roguenuke, because we each have to respond in our own way but if it were my son I would not want him treated that way. I'd not attend if it's only to go through motions which are just as empty as that coffin.
Click to expand...

Most don't even know though, according to the article. So why would it matter?

Now I think they shouldn't do stuff like this, but it doesn't sound like it is something new either. Sounds like it has been going on much longer than this administration. There just doesn't seem like enough information or even verification of this information to go on.
 
roguenuke said:
Why would that keep you in? When did you serve?
Click to expand...
1975-1995. At about the 8 year mark we had classes to explain all of the amazing things about our pay and allowances we might not know. We were told about a variety of things including our death benefits that are not obvious when looking at our monthly leave and earning statements. Interestingly I was also told I would have medical care for the rest of my life. Of course the Congress does increase the cost of that particular benefit every year. For me it is still a bargain. Will I be forced into one of the much worse MessiahCare plans?
...

And I'm not sure you quite understood what I was saying. I'm saying that they are not budgeted under normal pay and allowances for military personnel in all likelihood. Given the current issue we saw, it would seem this is true and it makes sense. Why budget death benefits with normal pay? How would you even determine how many people would be likely to die and require those death benefits within a given month? It seems much more like it would be a "just in case" budget item, rather than an item included under pay and allowances in the budget.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If it is delivered as part of pay and allowances then that is where one is most likely going to find it in the budget. We use statistics to create reasonably accurate predictions of year to year payouts. Budgets for pay and allowances are probably still single year dollars.
 
Misterveritis said:
1975-1995. At about the 8 year mark we had classes to explain all of the amazing things about our pay and allowances we might not know. We were told about a variety of things including our death benefits that are not obvious when looking at our monthly leave and earning statements. Interestingly I was also told I would have medical care for the rest of my life. Of course the Congress does increase the cost of that particular benefit every year. For me it is still a bargain. Will I be forced into one of the much worse MessiahCare plans?
...
I disagree. If it is delivered as part of pay and allowances then that is where one is most likely going to find it in the budget. We use statistics to create reasonably accurate predictions of year to year payouts. Budgets for pay and allowances are probably still single year dollars.
Click to expand...

Budgeting for the military has changed a lot since the 1980s. Death benefits have not been on LES's since I got in, that I know for sure. And I never went through any such classes. Heck, the only reason I know there is any extra money for us besides the SGLI is because I have a pretty good memory when it comes to what I sign, and I know that there are at least three things on the Page 2 that are signed for designating a person to receive certain benefits upon your death (and it doesn't have to be the same person as that which gets your SGLI primary, however, I'm pretty sure that if you have a spouse and it isn't your spouse, just like the SGLI benefits, the military is supposed to get the spouse's signature of approval for it). Most people do not know about this because many do not pay attention to every little bit of paperwork they sign, and even many of those who might, probably wouldn't bother telling their beneficiaries about it. Very few have any clue that it is intended to bury them or help their spouses/relatives so quickly after their death. I would never have guessed it was paid within days of a death. I can't even get paid for my drill days for 2 weeks or more after the drill. And there was just a story a couple years back about how the company that holds the SGLI benefits was taking longer to deliver those and it was causing hardships.
 
I got only one thing to say. Thank God for Fisher House........When my wife was suffering from stage 4 Ovarian Cancer in 1998 (which she beat) I stayed at a Fisher House for 10 days. They provided tons of food for free and I stayed in a 1 bedroom, living room, bathroom and Kitchen for 10 dollars a night. The people at Fisher House are Angels, God Bless them.

Its still hard to believe that Obama would not provide for those service men families. Just more proof that he has total disdain for our military.
 
Grant said:
You sound suspiciously like a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Click to expand...

I am. In fact, I would have voted for her. I can't stand Obama. I think Hillary would have pushed through a real UHC, not renamed Republican bull that is Obamacare.
 
roguenuke said:
I am. In fact, I would have voted for her. I can't stand Obama. I think Hillary would have pushed through a real UHC, not renamed Republican bull that is Obamacare.
Click to expand...

How could anyone who calls themselves slightly conservative vote for the biggest Liberal ever to run for president. How about naming jus one issue she is conservative on?:confused:
 
Navy Pride said:
How could anyone who calls themselves slightly conservative vote for the biggest Liberal ever to run for president. How about naming jus one issue she is conservative on?:confused:
Click to expand...

I don't vote based on what my lean is. I vote on who I feel will take care of the most issues I care about at a time. Especially Presidents, since they only have a max of 8 years. Things take time and unlike most, I absolutely understand this. I don't agree with either side 100%, but I have yet to see any politician with any chance of making it to President that I agree with even 80% on most issues.
 
roguenuke said:
I don't vote based on what my lean is. I vote on who I feel will take care of the most issues I care about at a time. Especially Presidents, since they only have a max of 8 years. Things take time and unlike most, I absolutely understand this. I don't agree with either side 100%, but I have yet to see any politician with any chance of making it to President that I agree with even 80% on most issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Hillary, come on fiscally she stands for everything you against. Biden is much more Conservative then she is. Your voting for her because she is female, period.
 
Navy Pride said:
Yeah but Hillary, come on fiscally she stands for everything you against. Biden is much more Conservative then she is. Your voting for her because she is female, period.
Click to expand...

Fiscally, she is for one of the main things I want and has the frickin balls to push for it til she gets it, at least she would have had she been given a chance. I want a UHC. There are plenty of other fiscal things I don't agree with where she is concerned, but then again, I am in the middle when it comes to fiscal policies anyway. I think both sides want fiscal policies that are too much about them trying to convince others that it will magically fix the economy and make everyone rich. It doesn't work that way.

Socially, she supports several things I do, but she also supports many I don't. I'm obviously for same sex marriage and gay rights, but I don't agree with abortion (although I wouldn't completely outlaw it) and I am against allowing illegal immigrants basically head of the line privileges for citizenship just because they got here while others didn't.

I want to see social assistance programs changed to a system that tries to reduce fraud and helps to encourage people to get off of it while still providing proper assistance. I don't want others telling people how to raise their children, especially if it isn't abuse.

There simply isn't any good ideas for the fiscal policies of our government that will fix everything, but neither side wants to admit that it will simply take time.
 
roguenuke said:
Budgeting for the military has changed a lot since the 1980s. Death benefits have not been on LES's since I got in, that I know for sure. And I never went through any such classes. Heck, the only reason I know there is any extra money for us besides the SGLI is because I have a pretty good memory when it comes to what I sign, and I know that there are at least three things on the Page 2 that are signed for designating a person to receive certain benefits upon your death (and it doesn't have to be the same person as that which gets your SGLI primary, however, I'm pretty sure that if you have a spouse and it isn't your spouse, just like the SGLI benefits, the military is supposed to get the spouse's signature of approval for it). Most people do not know about this because many do not pay attention to every little bit of paperwork they sign, and even many of those who might, probably wouldn't bother telling their beneficiaries about it. Very few have any clue that it is intended to bury them or help their spouses/relatives so quickly after their death. I would never have guessed it was paid within days of a death. I can't even get paid for my drill days for 2 weeks or more after the drill. And there was just a story a couple years back about how the company that holds the SGLI benefits was taking longer to deliver those and it was causing hardships.
Click to expand...
I did not mention SGLI.

This was a death gratuity, same as now. Nor did I say it was on our leave and earning statements. In fact the class I attended made the point that we would not see it on our LES (which is why it was not obvious).
 
roguenuke said:
Fiscally, she is for one of the main things I want and has the frickin balls to push for it til she gets it, at least she would have had she been given a chance. I want a UHC. There are plenty of other fiscal things I don't agree with where she is concerned, but then again, I am in the middle when it comes to fiscal policies anyway. I think both sides want fiscal policies that are too much about them trying to convince others that it will magically fix the economy and make everyone rich. It doesn't work that way.

Socially, she supports several things I do, but she also supports many I don't. I'm obviously for same sex marriage and gay rights, but I don't agree with abortion (although I wouldn't completely outlaw it) and I am against allowing illegal immigrants basically head of the line privileges for citizenship just because they got here while others didn't.

I want to see social assistance programs changed to a system that tries to reduce fraud and helps to encourage people to get off of it while still providing proper assistance. I don't want others telling people how to raise their children, especially if it isn't abuse.

There simply isn't any good ideas for the fiscal policies of our government that will fix everything, but neither side wants to admit that it will simply take time.
Click to expand...
I am confused. How can one be a socialist and be slightly conservative?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom