Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6862680/
Veterans groups gripe about military benefits
Do troops get what they need when they return?
By Chip Reid
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:31 p.m. ET Jan. 24, 2005
They risk their lives and endure brutally violent conditions on tours of duty that average almost a year. What sustains them through it all is the dream of coming home. But what's next? When returning troops reach U.S. soil, do they get the help they need?
"It should be the No. 1 priority of this country to recognize their efforts and, when they return, to ensure that the benefits are available to them," says Peter Gaytan with the American Legion.
Too often, though, resources and programs are not available, according to many veterans organizations.
For example:
Health care: More than 10,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, overwhelming the veterans health care system in some states where injured veterans wait months to get help.
Education: The GI bill gives veterans money for college. But vets groups say the funding doesn't match what school really costs.
Death benefit: The families of the nearly 1,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan receive only about $12,000.
CONGRESS CONSIDERS CHANGES
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., proposed the HEROES Act (Honoring Every Requirement of Exemplary Service) on Jan. 24, 2005. Here are the key parts of the proposal:
Raise the death gratuity from $12,420 to $100,000 retroactive to the war in Afghanistan
Raise maximum servicemen's life insurance (SGLI) from $250,000 to $400,000
"Twelve-thousand dollars is a paltry and miserly amount," says Sen. George Allen, R-Va.
Now some members of Congress want to increase the benefit to $100,000.
The problem in all these issues, according to veterans groups, is too little money. In a time of war, they say funding for veterans should be going up. But veterans groups are worried that when President Bush issues his budget proposal next month, veterans programs will be frozen or maybe even cut.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a big advocate for veterans, learned how hard it is to increase funding. He was chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, but not anymore.
"It's our contention that in the eyes of the leadership he did too good a job," says Dennis Cullinan of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "He was clearly pushed out. It's unprecedented."
The president's choice to be the new secretary of veterans affairs was asked Monday if veterans will get the assistance they need.
"My commitment in taking on this job, if I am given the privilege, is to the veterans and their needs, because I feel it, and they deserve it," Jim Nicholson told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
But Nicholson stressed that funds are finite and left open the possibility of cuts in programs as the troops come home.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ws/20050111/ts_usnews/inamericawhatpriceglory
In America, What Price Glory?
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
America's commitment to the survivors of the tsunami is a mark of our generosity. The commitment we make to those who voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to fight our wars is a mark of our character. It is reflected in two ways. The first is the effort to save the wounded. The success is unparalleled. Some 98 percent of the wounded now survive, a mortality rate half of previous wars and down 22 percent even when compared with the first Gulf War (news - web sites), thanks to rapid evacuation, body armor capable of stopping high-velocity rifle rounds, fast-clot bandages, better tourniquets to preserve blood, and access to fresh whole blood that saves many soldiers from bleeding to death. Beyond that, there is a greater understanding than there was just a few years ago of the mental stress of combat, much aggravated in Iraq (news - web sites), where our soldiers face an enemy who masquerades in civilian clothes and bogus uniforms and blows himself up in order to kill and maim. Post-traumatic stress disorder has a debilitating effect on the brain's chemistry that sometimes lasts the rest of a person's life, long after the war is over. It can lead to flashbacks, sleep disorders, panic attacks, survivor's guilt, depression, and emotional numbness.
For all the great advances in battlefield medicine, however, America comes up short when it comes to follow-on assistance to our men and women who bear arms. If an American in military uniform is killed, his or her family receives a one-time tax-exempt death gratuity of $12,000 and rent-free government housing for 180 days, or its equivalent. There is a special group life insurance program that could provide as much as an additional $250,000 if the serviceman or his family subscribes to the program. Compare this with the millions of dollars the families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks received. Then there is the Survivor Benefit Plan, which pays the spouse of a military person killed in action 55 percent of his or her retirement pay--an amount already so low that it qualifies many military families for food stamps. Just recently, the law was revamped to allow spouses to remarry after age 57 and keep receiving this minimal compensation. But those who remarry before 57 still lose their survivor benefits.
For those who seek to return to ordinary life, the compensation is similarly mean. Injured or ill veterans must submit to a complex set of reviews before medical boards that decide whether they qualify for financial help and how much they'll receive for their disabilities. How much should a vet receive for trying to live partially or fully blind, deaf, limbless, disfigured, or brain-damaged? Much less than you would assume. Think of coping without a hip and leg, for instance, on around $12,000 a year.
Backlog. On top of this, the Department of Veterans Affairs (news - web sites) is overwhelmed. It provides benefits and care for approximately 5 million American veterans. Typically overburdened during war, it now has a backlog of some 300,000 claims, on top of having to deal with 150,000 National Guard and Reservist veterans who have also become eligible because of service in Iraq.
Meanwhile, those from the National Guard and the Reserve who are injured on duty must navigate a system suited more to full-time soldiers. Most are required to stay on military bases to get government medical treatment and to collect their active-duty salary, as well as finish the evaluation that determines whether they return to duty or leave with severance and disability payments. This means they are away from home for way too long. The VA should allow part-timers to receive active-duty pay while they're being treated at hospitals and VA sites closer to their homes and, if necessary, to be treated by their own doctors with appropriately reasonable medical insurance.
There is some good news, however. The VA has been working hard to reduce the backlog of soldiers' claims and to cut waiting times for medical appointments. There has also been an increase in veterans' disability compensation rates--up to $2,300 a month, or $27,600 a year--for 100 percent disabled veterans without dependents. But President Bush (news - web sites) proposed to cut the VA's 2005 budget request by $1.2 billion, over the objections of the secretary of veterans affairs, and to reduce the number of VA staff who handle benefit claims at the very time when the number and complexity of such claims are increasing.
This is, to put it plainly, outrageous. Our military personnel should not be treated as second-class citizens. Those wounded and disabled while fighting the war on terrorism for the rest of us will need special help to cope with the scars and disabilities inflicted by a savage, amoral enemy. Soldiers who volunteered to leave their loved ones to defend the rest of us deserve better, much better.
