• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama makes VA PTSD benefits more liberal.

Any bets on how long it will take the rightwhack noise machine to claim that the victims had a pre-existing personality disorder?
 
Presumably there are studies showing discrepancies between the general population and vets.

In this way, we don't have to use words like "whackjob"
 
This new policy is estimated to cost over 5 billion dollars. I wonder if the Tea Party will complain about this one.
 
I wonder what will get up the Left's nose the most, over the next few weeks:
  • Tea Partiers praising Obama when he does something they think is praiseworthy;
  • Tea Partiers having a thoughtful, nuanced opinion that recognizes some government spending as necessary and appropriate; or
  • Tea Partiers thinking that soldiers are worth spending money on.

This thread isn't very long yet, but already I think we're seeing some indication of which faction is able to let go of their hate at least for a moment, to celebrate a good thing, and which faction isn't.
 
thaiboxerken said:
No, I don't. I doubt that they will complain at all, even though it's fiscally expensive.
Click to expand...
... and maybe if we wasted less money on stupid inappropriate government initiatives, we'd have more money to spend on the few essential responsibilities of government--such as caring for the troops we've put in harm's way.

Like I said, this should have been done a long time ago. I think it's a black mark on Bush's administration, that of all the things he thought to spend money on, this wasn't one of them.

I'm glad that of all the things Obama has thought to spend money on, this was included.

You seem to think that this should be some sort of fiscal indulgence: that by spending some money appropriately, Obama should get a free pass from fiscal conservatives for all the inappropriate spending he's doing.

I wonder if Obama's cabinet feels the same way. What do you think?
 
theprestige said:
... and maybe if we wasted less money on stupid inappropriate government initiatives, we'd have more money to spend on the few essential responsibilities of government--such as caring for the troops we've put in harm's way.
Click to expand...

Had the Shrub not spent money on something as stupid as invading Iraq, the extra funding wouldn't even be needed in the first place.

You seem to think that this should be some sort of fiscal indulgence: that by spending some money appropriately, Obama should get a free pass from fiscal conservatives for all the inappropriate spending he's doing.
Click to expand...

Stimulating the ecconomy is not wasteful spending. Giving the people who screwed up the ecconomy a tax break is inappropriate.

Taxes on somebody are going to have to go up to pay for this. Let's start with the high-end earners this time.

(I know, the rightwhackers are already reaching for something to throw at me.)
 
theprestige said:
... and maybe if we wasted less money on stupid inappropriate government initiatives, we'd have more money to spend on the few essential responsibilities of government--such as caring for the troops we've put in harm's way.

Like I said, this should have been done a long time ago. I think it's a black mark on Bush's administration, that of all the things he thought to spend money on, this wasn't one of them.

I'm glad that of all the things Obama has thought to spend money on, this was included.

You seem to think that this should be some sort of fiscal indulgence: that by spending some money appropriately, Obama should get a free pass from fiscal conservatives for all the inappropriate spending he's doing.

I wonder if Obama's cabinet feels the same way. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Such a nuanced argument is welcome and I thank you for that.
Would you advocate higher taxes to pay for such initiatives?

What government initiatives are, in your mind, not important?
Health care?
Medicare?
Welfare?
Social Security?
Education?
FDA?
NIH/NSF?
EPA?
FBI?
CIA?
transportation and infrastructure?
NEA?


I think the problem has been that Tea Partiers have presented a "smaller government" platform without really describing what that means.
 
I'm glad this happened, but why did it take Obama a year and a half to do it?

Bush, of course, never did.
 
Complexity said:
I'm glad this happened, but why did it take Obama a year and a half to do it?
Click to expand...

Bush didn't have to deal with a lot of nutjobs in congress who were too worried about preserving the tax giveaways to do much of anything for working class families.
 
theprestige said:
This thread isn't very long yet, but already I think we're seeing some indication of which faction is able to let go of their hate at least for a moment, to celebrate a good thing, and which faction isn't.
Click to expand...

Considering that your lukewarm praise of Obama was all but lost in your smug sense of self-satisfaction and one-man invasion of the moral highground, I can safely conclude that both sides of the aisle are going to use this to win points in the wide, wide world of partisanship.

theprestige said:
... and maybe if we wasted less money on stupid inappropriate government initiatives, we'd have more money to spend on the few essential responsibilities of government--such as caring for the troops we've put in harm's way.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe that the government is in some way hurting for tax revenue. Any indication as to why that is?

theprestige said:
Like I said, this should have been done a long time ago. I think it's a black mark on Bush's administration, that of all the things he thought to spend money on, this wasn't one of them
Click to expand...

It goes worse than that actually, he repeatedly pushed against any efforts to raise VA benefits and supported placing limitations on which veterans had access to healthcare services provided by the VA.
 
Last edited:
The Shrub called himself increasing funding for VA when he allocated about 20% more money while increasing the number of eligible veterans by about 100% (not exact figures, I can't find the exact numbers readily) and presenting them with some of the most profundly damaged patients they had ever had to deal with.

There remain a great number of veterans who deserve greater benefits than the VA is providing them but who are denied because some lowlife entered into their records that their mental peoblems were the result of "pre-existing personality disorders." I blame that worthless little maggot Rummy for that.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
The Shrub called himself increasing funding for VA when he allocated about 20% more money while increasing the number of eligible veterans by about 100% (not exact figures, I can't find the exact numbers readily) and presenting them with some of the most profundly damaged patients they had ever had to deal with.

There remain a great number of veterans who deserve greater benefits than the VA is providing them but who are denied because some lowlife entered into their records that their mental peoblems were the result of "pre-existing personality disorders." I blame that worthless little maggot Rummy for that.
Click to expand...

What about those who got dishonorable discharges for behavior associated with PTSD?
 
I have a very difficult time accepting a lot of soldiers claims for PTSD simply because of the experiences I have had with it. For example, when I first took over a tank platoon there were 4 specialists in the middle of going through the medical board process for PTSD. One thing they all had in common was that they hated the Army. The Army decided that they had PTSD and put them on lots of meds, gave them a profile which stated that they could only work between the hours of 0900 and 1700, and they were not allowed to be around weapons. Since a tank is a weapon, they couldn't even do anything on those. A lot of good those guys did me huh?

So for the next four months they went on about their days going to their various doctors appointments for treatments and check ups and left the rest of the platoon very shorthanded. Well eventually these guys got out of the Army. All four of them admitted to their buddies that there was not a thing wrong with them. They just simply wanted to get out of the Army and wanted their benefits. Complete S bags.

So that's why I examine soldiers very closely when they claim PTSD. I believe that it is a real condition, but I also believe there are many people who abuse it for their benefit.
 
joobz said:
Such a nuanced argument is welcome and I thank you for that.
Would you advocate higher taxes to pay for such initiatives?

What government initiatives are, in your mind, not important?
Health care?
Medicare?
Welfare?
Social Security?
Education?
FDA?
NIH/NSF?
EPA?
FBI?
CIA?
transportation and infrastructure?
NEA?


I think the problem has been that Tea Partiers have presented a "smaller government" platform without really describing what that means.
Click to expand...
Just because something is important doesn't mean there's no waste there. Bureaucrat's job is to increase their budgets next year, so they must spend every penny this year. There is only upward pressure on costs, no downward.

Thus, my company once did a job at Fermilab (federal government funding) where we tore down a wall in a conference room, and replaced it with a new wall exactly 6 inches from the old one. They were quite frank that this project was solely to spend the rest of the money in their budget.

Because, you know, not spending all the money in your budget means you've failed as a bureaucrat.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
What about those who got dishonorable discharges for behavior associated with PTSD?
Click to expand...

They need to be re-examined now. If their personality disorderers were not apparent before they got into a combat situation, and they sustained traumatic brain injuries, I would think it only rational to conclude that the TBI had something to do with it and was thus not only an exculpatory factor in whatever charges were brought, but a qualification for full medical and disability benefits that would be due had they had a leg shot off.

Even if as man had a personality disorder coming in but kept it under control until he ate an IED, I would consider that injury to have aggravated the condition, thus, again, qualifying him for diasablity benefits.

There is no excuse for the way the Shrub treated the soldiers he used for his harebrained schemes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom