Pentagon bean counters....

[Jones]

Assuming that this story is accurate, this is pretty shabby:

"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?" Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."

 

[av8torntn]

I'll play devil's advocate and agree that combat injuries should be treated differently than non combat injuries.

I have a big problem with this.

"In many cases, veterans say, they are not told why their disabilities are not considered combat-related."

I will say this since I know someone very well who was blown up 32 times in Iraq that the VA system is very difficult and challenging to navigate. The person that I know more or less just gave up. Well after one to many why do you think this is combat related questions. They throw up lots of roadblocks and every step of the way they tell you that no matter what you must appeal the decision. It is a very horrible experience. Everyone is very helpful but just the system is beyond description. I would love to see their care centers replaced with some type of insurance although that would not solve the problem your article refers to. The problem is the entire system needs to be replaced and updated not just patched. If you are going to send these young men and women to combat there needs to be a very good system in place and I do not feel that we have one. I know some old timers will not agree and they think the VA is a really great system but I think that it could be replaced with something much better.

 

[Jones]

I don't have a huge problem with combat injuries being treated differently than non-combat injuries. But the article is suggesting that the Pentagon is seeking to classify injuries as non-combat related just to save money:

"We do not view this as an oversight," Baker testified before Congress in June. "We view this as an intentional effort to conserve monetary resources at the expense of disabled veterans."

A Marine getting blown up by an IED is pretty clearly combat related. Yeah, he won on appeal, but he should never have had to go through that process. Lori Meshell's case is not quite as clear cut, but at the end of the day she was injured as a result of her actions during a mortar attack and it just looks like nit-picking on someones part. It's not as if either of these two was hurt falling down the stairs on the way to the chow hall.

Hopefully this article is exaggerating to make a point, and these two cases are fairly isolated, but it's still two too many imho.

 

[av8torntn]

I don't have a huge problem with combat injuries being treated differently than non-combat injuries. But the article is suggesting that the Pentagon is seeking to classify injuries as non-combat related just to save money:
A Marine getting blown up by an IED is pretty clearly combat related. Yeah, he won on appeal, but he should never have had to go through that process. Lori Meshell's case is not quite as clear cut, but at the end of the day she was injured as a result of her actions during a mortar attack and it just looks like nit-picking on someones part. It's not as if either of these two was hurt falling down the stairs on the way to the chow hall.

Hopefully this article is exaggerating to make a point, and these two cases are fairly isolated, but it's still two too many imho.

Well I actually agree with you. That should make you rethink your position.

There was an article not long ago about a directive to diagnose PTSD as OCD just to save funds.