Skip to main content

View Diary: Deeply Suspect SEAL Claims (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, here's Esquire's correction (0+ / 0-)

    Correction

    Do they still have it wrong? I'm asking because I really want to know. And is this coverage he can get after the 9 months or so it takes to process his claim? Is it for him and his wife and children? Or just him?

    Confession time: When I'm not ranting about politics, I write romance novels

    by teresahill on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 02:34:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  In a way it's simple, and yet it's so much more (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Actbriniel

      complicated than single yes or no questions and answers. The linked "Correction" is itself a case in point.

      The "Correction," imho, seeks to refute Megan McCloskey's Stars and Stripes call out of Esquire's original piece by drawing technical distinctions based on some vague expectations that are only defined after the fact. Thus, the original article's claim that the Shooter had "no pension, no health care" for "himself or his family" (emphasis added) gets redefined into an Esquire writer's expectation

      There are benefits available to combat veterans via the VA, which "The Shooter" discusses (this constitutes the second factual error in McCloskey's piece, more on that in a moment), so what does Bronstein mean when he writes, "Nothing. No pension, no health care, and no protection for himself or his family..."? Well, he means precisely that. Because while the Shooter may be eligible for some direct benefits from the VA, his wife and two children are eligible for nothing. Not to get too deeply into the philosophy of insurance and the distribution of risk, but that means that under the best scenario, the Shooter is 1/4 covered, which of course means that he is not covered at all.
      That the Shooter has "no health care" for himself gets expanded into if he has no health care for his family he has no health care for himself. Rather than simply admit the factual inaccuracy of the statement, the "Correction" writer chooses to start redefining terms. Based on their own expectations and not what the Shooter always knew, while he served and when he made the decision to end his service.

      Even while rebuking the Stars and Stripes writer for allegedly not understanding what she's writing about, the Esquire writer proves that they themselves are confused, uninformed, and guilty of sloppy at best thinking. Consider this sentence

      Sources from the VA tell us that only 40% of eligible veterans use the benefits, because, as was the case with the Shooter, they aren't aware the benefits exist.
      Really? 40% of veterans use benefits they aren't aware exist? We might know what the writer intended to convey, but that's not what they wrote.

      Similarly, the Esquire writer repeatedly uses the phrase "combat veteran" when, in fact VA health care benefits are not conditional on having been in combat. It's a very complicated system, with numerous variables, which can be found here. That won't, of course, fit into an Esquire size piece, nor does it serve the poutraged position jimstaro has quite accurately described as a hit piece.

      The short answer to your direct question is that the Shooter, like every honorably discharged veteran, gets health care from the VA now if he claims it; his wife and children do not, and they never will unless Congress passes some special legislation and the President signs it. Whether or not the Shooter receives his health care in one of the higher priority groups is dependent on the success or failure of his claim for service-connected disability, which may or may not take the plucked from the sky nine months to decide (experience teaches that his claim will be highly expedited and given every benefit of the doubt).

      If we had about three hours we could sit down and discuss this and cover all your underlying questions, but you most likely still wouldn't understand it. Not that there's anything wrong with your understander, but that this is an incredibly complex issue that does not lend itself to short, easy answers. And yet it's ultimately pretty doggone fair from the viewpoint of this veterans' advocate who works with veterans every day. Generous, no. Fair, yes.

      I hope this helps. Probably not.

      “Perhaps the most 'spiritual' thing any of us can do is simply to look through our own eyes, see with eyes of wholeness, and act with integrity and kindness.” Jon Kabat-Zinn

      by DaNang65 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 05:25:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Geez. Well, thank you for trying. I think the only (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaNang65

        thing I could say is, universal health care, please. Now.

        Confession time: When I'm not ranting about politics, I write romance novels

        by teresahill on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:13:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Universal health care would certainly solve (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gordon20024, Actbriniel

          this immediate problem. I join with jimstaro, the diarist, in seeing this article as not being about health care at all, however, but simply another 'hit piece' on the VA.

          There's an ongoing war against the VA in the media, constantly misrepresenting facts to the VA's detriment, in service, imho, of wrapping magnetic yellow ribbon "patriotism" around a "government can't do anything right" agenda.

          While you might not follow the VA  the way js and I do you well know who that argument serves.

          “Perhaps the most 'spiritual' thing any of us can do is simply to look through our own eyes, see with eyes of wholeness, and act with integrity and kindness.” Jon Kabat-Zinn

          by DaNang65 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 06:22:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site