Yes, the officials deny it. I’d give that denial at least some modest weight, if I hadn’t already read this (PDF) GAO report:
So VA and DoD were already in a tug-of-war for injured soldiers, with VA trying to transition them out, and DoD trying to keep them in order to meet retention goals.
So if I’m a bit skeptical of the military’s denials that they’re downgrading soldiers’ injuries in order to return them to Iraq, that’s just the way it goes.
Mods, could you please move this to the Pit? That’s the forum I’d intended to post this in.
so reported
Why would the Army’s doctors be so accommodating to the brass on this point?
Because military doctors work for the military, not for the patient.
If anyone believes this is a recent development, I’m sure some Dopers who are veterans can dispel that particular myth.
Getting a medical discharge or getting documentation for a service related disability has never been an easy or fair process. And while I strongly want that process cleaned up, I don’t know how much this mess is related to the current war or the current administration.
When I was due to get out in 1998, long before the current unpleasantness, doctors detected a hearing shift likely caused by a few years of listening to high frequency static on communications circuits. They told me they’d have to keep me in for several months past my planned separation date to document everything they needed so that I could get a partial disability benefit. Then, right before my planned separation date, this hearing shift mysteriously vanished, and I left the Navy as planned, but with no disability claim.
If I have demonstrated hearing loss in the future, I anticipate it being a nightmare proving it was service related, given this.
I’m sure others have interesting stories as well. But the long and short of it is that I never trusted military medicine to give me anything but two aspirin and a kick in the ass.
You are thinking in pre-Bush terms. Post-Bush, you do what you are told or you are fired, demoted, reprimanded, etc.
Off you go.
Have fun stormin’ the castle.
Thanks! I just received a ginormous shipment of torches and pitchforks, so I think I’m all set. 
Yeah, but there’s a big difference between your hearing shift and some of the injuries these troops have experienced in combat.
And there’s an even bigger difference between “two aspirin and a kick in the ass” and a return visit to beautiful downtown Baghdad.
As I’ve said before, Bush is fighting a war of a size, scope, and especially duration well beyond the volunteer army’s capabilities. And in order to pretend that that isn’t so, shit like this happens.
Another thing that’s worth including in this Pitting is the failure of the Yellow Elephants to volunteer for the war. The military wouldn’t have to send disabled soldiers back to Iraq if there were more volunteers.
Mr. Moto, I don’t think anyone would deny your point that army docs work more for the overall help rather than just the individual. But with respect, there’s quite a significant difference between “adjusting” things so a soldier with a potential future hearing complaint doesn’t get partial disability, and sending injured soldiers back to a conflict zone. I mean, even that i’d expect to some extent if it were deemed necessary; I guess it just seems kinda damning that sending injured soldiers back in *is * necessary.
I’m not denying that. I’m just saying that this newfound concern for the troops is certainly touching, given that I wasn’t the beneficiary of much concern when I was actually in.
This support the troops rhetoric from most quarters is actually pretty shallow. Most conservatives only allow their concern extend to the act of buying yellow magnetic ribbons, and for a lot of liberals, their concern for the troops is tightly wedded to their opposition to the war. Take away that war, and that concern would vanish pretty rapidly, I’d bet. Military health care wasn’t a burning political issue in 1998, was it?
That’s why for this issue, I don’t give two shits what Republicans or Democrats say. I put far more stock in what groups like the American Legion and the VFW are doing, and have done for years. They have a good few bucks from me to continue to lean on the military to make things better, and to do for soldiers and veterans what the government can’t or won’t do.
How about VoteVets? How do you feel about them as an organization?
I’d certainly agree that the large issue being made out of this by liberals now is part of their opposition to the war (and of course with conservative who are against it); were I you I think i’d be careful to differentiate the political-haymaking on the subject and actual care for the troops, lest you come off as saying that liberals without the war wouldn’t give two shits about the armed forces.
And like I said, while I do see your point about the issue being made of this, I think it’s silly to say the reason it’s happening is because the war is not a liked one. I would imagine that concern for the troops would go up during any kind of war. To paint a picture that anyone showing more concern now is somehow just doing so because of their dislike for the war, rather than the fact that troops are more likely to be placed in harm’s way and injured now, seems a bit unfair.
I’m neither. Do I count? 
But Colonel Nicholson needs to get the bridge built on schedule to prove a point to Saito.
This ‘newfound’ concern has been visible on this board since 2003, when we were bitching about the failure of the Army to properly armor its Humvees and to provide its soldiers with good body armor.
I’m sorry that you weren’t the beneficiarly of such concern, but we dirty fucking hippies saved our concern for troops that were actually suffering real consequences from being in a war zone. Sorry about your hearing problems and all, but I hope you can understand why most of us were never aware of it to begin with.
Yeah, failure to pay attention to trivial matters obviously makes us a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
I agree with you about conservatives (here’s a good for-instance of their lack of interest, courtesy of Jesus’ General). But are you saying that liberals’ concern for the troops would be absent in a war they supported?!
If that’s what you believe, then screw you and the horse you rode in on.
And the need for concern was equally burning, wasn’t it?
Who cares if we dirty fucking hippies are speaking the truth? What matters is that we’re doing it because we hate America, or something. So yeah, don’t listen to us. No point in it.
Yeah, and they’ve really been on top of things when the chips have been down, haven’t they? Bet they were aware about the mess at Walter Reed years ago, and were raising a stink in every way they could. Oh wait, they weren’t. And were they the first ones to find out and make an issue of the subject of this OP? Apparently not, wouldn’t you say?
But they Love America, so it’s all good. :rolleyes:
Maybe I’ve been whooshed, but if we take away the war, we wouldn’t have injured soldiers being sent back to fight. So yes, the concern would vanish because there would be no problem in the first place.
There are many liberals, such as myself, who actually have more problem with how this war has been carried out than with the pretext behind the war. Well-executed, well-planned action, IMHO, would have done wonders at keeping the opposition meek and quiet, even after the war’s illegitimacy was uncovered. But not only are US and Iraqi citizens burdened with an illegitimate war, they’re also burdened with a poorly-executed illegitimate war. I see two different crimes here, and the fault for both rests with the Administration.
Not exactly. As I mentioned in the GD thread about Walter Reed, the hospital at Fort Lewis, Madigan, has been known by Northwest locals to be decidedly subpar for as long as I can remember, going back thirty years. This is true in peacetime as in war. The only difference is that during wartime, the number of patients increases dramatically, thus highlighting and exacerbating a longstanding problem. Doesn’t mean the problem didn’t already exist, just that it was below the radar, so to speak.
I’d have to draw a distinction between what they do and what the Legion and VFW do in this area.
The Legion and VFW have longstanding policies when it comes to military and veteran medical care. In addition to their advocacy for better care and higher spending, each post has an officer in their leadership whose duties are to help members navigate the frustrating and confusing bureaucracy of DoD and VA medical care. These efforts go back decades.
I’d include the work of the Disabled American Veterans and to a lesser extent AMVETS in this.
VoteVets exists to get veterans (primarily Democratic ones, incidentally) elected to office, and has improvements to veteran care as a prominent part of its platform. This is well and good, and to be welcomed, but it doesn’t really compare to the decades of work the VFW and Legion have put in on this issue.
Military health care and veterans’ health care can be issues even in peacetime. There are lots of ways a peacetime soldier can get injured, that would not arise in most private-sector jobs.
I think that is all part of Mr Moto’s complaint. Yes dude, 2003 IS “newfound”. The concern can be easily seen as a partisan talking point to embarrass Bush et al. Yes, this war exacerbates problems with veteran and active duty medical care (eta: and equipment) but believe it or not, soldiers get injured every year even without combat*.
*actually, has a single president failed to have active combat troops out there somewhere during his term?