Join the armed forces you guys! We cannot stop counting the perks! You'll maybe get to travel to foreign and exotic places, shoot Bin Laden in the face and kill him, and then come home a hero! Movies will be made about you, people will sing your praises, the world will be your oyster! Until you decide you want to retire, and then things may not go so great! This is how things have turned out for the guy who shot Osama bin Laden in the face -- literally, the exact guy on SEAL Team 6 who shot Bin Laden in the face. He has decided to retire and can't find a job and thought he didn't have access to health care (
1. Dupe foolish young male into signing up for the military to avenge the sympathetic injury to his ego inflicted by foreigners when they resist encroachment by US Corporatocracy.
Phil Bronstein responded to the "Stars & Stripes" bit. Unfortunately (for them) S&S took issue with things that were not in the Esquire article...
I read "No Easy Day" and reading into it a bit it seems a SEAL who doesn't want to work 24/7/52 doesn't have a clear career path.
The deal in the military is "up or out." If you don't move through the ranks, they push you out. Or, in this case, you continue to fight. And sixteen years of that takes a toll.
SEALs don't tend to become officers because they don't get their tickets punched - they don't have a variety of military experiences. They have combat. Combat. And combat. That's not the path to becoming an officer.
Actually, it's the flip side of what many women experience (without all the sexcual harassment and those rapes, of course). It's difficult for them to become generals because they don't have the combat piece on their c.v.
Phil Bronstein (Sharon Stone's ex, victim of the Komodo Dragon "gift") did an excellent job of telling this soldier's story and using it as an example of a very serious issue - the transition from military to civilian life.
It's not all about individual cases - health care if you do your 20, but not if you are "only" in for 16, etc.
It's about a GI Bill that works for our military veterans. It's no coincidence the prosperity of the 1950's came after WW II. GI's could go to college (often the first in their family to do so), buy a home, get a good job and build a solid foundation for their family and their future.
As is so often the case in life, doing the right thing for our Vets will turn out to be a very good thing for all of us. And Bronstein's article can push that conversation forward.
Yeah, what the summaries uniformly completely failed to point out, is that he has "nothing" so far because he's waiting for his disability claim to be processed.
The piece is actually about the wait time, not the lack of eligibility.
Isn't the reason he left is the physical toll his career (i.e. risking his life for his country) took on his body? Not quite the same as quitting a regular job.
There are major issues of accessibility in the VA system - a number of vets live several hours away from their closest VA-operated facility.
But I find it absolutely impossible to believe that a disputing a PTSD claim with the VA could be as unpleasant as disputing one with, say, United Health[denialof]Care. And the level of experience VA doctors have dealing with traumatic brain injuries is completely off the charts compared to a private hospital.
The stories of neglect at Walter Reed needed to be told, but the problem is that they're only part of the bigger story about the VA, which is that with limited exceptions it's doing a really good job despite having a whole range of really challenging cases walk through their doors daily that many private sector Doctors won't see in their careers.
He could have checked <a href="http:\/\/www.navytimes.com\/benefits\/health\/" target="_blank">Navy</a> <a href="http:\/\/www.navytimes.com\/money\/retirement\/" target="_blank">Times</a>.
Esquire responds to the criticism: <a href="http:\/\/www.esquire.com\/features\/response-man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313\?click=news" target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.esquire.com/features/response-man-who-...">http://www.esquire.com/feat... <i>The online version of The Shooter story did not reflect the final version of the story in the print magazine, which went to press 10 days ago. The print version included more details about the availability of benefits for veterans. Unfortunately, this omission on the online version, which has been corrected, has led to a misunderstanding, through no fault of her own, by reporter Megan McCloskey and others about some of the facts in our story regarding healthcare and our veterans. The online version of the piece omitted the following paragraph that appears in the print magazine: &quot;There is also a program at MacDill Air Force Base designed to help Special Ops vets navigate various bureaucracies. And the VA does offer five years of benefits for specific service-related claims&mdash;but it&rsquo;s not comprehensive and it offers nothing for the Shooter&rsquo;s family.&quot; The story&#039;s argument, however, remains the same: That the man who shot and killed Osama bin Laden, as the following post explains, remains responsible for his own healthcare and that of his family.</i>
VA healthcare is much less horrible than anything you or I can afford. They have plenty of doctors who have skills in treating injuries relevant to vets that are light years beyond the private sector, and their pharmacy procedures are the best of the best.
Apparently, the official position of <em>Esquire</em> is that &quot;not enough&quot; is entirely indistinguishable from &quot;none at all&quot;. Interesting.
Here&#039;s the standard formula:
1. Dupe foolish young male into signing up for the military to avenge the sympathetic injury to his ego inflicted by foreigners when they resist encroachment by US Corporatocracy.
2. Use until damaged/destroyed.
3. Discard.
4. Repeat as necessary.
Phil Bronstein responded to the &quot;Stars &amp; Stripes&quot; bit. Unfortunately (for them) S&amp;S took issue with things that were not in the Esquire article...
I read &quot;No Easy Day&quot; and reading into it a bit it seems a SEAL who doesn&#039;t want to work 24/7/52 doesn&#039;t have a clear career path.
The deal in the military is &quot;up or out.&quot; If you don&#039;t move through the ranks, they push you out. Or, in this case, you continue to fight. And sixteen years of that takes a toll.
SEALs don&#039;t tend to become officers because they don&#039;t get their tickets punched - they don&#039;t have a variety of military experiences. They have combat. Combat. And combat. That&#039;s not the path to becoming an officer.
Actually, it&#039;s the flip side of what many women experience (without all the sexcual harassment and those rapes, of course). It&#039;s difficult for them to become generals because they don&#039;t have the combat piece on their c.v.
Phil Bronstein (Sharon Stone&#039;s ex, victim of the Komodo Dragon &quot;gift&quot;) did an excellent job of telling this soldier&#039;s story and using it as an example of a very serious issue - the transition from military to civilian life.
It&#039;s not all about individual cases - health care if you do your 20, but not if you are &quot;only&quot; in for 16, etc.
It&#039;s about a GI Bill that works for our military veterans. It&#039;s no coincidence the prosperity of the 1950&#039;s came after WW II. GI&#039;s could go to college (often the first in their family to do so), buy a home, get a good job and build a solid foundation for their family and their future.
As is so often the case in life, doing the right thing for our Vets will turn out to be a very good thing for all of us. And Bronstein&#039;s article can push that conversation forward.
Yeah, what the summaries uniformly completely failed to point out, is that he has &quot;nothing&quot; so far because he&#039;s waiting for his disability claim to be processed.
The piece is actually about the wait time, not the lack of eligibility.
But that&#039;s less sensational.
A link for the too lazy to google?
It just got cold in here.
Isn&#039;t the reason he left is the physical toll his career (i.e. risking his life for his country) took on his body? Not quite the same as quitting a regular job.
There are major issues of accessibility in the VA system - a number of vets live several hours away from their closest VA-operated facility.
But I find it absolutely impossible to believe that a disputing a PTSD claim with the VA could be as unpleasant as disputing one with, say, United Health[denialof]Care. And the level of experience VA doctors have dealing with traumatic brain injuries is completely off the charts compared to a private hospital.
The stories of neglect at Walter Reed needed to be told, but the problem is that they&#039;re only part of the bigger story about the VA, which is that with limited exceptions it&#039;s doing a really good job despite having a whole range of really challenging cases walk through their doors daily that many private sector Doctors won&#039;t see in their careers.
Never Again Volunteer Yourself
He could have checked <a href="http:\/\/www.navytimes.com\/benefits\/health\/" target="_blank">Navy</a> <a href="http:\/\/www.navytimes.com\/money\/retirement\/" target="_blank">Times</a>.
The article got that wrong. He does have access to VA healthcare, which is horrible, for five years after leaving. <a href="http://www.stripes.com/blog..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-ruptured-duck/th...">http://www.stripes.com/blog...
<a href="http://gawker.com/5983541/d..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://gawker.com/5983541/despite-esquire-storys-...">http://gawker.com/5983541/d...
Their source was Stars and Stripes. <a href="http://www.stripes.com/blog..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-ruptured-duck/th...">http://www.stripes.com/blog...
Esquire responds to the criticism: <a href="http:\/\/www.esquire.com\/features\/response-man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313\?click=news" target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.esquire.com/features/response-man-who-...">http://www.esquire.com/feat... <i>The online version of The Shooter story did not reflect the final version of the story in the print magazine, which went to press 10 days ago. The print version included more details about the availability of benefits for veterans. Unfortunately, this omission on the online version, which has been corrected, has led to a misunderstanding, through no fault of her own, by reporter Megan McCloskey and others about some of the facts in our story regarding healthcare and our veterans. The online version of the piece omitted the following paragraph that appears in the print magazine: &quot;There is also a program at MacDill Air Force Base designed to help Special Ops vets navigate various bureaucracies. And the VA does offer five years of benefits for specific service-related claims&mdash;but it&rsquo;s not comprehensive and it offers nothing for the Shooter&rsquo;s family.&quot; The story&#039;s argument, however, remains the same: That the man who shot and killed Osama bin Laden, as the following post explains, remains responsible for his own healthcare and that of his family.</i>
VA healthcare is much less horrible than anything you or I can afford. They have plenty of doctors who have skills in treating injuries relevant to vets that are light years beyond the private sector, and their pharmacy procedures are the best of the best.
Apparently, the official position of <em>Esquire</em> is that &quot;not enough&quot; is entirely indistinguishable from &quot;none at all&quot;. Interesting.