"Bain is one of about 755,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war. . . "

[Bird of Prey]

Number of disabled vets on the rise

< Prev (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24566987/) | 1 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24566987/) | 2



Surviving severe injuries
The American Legion’s Smithson says the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are resulting in more severe injuries — amputations and traumatic burns — the kind of injuries that troops in Vietnam and earlier wars would not have survived.
Smithson says today’s veterans also are filing claims for more disabilities.
“People are more aware of the benefits they are able to file for (because of) better outreach,” Smithson said. “It’s not like the WWII generation and Korean war generation where they weren’t aware of what they could file for, and they were also reluctant to file if they didn’t think they needed it.”

Iraq veteran Christopher Bain filed for about 10 disabilities after his tour in 2004. Bain came under mortar fire outside Baghdad and was hit several times. He successfully fought doctors who wanted to amputate his left arm. But 10 operations later, he still needs help getting dressed each day. An electrical stimulator implanted in his upper buttocks helps dull the pain from his injuries.
“It’s hard, you go through certain periods of remorse,” said Bain. “I am never going to be the man I once was.”



http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080511/080511-vets-bcol2-12p.standard.jpgGerald Herbert / AP



Army Stf. Sgt Ryan Kelly of Abilene, Texas, runs down a hallway as he tries out adjustments made to his new prosthetic leg as Andrew Steele, a prosthetist/ orthotist watches inside the U.S. Army Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington. Kelly was wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Bain suffers from tinnitus, post-traumatic stress disorder and serious injuries to his arms. He receives a check each month for $2,618 that helps the former Army staff sergeant pay the mortgage, food and clothing costs for his family of five in Williamsport, Pa.
Bain is one of about 755,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Of that group, the VA says more than 181,000 are collecting disability benefits.Another factor driving up costs and the overall number of disabled veterans is Vietnam. Veterans from that era make up the biggest group of vets today receiving disability compensation. At the end of 2006, more than 947,000 Vietnam vets were getting monthly checks.
“You see an awful lot of Vietnam veterans over the course of the years have gone from a 30 percent to 40 percent disability rating up to 100 percent when their employment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24566987/page/2/#) years start to wane a little bit,” said David Gorman, a Vietnam War veteran who is executive director at the Washington headquarters of Disabled American Veterans.
Aging's toll
Conditions, such as a bad back or knee, can worsen with age and draw higher payments. A big concern for Vietnam vets is diabetes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24566987/page/2/#). Last year, more than 271,000 veterans were receiving disability benefits for diabetes. Most of the disabilities — 236,000 of them — were linked to Agent Orange exposure.
Veterans who are approved for disability receive monthly checks for injuries or illnesses sustained or aggravated while on active duty. Ratings are scaled from 0 to 100 percent in 10 percent increments. A rating of 10 percent, for example, is given to tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, which is increasingly common for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan because of roadside bombings. Ratings for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury can range from 0-to-100 percent, and 10-to-100 percent, respectively. . . .http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24566987/page/2/

This is the result of a two party system and way too much presidential power. What a waste of the optimum in good men and women.

You want to stop it all? Vote third party.

[InfinityGoddess]

You want to stop it all? Vote third party.

Voting third party is not a viable option at this point and time. If it were, I'd agree with you. Get rid of the EC, and provide some instant runoff voting in more states and then perhaps we can end the two-party system.

Or build a new party from the grassroots up. However, just simply running for President every four years just to be annoying doesn't count.

[Dommo]

In an ideal world there would be a strong third party, but at this time voting for a third party might as well be not voting at all.

I also agree with goddess, that the EC system is retarded. It should be a proportional system instead of a winner takes all system. This would ensure that the popular vote would always win the election, and it would make third parties more powerful as they might keep a president from actually attaining a majority for the electoral college.

[blacbird]

This is the result of a two party system and way too much presidential power. What a waste of the optimum in good men and women.

You want to stop it all? Vote third party.

Thus we have the announcement of the New Bopster Jihad: The Third Party that will cure everything from political avarice to the common cold. If only the Dems had nominated her chosen candidate for President . . .

Just for grins, Bops, what's the platform of your Great Third Party? Policies? Programs?

caw

[blacbird]

In an ideal world there would be a strong third party, but at this time voting for a third party might as well be not voting at all.

I also agree with goddess, that the EC system is retarded. It should be a proportional system instead of a winner takes all system. This would ensure that the popular vote would always win the election, and it would make third parties more powerful as they might keep a president from actually attaining a majority for the electoral college.

Good post, and I agree. Unfortunately, the likelihood of an EC change is vanishingly remote at this time. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, and there are way too many political interests vested in keeping the status quo.

caw

[Bird of Prey]

Voting third party is not a viable option at this point and time. If it were, I'd agree with you. Get rid of the EC, and provide some instant runoff voting in more states and then perhaps we can end the two-party system.

Or build a new party from the grassroots up. However, just simply running for President every four years just to be annoying doesn't count.
Appropriate method is not a valid excuse, IG.

Just do it.

[Bird of Prey]

Thus we have the announcement of the New Bopster Jihad: The Third Party that will cure everything from political avarice to the common cold. If only the Dems had nominated her chosen candidate for President . . .

Just for grins, Bops, what's the platform of your Great Third Party? Policies? Programs?

caw

In detail, tomorrow morning, although it's wasted on the likes of sarcastic pukes. I trust you aren't one. . . are you, Birdsie? Nah. Not a bright fella like you.

[blacbird]

In detail, tomorrow morning, although it's wasted on the likes of sarcastic pukes. I trust you aren't one. . . are you, Birdsie? Nah. Not a bright fella like you.

Of course I am. In fact, I think I'll form a Sarcastic Pukes Party. The main tenet of our platform will be always and ever to demand from those who disagree with us some basis of rationality for such disagreement.

caw

[Dommo]

Actually I'm a Sarcastic SHIT.

No but really, some of us folks are realists. Things are never so straightforward in politics. Idealism just grates on my nerves anyway, and at some point you have to figure out how to enact change through the system.

There is just too much inertia in our current political process to do what you are saying. There may be a third party some day, but it's going to be a long and gradual process IF it happens(I mean we've already got 200 years in with more or less two parties). Think geological timescales for this to happen. The best way to open up the roads for a 3rd party, is to start at the lowest levels of politics and work up. Get mayor's, state reps, governors and the like that are third party, and MAYBE you might see 3rd party with some strength(perhaps strong enough to be the spoiler for the big parties).

In my book the only third party with a real shot of gaining a lot of strength is the libertarian party. They've got a lot of grassroots support, and they've got people that are already in elected offices. Perhaps in another 20 or so years they might get a few people elected to congress.

[blacbird]

In my book the only third party with a real shot of gaining a lot of strength is the libertarian party. They've got a lot of grassroots support, and they've got people that are already in elected offices. Perhaps in another 20 or so years they might get a few people elected to congress.

Perhaps. But I live in a place where so-called Libertarians are prominent and vocal, and they still can't elect anybody to office. Mainly because the most prominent and vocal of them are transparent goonballs nobody wants to be around.

caw

[Dommo]

I agree with that. Ideologically the libertarians are the closest to my political philosophy.

However, the problem is that libertarians are SOO broad as to who's involved in the party, that there is a good number of whackjobs in there. I guess it's a good thing and a bad thing, but it's definitely a bad thing when you are trying to win elections.

[Bird of Prey]

Democrats and Republicans have actually become a single society. That society has no challenger because it doesn't want a challenger. That society has convinced Americans that there is no other way into the federal halls unless it's through the two party system. How did it do it? By setting up a system that is so elaborate that it's near impossible to get on the ballot without a grotesque amount of money. What's really interesting though, is how the citizens of this country think when they vote: the better of two evils. . . . And they accept it because they've been taught that there is no other way. The odds are too overwhelming.

I don't know if anybody remembers this, but shortly after 9/11, while the country was reeling, our representatives on Capitol Hill voted themselves a raise. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize what the message is. To be a politician and collect that salary and make decisions affecting the country - though benefiting the sleazy lobbyists - is a process unto itself. The citizens electing these people are really only spectators. They only have two viable choices because that's been drilled into their heads. So ultimately, it's a game show. Who can collect the most money and win. The citizens are minor.

I think it's crucially important to realize that we don't have a federal system that allows direct voting. The popular vote is not the deciding vote. That system speaks volumes to the reality of who we really are in the wheel.

The government is expanding because of the claim that we need it larger. But in reality, it's because the government - meaning our "elected officials" need more control. Big decisions - like invading Iraq - require all kinds of support. Jobs are created, favors are owed. The machine keeps going. Democrats and Republicans will superficially fight about the war's legitimacy, but ultimately, the war will continue. That crisis and that drain is what in part keeps them important, or so we think.

Nader is an outsider. People have branded him all kinds of things that he isn't because he's a threat to the game show. He wants to make representation real, not gratuitous. That's not in the best interest of our "elected officials."

The Iraq war would never have begun had the well being of the citizens of this country transcended the well being of corporations and the enormous ego of a man with too much power. And corporations now function like Titans. They have become so powerful that American individuals are like mice in a cat's shadow. Corporations and politicians in tandem have usurped whatever power citizens could have in shaping the country's actual economic future. And the economic power of the individual is actual power. But as the rich get richer. . . . That's the end game.

Breaking the two party system forces a reevaluation of who is a priority in this country, and that would be the individuals who support this massive government. It's working men and women, not the entity they are forced to work for out of a need for health care or retirement or because that entity became such a goliath that it destroyed family businesses across the country.

We actually have the capability to change everything from our energy consumption and its origin to massive changes in climate patterns. We have the ability to take care of each other with viable health care while maximizing individual freedom and entrepreneurship. We just have to usher that era in, by simply believing that we can do it. We need to send a real person to the White House, and break the two party system. It's failed us.

[robeiae]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment, and there are way too many political interests vested in keeping the status quo.
True. I like my freedom.

[InfinityGoddess]

Appropriate method is not a valid excuse, IG.

Just do it.

I refuse to throw my vote away like that, which basically what it amounts to. I do not want McCain to get the White House, and unfortunately, the only way to keep that from happening is to vote for the Democrat, no matter who it is (and it's a fair bet that it'll be Obama; he's got just less that 160 delegates to go to get the nomination).

You do what you want with your vote, and I'll do what I want with mine. And I'm choosing the practical and realistic way.

[Bird of Prey]

I refuse to throw my vote away like that, which basically what it amounts to. I do not want McCain to get the White House, and unfortunately, the only way to keep that from happening is to vote for the Democrat, no matter who it is (and it's a fair bet that it'll be Obama; he's got just less that 160 delegates to go to get the nomination).

You do what you want with your vote, and I'll do what I want with mine. And I'm choosing the practical and realistic way.

In that case, your vote won't change much, which is fine. It's all a question of what you want.

[InfinityGoddess]

In that case, your vote won't change much, which is fine. It's all a question of what you want.

Oh, I can think of plenty of things it could change; like putting more progressives in Congress...

[Bird of Prey]

Oh, I can think of plenty of things it could change; like putting more progressives in Congress...

Define progressives, if you will. And I'd like to hear what changes you think it will culminate if Obama prevails.

[Bird of Prey]

And I do want to ask: is there anybody other than me that found the figure of 181,000 veterans of Afghan and Iraq collectiing disability a staggering figure?

[InfinityGoddess]

Define progressives, if you will. And I'd like to hear what changes you think it will culminate if Obama prevails.

The record high turnouts in the Democratic primaries is an indicator, plus with Obama on the ticket, it has the potential to help the down-the-ticket races. Already some progressive Democrats have won primaries and special elections because of association with Obama, whether directly or indirectly.

So while Obama himself may not be entirely progressive, there will be a bigger Progressive Caucus in the Congress come January.

[Tirjasdyn]

Just a point...The republican party broke the original two party system with Lincoln.

If you all would just vote third party it would happen faster.


Actually I'm a Sarcastic SHIT.

No but really, some of us folks are realists. Things are never so straightforward in politics. Idealism just grates on my nerves anyway, and at some point you have to figure out how to enact change through the system.

There is just too much inertia in our current political process to do what you are saying. There may be a third party some day, but it's going to be a long and gradual process IF it happens(I mean we've already got 200 years in with more or less two parties). Think geological timescales for this to happen. The best way to open up the roads for a 3rd party, is to start at the lowest levels of politics and work up. Get mayor's, state reps, governors and the like that are third party, and MAYBE you might see 3rd party with some strength(perhaps strong enough to be the spoiler for the big parties).

In my book the only third party with a real shot of gaining a lot of strength is the libertarian party. They've got a lot of grassroots support, and they've got people that are already in elected offices. Perhaps in another 20 or so years they might get a few people elected to congress.

[InfinityGoddess]

Just a point...The republican party broke the original two party system with Lincoln.

If you all would just vote third party it would happen faster.

Yes, but today it's more complicated than that. Money and resources are what drives the parties more, and the EC is really only equipped to deal with those said two parties, not to mention they like to squelch third parties. It is the main reason why we only have two independents in the Senate.

You need time, resources, and effort to build a viable third party. And just simply running for President every four years ala Nader isn't going to cut it.

[Tirjasdyn]

Yes, but today it's more complicated than that. Money and resources are what drives the parties more, and the EC is really only equipped to deal with those said two parties, not to mention they like to squelch third parties. It is the main reason why we only have two independents in the Senate.

You need time, resources, and effort to build a viable third party. And just simply running for President every four years ala Nader isn't going to cut it.

popular vote could change that.

[billythrilly7th]

Thus we have the announcement of the New Bopster Jihad: The Third Party that will cure everything from political avarice to the common cold. If only the Dems had nominated her chosen candidate for President . . .

Just for grins, Bops, what's the platform of your Great Third Party? Policies? Programs?

caw

I agree 100%.

Who and where and what is this savioracle mythical party? Because I'm excited!!

I'm totally up for voting for a third party who can usher peace and prosperity across this great land and then the planet.

Let me know. 'Cause I'm down.

[InfinityGoddess]

popular vote could change that.

It could, but unfortunately the most third parties can expect these days is maybe 1% of the vote. And that's being generous.

[Tirjasdyn]

It only takes 5%.

It is possible...folks just have to do it.

::Shrug::

[Dommo]

A good example is the libertarian party. IF people thought that voting for them could actually enact change, they'd probably snatch about 10%-20% of the vote(as that's about the percentage of people who actually are libertarian, albeit not party members officially). Unfortunately most people are like me, and see that in the current elective system that voting for a 3rd party is pretty much throwing away votes.

However, on the local level, and even state level, it's often more about the personality of the candidate as opposed to the party a specific candidate is affiliated with. This is where 3rd parties have to go. Fuck the presidential election, and start making moves on the lower rungs of power, and work up from there.

Eventually in my hypothetical world, a 3rd parties might start to creep into congress and have say 8-10 votes in the senate, and like 30 or so in the house. Not enough to actually control anything, but likely enough to determine the majority, which would allow the 3rd parties to hold A LOT of power. It won't necessarily happen soon, but I could see it happening someday, IF the third parties will simply give up trying to shoot for presidential elections, and focus on undermining the current parties.

[Bird of Prey]

It only takes 5%.

It is possible...folks just have to do it.

::Shrug::

Thank you.

[InfinityGoddess]

It only takes 5%.

It is possible...folks just have to do it.

::Shrug::


Not without proper organization that's enough to beat out the two powerhouse parties that we do have and not leave room for spoilers.

A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. You want to change that, then you need to do it the right way.

[Dommo]

I agree goddess. Like I said, the key is for third party to attack at the grassroots level, and work their way up, instead of trying to take on the political juggernauts that are the current parties head on.

[InfinityGoddess]

A good example is the libertarian party. IF people thought that voting for them could actually enact change, they'd probably snatch about 10%-20% of the vote(as that's about the percentage of people who actually are libertarian, albeit not party members officially). Unfortunately most people are like me, and see that in the current elective system that voting for a 3rd party is pretty much throwing away votes.

However, on the local level, and even state level, it's often more about the personality of the candidate as opposed to the party a specific candidate is affiliated with. This is where 3rd parties have to go. Fuck the presidential election, and start making moves on the lower rungs of power, and work up from there.

Eventually in my hypothetical world, a 3rd parties might start to creep into congress and have say 8-10 votes in the senate, and like 30 or so in the house. Not enough to actually control anything, but likely enough to determine the majority, which would allow the 3rd parties to hold A LOT of power. It won't necessarily happen soon, but I could see it happening someday, IF the third parties will simply give up trying to shoot for presidential elections, and focus on undermining the current parties.

:Clap::Clap::Clap:

To go with the rep point that I gave you.