Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/navy-seal-osama-bin-laden_n_2661971.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...971.html</a> This is from a lengthy article I've saved but haven't yet read. The SEAL who reportedly killed Bin Laden did an interview with Esquire and said after he left the service, his health benefits immediately stopped and he's on a waiting list for disability benefits. If only he'd started a health savings account when he was born....
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, killing bin Laden doesn't get him any special condsiderations. He put in 16, not 20 years, and it's a very hard and fast rule. You leave voluntarily before your 20, then no health insurance, no pension like you'd get if you stayed. No sympathy from me on this one. Moreover, if he wants to alienate his fellow special ops members, he's well on his way to doing so. Big time. Him now, Chris Kyle that was just killed, and that guy that wrote the book, Matt Bissonette. They all are told going in that going public is not an option, unless you want to be an island unto yourself.
Originally Posted By mawnck ... or stayed in the service for four more years so he'd actually be entitled to those health benefits, as per the agreement when he enlisted. I get your point, but this is not an especially good story with which to make it.
Originally Posted By mawnck And that's why you post your comment when you first open the page, not 20 minutes later.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think that there is a single member of the military who doesn't understand what happens if you leave before you put in your full 20.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck What is this guy worried about insurance for? Not to impugn his service, but I smell a big bucks book deal in the works. The topic is still hot, and he wants to jump on it while he can, so staying in the service is out of the question.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's an incredible article, his recounting of the whole event is very intense, including how surreal much of it was. I'm not sure why SEALS would choose to have a family at all. The article describes how they are often on assignment 300 days out of the year, and spend much of the remaining 64 in the company of fellow SEALS decompressing, since they can't talk to anyone else about their missions. It's a helluva sacrifice. Maybe for such specialized units, the threshold for lifelong benefits should come at 10 years, not 20? Then again, every member of the military sacrifices so much normal life for their duty, it probably isn't fair to start singling people out.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 He made a stupid choice which he was counseled on prior to him leaving the service. I don't feel sorry for him because he knew what he was doing...Although chances are he didn't think of the long term ramifications of his choice... Not a big fan of him trying to get sympathy with a gullible public audience either...
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost <<<Maybe for such specialized units, the threshold for lifelong benefits should come at 10 years, not 20? Then again, every member of the military sacrifices so much normal life for their duty, it probably isn't fair to start singling people out.>>> I know this may seem anti-military, but it isn't, I am a proud veteran of Vietnam. That said, todays military is a lot different then it was back in the 60's, For one thing, it is voluntary. They make the choices to be in the heat of things (One to many Rambo movies, I'm thinking) They are not "volunteered like soldiers of the past. They know all the risks going in and voluntarily go for it. I respect and, in many way, admire those few that are willing to make that sacrifice, but unlike days of old, they had a choice, without any repercussions, to not get anywhere near it.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 The problem is where do you draw the line on retiring after 10 years. It's a volunteer military, nobody forced him to join Special Forces, and honestly he could have gone to a desk job or non deployable unit to ride out his time to 20 if he truly wanted...
Originally Posted By ecdc Well, now that we've excoriated this guy for not sticking to the agreement (and I agree, that's his responsibility), can we address the fact that even veterans, even those who killed the most wanted terrorist in the world, get stuck without health insurance? I'm not arguing for an exception for the guy because he shot Bin Laden, I'm arguing that it's reason #892 the system is broken. It's not an issue of "he broke his agreement," it's an issue of "why does this agreement exist in the first place?" We can't provide healthcare to someone who fights for their country unless they agree to stick around for 20 years? Sixteen years: No medical care for you!
Originally Posted By mawnck ... whereas if he was Canadian, he'd have health insurance whether he killed Bin Laden or not.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>It's not an issue of "he broke his agreement," it's an issue of "why does this agreement exist in the first place?"<< Exactly.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It's not an issue of "he broke his agreement," it's an issue of "why does this agreement exist in the first place?"<< To get their money's worth out of the soldier they just spent a big old pile of tax money training, feeding, housing, equipping, etc.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt ...and yet members of Congress are fully vested after only 5 years.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>...and yet members of Congress are fully vested after only 5 years.<< Well, obviously many of them have no training whatsoever.
Originally Posted By Ivan the seal broke a major rule in military. he broke the code. god, country, core , unit. he is eligible for a code red treatment. too bad since he did a courageous thing in that compound only to end things like that
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'm not sure why SEALS would choose to have a family at all. The article describes how they are often on assignment 300 days out of the year, and spend much of the remaining 64 in the company of fellow SEALS decompressing, since they can't talk to anyone else about their missions. It's a helluva sacrifice." They are strongly discouraged from having families. It's my understanding candidates for special ops get passed over because they have families, unless the candidate is exceptional. If they develop a family once in, they try to reassign them if they can, again unless the person is exceptional. And I get the sentiment lamenting no health insurance after 16 years, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. As others have pointed out, today's service members volunteer and know what they're getting into. Comparing them to Congressional members is somewhat valid, somewhat not. It's fashionable to ridicule Congressional members right now and practically deify the military, but again, where does the line get drawn? I think a more valid comparison is police and fire. Voluntary just the same, yet we can't do without them. Many communities today though are ripping them for their union contracts and benefits, the same citizens who AREN'T out there every day putting THEIR lives on the line. And what about teachers? I don't understand people who lament teacher salaries, either. But nonetheless, this latest Seal to go public has broken quite a few written and unwritten rules by doing so. He joined voluntarily and left voluntarily. We can thank him for his service and still require him to take responsibility for his choices.
Originally Posted By mele And then there is this article: <a href="http://www.stripes.com/blogs/the-ruptured-duck/the-ruptured-duck-1.160117/esquire-article-wrongly-claims-seal-who-killed-bin-laden-is-denied-healthcare-1.207506" target="_blank">http://www.stripes.com/blogs/t...1.207506</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X ***he broke the code. god, country, core , unit. he is eligible for a code red treatment*** Yup...that certainly is how you guys see the world, in't it? It's "corps", by the way.
