Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Mon 2/11/2013 6:28p And then there is this article: <a href="http://www.stripes.com/blogs/t...1.207506<<" target="_blank">http://www.stripes.com/blogs/t...<<</a> Like I mentioned earlier, he is trying to "play" the public to try and make money off of his service....
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "And then there is this article:" Nice work Esquire. Not. In any case, 5 years of medical coverage is better than nothing, but considering the hazards I think a full lifetime of coverage would be appropriate.
Originally Posted By tashajilek "... whereas if he was Canadian, he'd have health insurance whether he killed Bin Laden or not." Yupp, another head scratcher about the USA.
Originally Posted By andyll <<In any case, 5 years of medical coverage is better than nothing, but considering the hazards I think a full lifetime of coverage would be appropriate.>> So every member of the service should get free health care for life? After how long? Does it matter if they've had active service?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost <<In any case, 5 years of medical coverage is better than nothing, but considering the hazards I think a full lifetime of coverage would be appropriate.>> Well, some kinda do one way is to stay in for 20 years and get 100% coverage. Since I am a Vietnam Vet. I get some VA coverage that someone that didn't serve in a war zone doesn't get. They still take care of their Veterans. So this guy either doesn't want VA coverage or there is some reason why he isn't qualified. I wouldn't know that answer. What I do know is that they cannot just hand out free medical care to everyone. It is a scaled system.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "So every member of the service should get free health care for life? After how long? Does it matter if they've had active service?" I don't know. What do you think? I think we can agree that a SEAL responsible for killing one of the world's most wanted criminals might deserve more compensation than the military personnel responsible for filing his paperwork.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I think we can agree that a SEAL responsible for killing one of the world's most wanted criminals might deserve more compensation than the military personnel responsible for filing his paperwork." Not necessarily. Who's done more for his country? The 25 year old from Alabama with a wife and two kids who, on his third tour of Iraq, gets killed by an IED, or "The Shooter"? Who made the greater contribution? Widows don't get free medical for life either. After three years, they're eligible to pay rates like retired personnel could do. Nobody gets anything extra because of a contingency.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost The military is not about individuals, it is about teams. Without everyone else in his group he would have been hamburg in only a few minutes. No, he may have pulled the trigger (as far as we know), but he didn't do anything alone. No one in the military is "special" all are equally important and as a military man is taught to play by the rules. Deserves nothing special, it was his job. Rambo is a figment of Stallone's imagination.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He'll be compensated with interviews, book sales, speaking engagements, advertising - whatever he wants.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 He'll be compensated with interviews, book sales, speaking engagements, advertising - whatever he wants.<< Not as much as he thinks, he got out to cash in, I don't think he'll make enough to compensate for the loss of 50+ years of retirement checks...