{"contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}

Service, Sacrifice and Hypocrisy

After a brief but intense firestorm that resulted in the quickest policy reversal in recent memory, President Obama has decided not to charge wounded warriors' insurance companies for the troops' care. There are plenty of lessons here for both the administration and everyone else whose modus operandi is to decide first and think later.

The administration estimated that the scheme would have produced more than $500 million in savings, but the ancillary effects either were not considered or---much worse---were considered but dismissed as irrelevant or secondary to collecting the money.

Among the many dysfunctions the abandoned policy would have produced is former troops' being rejected for private medical insurance because their wounds are pre-existing conditions. And because the troops could receive no medical insurance, neither would their families. This is not the way to treat men and women who have sacrificed for the defense of the rest of us.

The effect is disturbing enough, but the callousness of the assumption---that the welfare of our veterans is a mere commodity to be traded---is much more distressing. Furthermore, the episode uncovers a large measure of hypocrisy in an administration that has billed itself as decidedly more sensitive than the last. For their part, members of Congress responded with uncharacteristically welcome right-mindedness, many of them vowing that the measure would meet uncompromising resistance and certain defeat.

Many of the missteps that the Obama administration has made are typical of the teething problems encountered by every new crew, and the management stumbles have been magnified by the severity of many of the problems confronting this nation. Expectations were high, however, that Obama would surround himself with clear-thinking people who would solve problems rather than create more of them, but so far the level of technical skill and leadership among the president's cadre has been disappointing, and he has been poorly served by those closest to him.

And for our troops, we should deliver nothing but the best. Foremost among the assumptions that should have been intuitively obvious in the West Wing is that the government of the United States, and no one else, is responsible for repairing the war damage done to our service members' bodies.

{"contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jackjacobs"}
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
{"commentId":6059253,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

I agree. The psychological impact of blunders accumulate. People do not just forgive and forget; they lose faith in a president's leadership. I think he ought to correct this misstep by announcing a new round of care benefits for veterans.

{"commentId":6059253,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
{"commentId":6061027,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}

This is not the way to treat any American, whether they are working in the military or in the private sector. Obama is too beholden to Wall street interests and Empire.

{"commentId":6061027,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"eric-albert"}
  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:45 PM EDT
{"commentId":6068083,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

Are you sure Obama is married to Wall Street? Did he not teach constitutional law and swear to uphold the Constitution? He knows the role of private, binding contracts in a free society. Yet he set a negative public tone when he vilified AIG bonuses, thus weakening the good faith value of our economic system. Why should potential investors from China or elsewhere trust that America will honor its contracts, and do we not, at least in part, need them for our own recovery?

I think Obama needs to learn how to keep his mouth shut. He talks too much and seems to think that he has to have an opinion about everything. Perhaps he spends too much time with Biden.

{"commentId":6068083,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:30 PM EDT
{"commentId":6113334,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

Elsewhere I have written, "Unless there is an overriding need for specialized care that requires a separate facility, the country and its veterans would be better served by local, outpatient treatment that lends to optimum inclusion and support from families. I think there is a disservice if separate veterans facilities engender segregation when the policy of militarism ought to be least disruptive to the civilian-turned-soldier such that the soldier-turns-civilian as quickly as possible once a term of service is over."

And, "What is the advantage of maintaining a network of government hospitals? Is the VA replicating services rendered as good or better in local civilian medical settings? Does or can the government offer vouchers good for services at civilian medical suppliers, and thus save a considerable cost associated with maintaining its own infrastructure?"

My overriding concern in these remarks pertained to the DESEGREGATION of returned soldiers. As you can see, I proposed that the government, not private insurers, continue to pay for services, irrespective of where the services were rendered.

{"commentId":6113334,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
  • 3 votes
#1.3 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:20 PM EDT
{"commentId":6973979,"authorDomain":"re-mf72"}

The VA is already doing that,but not enough. The biggest problem right now is a lack of specialist.The primary care is holding it's own,but just barely.I don't have facts or figures but common sense tells me it would be cheaper to outsource Veteran care than to hire all those new people,and pay all their benefits and retirement.

{"commentId":6973979,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"re-mf72"}
  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Sat May 9, 2009 2:32 PM EDT
{"commentId":6975824,"authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}

And for our troops, we should deliver nothing but the best.

For national defense yes.

But for these wars of choice and ego absolutely not. The poorer we treat the troops the fewer will be signing up for this foolishness. (I am a USMC/Navy veteran from Viet Nam I-Corps, Hue City, 1967-68).

{"commentId":6975824,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}
  • 2 votes
#1.5 - Sat May 9, 2009 4:57 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":6060186,"authorDomain":"americanspirit"}

You might want to read this link:

Fox News promo falsely claimed Obama "pushes a plan" requiring vets to pay for health insurance
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903190022?lid=948534&rid=23354872

..."In fact, the White House has stated it does not support a provision previously under consideration that would have billed military veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of their combat-related injuries performed at Veterans Administration hospitals. "

This veteran and current military mom has no qualms that our warriors and our veterans will be treated astoundingly better by President Obama than they were by former President Bush.

{"commentId":6060186,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"americanspirit"}
  • 6 votes
Reply#2 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:06 PM EDT
{"commentId":6060607,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

"Vets condemn plan to bill private insurance for combat injuries",

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008877379_vets18.html

Source: The Washington Post

{"commentId":6060607,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:25 PM EDT
{"commentId":6062621,"authorDomain":"progar01"}

I'm always of the belief that EVERYBODY in Washington either has something to gain or they have an axe to grind, no matter what a certain bill addresses -- so I try not to put "too" much stock in any mainstream media's "story"... However, it wouldn't surprise me either way this came about -- either the administration pushing for it and then dropping it at the outcry, or it being a planted seed by one of the news outlets stridently on the other side of the fence from the current administration... But that's only because I tend to look at things with a jaded eye...

Here's my take on this... Would we have to worry about this as an issue if we had universal healthcare???

Also -- I was somewhat surprised by Col. Jacobs' statement that an unintended consequence of the policy would have been the soldiers being rejected by private carriers for having pre-existing conditions... Aside from my question above, I guess I hadn't thought about this too much because I had assumed (yes, I know what you get when you assume) that pre-existing conditions was not an issue anymore... Wisconsin passed a law long ago whereby private insurers cannot refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions... Since each state has their own laws covering private insurers (and therein lies the crux of what would be that problem) -- is this not another example of how we as a nation would benefit from universal coverage???

{"commentId":6062621,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"progar01"}
  • 2 votes
#2.2 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:56 PM EDT
{"commentId":6117755,"authorDomain":"bad4"}

American Spirit,

.......previously under consideration that would have billed military veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of their combat-related injuries performed at Veterans Administration hospitals. "

That says that it was in consideration, not that it was false. The Col. 's article already admitted that it had been considered and that it had also been rejected.

The point is that it never should have been considered without consideration of the ramifications.

Those ramifications, if considered, would have caused the proposal to be rejected before the VSOs (Veterans Service Organizations) started pointing them out and pushing for the proposal to be rejected!

Basically, more thought and consideration would have killed the proposal before it went public and none of us would have even heard of it, because it was a bad plan.

{"commentId":6117755,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"bad4"}
  • 4 votes
#2.3 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:02 AM EDT
{"commentId":6117850,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}

USAF Vet-923294

Basically, more thought and consideration would have killed the proposal before it went public and none of us would have even heard of it, because it was a bad plan.

My thanks for the clarification.

{"commentId":6117850,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
  • 4 votes
#2.4 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:11 AM EDT
{"commentId":6117949,"authorDomain":"bad4"}

You are welcome.

{"commentId":6117949,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"bad4"}
  • 3 votes
#2.5 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:21 AM EDT
{"commentId":6128082,"authorDomain":"sonnetizer"}
The point is that it never should have been considered without consideration of the ramifications.

So they should have considered the ramifications before they considered the plan? Or did you really prefer the BushCo administration way of turning everything over to Cheney's buddies to profit from and telling The Decider what to decide?

{"commentId":6128082,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"sonnetizer"}
  • 1 vote
#2.6 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
{"commentId":6133848,"authorDomain":"bad4"}
Or did you really prefer the BushCo administration way of turning everything over to Cheney's buddies to profit from and telling The Decider what to decide?

I (and apparently the Col.) are talking about the here and now. Not the past. So, please stay on topic.

So they should have considered the ramifications before they considered the plan?

No. That is not what was said. You can not consider the ramification before you consider the plan. Because without the plan, there are no ramifications.

However, once the plan is suggested you can consider the ramifications before it is offered to the public. Then if it has bad ramifications scrap it. No one would be the wiser, except those who discussed it in the first place.

In this case, the Administration brought in VSOs and offered it as a solution for funding. The VSOs immediately saw the ramifications, pointed them out and took a stand.

Remember, many Congressmen from both sides of the aisle said no and then it was scrapped. Yet, by this time it was already public.

Also, just because you disagree with something the president has done, does not mean you are against the president. I disagree with my wife at times, but I still love her. Think about it.

{"commentId":6133848,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"bad4"}
  • 1 vote
#2.7 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:18 PM EDT
{"commentId":6137562,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}

It seems to me the basic concept of the plan has merits, as long as Vets never have to pay a dime out of pocket.

The idea of a separate system of VA hospitals seems anachronistic to me. We all saw the horror stories from Walter Reed, once the crown jewel the VA system. Now we're spending billions to rebuild it. I've been told Walter Reed was just the tip of the iceberg.

We have many private hospitals that provide the world standard in medical care, and they would've been shut down in a heartbeat if the same abuses that came to light in the VA happened in the marketplace.

Assuming that Vets never have to pay a dime for their coverage -- no co-pays, office visit fees, etc, why would this plan be a bad idea?

If can improve the quality of the care our Veterans so rightly deserve while at the same time reducing taxpayer expense we should chuck the ideology and do what is right.

{"commentId":6137562,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
  • 2 votes
#2.8 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:08 PM EDT
{"commentId":6137781,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

Good, balanced thinking, Azzix. There is also the advantage of downsizing the size of government. Of course, the central issue when it comes to any attempt to change the system, even for the better, is the calibre of committed leadership.

{"commentId":6137781,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
  • 2 votes
#2.9 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:22 PM EDT
{"commentId":6139928,"authorDomain":"bad4"}

Azzix,

That does sound good if the Veterans do not pay anything. However, what about the insurance company?

Who pays for the insurance for the veteran? Who pays the deductible? Who pays the co-pay? What about the Veterans family? Are those premiums effected by the Veteran's care?

If it is privatized insurance, then what about the Governments obligation to the people they sent into harms way? If the insurance is privatized which insurance company gets the contract and will politics enter the picture?

Now, many do not know, but Veterans who are 100% or are retired from one of the services do have insurance. The one for Veterans is called ChampVA, the one for the military is called Tri-Care. They are run by the Government. If one of these are used anywhere other then a Government Health Care Facility, you pay a deductible and a co-pay that maxes out at $6,000 per family per Government fiscal year. So, if your family is in a car accident and hospitalized in late September and stay into October you could conceivably pay $12,000 out of your pocket. That is almost my annual retired amount.

The deductible and the co-pay have increased over the years from Congress trying to save a buck. To top this off, a retired individual (Tri-Care) can pay extra for more coverage if your family goes to a Government Facility first. If you do not purchase this extra coverage then you become a lower priority at a Military Facility. Tri-care insurance runs out when you become eligible for Medicare.

When it comes to Government medical facilities, which by the way are Socialized medicine, you risk what happened at Walter Reed. There are tons of stories about the VA and Military Health Facilities and problems that are encountered. Many of these are from budget short falls that effect everything from the quality of the medical staff to the facility itself and everything in between.

Still, Veterans have faced these problems for years. We have had promises made that get changed, budgets that get cut, contracts that get changed, and pay that is below civilian levels due to Congress deciding to change things to save money. So, I think you can see why the VSOs (Veteran Service Organizations) jump in when politicians start talking.

{"commentId":6139928,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"bad4"}
  • 2 votes
#2.10 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:52 PM EDT
{"commentId":6140967,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

Veteran services might be enhanced by a public-private partnership. How so? The private sector would develop a vested interest in veteran affairs and would likely form a lobby that would defray or minimize the whims of politicians who make promises and then fail to follow through on them.

{"commentId":6140967,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
  • 2 votes
#2.11 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:01 PM EDT
{"commentId":6141757,"authorDomain":"bad4"}

Possibly.

My concern would be that the private sector's interest might be not be the same interest as the veterans are even in the Veterans best interest (i.e. profits).

{"commentId":6141757,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"bad4"}
  • 2 votes
#2.12 - Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:18 AM EDT
{"commentId":6974042,"authorDomain":"re-mf72"}

Walter reed is not a VA hospital.It is a Army hospital.

{"commentId":6974042,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"re-mf72"}
  • 1 vote
#2.13 - Sat May 9, 2009 2:36 PM EDT
{"commentId":6997252,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
Walter reed is not a VA hospital.It is a Army hospital.

A distinction without a difference.

{"commentId":6997252,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
  • 1 vote
#2.14 - Mon May 11, 2009 11:05 AM EDT
{"commentId":7005501,"authorDomain":"re-mf72"}

I know in America in 2009 facts don't mean @!$%#,so lets say Walter Reed and Sloan Kettering and Belleview are all VA hospitals,now if your a vet not in the military or a retiree from the military see if you can get treatment in any one of the 3 for free. The VA is broken not quite dead but on life support. Under funded for 8 years,it finally stared getting decent budgets in 2007(gee I wonder what happen that year) I have personally given up waiting for it to improve,you can't fix over night what it took years to screw up. I at first thought I would use civilian doctors and specialist and get my medication from the VA through my primary care doctor, then I did a little research and found I could get most of my meds for $4.00 at walmart instead of paying $8.00 through the VA. So I decided the hell with the VA and the phony Politicians I'll take care of my own health care including my service connected disabilities,especially now when not only are WW2,Korea,Vietnam,Gulf war 1,Iraq,Afghanistan along with all the vets who have illness due to military service and the recently unemployed vets who lost their insurance from their employers are clogging up the hallways at VA hospitals throughout this country. This problem could be solved almost overnight if these vets could get treatment at their local or regional hospitals which the VA does on a limited basis now,why it can't do more outsourcing to alleviate the overcrowding right now is beyond me.Maybe their afraid it would work so well the VA health system would be deemed obsolete.

{"commentId":7005501,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"re-mf72"}
  • 1 vote
#2.15 - Mon May 11, 2009 3:53 PM EDT
{"commentId":7008967,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
I at first thought I would use civilian doctors and specialist and get my medication from the VA through my primary care doctor, then I did a little research and found I could get most of my meds for $4.00 at walmart instead of paying $8.00 through the VA.

What can the VA say about that? Oh, that`s right welmart has plenty of cheap labor provided by any county USA. Nice little system they have to exploit people who are guided to work there somehow. At nice cheap minimum wage...why not?

{"commentId":7008967,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
  • 1 vote
#2.16 - Mon May 11, 2009 5:29 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":6061405,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

This is not the way to treat men and women who have sacrificed for the defense of the rest of us.

This is not the way to treat to treat the the American people.

{"commentId":6061405,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#3 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:01 PM EDT
{"commentId":6117465,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
This is not the way to treat to treat the the American people.

Our military are American people. Our Children.

{"commentId":6117465,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
  • 4 votes
#3.1 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:37 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":6064348,"authorDomain":"fechancellor"}

Colonel Jacobs:

It sure seems like Obama aborted a policy abortion here, yet I cannot help but believe this drama is part of a set up for pushing Obama's Gays in the Military approach down the road. This policy sword was only placed in the rack and will back.

Further along this line, I believe we'll a dust up between the Obama administration and the Boy Scouts, an organization that often meets on military bases or military reservations for Jamborees.

Say what you will about Donald Rumsfeld, he did hold the line for the Boy Scouts against liberal critics wanting to turn Scouting and the military into a Church and State relationship. If the Obama Team is willing to brandish political capital at our Wounded Warriors, you can bet putting the thumb screws on the Scouts at some point is about 10 political orders of magnitude easier.

One question that has dogged me for almost the entire length of the War on Terror is where are the Gays and Lesbians demanding to join the Armed Services? Gays and Lesbians say the want to serve, yet has anyone heard of openly gay folks actually demanding to volunteer by protesting at recruiting offices in the same manner that they crashed San Francisco’s City Hall to show there support for Gay Marriage?

In the Bay Area, for example, gays and lesbians could easily overwhelm the Recruiting Offices. Those wanting to join the Army could agitate to join the 3ID's 30th Regiment (The Friscans). Instead, the message sent from Berkley to the Golden Gate is the exact opposite--the Marines, for one, are not welcome.

In the seven long years the US have been at war, the truth is Gays and Lesbians have made hardly a peep of protest in the streets demanding their right to join the military. I do hope I’m reading Obama’s motives wrong for putting our Wounded Warriors in the middle of a political fray, but I’m not.

{"commentId":6064348,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"fechancellor"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#4 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:00 PM EDT
{"commentId":6065448,"authorDomain":"americanspirit"}

The 'don't ask don't tell' is being repelled no matter what. It's a disgusting unamerican policy in the first place to make citizens hide their orientation in order to serve.

This President should shy away from the Boy Scouts of America. The organization chose to discriminate against some children and rightfully have been denied use of taxpayer funding and use of government land for their Jamborees. The Girl Scouts didn't choose to discriminate nor did other Boy Scout organizations in other countries.

{"commentId":6065448,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"americanspirit"}
  • 4 votes
#4.1 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:52 PM EDT
{"commentId":6736272,"authorDomain":"blue-31088"}

"The 'don't ask don't tell' is being repelled no matter what. It's a disgusting unamerican policy in the first place to make citizens hide their orientation in order to serve." - American Spirit

Baloney, no it's not. It is a pragmatic and realistic policy that takes into account that neither society nor the military is yet ready to buy into what's being peddled. There is a reason men and women don't shower or sleep together under normal circumstances. So now we have to create a third way to billet people just to satisfy someones fantasy of what is American and what is unAmerican?

I find it a distinctly unrealistic and poorly thought out attempt to force an organization to comply with a minority viewpoint because it is legally obliged to. It will be a disaster for National Security. Many lifestyles or natural "afflictions" are not condusive to military service. In this day and age, homosexuality is one of them.

Whether you choose to believe that it is a natural condition or a chosen lifestyle, it is pure folly to mess with National Security for a minority of that minority who would actually want to serve. The reason the military is targeted is not out of some burning desire by that segment of society to serve, it is targeted because with a stroke of a pen, millions of service members would be required to accept a view point that most of them and most of the the nation do not agree with.

{"commentId":6736272,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"blue-31088"}
  • 1 vote
#4.2 - Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:44 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":6065960,"authorDomain":"davidmcdonald1"}

I hope we get better from this bright man than we did from James Earl Carter.  I shudder to think what Obama will do when confronted with the magnitude of the cost of logistics for military equipment.  Carter slashed mainentance and supply budgets and after two years aircraft started crashing.  It took two years to clear out the pipeline and it took two years for Reagan to fill it up again.

{"commentId":6065960,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"davidmcdonald1"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#5 - Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:16 PM EDT
{"commentId":6074424,"authorDomain":"keyboard-jockey1"}

Col Jacobs,

It Was A FLEA BRAIN IDEA.

{"commentId":6074424,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"keyboard-jockey1"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#6 - Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:32 AM EDT
{"commentId":6093058,"authorDomain":"jaymack"}

Good seed Col. Jack......I read an article in the Wash Post by Philip Rucker in my sunday paper on this issue. Seems President Obama himself met with a group of vets at the W/H and discussed this with them. The group included 2 retired generals, a blind man, 3 men with prosthetic legs and also one in a wheelchair. Afterward Randy Pleva Sr, president of the Paralyzed Vets of America felt the president "kind of blew me away." So the group got their blogs and set a media campaign in motion. I assume this included you Col Jack? If so, good job.

The idea was proposed by Obamas' budget staffers. When floating ideas you put everything on the table, good & bad. I assume Obama did not like this and reviewed with the vets themselves and then killed the 3rd party plan. This was done in a 48 hour time frame and the vets were pleased with the outcome.

Per the article...."When you do public policy behind closed doors, you throw a lot of things on a wall and some things stick and some things don't stick," said Bob Wallace, Ex Dir of VFW. "I think the administrtion and the president handled this with class, bringing the veterans in to talk with them, listening to their positions and two days later the chief of staff sayng "It"s over."

{"commentId":6093058,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jaymack"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#7 - Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:03 PM EDT
{"commentId":6113696,"authorDomain":"sonnetizer"}

So the better response is "shame on you, Col. Jack!" This was never a "policy" -- it was one idea among many passed around the table, reviewed by vets, and unceremoniously trashed without a second glance. But of course, that doesn't stop wingnuts from bemoaning this "policy" that wasn't because, let's face it, reality sucks when you're on the wrong side of history.

{"commentId":6113696,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"sonnetizer"}
  • 1 vote
#7.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:33 PM EDT
{"commentId":6114543,"authorDomain":"lazzone"}

Gnostix, I agree, Shame on you Col. Jack you should know better than to report a Faux talking point in the sam e manner. Deception and distortion, really?

{"commentId":6114543,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"lazzone"}
  • 1 vote
#7.2 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:01 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":6098226,"authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}

hey American Spirit, if you want your child to be indoctrinated into a gay or lesbian lifestyle by role model example and/or common practice in barracks life, just send them to any leading university or any college town. They will find all the wide-open experimentation, recruitment, and social brainwashing that has become the common fare around such places.

But the American military has always been off limits for such cultural brainwashing and recruitment. That's not to say that you couldn't be gay and serve, but you just couldn't be a an obvious vocal poster child for any lifestyle other than monogamous heterosexuality. If that changes under the Obama administration, I suspect that the proud attitude of a lot of Americans holding traditional cultural values concerning military service will change for the worse, leading to a much different military culture than we have had throughout our nation's history.

{"commentId":6098226,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#8 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:21 AM EDT
{"commentId":6114601,"authorDomain":"lazzone"}

mike cook, I would guess you are wrong, no I know you are misinformed and repeating rhetoric-o-the-right-wing-goons.

{"commentId":6114601,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"lazzone"}
  • 1 vote
#8.1 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:03 PM EDT
{"commentId":6140170,"authorDomain":"comrade7-62mm"}

Hmm... maybe right wing, but I can tell you they would not be welcomed by a decent percentage of the military too kindly. Its part of the 'type' of people in thier.

{"commentId":6140170,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"comrade7-62mm"}
    #8.2 - Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:06 PM EDT
    Reply
    {"commentId":6110967,"authorDomain":"keyboard-jockey1"}

    I am really looking forward to the book "Horse Soldiers"

    Horse Soldiers is the dramatic account of a small band of Special Forces soldiers who secretly entered Afghanistan following 9/11 and rode to war on horses against the Taliban. Outnumbered forty to one, they pursued the enemy across mountainous terrain and, after a series of intense battles, captured the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, which was strategically essential if they were to defeat the Taliban.

    {"commentId":6110967,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"keyboard-jockey1"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#9 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:06 PM EDT
    {"commentId":6113233,"authorDomain":"amberneve"}

    See Col. Jack Jacobs reporting on video about veterans care at:

    "'It's miles past where I was..."

    http://msnbc-1005096.newsvine.com/_video/2009/03/23/2587696-its-miles-past-where-i-was?threadId=535889&commentId=6112937#c6112937

    and, "'This unit has made an extreme difference..."

    http://msnbc-1005096.newsvine.com/_video/2009/03/23/2587695-this-unit-has-made-an-extreme-difference

    Please remember to leave comments regarding these video segments there.

    {"commentId":6113233,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"amberneve"}
    • 2 votes
    Reply#10 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:15 PM EDT
    {"commentId":6116594,"authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}

    My goodness, I don't want to get caught up arguing with left-wing goons about their war on established religions they don't like. It's not that big a deal to me, other than I am absolutely sure that the left-wing goons are about to mug the military any day now for their cozy relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.

    Being a Christian who understands the futility of violent resistance to unpleasant historical trends (this old veteran is too physically worn out for that kind of thing anyway) I am just going to watch all this and nod in wonder. The USA really did have a good run and in a way the hanging of Saddam Hussein and the creation of a functioning pluralistic government in Iraq was our finest hour.

    It is a bit depressing how quickly one of history's most unlikely and unselfish victories may be followed by the complete dismantlement and ruination in every way of the well-intentioned nation that achieved the triumph. The economy may well recover in the coming months (money being one of Satan's most effective tools) but our proud military heritage and the religious traditions that once informed our sense of not only right and wrong, but of national destiny and personal honor as citizens, well, all that may not survive this perfect storm.

    {"commentId":6116594,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"mikekathycook"}
    • 3 votes
    Reply#11 - Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:42 PM EDT
    {"commentId":6379513,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
    {"commentId":6379513,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#12 - Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:20 PM EDT
    {"commentId":6997331,"authorDomain":"axxiz144"}

    In addition to being the kind of chilling calculus that makes my blood boil, this seems like a pretty good reason to take the long-term diagnosis and treatment out of the military's hands. It is an inherent conflict of interest.

    {"commentId":6997331,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"axxiz144"}
    • 1 vote
    #12.1 - Mon May 11, 2009 11:09 AM EDT
    {"commentId":7005144,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}

    Hi Azzix, long time no see.

    It is an inherent conflict of interest.

    That is very true. Something I had not thought of.

    {"commentId":7005144,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
      #12.2 - Mon May 11, 2009 3:41 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":6967616,"authorDomain":"matthew-babiarz"}

      Colonel Jacobs,

      I agree with the sentiment. Policy or not, it was a terrible idea to even float this intiative as a possibility. The VSO's did their job and pushed back immediately and forcefully when this little ballloon got floated. As a medically retired Army Officer I can say with little doubt that my current employer's health insurance would not take me if forced to cover the potential cost of repairing my combat related injuries down the road. This is not a right wing left wing question, its a common sense question.

      The government sent us somewhere and some of us got broken. It is the governments job to see to our care. A little simplistic, Ill admit that, but I think you get the point.

      {"commentId":6967616,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"matthew-babiarz"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#13 - Sat May 9, 2009 12:10 AM EDT
      {"commentId":6970793,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
      A little simplistic, Ill admit that, but I think you get the point.

      I'll point you to post #12.

      {"commentId":6970793,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
      • 1 vote
      #13.1 - Sat May 9, 2009 10:34 AM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":7009775,"authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}

      The Col. has Managing Director of Lehman Brothers brothers in his profile. So he was one of the idiots?

      {"commentId":7009775,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}
      • 1 vote
      Reply#14 - Mon May 11, 2009 5:46 PM EDT
      {"commentId":7010522,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
      The Col. has Managing Director of Lehman Brothers brothers in his profile

      Why would that matter. Be plain so the Colonel may defend himself.

      {"commentId":7010522,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
      • 1 vote
      #14.1 - Mon May 11, 2009 6:03 PM EDT
      {"commentId":7010978,"authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}
      Why would that matter. Be plain so the Colonel may defend himself.

      It's been in all the papers.

      But I'm not sure he reads this anyway. He's a Colonel. He doesn’t have time for common folk. Somebody at CNBC is probably doing this for him for PR purposes.

      Now if he knew I was an enlisted man (which I was) he would really be agitated.

      {"commentId":7010978,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}
      • 1 vote
      #14.2 - Mon May 11, 2009 6:13 PM EDT
      {"commentId":7015694,"authorDomain":"jbdaad"}

      From what I`ve read the Colonel is an honorable person. We have a COH here at Newsvine against personal attacks.

      Lehman Brothers

      Was and is are two different things.

      {"commentId":7015694,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"jbdaad"}
        #14.3 - Mon May 11, 2009 8:07 PM EDT
        {"commentId":7015961,"authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}

        Was and is are two different things.

        ABSOLUTELY NOT.

        Lehman Brothers was one of those who put this whole country in jeopardy because of their stupid and greedy management.

        He is a public person who had a responsibility to the public/stakeholders because of his position in a public company.

        {"commentId":7015961,"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836","authorDomain":"2tailpuppy"}
        • 1 vote
        #14.4 - Mon May 11, 2009 8:15 PM EDT
        Reply
        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"533152","isPrivate":false}
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        {"threadId":"533152","contentId":"2566836"}
        Start TrackingStart Tracking
        Stop TrackingStop Tracking
        Col. Jack Jacobs's Latest Comments
        Comments & Feedback
        – Show More