SEAL That Took BL Down

navycpo7 wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Every combat veteran, including those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, gets at least five years of health care benefits FREE through the VA. So he should be eligible for healthcare benefits.

StDS, not sure where you read this or got the info on this, (not being rude or anything) but this is something I know a lot about. Veterans are entitled to health care through the VA. When a Veteran registers with the VA, they go through a screening process. That determines if they get health care at a reduced cost or not, or if they get it free. If a Veteran is a disabled Veteran, then the rating they receive, determines what they recieve also in health care. There is no 5 year limit, and there is no automatic free health care through the VA just because we are combat Veterans verus non combat Veterans. The VA puts each Veteran in a catagory. If i remember right it is 1 through 8. They are talking about elimanating 7 and 8, 1 is for those that are rated at 100% unemployable. Then it goes from there depending on the Veterans rating etc. The other part to this. One has to go into the VA and get into the system. It is not automatic. Certain medals that were recieved during ones service can help speed the process also, (ie purple heart, silver star etc.)

Thanks for the correction. I pulled my info from the VA website and may have misinterpreted it:
Veterans who served in a theater of combat operations after November 11, 1998 are eligible for an extended period of eligibility for health care for 5 years post discharge.

Under the "Combat Veteran" authority, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care services and community living care for conditions possibly related to military service and enrollment in Priority Group 6, unless eligible for enrollment in a higher priority group to:

Combat Veterans who were discharged or released from active service on or after January 28, 2003, are eligible to enroll in the VA health care system for 5 years from the date of discharge or release.

The 5-year enrollment period begins on the discharge or separation date of the service member from active duty military service, or in the case of multiple call-ups, the most recent discharge date.
http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/apply/ ... embers.asp

Rick wrote: What's really sad and screwed up is the fact that some Senator can serve a single term and get lifetime retirement while never having to put an ass on the line for the country. Then a guy who ACTUALLY DID kill Bin Laden after serving four times as long as the Senator , gets left out in the cold. Something is very wrong with this.

Rick everyone one of us, that served and is serving, knows and knew what the real deal was and is. For retirement, the years needed is 20. They also know the benefits at the 20 years mark is. As did this Navy Seal. If he is beat up mentally and physically, as Fred stated, then he could go to the VA, file a claim and most likely get benefits through the VA. (He could also have gone to medical, and had the screening process done, and possibly been medical discharged. Thus recieving benefits this way. Its actually called medical retirement.) Key to this is he has to do it. There are various groups out there that have service officers that are there to assist them. As for him killing bin laden and what that means to most serving. Not a whole lot. He followed the orders and did what was required. They were successful in their mission. Because the guy he killed was bin laden, to some that is a big deal, to those serving, he was following orders and did what was required of himself. As do thousand of other soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Many of our Armed Forces have killed the enemy, the only difference is the names and the place the event took place. Thier service to this country is equally important.

I agree that the entire story hasn't come to light. It wouldn't surprise me if this guy thought he could land a book or movie deal (which he couldn't while he was still active duty). Guess it kind of back-fired... if that was the case. What didn't make much sense to me is that if you are worried about the safety of your family, why do an interview with the press? My wife would be kicking my butt!!

LOL From what I have been reading this is turning into a left/right health care food fight.

Based only on reading the first page of the article, I am still wondering if the guy interviewed was ever in the military, let alone a Seal, let alone the Seal that shot OBL.

navycpo7 wrote:

Rick wrote: What's really sad and screwed up is the fact that some Senator can serve a single term and get lifetime retirement while never having to put an ass on the line for the country. Then a guy who ACTUALLY DID kill Bin Laden after serving four times as long as the Senator , gets left out in the cold. Something is very wrong with this.

Rick everyone one of us, that served and is serving, knows and knew what the real deal was and is. For retirement, the years needed is 20. They also know the benefits at the 20 years mark is. As did this Navy Seal. If he is beat up mentally and physically, as Fred stated, then he could go to the VA, file a claim and most likely get benefits through the VA. (He could also have gone to medical, and had the screening process done, and possibly been medical discharged. Thus recieving benefits this way. Its actually called medical retirement.) Key to this is he has to do it. There are various groups out there that have service officers that are there to assist them. As for him killing bin laden and what that means to most serving. Not a whole lot. He followed the orders and did what was required. They were successful in their mission. Because the guy he killed was bin laden, to some that is a big deal, to those serving, he was following orders and did what was required of himself. As do thousand of other soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Many of our Armed Forces have killed the enemy, the only difference is the names and the place the event took place. Thier service to this country is equally important.

I understand the way things work, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Rick, to some it may not be right, but he knew that to retire he needed to hit the 20 year mark, just like the rest of us. He knew that by doing that he would have a retirement and health care (not free) but co pays for the him and his family for the rest of his life. He is not owed anything. He did the job he was ordered to do, he completed his job, mission accomplished. That was what he trained for. No different than all the others serving. He should have stayed for the remaining years, what really bothers me here, more than anything, I have some friends that were Navy Seals and retired, they are even somewhat suspicious of this guy and his story. Most Veterans that served, especially in combat areas, do not discuss what they did, they may tell you where they were at but not what they did (unless they are talking to their fellow warriors). This guy goes out and gives an interview, talks about what he did etc. And yes I did serve in combat zones. I am also retired from the Navy. There are a many on here that also served. They will most likely tell you the same thing. That is how when someone starts talking about being in the military, then about being in a combat zone, and what they did, a real Veteran will right away know something is not right. Something just does not seem right here.

I could be wrong, but I would like to know the whole story, as I do not think the real story about this guy is being told, and maybe it could be due to being classified, I will wait and see what comes out.

I guess my point is more about the risk/reward in serving in Washington vs serving on the battlefield. The fact that there is very little risk in one job with a high reward vs very high risk and low reward. If you were to remake the rules, would you use this same backward compensation?

In the private sector, high risk is usually rewarded with higher compensation but the government is backward (as usual).

Rick, you are comparing apples and oranges. The folks serving in Washington are elected officials (mostly). This guy volunteered for the Navy, and then volunteered to be a SEAL. Then he went out of his way (volunteered) to be discharged instead of sticking around for another 4 years to draw a pension for the rest of his life (and cheap medical insurance).

I am retired Army and have great respect for SEALS and all that they do. But they volunteer for what they do, and they do receive special treatment while they are active duty, just as all of the other services do.

There is a reason he got out instead of sticking it out for another four years. We haven't heard the entire story yet....

I am retired USN....Viet Nam, Submarines, and had four tours in Nam......Almost a quarter century of service.....Olie North had five years in Nam as a marine......lots of folks have had tough duty....SEALS are not particularily special and have to NOT QUIT then whine......or whatever. McCain BTW could have retired on disability after he was burtalized for over five years in Hanoi.....he refused and stayed on duty for 30......that is more typical.....this SEAL is a disgrace.

The real tragedy here according to Fox's Red Eye is how long it takes for the VA to process these vets and get them into the system, around 200 days, and 400 in some communities like Los Angeles.

Question for the vets, does combat time affect your pension payouts? For example, if you were a navy guy for the last 20 years and never got into a combat zone you get the same pay as someone who did 10 tours as long as you were both the same rank, right? So a CPO working out of San Diego his whole career would earn more in pension benefits than a SEAL Petty Officer who served multiple tours in Afghanistan?