this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024

248 points (92.2% liked)

Political Memes

5612 readers

1791 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

rjc@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

WrenFeathers@lemmy.world

248

heroes at war, forgotten at home. we are COOKED 🤡 (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Citations

Orginal 🤡 article and archive link
Key numbers: “This year 6m veterans—or a third of the total—qualified for payments, with an average monthly benefit of $2,200.”
Estimated average monthly cost of living, USA, Single person: $3,360 src
Difference between those values: $1,160 (not including medical expenses)
[From a 2019-2021 study,] 12.8% of veterans aged 25–64 had problems paying medical bills, 8.4% had forgone medical care, and 38.4% were somewhat or very worried about being able to pay their medical bills if they got sick or had an accident. CDC
Presumptive disability benefits are not some kind of catch-all, where every vet with type-2 diabetes gets disability. The benefits are subject to limitations, the most significant of which seems to be that chronic illnesses need to be diagnosed within a year after release. Click to read more from the VA
As of 11 March 2024 the US Department of Defense fiscal year 2025 (FY2025) budget request was $849.8 billion. Wikipedia
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is requesting a total of $369.3 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2025, a 9.8 percent increase above FY 2024 estimated levels. VA.gov
Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since its founding, receiving about $310 billion (adjusted for inflation) in total economic and military assistance. CFR
Since the start of Israel's war with Hamas on October 7, 2023, the United States has enacted legislation providing at least $12.5 billion in direct military aid to Israel, which includes $3.8 billion from a bill in March 2024 (in line with the current MOU) and $8.7 billion from a supplemental appropriations act in April 2024. Other analysts—Linda J. Bilmes, William D. Hartung, and Stephen Semler, from Brown University—have reported [PDF] that Israel received $17.9 billion in U.S. military aid during this period, a figure that additionally accounts for the cost to the U.S. Defense Department of replenishing the stock of weapons provided to Israel. CFR

top 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 68 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

That's wild, I had no idea the office of Veterans Affairs got that much (336 billion a year or 5% of the entire federal budget.)

Or that per eligible adult it absolutely dwarfs social security disability insurance and workers comp combined.

The costs of Conservative adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan just keep on coming.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 48 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

but think how much money we could save if we just let them suffer alone 💔😩

[+] Lauchs@lemmy.world -18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I mean, i don't know much beyond the article so please correct me but it seems like there's got to be something between "suffer in deprivation" and getting almost 50k a year for life because at some point you developed type two diabetes, or sleep apnea, neither being particularly rare.

Online videos with tips about how to boost your disability rating are widespread. It is common for veterans to start on the programme at a 50% disability rating for, say, sleep apnea linked to service stress, only to then add more disabilities and have the rating increase to 100% within a few years.

Edit: Clearly folks didn't read the article. I'll note another relevant section here, emphasis mine:

Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.

[–] Josey_Wales@lemmy.world 30 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are missing the service connected requirement. Not all diabetes or sleep apnea is covered.

A service-connected condition is an injury or disease that was caused by or worsened by a veteran's active military service.

In other words, the military ordered you to do a thing that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, caused/worsened an injury or disease. Thats different than voluntarily making personal choices that have the same effect.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are missing the service connected requirement. Not all diabetes or sleep apnea is covered.

A service-connected condition is an injury or disease that was caused by or worsened by a veteran's active military service.

That's literally exactly not the case and kind of the problem. Sorry, I assumed othets read the article. From the Economist article, emphasis mine:

Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Thanks for bringing this confusion to attention, I have added the following fact check to the body text of the post:

Presumptive disability benefits are not some kind of catch-all, where every vet with type-2 diabetes gets disability. The benefits are subject to limitations, the most significant of which seems to be that chronic illnesses need to be diagnosed within a year after release. Click to read more from the VA

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Just copying this from another response but:

From VA.gov:

Note: If you have a condition listed in Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a), you won’t need to show the problem started during—or got worse because of—your military service. This is because we automatically assume (or “presume”) that certain conditions that appear within 1 year after discharge are caused by your service. We call these presumptive conditions.

Read Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a) for a complete list of covered illnesses

I'd also note that here's some of the suggestions google noted while I was looking for the one year diagnosis:

Like, absolutely , there is a huge obligation to veterans and too many have been screwed over the years. But can we also admit that there is definitely some room for abuse or at the very least, for the system to not function quite as intended?

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago

This is such a weird and new holy-conservative-crusade against Veterans. It's been slowly picking up steam the past couple of weeks so I imagine this is being blasted across conservative media atm and on things like tiktok. I wonder if this is a strategy to stranglehold the military's funding unless they play ball with Trumps administration, only reason I can think that they want to turn on the troops now.

You do know this is just another in a long line of conservative hit jobs. Latest was election interference (no actual statistical interference found), then there was "Drug users on government assistance" (drug testing was extremely more expensive than the funding-support on the low number of recipients who actually tested positive), and now it's veterans getting extra benefits?!?

I would definitely admit that no program is perfect, that's not going to happen. Now are we basing the veteran benefits off of actual data that was researched and presented or is this just click-bait anecdotal evidence that a few individuals are presenting? There is currently an estimated 18 million US veterans, how many would statistically need to be scamming for their to be a financial incentive to make the process harder and move expensive for the individual and government?

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It’s called the cost of war. And if taking care of veterans after they return from said wars, is too much for you, then I suggest you contact your government representatives and discourage them from engaging in more wars. But nothing you could say would ever free them or the government of the obligation they have towards those who fight their wars.

It’s the cost of war, and if you don’t like it, stop fighting wars.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 25 points 3 weeks ago

Say it again for those in the back.

The full cost of Vietnam started coming 20 years after it went in full swing as the veterans started ramping up the benefits they were promised. That same wave for Afghanistan/Iraq is hitting right about now.

[+] Lauchs@lemmy.world -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Taking care of veterans is one thing. But I'm not sure the obligation extends to someone who develops diabetes, or is one of the 1/5ish Americans who will develop sleep apnea etc.

Sorry, I assumed folks would read the article which was clearly a bad assumption. From the Economist, fairly early on, emphasis mine, just in case folks don't want to read the full paragrapb:

Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah we read the article and we know it is bad. That one-phrase summary of presumptive conditions clearly uses leading language to paint an inaccurate picture of the term.

Here is the actual description of the benefit, I recommend you read it: https://www.benefits.va.gov/BENEFITS/factsheets/serviceconnected/presumption.pdf

Notably, there appears to be a requirement that diagnosis happen within one year of release, which the Economist rather lamely and conveniently ignores.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

From VA.gov:

Note: If you have a condition listed in Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a), you won’t need to show the problem started during—or got worse because of—your military service. This is because we automatically assume (or “presume”) that certain conditions that appear within 1 year after discharge are caused by your service. We call these presumptive conditions.

Read Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a) for a complete list of covered illnesses

I'd also note that here's some of the suggestions google noted while I was looking for the one year diagnosis:

Edit: missed the quote symbol.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 8 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, this corroborates 100% of what I’m saying. The conditions have to appear within 1 year of discharge.

And sure, it could be abused. You know what definitely shows signs of abuse? The Pentagon failing 7 audits in a row. Keep things in perspective and don’t fall for propaganda that makes you look down on the victims of war.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oh, I forgot, veterans just become regular people as soon as they become medically inconvenient. Fighting a war, and get a disease later? The government should just tell them to fuck off, right? Because as soon as you get sick, you’re not a veteran anymore, you’re just a common piece of trash, right?

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 32 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yet the VA is constantly complained about and exposed for their shitty service. 🤷

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

VA is given funds kind of weirdly. Most of that money is earmarked for disability payments direct to Vets and their dependants. The hospital branch is much less funded.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

According to the US Census Bureau, there are currently 16.2 million veterans in the US.
If the budget of the office of Veterans Affairs was simply paid out to the veterans, each one would get $20k per year, on top of all other income and social security they may have.

[–] A7thStone@lemmy.world 46 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Such a designation ensures a generous $4,000 monthly payment for life,

That's the maximum you can get. That will barely pay your bills if you live in a backwater shithole state, and you only get that if you prove you are totally disabled. That is just enough money to live off of, and you've suffered some sort of trauma that keeps you from being able to work. I'm what fucking world is that "generous". Fucking ghouls.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 28 points 3 weeks ago

not just generous, aBsUrDlY GenErOus

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

As someone who is disabled, seeing these kind of articles by The Economist while being unable to afford enough food to properly eat is why I stopped reading it.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Economist is a wall street psychopath's hustler. pick any article and it will somehow twist the intention of the piece into the same solution. Every. damn. time.

money good. people bad.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Oh yeah it’s heavily neoliberal biased, and elitist snobby ableist bullshit, but there’s some quality data analyses paired with witty humour in there, as a data nerd, that’s why I really enjoyed reading them.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 32 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

“The cost of war is too high! We need that money to fund fascist genocidal maniacs! And I will gladly watch tens of thousands of veterans suffer and die before I pay more taxes!”

— Republicans

[–] LodeMike 27 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Oh no not taking care of veterans! /s

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 30 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

sounds like communism to me. and honestly real men don’t get medical aid they just walk it off.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

well, the ones who've still got legs do.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Drag it off then.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Whisky is the only medicine I need!

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s the American military, they’ll give you some ibuprofen

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

Damn no super drug for common solider.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

Postwar... postwar never changes...

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

TBH there's nothing heroic about ruining your own life and others in service of an evil empire destroying the planet.

On the other hand, everybody should have decent healthcare.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 weeks ago

whats even less heroic is exploiting low-income populations by making them believe they are freedom fighters, only to let them become saddled with medical debt the moment they get to taste the so-called “freedoms” they sacrificed for

but hey maybe im just a bleeding heart lib

[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Lol The Economist wants me to feel sorry for Israel or buy for a second that either it or the US military is a fucking famine victim while veterans on disability are fat cats? Suck my dick, Economist

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 6 points 3 weeks ago

to be clear, this article in particular doesn’t mention israel, that was my own creative riffing off of the headline and the Economist’s existing known neoliberal ideals. still shit for sure though.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"The price of patriotism".

FFS.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 2 points 3 weeks ago

i swear these people have no self awareness