Thanks for your sensible reply -- it's the only one that's made any sense and doesn't just explain the process to me as if my problem was simply an inability to comprehend how the system works. I have a good idea of how it works, thanks folks; my gripe was that it seemed wrong, but maybe I couldn't quite articulate why. But I think John nailed it.
*Someone I know* (identity protected) also gets a military pension and disability, PLUS Social Security benefits. He "retired" (from the military") in his 40s after 22 years of service. A couple of decades later he developed cancer from a lifetime of smoking. Because of this -- most of one lung was removed -- he started drawing disability from the military. From what I understand, it goes in a system of increments, like you are determined to be 25% disabled, 50% disabled, and then on up to "full disability," which means maximum benefit payments. That's what this unnamed person gets, the full disability payments -- plus his retirement pension. And Social Security.
My guess is that even though the military has a different type of disability system than Soc. Security, it still makes one eligible for ADA protections all the same. Additionally, this person ran out and got a "Disabled Veteran" license plate after his lung cancer made him disabled. The disability has nothing to do with his military service; he just happens to be a veteran, and coincidentally also a disabled. In our society that is relentlessly & cravenly worshipful of all things martial, and thus "patriotic," that's delivered a few cultural benefits his way, as well. Nicer treatment at car dealerships, discounts, under the table favors, etc.
I can say, though, that "this person" does NOT get $54k per year in disability benefits, and is substantially worse off than McCain; i.e. he needs an oxygen machine and can barely exert himself. He is not running for President and flying around the country constantly, making speeches, or anything like that. It's a good day when he can tend to his lawn.
I agree that civilian and military disability statuses ought to be assessed similarly. Same with medical care. The military ought to be what they are supposed to be, the servants of us, the people. You know, democracy. Not folks we stand in awe of as legends among us, placed on pedestals high and mighty, and not people to whom we must pay constant, nauseating obeisance. This isn't Starship Troopers. Or some Plato-type republic with a warrior caste that sits atop us all. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.
-B.
John Thornton wrote:
"My opinion is that since he's married and it should be considered household income and taxed. [...] I know his disability is through the Armed Services but there really shouldn't be different standards of disability for service persons and another for civilians. As an ex-service person myself I think that's fucked up."