if i'm not mistaken, soldiers get 5 years of automatic health care coverage once they leave service - if they do so before putting in 20 years and are eligible for retirement in which case they have automatic health insurance through tricare. i learned about this from a woman i ride with. she's a social worker just released from ten years service. she volunteers for Planned Parenthood too and has some amusing stories!
the thing that does happen, she says, is that soldiers get really crappy information about their benefits. they are given some sort of transition counseling for 2 days covering mostly stupid shit. in this time, as my friend said, you don't get any information of value, and a lot of soldiers are unaware of the benefits they're getting under the new GI BIll.
In the cases I'm hearing about, people go to collect on their GI education benefits and, if their case is at all non-standard, they are given the run around and counselor suggests declaring disability in order to collect under those benefits. Getting information from the VA bureaucracy is like pulling teeth.
I wouldn't be surprised if officials are informally pushing people down this path. My guess is that they didn't expect the hit on GI benefits when they passed the legislation post-9/11. But with the economy tanking, a lot of these folks are coming back to joblessness and the only thing that saves them is that they can enroll in college, tuition paid, and collect about $1000-1200 for a single person's living expenses, plus $250 for books per semester.
At 10:26 PM 9/14/2012, Duncan Clark wrote:
>Shag, I picked up a Szasz book a while back based on the positive comments
>about him here. "Psychiatry: The Science of Lies," from 2008. Put it down
>after a couple dozen pages, annoyed. (Part of the chapter that convinced me
>I was wasting my time with Szasz is reproduced here: <
>http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-art-and-science-of-pseudology/
> >.)
>
>Here's the annoying section in question:
>
><quote>
>
>In World War I soldiers afraid of being killed in battle malingered;
>psychiatrists who wanted to protect them from being returned to the
>trenches diagnosed them as having a mental illness (then called
>"hysteria"). Today, ninety years later, soldiers returning home and afraid
>of being without "health care coverage" diagnose themselves as having a
>mental illness (now called "post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]"). Almost
>50 percent of the troops returning from Iraq suffer from post-traumatic
>stress disorder and depression "because they want to make sure that they
>continue to get health care coverage once their deployments have ended."
>The reporter relates this tactic matter-of-factly. Indeed, he titles his
>story, "In Iraq as in World War II, Soldiers' Wounds Go Beyond the
>Physical," using the word _wound_ both literally and metaphorically.
>
><end quote>
>
>Really? 50% return with PTSD, but are faking it for the health insurance?
>
>Like shag, I'd already heard that story about faking PTSD, and wondered
>about it. So I looked up the article Szasz cited. It was written by Kevin
>Horrigan, published in the Syracuse Post-Standard, Nov. 25, 2007, E1. It's
>no longer on the S P-S site, but can be found here: <
>http://archives.timesleader.com/2007_37/2007_11_23_Two_wars__each_with_too_many_victims_COMMENTARY_KEVIN_HORRIGAN_-NoEXPORT.html
> >
>
>Here's the relevant passage:
>
><quote>
>
>LAST WEEK, in a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
>Association, a panel of U.S. Army psychiatrists reported that one in every
>five active-duty soldiers has developed mental health problems after coming
>home from Iraq.
>
>The problems range from post-traumatic stress disorder to depression to
>substance abuse to anger outbursts that create family conflict. The toll
>may be even higher than 20 percent, because 42 percent of returning
>National Guard and reserve troops reported similar problems. The authors
>speculate that Guard and reserve troops may be more open about their
>problems because they want to make sure that they continue to get health
>care coverage once their deployments have ended.
>
><end quote>
>
>That's it. It's in a think-piece comparing the soldier experience of WWII
>and Iraq, and it's on the commentary page. Szasz says Horrigan states the
>tactic "matter-of-factly"; in fact, Horrigan mentions (without actually
>citing) a recent study, and says the authors "speculate" about the health
>coverage motive.
>
>Szasz's "almost 50 percent" stat is nowhere in Horrigan's article nor,
>AFAICT, in the actual JAMA article--which is online, NOT behind a pay wall.
>It's here: <http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209441>
>.
>
>AFAICT, all the JAMA piece says about soldiers claiming PTSD to retain
>health coverage is right here:
>
><quote>
>
>Although National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers had similar results as
>active soldiers at redeployment from Iraq, by the time of the PDHRA
>[Post-Deployment Health Re-Assessment], they reported higher rates of
>problems and were referred at substantially higher rates than active
>component soldiers. These higher rates applied to both mental health and
>general health problems. One reason may be that reservists have concerns
>with securing ongoing health care for deployment-related problems. Although
>active component soldiers have ready access to health care, for reservists,
>standard DoD health insurance benefits (TRICARE) expire 6 months27 and
>standard VA benefits expire 24 months after return to civilian status.28
>More than half of the guard and reserve soldiers in this sample were beyond
>the standard DoD benefit window by the time they took their PDHRA. Although
>stigma concerns may suppress reporting on the PDHRA among active
>soldiers,12 for guard and reserve soldiers, securing ongoing health care
>may be a more prevailing concern. Other potential factors unique to
>reservists may be the lack of day-to-day support from war comrades and the
>added stress of transitioning back to civilian employment.
>
>[...]
>
>Conclusions: ...Reserve component soldiers who had returned to civilian
>status were referred at higher rates on the PDHRA, which could reflect
>their concerns about their ongoing health coverage....
>
><end quote>
>
>"...could reflect..." Szasz may have once done good work, but this kind of
>stuff is worse than lazy.
>
>BTW, here's a much better article on the problems of PTSD diagnosis: <
>http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/the-ptsd-trap/>
>
>
>On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
>
> > At 10:00 PM 9/13/2012, andie_nachgeborenen wrote:
> >
> >> Szaz probably made this point; haven't read him for years, decades
> >> actually, and all I recall is the bumper sticker version;
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's all i recall too.
> >
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)