corruption continues---Wounded billed for hospital food

[laFiera]

"WASHINGTON - After a grenade exploded inside his Humvee in Iraq, Marine Staff Sgt. Bill Murwin was treated at a military hospital in Germany and spent four weeks at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. Part of his left foot was amputated.

His medical care was free, but the government billed him $243 for the food.

Then, just three days after he received his first bill for the hospital food in Germany, he got a stern letter saying the bill was overdue. It warned that his account would be referred to a collection agency."



Not that i keep up with the news, but didn't they recently vote for a pay raise in washington? why not donate that pay raise to those that are actually putting their lives on the line ? I suppose it wouldn't be much as our humble so called elected leaders say, but heck, it would be a nice way to show their fervent patriotism....

 

[phillyTIM]

damn this bush regime is so hard up for cash, that it kicks its own soldiers in the shins before they can even walk steadily again

 

[UltraQuiet]

I've been billed for care received at .mil health facilities. It takes about 4 seconds to get it cleared up.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: laFiera
"WASHINGTON - After a grenade exploded inside his Humvee in Iraq, Marine Staff Sgt. Bill Murwin was treated at a military hospital in Germany and spent four weeks at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. Part of his left foot was amputated.

His medical care was free, but the government billed him $243 for the food.

Then, just three days after he received his first bill for the hospital food in Germany, he got a stern letter saying the bill was overdue. It warned that his account would be referred to a collection agency."



Not that i keep up with the news, but didn't they recently vote for a pay raise in washington? why not donate that pay raise to those that are actually putting their lives on the line ? I suppose it wouldn't be much as our humble so called elected leaders say, but heck, it would be a nice way to show their fervent patriotism....

Hospitalization and Seperate Rations 101:

Service members draw a monthly stipend for food known as Seperate Rations or Basic Allowance for Substinance (BAS) IF authorized. Authorization typically requires approval from the unit commander and is normally limited to servicemembers requiring this benefit. Requirement can be married and living offpost, single and authorized to live off post, NCO status, etc. Since the mid-1990s, DoD has become more lenient in granting BAS to servicemembers, even single servicemembers, who do not live in the barracks and eat in the dining facility. Unit commanders were given more latitude about when to authorize personnel in starting and stopping BAS.

During deployment, BAS was normally deducted from paychecks because rations were available in the field. However, in recent years due to pressure from "the wives mafia", BAS has been authorized for servicemembers while deployed - for Army anyway. In otherwords, servicemembers have received government rations in the field AND BAS at the same time.

With hospitalization though, the circumstances, while slightly different, meet the same general requirements as deployment. Government mess is available. Therefore, the government takes back what it pays the servicemember because the government provides rations. The unit commander can override BAS deduction from a paycheck.

Is it fair? Yes and no. The government is feeding the servicemember so it recoups the pay. On the other hand, if the servicemember has dependents and lives on a tight budget then the pay is certainly missed. Additionally, some of us did not feel it was fair that we receive BAS in the field while single servicemembers who were not authorized BAS did not.

For the Bush-bashers: This policy was in effect before you were conceived. Therefore, STFU about it.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

..how did I know I would find you here, burnedout, and pointing out the fallacies of their arguments...these kids like to talk about things they have no idea about, but read somewhere in the Washington Post, LA or NYT, or some other liberal propaganda machine. They take their google searches as gospel. This is the problem with public education; teachers are failing to teach kids to think for themselves.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

...and as you pointed out, 'Separate Rats' are to feed the service member, not their wife and 6 kids..always withheld mine while in the field..same thing, we just never get the bill for the A/T-rats in the woodline

[edit]...sure don't miss those 'beef chunks w/ gravy'

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: laFiera
"WASHINGTON - After a grenade exploded inside his Humvee in Iraq, Marine Staff Sgt. Bill Murwin was treated at a military hospital in Germany and spent four weeks at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. Part of his left foot was amputated.

His medical care was free, but the government billed him $243 for the food.

Then, just three days after he received his first bill for the hospital food in Germany, he got a stern letter saying the bill was overdue. It warned that his account would be referred to a collection agency."



Not that i keep up with the news, but didn't they recently vote for a pay raise in washington? why not donate that pay raise to those that are actually putting their lives on the line ? I suppose it wouldn't be much as our humble so called elected leaders say, but heck, it would be a nice way to show their fervent patriotism....

Hospitalization and Seperate Rations 101:

Service members draw a monthly stipend for food known as Seperate Rations or Basic Allowance for Substinance (BAS) IF authorized. Authorization typically requires approval from the unit commander and is normally limited to servicemembers requiring this benefit. Requirement can be married and living offpost, single and authorized to live off post, NCO status, etc. Since the mid-1990s, DoD has become more lenient in granting BAS to servicemembers, even single servicemembers, who do not live in the barracks and eat in the dining facility. Unit commanders were given more latitude about when to authorize personnel in starting and stopping BAS.

During deployment, BAS was normally deducted from paychecks because rations were available in the field. However, in recent years due to pressure from "the wives mafia", BAS has been authorized for servicemembers while deployed - for Army anyway. In otherwords, servicemembers have received government rations in the field AND BAS at the same time.

With hospitalization though, the circumstances, while slightly different, meet the same general requirements as deployment. Government mess is available. Therefore, the government takes back what it pays the servicemember because the government provides rations. The unit commander can override BAS deduction from a paycheck.

Is it fair? Yes and no. The government is feeding the servicemember so it recoups the pay. On the other hand, if the servicemember has dependents and lives on a tight budget then the pay is certainly missed. Additionally, some of us did not feel it was fair that we receive BAS in the field while single servicemembers who were not authorized BAS did not.

For the Bush-bashers: This policy was in effect before you were conceived. Therefore, STFU about it.

They don't listen. They blame Bush for everything in the world. They will just ignore you and continue bashing him in this thread as if you never spoke. Either that or they will bring up some irrelevant fact and act like it refutes what you said. So far, I have never had even a single basher listen to reason or logic.

 

[burnedout]

Then, just three days after he received his first bill for the hospital food in Germany, he got a stern letter saying the bill was overdue. It warned that his account would be referred to a collection agency."

Furthermore, the above statement is complete horsecrap. The military does not refer collection of money owed to a "collection agency" in the traditional sense. Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) pays and deducts - usually without warning. DFAS simply deducts whatever amount from the next pay period.

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
...and as you pointed out, 'Separate Rats' are to feed the service member, not their wife and 6 kids..always withheld mine while in the field..same thing, we just never get the bill for the A/T-rats in the woodline

[edit]...sure don't miss those 'beef chunks w/ gravy'

Chicken breast wasn't too bad with tabasco - the universal GI enhancement for anything edible.

There were some changes with BAS around 1998 or so. Around then, we began keeping our BAS after deployment, which I always thought was a nice benefit. But for years, BAS was deducted after the field. One time I took a 6-month hit on one LES. Good thing that I'd stashed the money away. A lot of guys didn't though and they were hurtin'.

Can't say that I miss A's or T's much either. Or C's for that matter. Yet it was all part of that lifestyle. As the famous quote goes: "What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger".

 

[PatboyX]

For the Bush-bashers: This policy was in effect before you were conceived. Therefore, STFU about it.

no.
just becuase it was in effect before i was on planet earth does not make it a practice i should allow for. i dont agree with it...im not bashing bush over it.

"STFU"?
grow up.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

For the Bush-bashers: This policy was in effect before you were conceived. Therefore, STFU about it.

no.
just becuase it was in effect before i was on planet earth does not make it a practice i should allow for. i dont agree with it...im not bashing bush over it.

"STFU"?
grow up.

Who said you were? laFiera is the one bashing bush over it.

 

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: PatboyX

For the Bush-bashers: This policy was in effect before you were conceived. Therefore, STFU about it.

no.
just becuase it was in effect before i was on planet earth does not make it a practice i should allow for. i dont agree with it...im not bashing bush over it.

"STFU"?
grow up.

Who said you were? laFiera is the one bashing bush over it.

hmmm..i posted the article and I don't believe i even mention clinto or bush on it. Yet, as quoted by XzeroII, he clearly states that i'm bashing bush over it. I'm bashing the elected politicians---democrats or republicans---that give themselve raises, and yet, there are better places where that money could be spent. Love to you all!

 

[tcsenter]

hmmm..i posted the article and I don't believe i even mention clinto or bush on it. Yet, as quoted by XzeroII, he clearly states that i'm bashing bush over it.

I dare say he was referring to eminent Bush-basher and clueless-extraordinaire PhillyTIM, who steps in it several times per week by his knee-jerk blaming of Bush for...well...everything really. See the second post in the thread, if he doesn't edit it first to hide his embarrassing ignorance and vicious partisanship.

 

[LunarRay]

I seem to recall that the funds normaly paid to an individual as BOQ or (BAS?) - not fed or housed by the military - while in a position where she would be fed and housed by the military automatically has these funds stopped while in that position. But, while in hospital the result of battle field injuries has these funds restored... Is this not true?

edit.. either with or without family.. and residence.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

hmmm..i posted the article and I don't believe i even mention clinto or bush on it. Yet, as quoted by XzeroII, he clearly states that i'm bashing bush over it.

I dare say he was referring to eminent Bush-basher and clueless-extraordinaire PhillyTIM, who steps in it several times per week by his knee-jerk blaming of Bush for...well...everything really. See the second post in the thread, if he doesn't edit it first to hide his embarrassing ignorance and vicious partisanship.

There are two sides to knee-jerk partisanship.

Not that this has anything to do with laFiera's post. Bush wasn't mentioned. Only the fact that a soldier who is now missing a foot was billed for food while in hospital. Whatever the reasons or however easy the problem is to fix it should never have happened. Period.

As for the partisanship you people have a credibility problem attacking anyone for being partisan. Unless you can erase the history of your activities from 1992 through 2000.

 

[tcsenter]

Not that this has anything to do with laFiera's post. Bush wasn't mentioned. Only the fact that a soldier who is now missing a foot was billed for food while in hospital. Whatever the reasons or however easy the problem is to fix it should never have happened. Period.

PhillyTIM blamed this directly on Bush, Burnedout told Bush bashers (e.g. PhillyTIM) to STFU because this policy predates even the Clinton Administration, XZeroII in response to Burnedout stated 'They blame Bush for everything in the world', and it appears that XZeroII mistakenly credited LaFiera for the comment actually made by PhillyTIM, although LaFiera's own thread title "corruption continues..." certainly implies something and is clearly at odds with the facts. This issue has nothing to do with 'corruption', its a long-standing military policy that just a little fact-checking (God forbid) would have explained instead of blindly accepting everything one reads then leaping to conclusions that favor one's preconceived notions.

 

[Gaard]

Damn! I knew I should've posted in this thread. I like to see my name in bold letters too, you know!

 

[BOBDN]

Gaard

 

[Gaard]

Thanks. My day is now complete.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

There are two sides to knee-jerk partisanship.

And why is it that YOU so dramatically exemplify one side?

Not that this has anything to do with laFiera's post. Bush wasn't mentioned.

The post immediately under his mentions this.

"damn this bush regime is so hard up for cash, that it kicks its own soldiers in the shins before they can even walk steadily again"

But please, don't allow facts to get in the way of your sophomoric ranting.

Only the fact that a soldier who is now missing a foot was billed for food while in hospital. Whatever the reasons or however easy the problem is to fix it should never have happened. Period.

Yes, from my perspective, such action is unwarranted. Unfortunately, however, you once again vividly demonstrate hypocrisy.

Originally posted by: BOBDN

"You volunteered your time gout? Oh, no? You chose to join and were paid.

Your choice. You were paid. Get over it".

As for the partisanship you people have a credibility problem attacking anyone for being partisan.

So when we point out the inconsistencies in your typically flawed, hypocritical blabbering, we are partisan? Please.

Unless you can erase the history of your activities from 1992 through 2000.

No, sorry, can't erase the fact that I was defending you and other similar ingrates during this period.

 

[laFiera]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Not that this has anything to do with laFiera's post. Bush wasn't mentioned. Only the fact that a soldier who is now missing a foot was billed for food while in hospital. Whatever the reasons or however easy the problem is to fix it should never have happened. Period.

PhillyTIM blamed this directly on Bush, Burnedout told Bush bashers (e.g. PhillyTIM) to STFU because this policy predates even the Clinton Administration, XZeroII in response to Burnedout stated 'They blame Bush for everything in the world', and it appears that XZeroII mistakenly credited LaFiera for the comment actually made by PhillyTIM, although LaFiera's own thread title "corruption continues..." certainly implies something and is clearly at odds with the facts. This issue has nothing to do with 'corruption', its a long-standing military policy that just a little fact-checking (God forbid) would have explained instead of blindly accepting everything one reads then leaping to conclusions that favor one's preconceived notions.

THANKS FOR THE EXPLANATION....BUT TO CLARIFY FURTHER...
my corruption statatement is about politicians in GENERAL----republicans, democrats....etc!!!

And by "the corruption continues" i mean that yes, the law has been there before, but come on, there are people putting their lives on the line, to say the least, to serve their country, and to be treated that way, is clearly total corruption to me.

And i say that because i have read---don't have the article at hand----that many of the elected officials in washington, except for a few, have actually been in the military. And that, to me is corrupt. While these kind individuals seat in their cushy, airconditioned offices, there are men and women serving their country, and they are being treated like dirt!!!!!!! But hey, that's nothing new either!!!!!

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: laFiera

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Not that this has anything to do with laFiera's post. Bush wasn't mentioned. Only the fact that a soldier who is now missing a foot was billed for food while in hospital. Whatever the reasons or however easy the problem is to fix it should never have happened. Period.

PhillyTIM blamed this directly on Bush, Burnedout told Bush bashers (e.g. PhillyTIM) to STFU because this policy predates even the Clinton Administration, XZeroII in response to Burnedout stated 'They blame Bush for everything in the world', and it appears that XZeroII mistakenly credited LaFiera for the comment actually made by PhillyTIM, although LaFiera's own thread title "corruption continues..." certainly implies something and is clearly at odds with the facts. This issue has nothing to do with 'corruption', its a long-standing military policy that just a little fact-checking (God forbid) would have explained instead of blindly accepting everything one reads then leaping to conclusions that favor one's preconceived notions.

THANKS FOR THE EXPLANATION....BUT TO CLARIFY FURTHER...
my corruption statatement is about politicians in GENERAL----republicans, democrats....etc!!!

And by "the corruption continues" i mean that yes, the law has been there before, but come on, there are people putting their lives on the line, to say the least, to serve their country, and to be treated that way, is clearly total corruption to me.

And i say that because i have read---don't have the article at hand----that many of the elected officials in washington, except for a few, have actually been in the military. And that, to me is corrupt. While these kind individuals seat in their cushy, airconditioned offices, there are men and women serving their country, and they are being treated like dirt!!!!!!! But hey, that's nothing new either!!!!!

My appologies. I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong.

 

[tcsenter]

As for the partisanship you people have a credibility problem attacking anyone for being partisan. Unless you can erase the history of your activities from 1992 through 2000.

Ah ha! So that's what this is all about. I should have known! For Moonbeam, its bitterness that Gore lost. For others, its bitterness that Clinton's 'most ethical administration' crumbled with indictment after indictment. lol!

I have no problem with the history of my activities from 1992 through 2000.

I am no fan of Bill Clinton and never have been. I did not support his administration. In fact I was highly critical of it with a few minor exceptions. I am convinced Clinton has a narcissist personality disorder and most Democrats would privately not dispute that. Although I certainly questioned his motives on many occassions, I did not cynically presume the worst possible motives on every single matter of his presidency. Indeed, I often tried to look for less cynical possibilities.

I was not a member of the seething Clinton-hatred club, accusing Clinton of murder a la the infamous 'Clinton Body Count', 'Mena Drug Smuggling', 'Vince Foster Murder Coverup', 'UN Troops are training to take over the United States and confiscate our guns - its the New World Order', blah blah blah and whatever other screechy paranoid-schizophrenic accusations arising from one's bitter ideological defiance.

I have stated on these discussion threads that I was not in favor of Clinton's impeachment, although it was perfectly constitutional. I have also stated a few times that the Republican persecution of Clinton was a shameful spectacle that constituted a new low for politics in Washington, which is pretty bad considering I didn't think it could get much lower than it was, but far-right Republicans taught me there were still some frontiers on depravity.

Not to be outdone by the right, however, this lesson was apparently not lost on Bush haters.