I may be opening a can of worms here, I know there are quite a few military families here, but I want opinions. My opinion is that our military personnel should be getting the BEST medical care possible. They risk their health and lives for our safety and freedom, who deserves it more?


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Sick, wounded U.S. troops held in squalor
By MARK BENJAMIN, UPI Investigations Editor,

FORT STEWART, Ga., Oct. 17 (UPI) -- Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors.

The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments. One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments are available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day.

"I have loved the Army. I have served the Army faithfully and I have done everything the Army has asked me to do," said Sgt. 1st Class Willie Buckels, a truck master with the 296th Transportation Company. Buckels served in the Army Reserves for 27 years, including Operation Iraqi Freedom and the first Gulf War. "Now my whole idea about the U.S. Army has changed. I am treated like a third-class citizen."

Since getting back from Iraq in May, Buckels, 52, has been trying to get doctors to find out why he has intense pain in the side of his abdomen since doubling over in pain there.

After waiting since May for a diagnosis, Buckels has accepted 20 percent of his benefits for bad knees and is going home to his family in Mississippi. "They have not found out what my side is doing yet, but they are still trying," Buckels said.

One month after President Bush greeted soldiers at Fort Stewart -- home of the famed Third Infantry Division -- as heroes on their return from Iraq, approximately 600 sick or injured members of the Army Reserves and National Guard are warehoused in rows of spare, steamy and dark cement barracks in a sandy field, waiting for doctors to treat their wounds or illnesses.

The Reserve and National Guard soldiers are on what the Army calls "medical hold," while the Army decides how sick or disabled they are and what benefits -- if any -- they should get as a result.

Some of the soldiers said they have waited six hours a day for an appointment without seeing a doctor. Others described waiting weeks or months without getting a diagnosis or proper treatment.

The soldiers said professional active duty personnel are getting better treatment while troops who serve in the National Guard or Army Reserve are left to wallow in medical hold.

"It is not an Army of One. It is the Army of two -- Army and Reserves," said one soldier who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, during which she developed a serious heart condition and strange skin ailment.

A half-dozen calls by UPI seeking comment from Fort Stewart public affairs officials and U.S. Forces Command in Atlanta were not returned.

Soldiers here estimate that nearly 40 percent of the personnel now in medical hold were deployed to Iraq. Of those who went, many described clusters of strange ailments, like heart and lung problems, among previously healthy troops. They said the Army has tried to refuse them benefits, claiming the injuries and illnesses were due to a "pre-existing condition," prior to military service.

Most soldiers in medical hold at Fort Stewart stay in rows of rectangular, gray, single-story cinder block barracks without bathrooms or air conditioning. They are dark and sweltering in the southern Georgia heat and humidity. Around 60 soldiers cram in the bunk beds in each barrack.

Soldiers make their way by walking or using crutches through the sandy dirt to a communal bathroom, where they have propped office partitions between otherwise open toilets for privacy. A row of leaky sinks sits on an opposite wall. The latrine smells of urine and is full of bugs, because many windows have no screens. Showering is in a communal, cinder block room. Soldiers say they have to buy their own toilet paper.

They said the conditions are fine for training, but not for sick people.

"I think it is disgusting," said one Army Reserve member who went to Iraq and asked that his name not be used.

That soldier said that after being deployed in March he suffered a sudden onset of neurological symptoms in Baghdad that has gotten steadily worse. He shakes uncontrollably.

He said the Army has told him he has Parkinson's Disease and it was a pre-existing condition, but he thinks it was something in the anthrax shots the Army gave him.

"They say I have Parkinson's, but it is developing too rapidly," he said. "I did not have a problem until I got those shots."

First Sgt. Gerry Mosley crossed into Iraq from Kuwait on March 19 with the 296th Transportation Company, hauling fuel while under fire from the Iraqis as they traveled north alongside combat vehicles. Mosley said he was healthy before the war; he could run two miles in 17 minutes at 48 years old.

But he developed a series of symptoms: lung problems and shortness of breath; vertigo; migraines; and tinnitus. He also thinks the anthrax vaccine may have hurt him. Mosley also has a torn shoulder from an injury there.

Mosley says he has never been depressed before, but found himself looking at shotguns recently and thought about suicide.

Mosley is paying $300 a month to get better housing than the cinder block barracks. He has a notice from the base that appears to show that no more doctor appointments are available for reservists from Oct. 14 until Nov. 11. He said he has never been treated like this in his 30 years in the Army Reserves.

"Now, I would not go back to war for the Army," Mosley said.

Many soldiers in the hot barracks said regular Army soldiers get to see doctors, while National Guard and Army Reserve troops wait.

"The active duty guys that are coming in, they get treated first and they put us on hold," said another soldier who returned from Iraq six weeks ago with a serious back injury. He has gotten to see a doctor only two times since he got back, he said.

Another Army Reservist with the 149th Infantry Battalion said he has had real trouble seeing doctors about his crushed foot he suffered in Iraq. "There are not enough doctors. They are overcrowded and they can't perform the surgeries that have to be done," that soldier said. "Look at these mattresses. It hurts just to sit on them," he said, gesturing to the bunks. "There are people here who got back in April but did not get their surgeries until July. It is putting a lot on these families."

The Pentagon is reportedly drawing up plans to call up more reserves.

In an Oct. 9 speech to National Guard and reserve troops in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Bush said the soldiers had become part of the backbone of the military.

"Citizen-soldiers are serving in every front on the war on terror," Bush said. "And you're making your state and your country proud."

-0-

Mark Benjamin can be contacted at mbenjamin@upi.com

By Feona on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 09:39 am:

Geez... Not another agent orange situation.... I know someone who has a brother that is in the army and she said he had developed worse adhd from being in the army. She think is it from chemicals.

By Ginny~moderator on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 06:43 am:

I agree, Karen, those who are serving and who served deserve the best medical care - and that is not usually what they get. People on active duty and full-time military personnel usually, I believe, get fairly decent care, but reserves - forget it.

I remember when the people who were called to overseas duty were, by and large, active military personnel, and the reserves were only activated as a supplement or in dire emergency. But, after the Vietnam War, it is my understanding that a decision was made to beef up the reserves while cutting back on the full-time military, and to activate the reserves when "police actions" and small wars came about, for several reasons.

One reason, of course, is budgetary. It is much cheaper to beef up the reserves, paying them at the reserve rate of pay, than to keep the full-time military at a level enabling prompt action. And, of course, not having to budget for the support services, including medical, for those personnel because they are, actually, civilians. Now, I know several people in the reserves, but you cannot convince me that the people in the reserves, no matter how well they train within their schedule, are as "up to speed" as full-time military personnel.

Another reason was simply political. I have read and believe that after the Vietnam War and the protests which helped bring an end to that war, a decision was made to rely much more on the reserves because more people would then have neighbors, friends, and acquaintances in active military duty when the reserves were activated and thus be less likely to protest against future military actions.

Finally, without the draft (and that's another discussion) and relying on a volunteer military, there are fewer applicants who qualify for military duty. Many people see military duty as a last choice, not a first choice, and many volunteers are not sufficiently educated, are in less than good health, or have criminal history or substance abuse problems.

The first and third reasons make pragmatic sense (and, politically, so does the second). But, diverting military funding to high tech stuff rather than personnel leaves the services unprepared to deal with the problems of reservists who were activated and now have medical problems from wounds, exposure to chemicals, and other problems. Veterans Administration hospitals are not that great to start with, but succeeding administrations have tried really hard to cut back on funding VA hospitals and other sources of medical care for all but active, full-time military.

And this doesn't take into account the severe financial hardships many families of activated reservists suffer when their spouses are activated for anywhere from three to twelve months. These people went into the reserves expecting, by and large, to be called up for emergency reasons - an unexpected military action or emergency, and to be kept activated while the military beefed up recruitment and training, to be replaced as soon as possible by full-time military personnel. That, of course, is not what is happening. We are activating thousands and thousands of "week end warriors" for periods of up to twelve months, and maybe longer, without any effort to beef up the full-time military, and are using the reserves as our full-time military.

Just as few serious plans were made for the occupation of Iraq, to deal with the sabotage, looting, and attacks on U.S. and other personnel, few plans were made to deal with the problems of the activated reserves and few support systems are in place for taking care of them when problems occur.

Personally, I believe that any time our government puts someone on active duty and in harm's way we, as a nation, have made a commitment to provide the best possible support and care for that person - and when we don't it is a national disgrace.

By Juli4 on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 02:47 pm:

I am not sure about what the policies are concerning the reserves and medical care,but I would say if they are all active they should get the same treatment. We have seen though in the past that our military has not always been treated correctly. They should be treated like royalty for the service and risks. From what I know the reserves have been great for many people and not only our country. I never thought about it but it does seem like there are an awful lot of reserves.

As far as the reserves preventing protests I can't really say that it has been effective considering there have been a few large protests, but then again that is one of the beauties of living in America.

Gnny as we disagree on many things and this may open a new can of worms... whether anyone agrees with the war in iraq or not to leave now would be the dumbest thing in the world. Iraq has been freed and many many good things have taken place. But to leave the rebuilding unfinished would only be catastrophic for the people in iraq and give the opportunity for the sadam regime to come back. I think we made that mistake in the past. I think in the end long term iraq will be a much better place , but to leave is unwise. So whether you agree in the ifrst place what is done is done and we ned to finish it and to be honest I am glad that we did go in. Sadaam and his regime was very evil. The torture and brutality that took place is unthinkable. The world will be a better place in the end. But we do agree that our military should recieve the best medical care and benefits and it is a disgrace that they are not.

By Ginny~moderator on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 05:05 am:

Oh, I agree, Juli. There is no way we can leave Iraq now. What we desperately need are policies and people and resources in that country to address its basic needs, get the men no longer in the military there employed in some useful way so they aren't throwing grenades at U.S. jeeps out of frustration, and rebuild its entire infrastructure. And, I'm afraid we need a whole lot more personnel there - especially people who are trained (or will be trained) in how to be an occupying force in a country where we want to build friendliness and democracy. To walk out now would be disastrous and the long term effects on that part of the world and the rest of the world would be immeasurably more disastrous than our leaving Viet Nam.