12/19/08 Dr. Phil show

[skippy13]

All about issues facing returning service members.

Featured guests/contributors are:

Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans's Affairs, Congressman Bob Filner

FOX new military analyst, Colonel David Hunt

Tammy Duckworth, Director of the Illinois Department of Veteran's Affairs

Paul Rieckhoff, Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

And a couple of servicemen and their families who have hit the bureaucratic wall.

Previews show some heated conversation about making sure that the returning service members are getting the care that they need.

It may be a show worth watching

[skippy13]

Thank you for fixing the title for me.

[skippy13]

Bump

The show is on cbs right now on the west coast.

[quadvet]

Bravo so far! :applaud: So glad "pre-existing personality disorders" was mentioned already. I hope they discuss it more. It's a travesty what they are doing there. More later, this is good. :agog:

[quadvet]

Commercial time... Mental health care!!! I hate it when they stereotype the group like that. What they need first and foremost, the guys I know, is disability income, home health care, and equipment. Oops its back on!! Lol.

[skippy13]

It is far more confrontational than I thought it was going to be. Not everyone gets treated the way the guys on the show were treated.

For the most part I think the VA is doing the best it can. To think that there are One million new vets back from the wars already, and they are far more educated about benefits and illnesses incurred in the line of duty than those of us from the Vietnam era ever were, it's no wonder the VA is being overwhelmed.

You're rights QV, too much mental health. Not everyone coming back has ptsd.

[quadvet]

"If they [the VA] did their job the way he did his job, they wouldn't be in the situation they are [screwed]: The lady talking about her husband and dealing with the VA. Good for her! :applaud:

[quadvet]

It is far more confrontational than I thought it was going to be. Not everyone gets treated the way the guys on the show were treated.

For the most part I think the VA is doing the best it can. To think that there are One million new vets back from the wars already, and they are far more educated about benefits and illnesses incurred in the line of duty than those of us from the Vietnam era ever were, it's no wonder the VA is being overwhelmed. Totally agree. But it was a mess then that never truly got fixed. Sure, slow but sure change. But the change they are talking about now, I don't see it as being so much needed as currently existing regs need to be enforced... as it always has been.

[quadvet]

You're rights QV, too much mental health. Not everyone coming back has ptsd. Yeah and look at how mental health has handled both Gulf War syndrome and my earlier mentioned issues.

[Le Type Français]

This is only part of the reason I'm anti-war, the ones who fight are so often thrown by the wayside after they're used (that is if they didn't die).

[skippy13]

At least they know what PTSD is now, not like it was for the Vietnam Era Vets that are still (35 years later or more) just now being diagnosed and rated.

[skippy13]

This is only part of the reason I'm anti-war, the ones who fight are so often thrown by the wayside after they're used (that is if they didn't die).

I know of very few vets that arent anti-war. We are just not anti military service. I know of very few who would not voluntarily serve all over again, or still be serving if they were able.

[skippy13]

One resource gleaned from the show is an organization in Illinois designed to assist returning vets from that state. It is paid for by the State of Illinois and run by a wounded vet by the name of Ms. Tammy Duckworth. Ms Duckworth isa former helicopter pilot. Check out the site www.illinoiswarrior.com (http://www.illinoiswarrior.com).

[Veteran Advisor]

It is far more confrontational than I thought it was going to be. Not everyone gets treated the way the guys on the show were treated.

Great point, Skippy13. There's a danger in hasty generalization. VA is a nationwide healthcare system. In some states, some fields of medicine, some isolated incidences there are breakdowns. But people need to remember when things go right there's nothing to report. When things go wrong, the big issue stands alone with nothing positive to balance the story. For every negative story, Dr. Phil could've easily found a positive case to offer a balanced view of the VA. Otherwise, it's nothing more than sensationalism. ***Full disclosure-I didn't see the show myself. I'm simply responding to how it's being characterized in this forum***

This is sort of what happened at Walter Reed, a DoD facility---not a VA hospital. But VA took the heat after fact became a casualty of sensationalism. For all the good I've witnessed occur at VA hospitals across the country, I've yet to see media, for example, highlight how superior SCI care is in the VA when compared with the private sector.

[quadvet]

Sensationalism, yes. But, as we know, that's how media-for-revenue works. The root message remains the same. And the multitudes of veterans rights groups support the message - they're not in it for the money. If one pursues a service and gets satisfactory results in that pursuit, there should be no story. Whenever the subject of universal healthcare is brought up, the VA system is cited as being far superior than the civilian sector, and what a UHC system should be modeled after.

The complete show is on youtube, in 6 parts, starting here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYBVBhR_Um8

Sorry it won't embed.

I'm not being a pessimist here, just see a need. Thanks for everything you and your cohorts do, Veteran Adviser.

[quadvet]

This is only part of the reason I'm anti-war, the ones who fight are so often thrown by the wayside after they're used (that is if they didn't die). Being anti-war is noble, but won't stop wars from happening.

It is said that the character of a nation can be measured by the way that nation treats its veterans / The way a nation treats its veterans dictates how willing its people will be to fight for it. I tend to agree.

[Leif]

... For all the good I've witnessed occur at VA hospitals across the country, I've yet to see media, for example, highlight how superior SCI care is in the VA when compared with the private sector.Veteran Advisor. That is interesting. You mean that the care spinal cord injured get in the VA system is better than what is provided in the private sector? As I understand VA is government. Will this then mean that you have better fait in government provided care as such for SCI before/over private SCI care in general? Can I understand you that you are in favour of a government universal health care system? The government universal (or socialised) health care system has been up for debate for a long time in you’re country I also understand, also on the agenda on the new Obama admin. Can you elaborate more on your views on this matter? Tnx.

[Veteran Advisor]

Veteran Advisor. That is interesting. You mean that the care spinal cord injured get in the VA system is better than what is provided in the private sector? As I understand VA is government. Will this then mean that you have better fait in government provided care as such for SCI before/over private SCI care in general? Can I understand you that you are in favour of a government universal health care system? The government universal (or socialised) health care system has been up for debate for a long time in you’re country I also understand, also on the agenda on the new Obama admin. Can you elaborate more on your views on this matter? Tnx.

I am in favor of a VA health care system that takes care of veterans as promised. Extrapolating a preference for universal health care out of that is somewhat of a reach. I see how rehabilitative care is managed in both the private and VA sectors, and I base my opinion on the outcomes as well as the private sector patients who tell me themselves they wish they were in the VA system for SCI care.

The difference between socialized health care and VA care is the latter is owed out of a promise to veterans since the days of Lincoln ("To care for him who shall have born the battle..."). VA care is exclusive, not inclusive. Socialized care is based on natural-born entitlement, a far cry from the sacrifice asked of veterans. The two simply don't compare, in my view. If your question presupposes that all forms of government-managed care can be considered socialized medicine then I disagree with your premise.

Also bear in mind, my view is limited to those instances where I saw a juxstaposition of the two care systems. This does not mean that all of VA's 23 SCI Centers are far superior to all private sector SCI care facilities. I should've qualified my earlier assertion. My point was media need to provide balanced perspectives of VA, not just the negative.

[quadvet]

Thank you for explaining that, Veteran Adviser, and I hate to chop your post up, but to address a couple points separately...The difference between socialized health care and VA care is the latter is owed out of a promise to veterans since the days of Lincoln ("To care for him who shall have born the battle..."). VA care is exclusive, not inclusive. Socialized care is based on natural-born entitlement, a far cry from the sacrifice asked of veterans. The two simply don't compare, in my view. Very well put. This has been a topic of debate here at CareCure, a national universal healthcare system based on the VA system. I haven't the answer to that, but understanding this difference is key to understanding the hurdles of such an idea.
I see how rehabilitative care is managed in both the private and VA sectors, and I base my opinion on the outcomes as well as the private sector patients who tell me themselves they wish they were in the VA system for SCI care.
My point was media need to provide balanced perspectives of VA, not just the negative.I agree, on both points. And even the "feel-good" stories that do make mainstream media don't really do the system justice.

[Le Type Français]

It is said that the character of a nation can be measured by the way that nation treats its veterans / The way a nation treats its veterans dictates how willing its people will be to fight for it. I tend to agree.

A nation that treats its veterans as disposable has little character and lacks the nobility it supposes.

[Veteran Advisor]

This has been a topic of debate here at CareCure, a national universal healthcare system based on the VA system.

Quadvet,

I get caught in debates like this quite often as well. The problem is it's a two-sided argument. One on side, we argue whether the VA model can be mimicked in the non-VA sector as a practical matter. On the other, we debate entitlement on principal, i.e. whether a veteran's entitlement to care by virtue of his/her service is the same as an ordinary citizen's entitlement to care by birthright. Unless we debate them separately, we're basing arguments on flawed premises. Just my two cents.

What are your thoughts on that, QV?

[Leif]

I am in favor of a VA health care system that takes care of veterans as promised. Extrapolating a preference for universal health care out of that is somewhat of a reach. I see how rehabilitative care is managed in both the private and VA sectors, and I base my opinion on the outcomes as well as the private sector patients who tell me themselves they wish they were in the VA system for SCI care.

The difference between socialized health care and VA care is the latter is owed out of a promise to veterans since the days of Lincoln ("To care for him who shall have born the battle..."). VA care is exclusive, not inclusive. Socialized care is based on natural-born entitlement, a far cry from the sacrifice asked of veterans. The two simply don't compare, in my view. If your question presupposes that all forms of government-managed care can be considered socialized medicine then I disagree with your premise.

Also bear in mind, my view is limited to those instances where I saw a juxstaposition of the two care systems. This does not mean that all of VA's 23 SCI Centers are far superior to all private sector SCI care facilities. I should've qualified my earlier assertion. My point was media need to provide balanced perspectives of VA, not just the negative.
Hi VA, and thank you for the viewpoints.

As a big country like the US I would also be in favour of a special system that takes care of veterans from wars. I understand it is not easy to do, and that there have been problems like with some of you’re institutions, read Walter Reed. Sure there are problems. But also look if a ‘sided’ per system is better then a more ‘up-running’ system. One would not know. But as you say, should a prerequisite to have been in the armed forces be a qualifier for good health care, or on the opposite should the civil ones make better care for soldiers?

As for the difference between socialized health care and more specific health care within any given country for armed forces, that would depend on the volume and size of army’s, as for having special systems. And with bigger army’s one could, but is that a good thing? Not discussing size of army’s here as such, like to create subside health care systems. Maybe to join (as such) would make better off? In smaller countries like I come from, that is out of the window off course (segregated systems). Not meaning here that veterans should not have the best of care, not at all. Just thinking about the health care idea to get the best.

As for you’re last paragraph, I 'understand' you’re work and the justification of it regardless of SCI units. The need for care and follow-up, and I welcome you’re work. You do good things now by informing ppl. And media might often side gov not understanding what actually is being carried out and done, by the helpers, like you and others. Great job you do.

[Veteran Advisor]

Hi VA, and thank you for the viewpoints.

As a big country like the US I would also be in favour of a special system that takes care of veterans from wars. I understand it is not easy to do, and that there have been problems like with some of you’re institutions, read Walter Reed. Sure there are problems. But also look if a ‘sided’ per system is better then a more ‘up-running’ system. One would not know. But as you say, should a prerequisite to have been in the armed forces be a qualifier for good health care, or on the opposite should the civil ones make better care for soldiers?

As for the difference between socialized health care and more specific health care within any given country for armed forces, that would depend on the volume and size of army’s, as for having special systems. And with bigger army’s one could, but is that a good thing? Not discussing size of army’s here as such, like to create subside health care systems. Maybe to join (as such) would make better off? In smaller countries like I come from, that is out of the window off course (segregated systems). Not meaning here that veterans should not have the best of care, not at all. Just thinking about the health care idea to get the best.

Leif,

Thank you for your cross-cultural perspective. As a student of global cultures, I understand that cultural context often influences what is necessary in a given society. You're right where you say the size of the military matters. In 2007, there were over 23.6 million vets in the U.S., 6 million with disabilities. VA spent about $33.7 billion to care for these vets. Imagine how difficult it would be for society to absorb this population with its unique problems---PTSD, combat injuries, Gulf War Syndrome, Agent Orange illnesses, etc.. I don't doubt that Americans love veterans, but I suspect many vets would get lost or mishandled in private sector systems where they can present extraordinary problems (I see this happening already). Imagine a 22-year old shell-shocked quad on a geriatric ward with elderly ALS patients trying to put his life back together. Compare that with the same quad on an SCI Unit where other combat/military vets are also recovering in an atmosphere that is sensitive to military culture, which the VA offers to some degree. You may not know this Leif, but the private sector doesn't even have a model for stand-alone spinal cord injury units in many places. They simply rehabilitate SCIs on geriatric and general rehabilitation units because it's more cost effective.

This discussion illustrates the tension between utilitarian principles (the greatest good for the greatest number) and the principle of acting on higher moral conviction---taking care of vets simply because we should. In the U.S., utilitarianism almost always wins (capitalism, democracy, etc.) , which is why vets have to fight so hard to make America keep her promise.

More to one of your points, military service should not be a prerequisite for getting the best care, and it would be nice if private sector care could adequately care for vets. But the status quo is the cold, hard reality we live with right now.

[quadvet]

Quadvet,

I get caught in debates like this quite often as well. The problem is it's a two-sided argument. One on side, we argue whether the VA model can be mimicked in the non-VA sector as a practical matter. On the other, we debate entitlement on principal, i.e. whether a veteran's entitlement to care by virtue of his/her service is the same as an ordinary citizen's entitlement to care by birthright. Unless we debate them separately, we're basing arguments on flawed premises. Just my two cents.

What are your thoughts on that, QV? Veteran Adviser,
Understood, but you won't catch me debating this. As long as they don't start talking again about opening the doors of the VA hospitals to the public, like I recall hearing back in the 90s.

[Veteran Advisor]

In smaller countries like I come from, that is out of the window off course (segregated systems).

Leif,

You live in Norway, correct? How are the military veterans viewed in your country? And how is disability viewed? Some places in Europe are not very accessible for wheelchair users. Is your government sensitive to the needs of its disabled citizens, in your view?

[quadvet]

Leif,

Thank you for your cross-cultural perspective. As a student of global cultures, I understand that cultural context often influences what is necessary in a given society. You're right where you say the size of the military matters. In 2007, there were over 23.6 million vets in the U.S., 6 million with disabilities. VA spent about $33.7 billion to care for these vets. Imagine how difficult it would be for society to absorb this population with its unique problems---PTSD, combat injuries, Gulf War Syndrome, Agent Orange illnesses, etc.. I don't doubt that Americans love veterans, but I suspect many vets would get lost or mishandled in private sector systems where they can present extraordinary problems (I see this happening already). Imagine a 22-year old shell-shocked quad on a geriatric ward with elderly ALS patients trying to put his life back together. Compare that with the same quad on an SCI Unit where other combat/military vets are also recovering in an atmosphere that is sensitive to military culture, which the VA offers to some degree. You may not know this Leif, but the private sector doesn't even have a model for stand-alone spinal cord injury units in many places. They simply rehabilitate SCIs on geriatric and general rehabilitation units because it's more cost effective.

This discussion illustrates the tension between utilitarian principles (the greatest good for the greatest number) and the principle of acting on higher moral conviction---taking care of vets simply because we should. In the U.S., utilitarianism almost always wins (capitalism, democracy, etc.) , which is why vets have to fight so hard to make America keep her promise.

More to one of your points, military service should not be a prerequisite for getting the best care, and it would be nice if private sector care could adequately care for vets. But the status quo is the cold, hard reality we live with right now. Good point, your last paragraph. Also your explanation of the unique challenge faced by the VA, and the lack of proper SCI rehab facilities in the private sector. Well put.

[Leif]

Leif,

You live in Norway, correct? How are the military veterans viewed in your country? And how is disability viewed? Some places in Europe are not very accessible for wheelchair users. Is your government sensitive to the needs of its disabled citizens, in your view?
VA,
I live in Norway, correct. But first off, I did not enter this thread blaming the care of US soldiers nor VA nor the US. Just brainstorming, for better care. Which is very important.

As for youre Q: I personally think military persons (what they do) should be lifted, on the career ladder in society (for example nut gov does not admit we are in war wilts sending jest and soldiers to Afg, like the Telemark Battalion and others has been there for years). And to give the few over there, not full respect, to me would be the same fault one did to the sailors in WWII. As for ADA laws, given I live on a mountain range not pretty easy to come around and level out. Well, I’m a Th4, hands Ok, but I have travelled so much here in my wheelchair, and as for me, no prob. Where I live, and no problems elsewhere. Oslo, some bumps, I understand that (million year old city and all), but one cant level and bomb Oslo to the ground just to make it flat, or should we? As for our gov, a new law will be in power from this New Year. Forcing builders to build ‘ADA shape’ if you want (but more strict). But we have had laws before this one, but this new one will be the best in Europe, better than UK, better than France, better than Germany and so on. Aside of that, the needs of the SCI’ed (disabled) are not the best in the World, but there again I would claim that SCIed is better taking care of here than in any other country in the whole wide World. Just challenge me on some of that, and I will reply, backing it up with laws and examples. To add, glad to see other persons working hard for the better as for SCI. Keep at it, you do good now.

[quadvet]

A nation that treats its veterans as disposable has little character and lacks the nobility it supposes.I don't feel so much treated as disposable, as I feel it shouldn't be such a fight. The way it stands, if I/we aren't diligent, oft times beyond what should be reasonable, it's easy to be forgotten and assumed taken care of. Like issues resolve themselves; out of sight, out of mind.

Lessons learned: Don't wait for them to call, even if they say they will; Don't call too much, in too much earnest - even if it is urgent - it is entirely possible you'll end up talking to a shrink. And finally, don't be afraid to jump chain of command; don't feel helpless, the situation hopeless.

Give it to Veteran Adviser, VA SCI centers may not operate equally, I only know my VA.

[Leif]

Leif,

You live in Norway, correct? How are the military veterans viewed in your country? And how is disability viewed? Some places in Europe are not very accessible for wheelchair users. Is your government sensitive to the needs of its disabled citizens, in your view?
Veteran Advisor,
Actually. Here is an article our chief of our military forces posted in one of our biggest newspapers the other day. I believe he is addressing some of you’re questions here (at least the first part). I believe he calls for a military with more “unit belonging” (like the USMC). This due to the operations of the military forces has changed. He calls for the public and our political leaders to recognise this. I have only translated this article by Google translation, but I believe you will get the grasp of it.



http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/article2830521.ece


The new culture of war

It is essential that the political authorities are clear in their support for soldiers, says chief of the Norwegian military Sverre Diesen in the article.

In recent weeks there has been a debate in the media about our soldiers in international operations receive the recognition they are entitled to from the community, especially from the politicians who send them. The debate is interesting, because it is a symptom that the Norwegian military is not only adjusted externally, but also change the character.

From being a broad, mobilization based defence designed for an existential struggle for self-defence of Norway, it is converted into a standing, partly professionalizing instrument for Norwegian security interests in a broad sense. These two types of defence is not only different on the surface, they are also psychological and cultural fundamentally different. It requires that both the military's own personnel and that the community around us are taking into discussions the expectations, which we must have to each other.

Take life.
All military organizations are dependent on strong motivation-related mechanisms, because the soldier profession in its nature is extremely. It is of utmost consequence to take others' lives under conditions that also involves the risk of losing their own. Should a military unit work in combat, it must therefore have the inner quality that we like to call the combat morale, that is the uncompromising determination to put the implementation of the mission ahead of other considerations - including concern for their own lives.

In the old defence was this moral girder provided to the values and ideals of a total war on its own soil necessarily involves - Norway's existence as an independent nation, and life and freedom for all of us. But today is not sufficient as moral bearing, because the military will also work without these values are at stake.

The absence of threat.
Our international operations may be closely related to Norwegian security interests, but not as absolute and self-evident as such. Like by the German attack in 1940. And if we get a new conflict in our own immediate environs today, it will to our best reviews do not revolve around an attempt to conquer all or large parts of Norway. In the absence of a traditional invasion threat is also that efforts in a military conflict in northern areas are likely to be of purely material art. It may in its consequence come to be about the size of the oil fund.

But then there is also a need for a completely different kind of moral and motivation wise fiber in the military instrument to serve these interests. Combat morale must be based on something less absolute than the basic values and freedoms of the whole society are based. This is regarded as even more demanding, as life of soldiers now should be risked for things that a majority of the population may be quite indifferent to and can do without.

Elite units.
Nevertheless, there have always existed military organizations that have had this quality. And it is in this category we also find the foremost examples of elite military units of all time. Their foremost common is their use of the professional and team identity - the reciprocal fellowship and cohesion in the units - that the column itself violates moral, discipline and inner qualities rests on.

Life in the scale pan.
When the individual soldier is confronted with the most extreme stress and life lies in the emphasis bowl, it is in other words, not the distant and elevated ideals that keep him up there, but unwillingness to abandon fellow soldiers and units, and thus perhaps also the entire department's reputation and tradition. This "family feeling" must be built up through the unit’s systematic daily life, such as the marks related to the anniversary of the fights where it has been very successful with honour, memory marks for its fallen, etc. In this way, one is creating a sense of belonging and commitment to the units until the individual is prepared to bring even the largest offer, because self-esteem and self-stands and falls with the acceptance and trust of comrades and fellow soldiers.

Unit Identity.
The new Norwegian Armed Forces have to, in parallel with its external restructuring, also attend a cultural change - from the typical militia Armed Forces based to the highest ideals of a culture built on strong professional and team identity. But this does not mean that the recognition from the rest of society is without significance. In particular, it is essential that the political authorities are clear in their support for soldiers, whether it occurs by visiting units in the field, decorate them to be excellent beyond the duty requirements or protect our veterans at the end of efforts.

This is extremely important, not least for the soldiers to maintain faith in the legitimacy of what they do. It will in itself prevent mental problems later on, and is more important the more politically controversial operation in the country. From the rest of society should the soldier be able to expect that most people capabilities to distinguish between power for political purposes and the efforts provide by the soldier. The soldier has, in other words, entitled to respect and loyalty, just because he or she is not fighting on their own behalf, but on the whole community - and carries the risks of it.

Take the consequences.
So far the military and what the individual soldier can expect of society. What has the community's right to expect of us? For the first that we take the consequence of our own choice of profession and accept the risk that comes with, both for their own person and in relation to what we may be ordered to do. Select to be a soldier must thus be confident that the Norwegian authorities will not use the military for tasks that are incompatible with one's own conscience. If you don’t have it, one can you choose something else.

Secondly, we must accept that the sudden death or invalidity is an occupational risk to soldiers. The soldiers who choose professions, must do so in spite of both the discomfort and the risks it entails, and then it's not in today's defence to make it conditional on whether it occurs in Norway or in Afghanistan.

The role of the professional soldier.
The demand from soldiers in active operations abroad about the respect and recognition from political authorities and society - which we have to the fullest from the military's political leadership today - is justified. That there is the formally no war between Norway and the countries where the operations take place, is in that context pure formalism - the formal war declaration time is regardless belonging to the past. But on the other hand, can not we in the military let such recognition be a condition of our own commitment and effort. Our commitment is a consequence of our choice of the role of the professional soldier and must apply without reservation as long as we choose to be in service - whether we are in the military for shorter periods or have it as a profession.

[Veteran Advisor]

Veteran Advisor,
Actually. Here is an article our chief of our military forces posted in one of our biggest newspapers the other day. I believe he is addressing some of you’re questions here (at least the first part). I believe he calls for a military with more “unit belonging” (like the USMC). This due to the operations of the military forces has changed. He calls for the public and our political leaders to recognise this. I have only translated this article by Google translation, but I believe you will get the grasp of it.

Leif,

Are there any sort of "core values" and/or leadership tenets that the Norwegian military relies upon to build a moral-warrior mentality as well as unit cohesion? It gets touched on in parts of the document you posted, but how are they taught to new members?

[Veteran Advisor]

Veteran Advisor,
Actually. Here is an article our chief of our military forces posted in one of our biggest newspapers the other day. I believe he is addressing some of you’re questions here (at least the first part). I believe he calls for a military with more “unit belonging” (like the USMC). This due to the operations of the military forces has changed. He calls for the public and our political leaders to recognise this. I have only translated this article by Google translation, but I believe you will get the grasp of it.

Leif,

Are there any sort of "core values" and/or leadership tenets that the Norwegian military relies upon to build a moral-warrior mentality as well as unit cohesion? It gets touched on in parts of the document you posted, but how are they taught to new members?

[Leif]

Leif,

Are there any sort of "core values" and/or leadership tenets that the Norwegian military relies upon to build a moral-warrior mentality as well as unit cohesion? It gets touched on in parts of the document you posted, but how are they taught to new members?VA. There are core values, and those are written down in documents. But what Diesen above illustrated in the article is maybe illustrated by some slogans. Like the Army has this “Army – for peace and freedom” and the Navy “For the King, country and the honour of the flag”. Then one have some units slogans, like “Lead, don’t follow”, “Communiter Victor”, “Robur et fidelis” and so on. The latter here more shows building of unit cohesion. And I believe that Diesen was after that in his article, which basically was addressing politicians and also the public. As for how new members are taught these days with this new reorganized military I am not quite sure of, it’s soon thirty years since I was in the military. Have a nice holiday.

[quadvet]

I forced myself to watch this show again. Yes, it was sensationalism, and even worse, commercialization at the expense of service members. I have vehemently opposed that here on CareCure, some will remember. The show made several valid points, I'll leave it at that.



On this Skippy...
One resource gleaned from the show is an organization in Illinois designed to assist returning vets from that state. It is paid for by the State of Illinois and run by a wounded vet by the name of Ms. Tammy Duckworth. Ms Duckworth is a former helicopter pilot. Check out the site www.illinoiswarrior.com (http://www.illinoiswarrior.com/). Yes, and you'll see Ms. Duckworth alongside Veteran Adviser in his profile pictures. In him, I believe we have an outstanding resource and advocate. Just saying thanks, Gunner. :thumb:

[Veteran Advisor]

Yes, and you'll see Ms. Duckworth alongside Veteran Adviser in his profile pictures. In him, I believe we have an outstanding resource and advocate. Just saying thanks, Gunner. :thumb:

Thanks, QV. But it'll take the whole team here to make this forum great. I'm just a small part. You guys keep the good info and discussions coming because the new guys badly need it.

BTW, I did get to meet Major Duckworth. If you've never heard her story, you should. She's as tough and courageous as any Marine or soldier I've known. I hope she rises to the highest tiers of leadership in our country because we need more like her.

[quadvet]

Thanks, QV. But it'll take the whole team here to make this forum great. I'm just a small part. You guys keep the good info and discussions coming because the new guys badly need it.

BTW, I did get to meet Major Duckworth. If you've never heard her story, you should. She's as tough and courageous as any Marine or soldier I've known. I hope she rises to the highest tiers of leadership in our country because we need more like her.No pressure intended. It just feels great to finally have a veterans forum aimed specifically at those with spinal cord injury, with authoritative members as yourself and SCI-Nurse KLD with inside experience in the VA system to help eliminate disinformation.

Now we need to figure out how to get veterans to feel safe and open up.

I took a look at the good Major's story and what she's been up to. Yes, we need more like her. I'm surprised I'd not seen her before, or maybe I didn't make the connection.