It's the same with the military too. If you can be trained to do another job they will do that. But if the disease or injury is too bad and you cannot perform you are medically retired. It's hard to get it through the military too which is why this is a step up for many. Once you are medically retired from the military many vets turn to the VA administration which will usually rate them at a higher percentage. It's mainly that they are covering these diseases now. It's too bad our Vietnam boys didn't get this when they could. Maybe now they will.

When Jim was discharged they rushed him through the military review board so fast we questioned why because some guys were still waiting to be medically discharged after several years. Makes us wonder about all those chemicals. But then again Jim was my secret agent man. lol With that being said, they take very good care of us. Even I will be taken care of if something happened to Jim for life as long as I never remarry. It's nowhere near what they give Jim but it's more than most people get plus I retain my medical coverage.

Guess who's not getting remarried? lol

I'm just trying to figure out what this means to the vets now . . . are you saying that before now, they didn't cover these illnesses; like MS and Cancer (no matter what the "cause")?

My friend, who is a US vet, was medically retired with MS. He thinks it was caused by uranium while in this latest war (came home in 2004, I think), but he has been getting a medical pension just because of the MS (regardless of the cause).

With this ruling, are they going to be entitled to more now, or ... what is the actual benefit?

Cherie

No, Jim is covered for ms and was medically retired with the dx of ms as are many soldiers with ms. They are talking about the soldiers who were actively involved in the Gulf War and came out with this mystery illness called Gulf War Syndrome. These soldiers were given a specific amount of time to "claim" on any illness that could be somehow related to their service. If you didn't "claim" within seven years you were no longer eligible to file for compensation. The same goes for any vet who is no longer active, not just the Gulf War vets. Now the government is realizing that this disease is indeed something and that our soldiers should be given compensation for the illness. By passing this it will open doors for other vets who have suffered for years and couldn't get help. For example, vets who didn't apply within the seven year cut off.

As to if they will get "more" is up to the medical review board. They base disability on a percentage scale. Jim is 100% but was 50% at discharge. He also gets aide and attendance because he requires 24 hour care. If he were to go on a respirator he would get more aide and attendance. It's all about the severity of the disability.

So, people who were in the Gulf War in the early 90's (and perhaps this even opens the door for the subsequent war, still going on) will be covered ... even if they don't develop that MS or cancer (I presume a certain type(s):confused:) for several years? Of course that would mean anyone who did develop those disease since 1991 too?

If that is the case, I think this brings me back to my original point . . . that they must KNOW that these diseases can be caused by something that happened in the war ... so they are taking accountibility.

My point is just that maybe they ARE getting closer to identifying the cause of these diseases (or at least one major cause) if they are accepting responsibility for them. :confused:

I'm interested in this because there are a couple of "industries" that have been known to have a higher risk for MS, including vets and nurses . . . This is a step in validating one industry "cause".

See where I'm going with this?

Cherie

I see where your going with this Cherie but we cannot say where ms comes from just yet. What about civilians who never had any contact with the military or certain professions? There are plenty of civilians who cannot be added to the mix because of that. I have to stick to my opinion that the military does not cause neurological disease but it can exacerbate symptoms simply by being exposed to rigorous training and chemicals.

I think this is simply the military taking care of their vets and nothing more. Gulf War Syndrome has been considered a mystery since it's naming. Vietnam vets had agent orange and similar illnesses. They are taking care of their vets. Heck, they have been in the media so much for not taking care of them so it's about time if you ask me. :rolleyes:

I'm still not getting remarried. :D

Now I must pass the torch to someone else because I have a hungry vet asking where's his grilled cheese? lol

I didn't actually mean to imply that it did . . . just that if they are now acknowledging that something in that "industry" is leading to these kind of problems (MS, cancer, etc.) . . . then they might be getting closer narrowing down what "that" is.

Kinda' like the theory that lower levels of Vitamin D, in different altitudes, potentially impacting the prevalence of MS (not that theory is holding much water any more, but . . . )

So, the next question would be "what" might be triggering these neurological problems in war vets, and I'm betting from their analysis, they have some good clues. Maybe it's uranium, or some type of vaccine, or . . . but if they were to combine those findings with the medical industry (nurses), we could be getting closer to the answer.

Yeah right :rolleyes:, just my wishful thinking working overtime. :p

Cherie

There are a bunch of things that the DoD exposed to us prior to the Gulf War and the results have been the same.

It is more common than most realize...but some of us knew the risk, while the vast majority had no idea.

-Vic

My friend (US vet) got both MS AND a type of cancer that a lot of vets seem to be coming home with (leukemia, I think?). Of course civilians are exposed to things that can cause the same diseases, but the trick would be to use these high prevalence groups to determine what it might be.

As an example, IF they determined it might be uranium exposure, many Europeans, Canadians, Americans, NZ and Ozzy's live in houses that are (inadvertantly) designed to suck the uranium up from our basements. No doubt nurses are exposed to uranium in their work environment too ... :cool:

I have two friends, who were die-hard non-smokers (wouldn't allow it in their presence, even before it became socially unacceptable to smoke), and they both died of lung cancer. What they think is that were both exposed to toxic mold in their homes, and I know at least one of them was (don't know about the other though). Then you run into people who chain-smoked for 50 yrs, and never get lung cancer, or if they do, they are past an average lifespan anyway.

We are all probably pre-disposed to some weaknesses from our particular genes, but it's just that the odds are that MORE people (higher number then the "norm") will develop these diseases under certain conditions. If we can learn what those "conditions" are, we might be able to reduce the incidence of the diseases.

Given that MS is a fairly new disease (only 180 yrs or so), and growing in popularity all the time, chances are we are being more and more exposed to whatever the cause is. I think it's great they've determined a demographic that is "prone" to MS though, cause I think this will ultimately give us some clues.

(Sorry for going a bit off topic . . . and I'm glad for this ruling!!)

Cherie