U.S. military practices genetic discrimination

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
U.S. military practices genetic discrimination in denying benefits
Those medically discharged with genetic diseases are left without disability or retirement benefits. Some are fighting back.
By Karen Kaplan
August 18, 2007


Eric Miller's career as an Army Ranger wasn't ended by a battlefield wound, but his DNA.

Lurking in his genes was a mutation that made him vulnerable to uncontrolled tumor growth. After suffering back pain during a tour in Afghanistan, he underwent three surgeries to remove tumors from his brain and spine that left him with numbness throughout the left side of his body.

So began his journey into a dreaded scenario of the genetic age.

Because he was born with the mutation, the Army argued it bore no responsibility for his illness and medically discharged him in 2005 without the disability benefits or health insurance he needed to fight his disease.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081807C.shtml
 
At which point I would kindly tell the medical officers to "BLOW ME" and give me my veterens benefits that I'm entitled to.
 
Taking such an attitude with me would be generally considered the greatest single mistake the United States military could ever make.
 
If the medical diagnosis was correct....

Then the military was correct...however he is entitled under the VA for medical treatment and can apply for SSA disabilty...all he need do is apply!
 
Last edited:
Battleborne said:
Then the military was correct...however he is entitled under the VA for medical treatment and can apply for SSA disabilty...all he need do is apply!
Click to expand...
Correct and right are not always the same thing.

If the military is going to do this they should genetically screen all new enlistees before they go active duty.
They way it is they use them up and then say sorry....
 
The military was both.........

uscitizen said:
Correct and right are not always the same thing.

If the military is going to do this they should genetically screen all new enlistees before they go active duty.
They way it is they use them up and then say sorry....
Click to expand...


correct and right... providing the diagnosis was correct...if the cause was a on the job injury then he would have received a medical retirement...however the cause was not a on the job injury...therefore he is eligibile as a veteran under Veterans Administration benefits and also SSA! This is just another pick on the government without just cause...imho
 
Battleborne said:
correct and right... providing the diagnosis was correct...if the cause was a on the job injury then he would have received a medical retirement...however the cause was not a on the job injury...therefore he is eligibile as a veteran under Veterans Administration benefits and also SSA! This is just another pick on the government without just cause...imho
Click to expand...

Umm this genetic based descrimination is pretty much illegal everywhere except in the military...read the article BB.
 
I read the article....

uscitizen said:
Umm this genetic based descrimination is pretty much illegal everywhere except in the military...read the article BB.
Click to expand...


His case was not found to be job related as the other similar case...he is also receiving medical benefits under the VA and is training to be a Tenn Highway Patrolman...so what is the problem...he is receiving medical benefits and has a new career in the works!
 
Battleborne said:
His case was not found to be job related as the other similar case...he is also receiving medical benefits under the VA and is training to be a Tenn Highway Patrolman...so what is the problem...he is receiving medical benefits and has a new career in the works!
Click to expand...

If you do not see the problem at this point then I cannot help you to understand.
 
uscitizen said:
If you do not see the problem at this point then I cannot help you to understand.
Click to expand...
Supposedly the problem was he was "denied benefits" because of this. He was not, he received benefits from a different source because of the condition not being related to a work injury. The idea that he was refused any help at all was implied, and inaccurate.
 
Damocles said:
Supposedly the problem was he was "denied benefits" because of this. He was not, he received benefits from a different source because of the condition not being related to a work injury. The idea that he was refused any help at all was implied, and inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Not denied any help at all but denied the help he had earned. Had it been any other cause except genetic.
 
uscitizen said:
Not denied any help at all but denied the help he had earned. Had it been any other cause except genetic.
Click to expand...
Well, had it been caused by his work environment you mean. You "earn" the help you wanted him to have by being injured by your job, not from a previously undiagnosed genetic disorder. Had they denied him all help and just kicked him out we'd all be on your side. In this case the benefits came from a different source because the injury or illness was not work related.
 
Damocles said:
Well, had it been caused by his work environment you mean. You "earn" the help you wanted him to have by being injured by your job, not from a previously undiagnosed genetic disorder. Had they denied him all help and just kicked him out we'd all be on your side. In this case the benefits came from a different source because the injury or illness was not work related.
Click to expand...

But had they been working in the private sector this would not have been an issue......
Instead they volunteered to put their lives on the line as opposed to putting a paycheck on the line....
 
uscitizen said:
But had they been working in the private sector this would not have been an issue......
Instead they volunteered to put their lives on the line as opposed to putting a paycheck on the line....
Click to expand...
No, their worker's compensation would not have paid for it, their direct health insurance would. The "issue" you imply here does not exist in either venue.
 
Damocles said:
No, their worker's compensation would not have paid for it, their direct health insurance would. The "issue" you imply here does not exist in either venue.
Click to expand...

Yes the correlation is there VA care vs the govt insurance that vets get. I forget the name it is in the article.
Kinda like private ins vs medicaid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top