>>Dale,
>>
>>I've been reading this as an interested outsider (being Canadian).
>>
>>Both yours and Bret's positions are doubtless "economically" sound and technically correct. But there is another factor here that to me is overriding - the debt of society to these veterans!
>
>Lets stop here a minute Jim. My senario never left out the debt. But the debt is paid for and complete if a person leaves service and has no medical problems whatsoever. Just because a person served does not mean that for ever on the Government owes them something. You see I look upon service a my debt to the U.S. for being able to live here. Yeah I know that is radical, and I will stick out like a sore thumb. But you see I enjoy living in this country and I feel that sometimes people need to pay this country back for the privelege. If not military, then community service. Giving back to this country a little for the rights and freedom we all have.

I have no problem with your personal view, but I do wonder why you feel that it should be imposed on everyone else.
That the debt is "paid" upon leaving "in good health" is highly questionable to me.
I mentioned my dad and his siblings/friends of the time because he was physically "healthy" alright, but there's a lot more to life than physical health. And I would say, personally, that one who has served IS eternally owed something by the government.
Then there were all manner of "tests" that your armed forces did involving personnel. Anything from VD effects to radiation effects to ... and they possibly go on even today (vaccines, pills for xxx, etc). And the effects of depleted uranium (to name one thing) is claimed, as Agent Orange was, to be non-problematic.
I'm not so quick to accept that a "clean bill of health" can actually be proven at any given point in time.

That many - probably most - veterans opt to leave any recognized disability opportunities unclaimed is a credit to themselves. But I don't think it is right to extend that to then conclude that anyone who may choose to claim a right is a freeloading ingrate.

The other day a news segment showing anti-war demonstrators in Arkansas (I think it was) had the reporter asking a lady observing what she thought and she said she thought it was un-American and should be stopped. The reporter made no further comment and moved on to another person. But it was clear to me that the woman was the one who was un-American, a base tenet of your constitution being freedom of speech. It is technically impossible for ANY talk of any kind to be "un-American", is it not?