agreed too bad its just P.R.

i fear our vets will be treated much the same as us Vietnam vets. at least this time WE former vets are set up to recieve and help our brothers and sisters in arms. if anyone on here really cares go to your local VFW or American Legion and see how you can help. it would mean a hell of allot more then some two dollar magnet on your car. talk is cheap.......

The only thing I don't understand is the 5 year extension after leaving the service...anyone know what this is for? (an example would be great) I'm not bashing this point, I just don't understand the reasoning behind it.

IA.ScooterTramp - I don't think today's vets are treated anything like Vietnam vets. Sure, there are some isolated incidents, but as a whole, the country today supports the military. I travel fairly frequently, and it's very common to see strangers walking up to people in uniform and say thanks (then move on)...this wasn't the case in the 70's or even the 80's when I served.

ron, not all injuries are immediate such as mental problems.

RON,

true to an extent. but what about when the uniform comes off? as it will, will we all remember then in say 6 months or after the election or a year or two beyound that? people by and large have the atention span of a gnat. so all vets and other pleas join us in support, most VFW's if not ALL offer a absolutley free menbership to our returning vets. please take atvantage of this,tn the end NO MATTER WHAT we will be there to support one anouther,

welcome home

Ron ... I suppose the five-year extension would be to allow family members to care for injured vets after they've been discharged.

I'm surprised that the right hasn't attacked him for this big government regulation on private enterprise. Don't they always state that companies should be able to hire and fire whomever they want, at will, with or without cause? Oh wait, I forget, when it comes to the military or large corporations, socialism is ok and big government regulation is a source for good, rather than something evil that should be stopped. It is hard for me to remember all of the exceptions to their *absolute* rules. Like the one where deficits are bad, unless there is an R in the WH and the money is being used for a) war, b) to rebuild a foriegn country after a war or c) tax cuts.

This is another anti small business bill, bought and paid for by big business. Why do you not wake up and smell the house on fire? Small business is owned by the middle class - This president's sworn enemy. The rich that make up big business only know about bottom line, they could care less about the country or those brave folks who serve us. And they own this administration.

You see IA Scooter.... Cassie321 still remembers Viet Nam

And you thought they all crawled back under their rocks.

Semper Gumby!

@RobinSteele

They've owned all the administrations for decades.

@hypocrisy

Unlike yourself, most politicians understand that Veterans issue's have to be approached in a bipartisan manner. I have to concede that the VA's budget is mired in socialistic mud,(treating non service connected injuries for free etc.). I dont think a two year hitch in the military WITH NO SERVICE CONNECTED INJURIES, entitles one to free healthcare for life, but unfortunately for our national budget, the VA sees it differently.

A politician speaking out against veterans issues could possibly face a backlash that would extend well beyond Novembers vote tallies. Summary: This is not a group you want to piss off.

I personally wish the VA would stop treating the welfare cases that don't deserve their services.(AGAIN THIS IS REFERRING TO THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE A SERVICE CONNECTED INJURY). And use the saved money,(at latest GAO count about 42% of their current budget), and really roll out the red carpet for those WITH service connected injuries, with programs such as the one in this article.

Bear in mind, that today, this very day, right here right now, a man or woman who loses their legs, eyesight, REALLY SERIOUS INJURIES SUSTAINED IN COMBAT, will wait for over a year before they receive one nickel in financial help from VA. Yeah, its taking that long just to get a decision.

to bad they will have to go live in mexico...cause that where the factory's are moving...thanks to nafta...and our corporately controlled government...

“””i fear our vets will be treated much the same as us Vietnam vets”””

I’m afraid our vets will be treated like the rest of Main Street America kinda, for them as we will be in the same boat,,, or sinking ship!

March 1967, my husband was shot in Viet Nam was shipped here and there for treatment etc. ended up at Walson Army Hosp. Ft Dix. He's listed at 40% disabled, no medical insurance from the govt. He uses the VA facilities and has had no problems but they want all of his personal insurance info. We pay for private insurance always have. He does get a break on drugs and glasses. So for people thinking that Vietnam Vets are getting some kind of Veterans insurance, think again. By the way, visit a VA Hospital. It's a flag waving experience.

Robin Steele

This is another anti small business bill, bought and paid for by big business. Why do you not wake up and smell the house on fire? Small business is owned by the middle class - This president's sworn enemy. The rich that make up big business only know about bottom line, they could care less about the country or those brave folks who serve us. And they own this administration.

Gee, one day President Obama is a "socialist." The next day he's beholding to corporate America. You have to be a Romney fan the way you waffle back and forth. The President has consistently promoted jobs bills and attempts to revive "my" class.

When you really want to see where a person's heart is, look at where they have their money. President Obama and the First Lady have the bulk of their money in US Treasury Bills. Romney has his offshore in Switzerland and in The Cayman Islands.

You have to be a paid shill.

I agree GI JOE. My brother-in-law was out in the Mojave for training and he collapsed during drills. He had to have his appendix removed. It was done on the military's dime. They have allowed him to remain "active duty" so he can receive non-combat military care and he's never even been deployed. They told him he will now never be deployed but he is still covered under his military insurance.

I guess it's a load off my in-laws' backs because they don't have to pay for his medical care. But if it is at the expense of our servicemen and women who have been injured in combat, it's certainly not right.

.

Cassie, what do you care? It's not like they're killing cats or anything, just humans who you despise anyway!

as a knee jerk reaction, i oppose this. if republicans want destroy all forms of worker's rights, social programs and so on, they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which groups they put on the hurt.

i, of course, understand that president obama is a liberal. so am i, and i believe a policy like this is aligned with progressive policies. but if republicans want to scuttle our economy for their political gain, then we shouldn't be putting in caveats so that this or that group dont feel the pain...

GI JOE-1977278, No one who has no service related injury has "Free Healthcare for Life" at the VA. Veterans who are below a certain income level may be seen at VA hospitals for non-service related problems, but they are the lowest priority, and they have co-pays that they must pay. The only exceptions that I know of are for POWs and purple heart recipients.

stephie, it doesn't matter if your brother-in-law has deployed are not. If he is on Active duty, he is eligible for treatment. And he will continue to be on active duty until he recovers, or if he can't recover, then he will be medically discharged.

I'm still waiting for my money, Sandttrich. Romney? Nope, to be honest I prefer the Newtster, because he may actually know what he is doing, which in my opinion is way more important than Who he is doing.

@GI JOE and Stephanie, it is great to hear that both of you like and support Veteran's Health Care. There are two types of socialized health care, in one scenario, the government runs the hospitals, such as VA in most cases, in the second scenario, the government runs an insurance pool that pays for treatment, such as Medicare. It sounds as if you are both raving about how wonderful the VA, first scenario is. I also see many elderly people in these blogs and in polls that love their Medicare, and fear the thought that someone may want to change it or take it away. However, I will never understand how someone under one of these two SOCIALIST medical systems can come out and say they are against socialized medicine. If you are against it and use VA or MEDICARE, you are a hypocrite. GI JOE, I will give you credit for stating that you only believe VA should be lifetime for life changing injuries. However, from the right you almost always hear absolutes....socialized medicine is always bad, big government is always bad, big government restricting abortion, gay rights, or freedom of speech is good. Yet when you get into particulars, ie, you say socialized medicine is bad...does that mean you want to get rid of Medicare? You say government interference in the market is bad...does that mean you want to end oil and farm subsidies? Then you see a shift in their absolute philosophy. If they would just come out and say socialized medicine for all tax paying citizens is bad, but having it for veterans and the elderly (those who tend to vote Republican) is a good thing and an earned benefit. I think it is the absolutes and inherint contradictions that drive us on the left and in the middle nuts.

hypocrisy-you obviously did not understand our posts. We DO NOT agree with servicemen/women being treated, no questions asked, unless they have a combat-related injury. I think it's a crock that my brother-in-law had his surgery on the government's dime when his appendix issues had nothing to do with his military service.

As GI Joe states, "I don't think a two year hitch in the military WITH NO SERVICE CONNECTED INJURIES, entitles one to free healthcare for life, but unfortunately for our national budget, the VA sees it differently."

Servicemen/women having their combat-related injuries treated is the least they deserve for their service to our country. They have EARNED their healthcare. Socialized healthcare allows for individuals who may not be paying into the system to be treated regardless of whether or not they have contributed.

Our servicemen/women have certainly contributed to their care...maybe not with money, but with their service.

@Stephanie - 'Socialized healthcare allows for individuals who may not be paying into the system to be treated regardless of whether or not they have contributed.' - Medicaid, some people on Medicare, and those using the ER as a PCP are already doing so! We are paying for all of that, plus the additional overhead private insurance companies charge (vs the government), plus the salary of all of the CEO's of all of those companies. If you force everyone who has health insurance now, or who can afford to pay for it, to buy healthcare from the government, either directly or as insurance, you reduce all of that additional overhead and create effeciencies of scale. I know most people have blinders on when it comes to the words 'efficiency' and 'government'. Many think the government is inefficient based soley on cost metrics that can be manipulated. But basically it comes to a government employee making a living wage doing a job here, vs an Indian doing data entry for 1/100 the price. When you look solely at costs using that, the government looks very ineffecient, and many equate that with them being slow or doing a poor job, which isn't always true. But basically, as a Christian and a Patriot I support using our tax dollars to help the sick and poor in the U.S. versus sending the money overseas to provide military protection and free healthcare Arab oilmen. But you just keep on hatin'

Allowing people unpaid time off IS important because it secures their job. Don't dismiss the importance of that.

If you have to quit your job to go on unemployment to bring some money in (especially if you have kids) then what is the point? This bill would be MUCH more helpful if it required at least 12 weeks of paid leave (at a minimum)!

Chuck by making the EMPLOYER pay for any sort of family leave would be a disincentive to hiring. Why should they pay for someone to NOT be working? As it is they have to have someone else do the job and they either means those still there do it for free or a temp is brought aboard to cover. I've no issue with time off with a job to come back to but making a company pay makes no sense. I'm a Veteran and I see no reason to pay for time off. No pay encourages them to take care of business and return to work. Also active duty and disabled veterans receive extra money for dependents. It may not be much but like they tell the military, the family did not come in the seabag or footlocker.

that would be unfair to smaller businesses though. now if they added a exemption for small business or the government paid the 12 weeks you might have something but it would probably be exploited through things like multiple relatives attempting to use it at the same time.

Even unpaid, leave is a hardship for small businesses. You can't hire a full-time replacment because the employee will be coming back from leave in a few weeks or months, and temporary help costs more than permanent employees. But, in a small organization leaving the position empty during that time usually isn't an option, either, because there's no one else to take up the slack.

@ mean girl - If you quit your job, you don't get unemployment. You only get that if you are fired.

I thought if you were fired you couldn't collect unemployment.

@ trust_verify Active duty does not receive any extra money for dependents. All we get is BAH which is the housing allowance they give everyone. If you live on post, they take it away. At one time you could make a little extra money off post living but now a days everyone off post charges your BAH. We make the same amount as single soldiers. We do although have to pay more. I.e. Dental insurance for family members and family life insurance that is automatically taken out. I don't agree it should be paid either btw. Or if it is it should be covered like the family medical leave that entitles you to a few weeks paid and then a few weeks at half the pay. Some companies do this for women that have babies, or if you have surgery and become temporarily disabled.

josh456783

All we get is BAH which is the housing allowance they give everyone.

That is new on me. When I was in if you had dependents you received extra money for food and housing. If you were single you either lived on base/ship or paid out of pocket, unless there was a housing shortage on base.

At one time you could make a little extra money off post living but now a days everyone off post charges your BAH.

LOL they ALWAYS wanted more than BAH at the single rate that's why we all had roommates.

Or if it is it should be covered like the family medical leave that entitles you to a few weeks paid and then a few weeks at half the pay. Some companies do this for women that have babies, or if you have surgery and become temporarily disabled.

FMLA covers unpaid time off. The pay someone receives from having/adopting a child would be their regular PTO in addition to FMLA. Disability is yet another category and is generally covered by S/L term disability insurance not directly by the employer unless workers comp due to job related injury.

FMLA should NOT be confused with what is generically referred to Soldiers/Sailors act legislation that protects service members jobs while they are on active duty and is supposed to guarantee a job to return to and include scheduled promotions and pay raises.

Honestly, upon reflection, I don't see how this does anything different than FMLA already does. At best it minimally expands the definition of coverage to deployment and not just illness/injury/birth.

@ Chuckinolathe

My business could NOT afford to pay you for your time off AND hire someone else to fill your position while you are gone, I dont have a problem allowing you all the time off you need but why the hell should I as an employer be force to give you a free paycheck while your gone? I will never understand these @!$%#ed up americans, give them something to help and they bitch because it good enough, everyone wants their @!$%#en living for free, I have 2 children in the military, they signed up willfully and know what may happen when they are deployed, and I know what I have to do if they come back in pieces, Ill gladly do it, but I would not ask my wifes employer to pay her to take off so she can care for our son, ya worthless @!$%#en freeloader

ChuckinOlathe, up until a couple of years ago, the military were not covered under the FMLA at all, and now they are only covered for 10 days of leave for the birth of a child. And that is it.

Trust-verify, Yes BAH is paid at the "dependent" and "non-dependent" rates, because it is an allowance for family housing. However, soldiers with families aren't entitled to any more money for food for their dependents. "Separate rations" is paid to soldiers to not eat at the dining facilities and many single soldiers draw it as well.

Derrick, Chuck was talking about military, not civilians.

@trust_verify Your right I stand corrected. I guess it's easy to forget that we do in fact get paid more BAH than single soldiers. It's not much though when you look at the cost. I was referring more to FMLA when I was a civilian. My wife had gotten sick and had to have her gall bladder removed. Easy enough procedure but because the hospital kept diagnosing it as indigestion she had sever liver and pancreas issues as well and needed care for a few weeks. I was able to use my FMLA and got paid with it. I had to use my vacation first if I remember, and then FMLA kicked in for the last two weeks. It was all paid time off though. I've never used it for myself but raddave is correct, currently it's only for the birth of a child and I have had multiple soldiers use it for that. Adoptions as well.

@ raddave, so was I, I am sorry, no matter who you are, I can not afford to pay you while you are off taking care of your family service member for 1 week or 12 weeks, you can have time off, but if you are not producing for me, I CAN NOT afford to pay your wages, end of story,

I thought if you were fired you couldn't collect unemployment.

I don't know about your state. In NY, for instance, it depends on the reason the employee was fired. If they were fired because they can't do the job, they can draw unemployment. If they're fired because of theft, violation of rules, insubordination, etc.... they can not.

Keep the bill clean and no one would oppose it!

Attach some crap to it for political purpose and it will fail.

Dem's are good at that, then pointing the finger of blame at someone else...

Like the pipeline addition./s

or like the NDAA amendment that everyone's complaining about? Attached by republiCONS?

Agreed.

Mean Girl, PraziainDFW,

The only benefit is that "supposed" assurance that the job will be there once you go back to work.

The BIG problem is that too many returning vets are coming home to jobs that have already been eliminated and no prospects for a decent wage replacement.

Granted, the bill leaves a great deal to be desired, but it's a step in the right direction for our Vets.

sometimes the alternative is to be forced to leave your job because you HAVE NO OTHER choice than to be there for your spouse and then have no job to return to. Some people live within their means and can take a few weeks of unpaid leave in an emergency.

it helps knowing you have a job to return to. No different than the rest of the FMLA.

It simply expands the coverage to include dealing with deployment rather than just medical. If you think it needs expanded to include pay that means paying for ALL employees who take FMLA time not just military related. Do you seriously think employers can afford that or would back it? Those "up to " 12 weeks are on top of earned time off that would include pay.

Instead of quitting the job (no unemployment benefits whey one does that), and then having to do job searching later, there is a job to return to. At the Kroger I worked at, the employee would not have to start over again at ground zero on the pay scale, or to get on the retirement track or qualify for benefits. Also, other employees would be encouraged to donate an hour or two of their own vacation pay to the family, and the family would probably qualify for the employees charity program.

No job, you start the job hunt all over again.

yougotg..

Most people in the Military, be it Active Duty, Reserves or National Guard don't have the wherewithal to put away enough to "live a few weeks" on an unpaid leave.

And whom do you suggest PAY for that leave? Remember this is not leave from the service but rather from public/private employers to those tending to service members, not the service members themselves.

Sure, if you want to penalize employers for hiring military families, then it should be paid leave.

Short answer.... NO

When you put on the Uniform and risk your life for your country, you're in a different class than the "ordinary citizen".

Sorry but just because you put on a uniform and decide to risk your life by YOUR choosing, doesn't mean you should get special treatment. as dpaul states, all of us should get the same protection.

Sorry you disagree, I suppose it’s easier to continue the class warfare rather than work together as cooperative unified citizens. Thank you Chuck-435803, we see eye to eye on this issue.

Because they risked their lives so those of us back in the US of A don't have to.While that soldier has put his civilian life on hold to do his duty, his peers are moving up the ladder in their chosen fields.This is one small measure to help that soldier out when he's going through tough times caused by his being willing to serve.

Katheryn Brandy – Sorry, still don’t agree, why shouldn’t all American citizens be treated alike?

dpaul:
why shouldn’t all American citizens be treated alike?

Agreed. Everyone should serve 4 years in the military and do at least 1 combat deployment. You're on to something dpaul.

dpaul - different perspective - some chose not to serve (of course - since I chose not to serve,I don't have much of a leg to stand on here). But do think for a soldier who has served his country and comes back with a horrific injury because of that service deserves to have their spouse be able to take 26 weeks unpaid leave to help them get their life back on track.

Chuck-435803

Sorry but just because you put on a uniform and decide to risk your life by YOUR choosing, doesn't mean you should get special treatment. as dpaul states, all of us should get the same protection.

Chuck so you are more than willing to let someone else protect you and allow you to get the benefit of their service but screw them when they need a little help of their own? At any given moment only 2% of the population is in the service protecting YOUR rights so is it too much to ask their spouses get unpaid time off to deal with those issues resulting from protecting you?

Sean - you are right - no where in the Constitution does it say you have to serve in the military,nor does it say you have to vote - both are a duty of citizenship.

unpaid leave - up to 26 weeks if it is for a serious injury

Powers

This is just an expansion of FMLA from the first read. Short term sabbatical would be a good description.

Last I checked there is not a box on any application that asks what your spouse does for a living. Why even volunteer the information until you see a need to use it? Sort of like a woman going to a job interview and them trying to ask if you intend to take FMLA should you get pregnant.

you know what - if a company does not want to do right by someone because they or their spouse served in the military, they'll find some other excuse Everyone's behind the vets until it proves inconvenient.

Yeah, we should just have jobs for jobs sake. Why not pay them to sit around the house and pop pills all day long. Genius you are.

Yep, you got that right. Ask my husband, he got the jackboot to the butt thanks to RIF. Almost 14 years and gone. Mid-career service members better start planning because they are the ones with the most to lose and the ones that are being targeted. If you're any where between 8-14 years in, watch out!! RIF is coming for ya!

Informed, no one is suggesting anything near the ridiculous things you just mentioned. Bowing to those who served, however, is not so ridiculous, perhaps we should be.

It's called a bribe. You don't think they're all their because they're such patriots do you? The patriotism angle is a truckload of BS.