The meal’s on us

A few months ago, Salon had a report that was almost too ridiculous to believe. Many wounded U.S. soldiers, getting treatment at military hospitals, were getting forced to pay for their meals.

Most patients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington have a lot on their minds: the war they just fought, the injuries they came home with, the future that lies ahead. The last thing a wounded soldier needs to worry about is where the next meal is coming from. But for hundreds of Walter Reed patients, that’s a real concern. Starting this month, the Army has started making some wounded soldiers pay for the food they eat at the hospital.

Paying out of pocket for hospital meals can impose a serious financial burden, costing hundreds of dollars every month. That can be a lot of money to a military family. But perhaps worse, the meal charge feels like an ungrateful slap in the face to some soldiers. “I think it sucks,” said a soldier from West Virginia who broke his neck in Iraq after falling off a roof. “I think that people should be able to eat. They get us over there, get us wounded and shot up and then tell us: Fend for yourself. You are all heroes, but here you go.”

I’m pleased to report that this outrageous policy, which literally adds insult to injury to wounded troops, is coming to an end. It’s obviously good news for men and women in uniform, some of whom were paying about $250 a month for food, but on a political note, it’s also a legislative victory for a senator named Barack Obama.

Thanks to some hungry G.I.’s and a U.S. senator, some wounded soldiers will no longer have to dig into their own pockets to pay for their meals at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed an amendment introduced by Illinois Democrat Barack Obama that will pay for them. It got added to an $82 billion emergency spending bill full of war money that President Bush is about to sign. The amendment applies to all military hospitals, not just Walter Reed.

Apparently, Obama came upon the Salon report while preparing for an April 5 trip to visit wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. He asked several injured soldiers about the policy, who explained that the report was accurate and that they were footing the bill for their hospital meals. He led an effort to reverse the policy and was successful.

The amendment is retroactive to January 1, 2005, so these troops should be expecting a refund.

My 2 sense for what it is worth!

What is unreported is that the soldiers required to pay for their meals may be under the “separate rations” program. At least that is what it was called back in the 70’s. Soldiers who live off post get a monthly increase in their pay because they do not eat in the mess hall. Since the soldiers on post get free meals this puts the two types of soldiers on equal footing. However, if a soldier who lives off post eats in the mess hall he/she must pay for the meal. Since they are in the hospital and still receive “separate rationsâ€? they are required to pay for their meals. So the bottom line is that if they get free meals at the hospital and get paid for the meals than in effect they are double dipping!

  • Yeah, it sure is “double dipping” when a soldier is unconscious or can’t swallow and is given “Liquid Gold” artificial nutitional supplements through a feeding tube! The assholes in this administration sent them “off the base” to Iraq, they got injured, and the military is going to charge them for the meals? What kind of horseshit nonsense is that? If your theory holds, since they are “off the base” while in Iraq, are they charged for their meals there when they eat in the mess hall?

    Gotta love how them Repugs love the troops!

  • Its a bit more complicated than separate rations. Those charged were outpatients at Reed, or more likely the Annex here in suburban Maryland (the Red Lobster mentioned in the Salon piece is the one across the street from my office, I see fatigues there every day) who were at Reed or the Annex for whatever around a mealtime. There is nothing convenient to either location, so they hit the mess, then got hit up.

    It may be true that the dipping was double, but they also were getting, as they, nickel and dimed. I recall the worst bit in the Salon piece was the knucklehead ‘official’ sent out to comment, who said, in essence, hey, its only 5 bucks.

  • I counseled GI’s during the Vietnam War. Stories like this were rampant. Wages were poverty level and arms manufacturers profits growing while the grunts were getting nickled and dimed to death. These young guys (at the time, no women) were surprised at breaches in their enlistment contracts. Draftees had similar experiences. The military has consistently done a substandard job regarding its lowest level personnel, and a superior job of caring for its contractors.

  • Yep, you just gotta love the way the Repugs, supposedly the party of war and a strong defense, treats our military. Refuse to fund medical (bodily and mental) care in full, refuse to armor Humvees, refuse to fund body armor, refuse pay to those who are too disabled to work when they return, etc., etc. Why is it that the Dems are the ones who vote to fund these things? Oh, yeah, that’s right: Democrats actually care about our troops. A new ribbon magnet, anyone?

  • Comments are closed.