posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 10:59 PM
September 7, 2016
When people VOLUNTEER to work in dangerous occupations, isn't it asking too much for the public to pay billions of dollars to compensate them, or
their families, after that person is wounded, or killed in the career that they VOLUNTEERED for?
Whether it's a football player who endured concussions, or a military member who lost a limb, or a police officer killed while on the job. They all
knew what dangers the job entailed before "signing on", but were willing to take the risk anyway.
This thought comes to my mind every time I hear an emotional cry from some advocate group, or relative, or veteran, saying "We need more ______!", or
"We need better ______!"
I'm a V.A. compensated veteran myself. I'll accept the money and benefits as long as they are provided. But if the Veterans Administration cut it
off tomorrow, I'd adapt. After all, I VOLUNTEERED to join the U.S. Navy, knowing that it was an occupation/career that participated in violence.
Veterans like my 98 year old Dad, who was DRAFTED in 1942, deserve the utmost life-long care that the USA can provide him with, however.
Naturally, those hurt in any occupation should have an adequate benefits package to help them recuperate. But should the family of a firefighter who
was killed while saving someone's property, get more attention/benefits/respect than the family of the janitor who died of a heart attack while
cleaning someone's property?
Do any of you ever have these same general thoughts, but also realize that voicing such thoughts are sacrilegious, so you just keep them to
edit on 9/7/2016 by carewemust because: title length edit