Forced Marriages in The US of A?

Can somebody please explain this? I sure do not get it.
PROMISES, PROMISES: ‘Widows’ tax’ lingers

WASHINGTON – Tens of thousands of the nation’s war widows find it perplexing and downright disrespectful to their late military husbands: In order to fully collect on insurance their husbands bought for them when alive, they must marry another man.

And to qualify, the widows must remarry when they are 57 or older. Those who remarry earlier miss out, as do widows who never remarry.


Am I to understand that if- God Forbid- my son is killed in the line of duty my daughter in law must REMARRY to collect the insurance my son has been paying for these last 18 years? (Or God forbid- my daughter in law is killed when she deploys to Afghanistan this summer would this same rule apply to my son?)

At the heart of the issue is a government policy known as the “widows’ tax.” It says a military spouse whose loved one dies from a service-related cause can’t collect both survivor’s benefits and the full annuity benefits from insurance the couple bought from the Defense Department at retirement. Instead, the amount of the annuity payment is reduced by the amount of the monthly survivor benefit.

Excuse me- but the troops buy the insurance because they know the survivor’s benefits will not be enough to keep the family fed, clothed and housed decently and put the kids through school. (Keeping in mind that if your spouse dies and you are living in military housing- you lose that benefit and have to go get housing in the open market.)

For war widows who were denied the full benefits of their military insurance, the government sought to help by giving them back the premiums their spouses had paid for the policies. But if a widow then remarries at age 57 or older, becoming eligible for the benefit, she can only get it by repaying the insurance premiums the government had refunded to her.

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH! This is WRONG on so many levels. Service members are limited by their occupation on where they can purchase insurance as most  insurance policies carry those lovely disclaimers that tell you no payment for dying in a war. They are ripping off the troops and the military spouses.

AND- what the hell is that about remarrying? Forcing a war widow(er) to remarry is just plain WRONG! What the hell kind of archaic bull is that? What is this- the friggin Dark Age or the Middle Ages? When women were not allowed control of their bodies, could not own property and had no rights?

I want to e-mail that link to my troops- but they have enough to worry about with a deployment coming up.

I have the world’s best Daughter in Law- I don’t want a new one- and I am sure my son does not want a replacement wife. We won the lottery when we got her- and no amount of money can replace her.

Sometimes I really really hate Congress. They screw up everything they touch.



Can We All Say “IDIOTS!”?

Ok- I will say it again. Erectile dysfunction drugs are RECREATIONAL drugs.  Do these people think down the road at all? Will they be objecting when people in California want the insurance companies to pay for “medical marijuana”?


Teachers fight to get back Viagra

Demand drug despite layoffs

So let’s see- the economy is in the shitter, teachers are being laid off and this union wants its Viagra back?

How about you get your little minds out of your pants and start TEACHING  for starters?  And give me a break. Fighting the battle on the basis it discriminates against men. PUHLEEZE! I would like to know if your union (tax payer funded) health benefits cover the HPV vaccine? Birth Control pills? Breast replacement for mastectomy patients?

These people make me sick. That money they are spending could be put to use to save a few teacher’s jobs. Or maybe, just maybe, help the taxpayers avoid another increase in the taxes paid to support public education.

Viagra. PFFFFFTTTT. Not being able to get a woody ain’t gonna kill you. There is more than one way to skin a cat so to speak. Get a grip- you want Viagra- pay for it on your own dime. Freaking unions, rather see the layoffs than give up even a tiny portion of their excessive benefits.