At a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee hearing Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colorado Spring) said “he was concerned that changing the combat veteran definition could result in a reduction of benefits overall, and that ‘too loose’ a definition could diminish the sacrifices of those ‘who actually did engage in battle with the enemy,’”Rep. Lamborn's position is a sad example of putting politics before people. For him to say that "the sacrifices of those ‘who actually did engage in battle with the enemy"" would be diminished, is a slap in the face to all the service men and women who have fought for his freedom to say stupid stuff. Our soldiers serve our country with honor and dignity, and considering many are risking their lives daily, don't we owe them the respect to assume they will conduct the rest of their lives with honor and dignity.
I am not so naive as to believe every future claim of PTSD is going to be legitimate, but I am going to suppose nearly all of them will be warranted. If 99 people are able to get the help they need, and 1 person is out to "game the system" isn't that still worth the cost in the end, even if that ratio goes down to 90% or 80% people helped, that benefit is still worth the cost.