The latest on Bushs' attempts to dismantle VA benefits!

[Gimpy]

Below is an article from Military.com regarding the Bush Administrations newest attempt at dismantling disabled veterans disability benefits!

Folks better wake up and write your Senators and Congresspersons if you value your benefits!

******

VA Benefits Commission a ?Stacked Deck? (Expect big benefits cuts from ?bipartisan? VDBC)

Military.com. ^ | 2005 by Larry Scott

Are you really a veteran? I asked that question in an opinion piece published here at Military.com last month.

Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has proposed sweeping changes to VA benefits. Buyer does not believe that ?a veteran is a veteran? and has said so in no uncertain terms. As you might expect, the changes are not for the positive. The driving force for these changes is the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission.

The following is from the VA website: "In November 2003, the President signed Public Law 108-136 that established the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission. This commission will conduct an independent study of the benefits provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. The commission will examine and make recommendations concerning the appropriateness of the benefits, the appropriateness of the level of the benefits, and the appropriate standard(s) for determining whether a disability or death of a veteran should be compensated." (Emphasis is mine.)

The VDBC Charter uses the same language with a few clarifications.

From the outset, the VDBC has been stacked AGAINST veterans.

The very words used in the Charter confirm this. To consider the ?appropriateness of?[VA] benefits? falls somewhere between the absurd and the criminal . And, to even question ?whether a disability or death of a veteran should be compensated? shows the clear, immoral intent of the VDBC and those who formed it.

Who is the VDBC?

The Commission is widely touted as a bipartisan effort. But, a quick look at how the Commission was formed will show differently. The Commission is made up of 13 appointed members. Two Commission members each are appointed by the Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader. So far, so good. Eight members, four appointed by each Party.

What about the five remaining members? They are appointed by the President. This is bipartisan? From the outset the VDBC is stacked 9-4 in favor of those who formed the Commission and propose the sweeping changes that will gut VA benefits.

So, what's on the table? What VA benefits stand to be cut back or eliminated? This question was asked of Rep. Buyer and he said, "I think everything should be on the table.?


Buyer believes that current VA benefits were not the ?intent of Congress,? and feels that Congress went too far in passing legislation that authorizes current benefits and benefit levels.

Rep. Buyer has also said that the VA should serve a ?core constituency? of ?disabled and indigent veterans.? What about the remaining millions of veterans? This clear majority of veterans are those who stand to lose if Buyer's recommendations become legislation.

The sad hypocrisy so clearly illustrated in the forming of the VDBC is that the Commission is not representative of those veterans who Rep. Buyer claims to want to serve. I cannot find a ?core constituency? of ?disabled and indigent veterans? being named to the Commission.

The VDBC is not even representative of the veteran population, in general. Some members are former military who are politically powerful individuals. And, just to round things out, there are politicians on the Commission, as well. The Commission is the perfect example of the Washington power elite who are as far removed from the daily concerns of the average veteran as the man in the moon.

Maybe I am being politically na?ve. But, where, on the VDBC, are the ?just plain folk? who make up the vast majority of veterans in this country? Where are the infantrymen? Where are the nurses? Where are the drill sergeants? The cooks? The unit clerks? The people who will be affected most by the findings of the VDBC have no voice on the Commission!

I used to play poker with an old Supply Sergeant who knew how to stack a deck. He was very, very good at what he did. But, because all the players were aware of his particular skills, the Sarge never got to deal. Not so with the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission. The deck is stacked and the Sarge is dealing.

####

About the Author:

Larry Scott (former E-5) served four-plus years in the U.S. Army with overseas tours as a Broadcast Journalist at AFKN HQ, Seoul, Korea and AFN Lajes Field, The Azores, Portugal and a stateside tour as a Broadcast Journalism Instructor at the Defense Information School(DINFOS).

Larry was decorated four times including the Joint Service Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. He was awarded DOD's First Place Thomas Jefferson Award for Excellence in Journalism. After the Army, Larry went back to radio news, working in Indianapolis as a News Anchor on WIFE Radio and then in New York City as a News Anchor on WNBC Radio.

He receives VA compensation for a service-connected disability and uses the Portland, Oregon/Vancouver, Washington VA facilities for healthcare. Today, Larry resides in Southwest Washington and operates the veteran's help website

###END###

I tried to tell everyone what would happen when GEE-W and his gang of Rethuglicans took charge...didn't I??????

Maybe NOW you all will see the TRUTH for what it REALLY IS!

BOHICA!

[Packo]

Thanks ol' bro....will be keeping both eyes on this mess with fingers ready to make some calls and write some letters. Not anxious to see what these people come up with cause' it sounds like more shit comin' our way. I know you'll keep me posted....but will be talking with a few SC Congressmen and Senators ASAP! Enough of this shit.

J.E.B

[Gimpy]

My Southern Brother!

Folks better wake the hell up before it's TOO LATE!

Seems more folks are not interested in this than there should be.

If this was a Democratic Whitehouse & Congress behind this shit you would see some folks around here screaming to the high heavens!

Bunch of hypocrites!

We need MORE folks like you who don't mind calling a "wrong-headed" proposal........WRONG!----no matter WHICH side of the political spectrum proposes it!

[Gimpy]

wonder WHY it is you rarely see (if EVER) much response or call to action regarding things like this from most of the CONservatives around here (or elsewhere for that matter).

Are they THAT ashamed of their leaders that they just can't make public comments that either defend their position, or are they in agreement with these travesties of justice???

Either way.................it's questionable at best and outrageous at worst that by their "silence" it appears they CONDONE these actions!

Like I said before................had this been a "democratic" President and/or Congress guilty of these tactics and immoral actions, the "right" side of the political spectrum would be raising HOLY HELL!.....

[Packo]

Gimpy ol' friend,

I'll call a spade a spade no matter who's in or I vote for. This is WRONG, will always be WRONG, and I have no problem saying that when someone I like screws up, I'll call them on it. They are barking up the wrong tree here and this ol' dog will march on the Capital if they screw up our earned benefits. Funny how nobody ever wanted to do something like this to America's Finest Generation, but now that they are dying by the 1,000's it all of a sudden time to change horses in mid stream. Not on my watch without a fight. If only you and me end up in our nations capital....then so be it, we will go and raise Hell! One Democrat and one Republican standing together for what's right. Press would eat that up! (except they would only interview you!)

J.E.B.

[MORTARDUDE]

Gimpy :

Thanks again for the good info. Have written my Representative and Senators. Keep up the good work !

Larry

[Gimpy]

relevant info regarding this subject.

################

Honorable Lane Evans
Ranking Democratic Member
House Committee on Veterans Affairs
Report and Recommendations
Department of Veterans Affairs
Veterans? Disability Benefits Commission

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views to the Commission. I hope that your efforts will improve and not diminish the benefits and services provided to those who have been disabled in service to our Nation and the survivors of those who have paid the ultimate price.

By law, many of you have been asked to serve on this Commission by virtue of exemplary military service. As a result of that service, you may be unaware of the difficulty which confronts the average G.I. Joe or Jane who seeks compensation from the Nation for disabilities incurred or aggravated in military service. Veterans know when they are being treated unfairly by their government. The ?Bonus March? of World War I veterans taught us that.

I fear that the goal of some who authorized this Commission is to diminish the responsibility of the Nation to adequately and fairly provide for our Nation?s disabled veterans, their families and survivors. I hope that your work will prove this fear to be unfounded.


I. The Commission Should Consider Whether the Nation Is Providing Adequately for All Those Who ?Have Borne the Battle? and Their Survivors .

Veterans seeking service-connection for disabilities incurred or aggravated during military service continue to face a daunting challenge in receiving accurate and timely decisions from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). While attention is often focused on combat veterans, all those called to serve may suffer from disabling conditions. These include veterans who were told to ?Suck it up soldier? after a training musculoskeletal injury which was not properly treated, and then develop an on-going musculoskeletal impairment.

They also include those who adapted so well in acquiring the survival skills needed for combat that their coping mechanisms got jammed in the ?on position? resulting in the debilitating effects of post-traumatic stress disorder. See, Jonathan Shay, M.D., Ph. D., Odysseus in America: combat trauma and the trials of homecoming (Scribner, 2002).

Servicemembers released from the military after findings by a physical evaluation board often receive a rating which appears more appropriate to limiting the financial liability of the military service rather than correctly applying the criteria of the rating schedule.

Veterans granted service-connection for similar disabilities may receive different ratings, depending upon the regional office in which their claim is decided and even the person making the decision in the same regional office.


The challenge of proving service-connection is particularly difficult for the following groups of veterans:

? Those who file for compensation many years after military service;

? Those whose claims are denied without obtaining and reviewing relevant military service and medical records;

? Those who served in combat, but lack documentation of their specific combat activity;

? Those who suffer from the effects of various environmental exposures associated with recent warfare; and

? Those seeking compensation for mental disabilities, such as post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychiatric conditions.

For example:

? Veterans who suffered musculoskeletal injuries during military service and who later develop traumatic arthritis often have difficulty establishing a connection between the military trauma and the later arthritis.

? It is not uncommon to find claims for compensation, filed many years ago, denied on the grounds that there is no evidence that the disability was ?incurred or aggravated? during military service without obtaining and reviewing all of the relevant records.

For example, a veteran filed a claim for a service-connected back injury alleging that he was hospitalized during military service following an accident in 1953 in which he was pinned between two trucks. According to VA, the veteran?s physician had submitted a medical report stating that his ?degenerative herniated lumbar disc was the result of trauma in 1953.?

The claim was denied because the physician?s opinion as to service-connection was based ?solely upon the veteran?s report of the accident.? The rating decision stated, ?Review of SR?s is negative for back injury.? However, the service medical records in the file clearly indicate that on March 10, 1953, he was seen as an outpatient and then admitted for hospital care after being ?Trapped between two trucks. Px [Physical examination] Erythema over low abd[omen] & back. No obvious bone injury. No shock. Admit Wd. 8.?

Although it is clear from the outpatient records that the veteran was admitted as an inpatient, there is no evidence that the veteran?s inpatient records were obtained by VA before rating the claim. Following hospitalization, the veteran received additional outpatient treatment with findings of tenderness over left sacroiliac joint with pain on pelvic pressure. He continued to complain of back and left leg symptoms and was treated with exercise and medication.? The claim was denied and the veteran continues to file new claims and appeals.

? Combat veterans often have difficulty in establishing their specific combat activities for purposes of service-connection of post-traumatic stress disorder unless they received certain awards or decorations.

? Veterans of the first Persian Gulf War are eligible for service-connection of ?[a] medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness (such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome) that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms.? 38 U.S.C. ? 1117 (a)(2)(B). However, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs issued regulations which provided that only chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and irritable bowel syndrome? and not other medically explained multi-symptom illnesses would be service-connected under the law. While this interpretation is likely to be overturned on appeal, it illustrates the difficulty veterans have in obtaining service-connection even when Congress has specifically spoken to the issue.

? The rating schedule for mental disabilities is particularly problematic. For example, veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder who have reduced reliability and productivity due to symptoms associated with the disorder and who have impairment of short-term and long-term memory are rated at 50% (38 C.F.R. ?4.130). Such veterans are unlikely to be able to obtain and retain gainful employment and are usually unemployed and unemployable without special assistance.

With the increased expected psychiatric disabilities associated with the current conflict in Iraq, it will be critical to provide disabled veterans with the benefits and services they need to function in civilian life.

II. Veterans Should Continue to Be Compensated for Disabilities Incurred or Aggravated by Military Service.

If during their military service, veterans are harmed, the Nation has an obligation to redress that harm. Because of the complexities of modern warfare and the variety of environmental exposures to which servicemembers are subjected during military service, I believe that servicemembers, who have disabilities in excess of those experienced by those who did not similarly serve, should be compensated on the basis of prevalence.

Some reports have suggested that certain disabilities, such as diabetes mellitus and osteoarthritis are unrelated to military service. I urge the Commission to be cautious in discounting associations between military service and disabilities which may occur in the general population.

For example, because of the association between exposure to certain herbicides and diabetes mellitus, a Vietnam veteran who might have developed diabetes at age 60 may be severely disabled by the condition at age 40.

Such veterans should be compensated for their diabetes. Often servicemembers are exposed to a variety of environmental toxins whose effects are not currently known and which may never be knowable.

Veterans who place excessive stress on certain joints during military activities or had musculoskeletal injuries not properly treated during military service, may develop osteoarthritis at a much earlier age than would be otherwise expected.

Biomechanical stresses affecting the articular cartilage and subchondral bone are associated with osteoarthritis. See, ?Recommendations for the Medical Management of Osteoarthrits of the Hip and Knee,? 43 Arthritis & Rheumatism 9 (September 2000) at 1905-1915.

In addition, servicemembers who are harmed as the result of improper medical care during military service are precluded from suing their medical providers under the Feres doctrine which bars suits by military personnel for injuries that "arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service." Feres v. United States, 340, U.S. 135, 146 (1950). As a result of the Feres doctrine, servicemembers whose medical treatment results in an on-going disability must look to the VA for any redress.

Efforts to divide and conquer veterans by treating similarly disabled veterans differently based on whether or not their disabilities were incurred or aggravated by combat, medical malpractice or other special circumstances should be avoided. All who served honorably deserve to be treated honorably.


III. The Commission Should Avoid Recommendations to Increase the Financial Burden on Servicemembers and Veterans.

There has been a disturbing pattern of increasing the financial liability of servicemembers and veterans for costs which should be borne by all American taxpayers. When women and men enter military service, they are serving all Americans. When servicemembers incur or aggravate disabilities in service to the Nation, the Nation should make them whole. Just as the costs of guns and bullets are borne by all taxpayers, the costs of mental health care, prosthetics and insurance for servicemembers and veterans should be borne by all taxpayers.

Examples of current efforts to shift the financial burdens of war to servicemembers and veterans include:

? Requiring servicemembers who obtain Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) to purchase mandatory traumatic injury protection insurance;

? Proposals to more than double the co-payments for veterans receiving prescription medication from the Department of Veterans Affairs;

? Charging service-disabled veterans three times the premium amount for comparable non-disabled persons in order to obtain Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance (S-DVI);

? Congressional ?pay-go? requirement that any improvements to benefits for service-disabled veterans or their survivors be paid for by charges to veterans or decreased benefits for other veterans and survivors.

IV. The Commission Should Consider Inconsistencies in Ratings Among Regional Offices and Between the Military Services and the VA.


? Veterans in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan who receive service-connected compensation benefits receive approximately $4,000 - $5,000 per year less than veterans in Puerto Rico, Maine, and New Mexico for service-connected disabilities. (See, Veterans Benefits Administration Report Fiscal Year 2003 at pages 119-173.)

While there will always be some variation in the judgments made concerning the degree of disability attributable to military service, such wide variations appear arbitrary and unfair. Without an analysis of the reasons for such disparities, such wide inconsistencies suggest a lack of fundamental fairness in decision-making.

? Similarly, the differences in number of appeals to the Board of Veterans Appeals and the results of such appeals appear to vary significantly from regional office to regional office. Such wide variations should be further investigated and analyzed.

? Recent newspaper reports have highlighted the difference between VA regional offices in rating claims. See, Chicago Sun Times articles and Knight Ridder Reports (http://161.188.204.190/charlotte/vet/index.asp?r=28).

? A study of disparities between the disability ratings by physical examination boards of the military services and the VA for similar disabilities might be instructive.


V. Military Retirees Who Have Earned Retirement Benefits Should Not Be Required to Pay for Disabilities Incurred or Aggravated by Military Service.

Recently, the Congress has made some efforts to recognize that servicemembers who have earned a military retirement benefit by reason of years of service should not be have their military retirements reduced because of VA benefits paid on the basis of service-connected disabilities. No such reduction occurs for those who after a brief period of military service earned federal retirement benefits in another governmental occupation. None should occur for military retirees whose retirement benefits are based upon years of service.


VI. The Commission Should Recognize That the Failure to Care for Today?s Veterans Will Discourage Men and Women From Putting Their Lives on the Line in Tomorrow?s Military Service.

I strongly believe that if we are to put the men and women of this Nation at risk of harm in the service of the Nation, then all Americans must be willing to make veterans and their survivors? whole when harm ensues. Failure to do so will discourage men and women from entering military service. At a time when our country is at war, when men and women are giving life and limb around the world, we must remember that war has costs, not only in dollars, but in the impact military deaths and disabilities have on the lives of those who suffer them. Those costs are a debt of the American people. They must be paid.


Thank you for the opportunity to consider these remarks. I hope that your work will be marked by sound judgment and compassion.

*****************

(And THANK YOU Congressman Evans for your expert analysis of this situation and your continued support for Veterans and their dependents!--------GIMP)

*****************
And this from the DAV (Disabled American Veterans)..............

On October 16, 2003, as U.S. casualties continued to mount in Iraq and Afghanistan, the House leadership publicly announced a plan through which the offset between retired pay and compensation would be phased out over 10 years to provide full retirement and disability benefits for military retirees rated 50% or more disabled by service-connected disabilities.

Veterans rated less than 50% would receive special compensation for combat-related disabilities in addition to the disability compensation paid. The plan included provisions for a 13-member Veterans? Disability Benefits Commission to study the appropriateness of disability and death benefits for service-related conditions, including the ?appropriate standard or standards for determining whether a disability or death should be compensated.?

One year later, by section 666 of Public Law 108-375, which was enacted on October 28, 2004, Congress directed a study of disability benefits for current and past members of the Armed Forces with service-connected disabilities. The substance of this study, to be conducted by the Department of Defense, is similar to the issues to be addressed by the Veterans? Disability Benefits Commission. Additionally, the bill calls for a Government Accountability Office study of benefits payable under federal, state, and local laws to government employees for work-related disabilities incurred in the performance of their jobs.

The study is to pay attention to tasks performed by government employees with risks similar to the performance of military duties.

By the end of October 2004, more than 16,000 sick and injured U.S. troops had been evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In January 2005, the House leadership removed Representative Chris Smith as Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Chairman Smith?s removal, two years before his six-year term limit, was the direct result of Chairman Smith?s strong advocacy on behalf of our nation?s veterans and his refusal to allow his colleagues in Congress to forget our government?s commitment to sick and disabled veterans. The House leadership also passed over Representative Bilirakis, Vice-Chairman of the Committee and a strong veterans? advocate, for the less senior Congressman from Indiana, Steve Buyer, who has been a strong proponent of reducing the number of veterans who are eligible for VA health care.


On Tuesday, April 19, 2005, Senators Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), along with VA Secretary James Nicholson and a representative of the Department of Defense, announced the introduction of legislation to provide certain military members who suffer traumatic injuries to receive a lump sum payment for their disability.

To pay for this new benefit, servicemembers will be charged a monthly premium. This is the first time that our government has sought to charge military members for a new benefit related to a service-connected injury. The intended purpose of this legislation is to relieve the financial hardship experienced by servicemembers, who are receiving care and rehabilitation services at military medical facilities, and their families who want to be near their injured relative.

While DAV supports the need for a ?family hardship allowance,? we do not support charging the military member for this new benefit. DAV believes this is an abrogation of our government?s responsibility ?to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.?


DAV is also greatly concerned that this legislation had been put on a fast track, without benefit of congressional hearings or even substantive public discussion of the issues involved. There are also some rather disturbing inequities and potential unintended consequences that will or can develop as a result of the passage of this legislation.


Our government should bear that burden and not require servicemembers to indemnify themselves against getting hurt. Further, some disabilities that would be catastrophic would not even be covered. The legislation undermines the very foundation of how we historically have cared for those who wage our battles and places the burden squarely on the warrior.

Summing up:

All taxpayers should be responsible for payments needed to make the servicemember whole.

Estimated payments by servicemembers are approximately $30 million per year with additional payments by DoD only if the benefits paid out exceed that amount.

Servicemembers who are catastrophically disabled during military service would be paid only if they have the "right " injury. Other equally disabled servicemembers who have paid premiums would receive nothing .

There is clearly a need for additional income to all servicemembers who suffer a catastrophic disability. Mandatory insurance paid for by servicemembers is not the appropriate manner in which to provide it.


###########

Like I said before--If your a disabled veteran------BE AFRAID-----BE VERY AFRAID of this new REPUBLICAN LED "PLAN" to dismantle the VA!

[Gimpy]

More evidence of the Bush administrations unrelenting and disgusting plans to dismantle the VA health care system.
#########

From:"Lisa Bogle, Disabled American Veterans"



Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 1448 -0400 (EDT)



The Veterans Health Care Act of 2005

The Veterans Health Care Act of 2005 Take Action!
June 21, 2005

S. 1182, the Veterans Health Care Act of 2005, contains a provision that would eliminate the requirement that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) maintain its staffing and extended care services at levels provided nationally in 1998. The current law, which requires VA to maintain its nursing home bed capacity recognizes the importance of long-term care services as a major component in VA?s total health care mission. In addition, this law reflects the vulnerability of these high-cost services in an under funded system. Continued budget shortfalls have forced VA to cannibalize long-term care programs in order to fund what they see as other priorities.

The number of aging veterans is increasing rapidly. Veterans who are 85 years and older, who have a greater need for nursing home care, are expected to increase from 870,000 to 1.3 million over the next decade. This in not the time for reducing VA nursing home capacity with increased veteran demand looming on the horizon.

The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will mark-up S. 1128 in mid-July. Please contact your Senators and request they do not support this provision to eliminate the current capacity requirements for long-term care.

######

Big Hearted SumBitchs these "compassionate CONservatives"....ain't they!