The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > General Posts

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-31-2009, 05:58 AM
Gimpy's Avatar
Gimpy Gimpy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Baileys Bayou, FL. (tarpon springs)
Posts: 4,498
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default 60 MINUTES reports on the VETERANS' BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

The long-awaited 60 MINUTES segment on the Veterans' Benefits Administration has been completed.

The airing date is this Sunday night ... January 3, 2010.

This is a "must watch" television program for all veterans and their families.

Hope everyone gets a chance to watch, and has a HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Gimp
__________________


Gimpy

"MUD GRUNT/RIVERINE"


"I ain't no fortunate son"--CCR


"We have shared the incommunicable experience of war..........We have felt - we still feel - the passion of life to its top.........In our youth our hearts were touched with fire"

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 01-01-2010, 07:35 AM
Keith_Hixson's Avatar
Keith_Hixson Keith_Hixson is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Washington, the state
Posts: 5,022
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

Thanks for the heads up.

Keith
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-01-2010, 04:45 PM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Post recent news article re: this

I hope the program treats the subject of using common sense, and makes a balance between what is wrong and what is not.

If it ends up being another VA trashing job, then nobody will realize improvements.
----------

DoD Vet Betrayal Update 01

Veterans groups hailed the passage of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which made it easier for wounded soldiers to have their injuries rated and treated by the federal government. But less than a year after President Bush signed the bill, the Defense Department interpreted the law in a way that reduced its scope and denied many veterans the benefits they thought they had been promised. The Pentagon's interpretation, which veterans groups are challenging, is laid out in two memos written in 2008 by David S.C. Chu, who was undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The effect of the memos, which have been obtained by The Washington Times, is to disqualify numerous soldiers who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from receiving medical benefits and to prevent others from receiving extra pay that the NDAA promised to veterans with combat-related injuries. In drafting the NDAA, Congress relied on the recommendations of a bipartisan panel headed by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala. The legislation permitted troops who were injured during training operations to receive extra pay, but Mr. Chu, in one of his memos, defined "combat-related operations" in such a way that troops injured during training or simulated conditions of war would not qualify.


Some lawmakers involved in enacting the 2008 law had expected differently. During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) said: "This addition expands the population that is eligible for the enhancement of disability severance pay to include injuries incurred during performance of duty in support of combat operations." But Congress did not explicitly include in the bill a definition of combat-related operations, leaving it to the Pentagon to make that determination. The result was Mr. Chu's first memo, issued in MAR 08. Mr. Chu said that the injury must have been inflicted during "armed conflict," or in a combat zone, in order for the service member to receive the benefits authorized. "The fact that a member may have incurred a disability during a period of war or in an area of armed conflict, or while participating in combat operations is not sufficient to support this finding [of a combat-related disability]. There must be a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting unfitting disability," Mr. Chu wrote in a document attached to his MAR 08 memo. This excluded soldiers who were hurt while engaging in operations outside combat zones, including situations Mr. Pryor envisioned: conducting training exercises, jumping from helicopters in rough terrain or participating in other hazardous duties.


Officials maintain that the scope of the law was narrowed to ensure that combat-wounded soldiers would receive the bulk of the new benefits. Many veterans groups view it as an unwelcome cost-saving measure. David Gorman, executive director of the Disabled American Veterans, wrote a letter to every member of Congress in AUG 08 that said: "Sadly, the 2007 Walter Reed scandal, which resulted mostly from poor oversight and inadequate leadership, pales in comparison to what we view as deliberate manipulation of the law" by Mr. Chu and his deputies. "He must not be allowed to continue thumbing his nose at the will of Congress and the American people," Mr. Gorman said. Mr. Chu, who is no longer with the Defense Department, told The Times that an "enormous amount of confusion" has been associated with the memo and advised The Times to speak with William Carr, the acting deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy. The Department of Defense did not make Mr. Carr available for an interview and instead issued a statement through Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith, who confirmed that the MAR 08 memo was still in effect.


The 2008 NDAA also made it easier for soldiers dismissed from service because of PTSD to undergo treatment and receive compensation. The law said veterans dismissed from service because of PTSD must be given a disability rating of 50%, high enough to ensure disability pay and health care for the soldiers and their families. But another memo written by Mr. Chu on 14 OCT 08, added a catch: It said the policy should not go into effect until the date of the memo, nine months after the bill had been signed into law, leaving out any soldiers dismissed from service because of PTSD before that date. Many soldiers with PTSD who were dismissed from service before the October deadline suffered severe physical injuries as well. They included long-serving, decorated soldiers regularly exposed to mortar fire and roadside bombs. Seven of them have banded together with the National Veterans Legal Services Program in a class-action lawsuit, filed in DEC 08, seeking the 50% rating. Bart Stichman, a lawyer handling the case for the veterans legal services program, said the military has a "history of lowballing" the ratings and estimates that there are "thousands who have been discharged before OCT 08 that the military has done nothing about."


One of the soldiers suing is former Army Sgt. Juan Perez, who was discharged from the military in 2006 after being deemed unfit for further service because of a PTSD diagnosis. During his first deployment to Iraq, he routinely carried out reconnaissance missions near the Syrian border. On one occasion, his Bradley fighting vehicle was hit with an improvised explosive device. But it was during his second deployment when he sustained an injury, as an industrial-strength bungee cord restraining ammunition lost its hold and snapped violently against his head. The injury caused him to temporarily lose his eyesight, and he was flown to Germany for treatment. He then began suffering migraines and sometimes losing consciousness. He was sent later to the United States, where he began to experience PTSD symptoms, including insomnia, paranoia and extreme irritability. He was later diagnosed with PTSD and traumatic brain injury. Because of the PTSD diagnosis, the Army officially declared him no longer fit to serve and dismissed him from duty in 2006, before any of the 2008 NDAA benefits became available. Perez said, "They didn't include my eye injury. They just said I was unfit to be a soldier anymore. And they gave me 0 percent for PTSD. They gave me a severance package, but that didn't even last three months. If I would have gotten a 30% rating, at least, I could have medical care for my wife and kids, but now I don't have that." Sgt. Perez says he can see, but not as well as before the accident. He suffers from migraines and carries an oxygen tank to help alleviate the headaches. [Source: The Washington Times Amanda Carpenter article 28 Dec 09 ++]
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-02-2010, 08:39 AM
Gimpy's Avatar
Gimpy Gimpy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Baileys Bayou, FL. (tarpon springs)
Posts: 4,498
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Hawk

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUEHAWK View Post
I hope the program treats the subject of using common sense, and makes a balance between what is wrong and what is not.

If it ends up being another VA trashing job, then nobody will realize improvements.
----------

DoD Vet Betrayal Update 01

Veterans groups hailed the passage of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which made it easier for wounded soldiers to have their injuries rated and treated by the federal government. But less than a year after President Bush signed the bill, the Defense Department interpreted the law in a way that reduced its scope and denied many veterans the benefits they thought they had been promised. The Pentagon's interpretation, which veterans groups are challenging, is laid out in two memos written in 2008 by David S.C. Chu, who was undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The effect of the memos, which have been obtained by The Washington Times, is to disqualify numerous soldiers who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from receiving medical benefits and to prevent others from receiving extra pay that the NDAA promised to veterans with combat-related injuries. In drafting the NDAA, Congress relied on the recommendations of a bipartisan panel headed by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala. The legislation permitted troops who were injured during training operations to receive extra pay, but Mr. Chu, in one of his memos, defined "combat-related operations" in such a way that troops injured during training or simulated conditions of war would not qualify.


Some lawmakers involved in enacting the 2008 law had expected differently. During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) said: "This addition expands the population that is eligible for the enhancement of disability severance pay to include injuries incurred during performance of duty in support of combat operations." But Congress did not explicitly include in the bill a definition of combat-related operations, leaving it to the Pentagon to make that determination. The result was Mr. Chu's first memo, issued in MAR 08. Mr. Chu said that the injury must have been inflicted during "armed conflict," or in a combat zone, in order for the service member to receive the benefits authorized. "The fact that a member may have incurred a disability during a period of war or in an area of armed conflict, or while participating in combat operations is not sufficient to support this finding [of a combat-related disability]. There must be a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting unfitting disability," Mr. Chu wrote in a document attached to his MAR 08 memo. This excluded soldiers who were hurt while engaging in operations outside combat zones, including situations Mr. Pryor envisioned: conducting training exercises, jumping from helicopters in rough terrain or participating in other hazardous duties.


Officials maintain that the scope of the law was narrowed to ensure that combat-wounded soldiers would receive the bulk of the new benefits. Many veterans groups view it as an unwelcome cost-saving measure. David Gorman, executive director of the Disabled American Veterans, wrote a letter to every member of Congress in AUG 08 that said: "Sadly, the 2007 Walter Reed scandal, which resulted mostly from poor oversight and inadequate leadership, pales in comparison to what we view as deliberate manipulation of the law" by Mr. Chu and his deputies. "He must not be allowed to continue thumbing his nose at the will of Congress and the American people," Mr. Gorman said. Mr. Chu, who is no longer with the Defense Department, told The Times that an "enormous amount of confusion" has been associated with the memo and advised The Times to speak with William Carr, the acting deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy. The Department of Defense did not make Mr. Carr available for an interview and instead issued a statement through Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith, who confirmed that the MAR 08 memo was still in effect.


The 2008 NDAA also made it easier for soldiers dismissed from service because of PTSD to undergo treatment and receive compensation. The law said veterans dismissed from service because of PTSD must be given a disability rating of 50%, high enough to ensure disability pay and health care for the soldiers and their families. But another memo written by Mr. Chu on 14 OCT 08, added a catch: It said the policy should not go into effect until the date of the memo, nine months after the bill had been signed into law, leaving out any soldiers dismissed from service because of PTSD before that date. Many soldiers with PTSD who were dismissed from service before the October deadline suffered severe physical injuries as well. They included long-serving, decorated soldiers regularly exposed to mortar fire and roadside bombs. Seven of them have banded together with the National Veterans Legal Services Program in a class-action lawsuit, filed in DEC 08, seeking the 50% rating. Bart Stichman, a lawyer handling the case for the veterans legal services program, said the military has a "history of lowballing" the ratings and estimates that there are "thousands who have been discharged before OCT 08 that the military has done nothing about."


One of the soldiers suing is former Army Sgt. Juan Perez, who was discharged from the military in 2006 after being deemed unfit for further service because of a PTSD diagnosis. During his first deployment to Iraq, he routinely carried out reconnaissance missions near the Syrian border. On one occasion, his Bradley fighting vehicle was hit with an improvised explosive device. But it was during his second deployment when he sustained an injury, as an industrial-strength bungee cord restraining ammunition lost its hold and snapped violently against his head. The injury caused him to temporarily lose his eyesight, and he was flown to Germany for treatment. He then began suffering migraines and sometimes losing consciousness. He was sent later to the United States, where he began to experience PTSD symptoms, including insomnia, paranoia and extreme irritability. He was later diagnosed with PTSD and traumatic brain injury. Because of the PTSD diagnosis, the Army officially declared him no longer fit to serve and dismissed him from duty in 2006, before any of the 2008 NDAA benefits became available. Perez said, "They didn't include my eye injury. They just said I was unfit to be a soldier anymore. And they gave me 0 percent for PTSD. They gave me a severance package, but that didn't even last three months. If I would have gotten a 30% rating, at least, I could have medical care for my wife and kids, but now I don't have that." Sgt. Perez says he can see, but not as well as before the accident. He suffers from migraines and carries an oxygen tank to help alleviate the headaches. [Source: The Washington Times Amanda Carpenter article 28 Dec 09 ++]


Even though I agree with your first two comments regarding this report being aired this Sunday night.

It has virtually nothing to do with the report about the Dod "betrayal" that you've posted here.

The Dod "memo" refers to the eligibility of "the enhancement of disability severance pay" from the MILITARY....................Not.........repeat.... NOT the VA treatment OR "compensation" for PTSD......the VA has it's OWN set of "criteria" in place for the award of compensation and treatment for PTSD.

What that azzhat David Chu did was an attempt to LIMIT the Department of Defenses' "liability" to provide not ONLY care and treatment at military facilities for militarily "retired" members, but for any additional "military retirement disability compensation" from the MILITARY!....NOT-----The VA.

THE USC Title 38 will take care of "ptsd" patients within the VA despite what the freakin azzhole David Chu did, even though it does prevent them from receiving the "other" benefits provided by the Dod for military "retired" service members. It is STILL a travesty of justice, just NOT instituted by the VA.

Just thought you ought to know.

Best regards,

Gimp
__________________


Gimpy

"MUD GRUNT/RIVERINE"


"I ain't no fortunate son"--CCR


"We have shared the incommunicable experience of war..........We have felt - we still feel - the passion of life to its top.........In our youth our hearts were touched with fire"

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-02-2010, 09:26 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gimpy View Post
Even though I agree with your first two comments regarding this report being aired this Sunday night.

It has virtually nothing to do with the report about the Dod "betrayal" that you've posted here.

The Dod "memo" refers to the eligibility of "the enhancement of disability severance pay" from the MILITARY....................Not.........repeat.... NOT the VA treatment OR "compensation" for PTSD......the VA has it's OWN set of "criteria" in place for the award of compensation and treatment for PTSD.

What that azzhat David Chu did was an attempt to LIMIT the Department of Defenses' "liability" to provide not ONLY care and treatment at military facilities for militarily "retired" members, but for any additional "military retirement disability compensation" from the MILITARY!....NOT-----The VA.

THE USC Title 38 will take care of "ptsd" patients within the VA despite what the freakin azzhole David Chu did, even though it does prevent them from receiving the "other" benefits provided by the Dod for military "retired" service members. It is STILL a travesty of justice, just NOT instituted by the VA.

Just thought you ought to know.

Best regards,

Gimp
I did "know" that, old friend.

And my point stands, as far as I'm concerned.

I also know something of HOW much this issue has troubled you in particular for so long, and it pains me that it still does - but I'm sure you have your own good reasons undeniable.

Though I've maybe not said it in so many words, the only thing I've ever stressed is the key problem the VA faces in being obliged to daily deal with pretenders and wannabe claimants - which is, in my opinion, THE major and quite sensible reason for some of these rulings you and others of us so ferociously object to.

Having said that, I hasten to add that no doubt we'll come up against bean counters and lawyers writing goofy regulations in windowless rooms based on hunches and no practical experience with the problems.

I'll be watching the program to see how a serious issue gets spun by lamestream media; with the hope that the broadcast will advance the ball of justice for those deserving it.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-04-2010, 07:17 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Thumbs down waste of time

As feared, the segment was used as another heavily edited opportunity to bash the VA.

Instead of, for example, going into some serious detail about exactly what the circumstances were for a couple of GIs who've had troubles, they glossed over the problems again by featuring the complaint rather than the complexity of the claims.

Instead of devoting some time to revealing exactly how extensive the backlog and difficulties are at VA, they glanced over the millions and millions of dollars that have been put into helping and why that hasn't been enough yet.

They could, even, have dug up a specific VA individual who HAD ridden the brakes on claims, and take his hide off!

This serious matter was treated, once again, in a thumbnail sketch manner, and I was extremely disappointed that the lamestream media missed a golden opportunity to do some good, in favor of more breast beating scapegoating ass covering heart bleeding.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-04-2010, 01:49 PM
Gimpy's Avatar
Gimpy Gimpy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Baileys Bayou, FL. (tarpon springs)
Posts: 4,498
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default Sadly

I must say I'm in somewhat agreement with you Hawk.

Even though, as an old newspaper man, I believe that "some" exposure is better than none at all.

I also believe it's extremely unfortunate for us all, and the public in general, that we only saw a small slice of the larger pie. I'd like for everyone to consider that from my personal perspective of seeing work from at least two of the 57 Regional Offices (Atlanta & Tampa) that there are probably hundreds of other adjudicators out there who are not as dedicated as the one individual shown on the program.

I also caution everyone that it is my experience that most initial claims will usually take close to one year from application to its' final decision. And, then from personal experience of helping others with their claims there will be many of those decisions that are so flawed as to require an appeal. And again from personal experience, appeals can take from three to four years.

In my experience, and this is commonplace, not at all uncommon. That the typical claim is full of overlooked or ignored evidence. I think this is a direct result of the rush to close files to earn bonus points.

We are told that that "Cases are selected at random..." for review. If this is correct, please tell us what percentage of cases are reviewed and what are the results? Why is it we NEVER see these "review" results?

The most outrageous thing I hear the from the VA is when they say, "every time a benefit is granted, a second person has to authorize it". Well, in my case, I know that is true, I was told so by a VA rating officer. But, it's obvious as hell that the same is not true of a DENIAL of benefits.

The conclusion drawn is that if you award a benefit, your work is 100% checked by a superior to look for a way to deny the benefit. If you deny a benefit, your decision may never be looked at for accuracy. The "denial" is usually approved.....carte blance....when sent "up the ladder" without EVER being looked at by a superior.

The "system" is designed to be "adversarial" towards the veteran, and "beneficial" to the adjudicator (or rating officer) that completes his cases as the system has been formulated with "bonuses" to those who meet their managers goals and/or expectations.

It is, as designed now......a travesty of justice!.............Until Congress (both Democrats AND Republicans!) make it a priority to fix this $hit through revamping of the "regs"............it will unfortunately be an uphill battle for all our brothers and sisters!

Gimp
__________________


Gimpy

"MUD GRUNT/RIVERINE"


"I ain't no fortunate son"--CCR


"We have shared the incommunicable experience of war..........We have felt - we still feel - the passion of life to its top.........In our youth our hearts were touched with fire"

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-05-2010, 07:34 AM
MORTARDUDE's Avatar
MORTARDUDE MORTARDUDE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,849
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

It was about what I expected too. It is hard to go into any detail about an agency with the size and complexity of the VA in 20 mins. Veterans represent less than 8 % of the population in the USA and the number will continue to shrink, even as we have 2 wars going on. Because the federal government is so far in debt and the baby boomers will be retiring en masse and be drawing Social Security and enrolling in Medicare, the urgency and money needed for an overhaul of the VA will just not be there.

As another 60 Minutes piece on the Social Security Administration proved in regard to disability claims, a good number are declined on the first submission for no good reason at all.

For those reading this who are having problems with a VA claim...DO NOT give up.

Larry
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Veterans Groups Sue Bush Administration Over Delayed Benefits Claims David Veterans Benefits 5 02-12-2009 01:51 PM
Veterans Administration Health Care In Big Trouble! Gimpy General Posts 46 01-22-2007 02:30 PM
The "benefits" of one more Bush Administration. Oklahoma Joe General 1 02-25-2004 04:12 PM
Veterans Administration Ethics(???) Award! David Veterans Benefits 0 04-26-2002 08:42 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.