# Fort Hood...not terrorism...no benefits to dead and wounded...



## billc (Oct 21, 2012)

The cost of trying to play down terrorism and its connection to radical islam is going to effect our soldiers who were wounded during the terrorist attack at Fort Hood...or should I say, "act of work place violence."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...ot-Terrorism-Wounded-Soldiers-Get-No-Benefits



> *Victims of the Nov. 2009 Ft. Hood shooting are being denied benefits commensurate with combat injuries because the Obama administration refuses to label the attack an act of terrorism.*
> 
> Instead, the shooting Maj. Nidal Hasan carried out after screaming "Allahu Akbar" it is still being labeled "workplace violence."
> The difference between labeling the incident "workplace violence" and "terrorism" is not only the rightful recognition 13 of our troops deserve for being killed in service to their country on Nov. 5, 2009, but also ongoing benefits that would help survivors pay for the physical therapy, and other medical and psychological treatments that might be necessary to a full recovery.
> Texas Gov. Rick Perry has openly stated that the shooting, which took place in his state, was an act of terrorism and that the president such recognize it as such. He said, "President Obama's refusal to call it an act of terror is a shining example of this administration's devotion to political correctness over the defense of our men and women in uniform."


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 21, 2012)

I've told this story many times on MT, but it applies here as we'll. When I was 15years old, I was a Boy Scout and a member of the Sons of the American Legion. My grandfather, who served in WWII and helped to found veterans groups in Central Minnesota, was very active and we traveled around the state to different gatherings that were all very patriotic. I particularly remember serving in the color guard at the SAL regional gathering in Crookston Minnesota. There were a lot of people there and I was very proud at the time. 

My grandfather also worked for the VA and was involved in trying to help veterans get care. I distinctly remember when I was 15 years old, I resolved myself to serve my country in the army and I told my grandfather, thinking he would be proud. He didn't say anything, instead he got up and motioned for me to follow. I got into his old Dodge pick up and we drove to the VA hospital where I met some of the people he was trying to get benefits. I met men who had waited decades to get any kind of care at all for their injuries. At every level these men were frustrated by our government as they attempted to get help for injuries they suffered while serving.

My grandfather talked me out of serving. He told me that our government had changed and that they were only interested I using up the young men and woman and discarding them when through. I see the same thing happening here. The government doesn't care about veterans. They mostly care about themselves and about the perpetration of the bureaucracy. It's a wonderful argument against socialized medicine actually, but it has horrible consequences. 

I feel horrible for any of our soldiers who are coming home injured. They are going to have a hell of a time getting help as the years go on and the complications from their wounds start to appear. They are going to learn the hard way that the system that they served doesn't care about that service. And it will never change because this is what every socialized system eventually turns into...a self serving cluster**** that can't and won't do it's job.


----------



## seasoned (Oct 21, 2012)

Thank goodness for groups like the one below.

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 21, 2012)

It's not a simple issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-almost-half-vets-seek-disability-160656481.html



> America's newest veterans are filing for disability benefits at a historic rate, claiming to be the most medically and mentally troubled generation of former troops the nation has ever seen.
> A staggering 45 percent of the 1.6 million veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now seeking compensation for injuries they say are service-related. That is more than double the estimate of 21 percent who filed such claims after the Gulf War in the early 1990s, top government officials told The Associated Press.
> What's more, these new veterans are claiming eight to nine ailments on average, and the most recent ones over the last year are claiming 11 to 14. By comparison, Vietnam veterans are currently receiving compensation for fewer than four, on average, and those from World War II and Korea, just two.
> It's unclear how much worse off these new veterans are than their predecessors. Many factors are driving the dramatic increase in claims &#8212; the weak economy, more troops surviving wounds, and more awareness of problems such as concussions and PTSD. Almost one-third have been granted disability so far.
> Government officials and some veterans' advocates say that veterans who might have been able to work with certain disabilities may be more inclined to seek benefits now because they lost jobs or can't find any. Aggressive outreach and advocacy efforts also have brought more veterans into the system, which must evaluate each claim to see if it is war-related. Payments range from $127 a month for a 10 percent disability to $2,769 for a full one.



Nearly half of all new veterans are filing for disability pensions.  Of those, a third had been granted pensions by the time of the article (May 2012).  Something is wrong.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 22, 2012)

I wonder what the new claims are?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 22, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I wonder what the new claims are?



Read the article, it's pretty much all there.  For one thing, more people are surviving wounds that used to be fatal.  So there's a bunch of people who are alive, but not in perfect health.  And of course, they deserve any VA disability they get.  There are a LOT more PTSD claims.  How much of that is real?  I have no idea.  I am somewhat not willing to accept that half of all the people who have served have PTSD and should be getting disability checks, though.  Surely it's real and some people have it.  Half of all veterans?  I dunno.




> Of those who have sought VA care:
> &#8212;More than 1,600 of them lost a limb; many others lost fingers or toes.
> &#8212;At least 156 are blind, and thousands of others have impaired vision.
> &#8212;More than 177,000 have hearing loss, and more than 350,000 report tinnitus &#8212; noise or ringing in the ears.
> ...



I never want those who have truly suffered a loss to go uncompensated, they are our heroes and should be treated as such.

However, I also do not see a stint in a combat zone in and of itself as being worthy of a lifetime disability pension.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 22, 2012)

45% of returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan are filing for some form of disability.It's expected to cost the U.S. $600 billion to $1 *trillion* over their lifetimes-maybe the next 40 years-something we haven't budgeted for.

Wanna guess what's close to the top of the list for cutting costs to cut the deficit?


----------



## granfire (Oct 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> 45% of returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan are filing for some form of disability.It's expected to cost the U.S. $600 billion to $1 *trillion* over their lifetimes-maybe the next 40 years-something we haven't budgeted for.
> 
> Wanna guess what's close to the top of the list for cutting costs to cut the deficit?



........


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2012)

http://www.recoverytoday.net/2011/56-september/364-the-myth-of-our-returning-veterans




> Lie four times over. Lie the worst kind of lie: the lie of omission that
> gives only the distilled essence of the bad news. Create an expectation in
> veterans (and their families, employers and neighbors) that they are all fragile
> creatures who could snap at any time and are doomed to a life of suffering. Get
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Oct 22, 2012)

Tgace said:


> http://www.recoverytoday.net/2011/56-september/364-the-myth-of-our-returning-veterans



I have a lot of respect for Grossman and his work, but I don't always agree with him-psychology master's notwithstanding, this is just an opinion piece from someone who never saw combat. Nor does it change the *fact* that nearly half of returning veterans are filing for some sort of disability, and what that fact will cost us.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 22, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are a LOT more PTSD claims.  How much of that is real?  I have no idea.  I am somewhat not willing to accept that half of all the people who have served have PTSD and should be getting disability checks, though.  Surely it's real and some people have it.  Half of all veterans?  I dunno.



Some of that could be due to the very long, repeated tours that servicemembers can now expect.  It seems like that is a change from the historical norm.


----------



## Empty Hands (Oct 22, 2012)

Also, PTSD isn't "simply" mental or just bad thoughts, and I don't think everyone realizes that, sometimes not even the vets themselves.  PTSD rewires part of the nervous system, in a long term way - how long we aren't even sure.  It alters sensory thresholds, for one.  It varies from sufferer to sufferer, but intolerability of light touch, simple noise (like kids playing), visual cues (like an out of place shoe in a long roadway), smells (like a wife's perfume), and tastes are common.  The nervous system has been altered, and you can't simply will your way out of it.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 22, 2012)

billcihak said:


> The cost of trying to play down terrorism and its connection to radical islam is going to effect our soldiers who were wounded during the terrorist attack at Fort Hood...or should I say, "act of work place violence."
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...ot-Terrorism-Wounded-Soldiers-Get-No-Benefits



Unfortunately, it really has nothing to do with Obama. "Terrorism" is defined by law, and this act simply doesn't fit any of the defintions used in U.S. law.

United States Law Code &#8211; the law that governs the entire country &#8211; contains a definition of terrorism embedded in its requirement that Annual Country reports on Terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. (From U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)):



> (2) *the term &#8220;terrorism&#8221; means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;*



Likewise, the USA PATRIOT Act defines "domestic terrorism" thusly:



> "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce *a civilian population*, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to _affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and _(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."



(iii) of which might be the definition that _could_ be applied, but only after it's proven that Nidal Hasn isn't bugnutznuckinfutz-which there is every indication that he is, and this wasn't an act of terrorism, but ideologically driven nutitude. 

Otherwise, since the *soldiers* clearly are neither _noncombatants_, nor _civilians_, it can be argued (though not necessarily _my_ opinion) that this isn't legally "terrorism."

Prove him sane,convict him-_charge him_ with terroism and convict him-and then maybe there's an argument for their benefits.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> I have a lot of respect for Grossman and his work, but I don't always agree with him-psychology master's notwithstanding, this is just an opinion piece *from someone who never saw combat*.



Like most of the other experts on the subject???


----------



## elder999 (Oct 22, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Like most of the other experts on the subject???



Given that PTSD isn't confined to combat veterans, sure. 

However, from the article:



> Here is what I believe is the heart of the matter. To harm and destroy people you have to lie: Lie Number 1: Ignore the vast majority who are just fine and report only on the minority with problems.



With 45-50% of Iraq and Afghanistan returnees reporting some sort of disability, and a majority of those being suspected PTSD cases, "the vast majority who are just fine" is the real lie.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 22, 2012)

On the other hand, when I was on active duty, those near the end of their enlistment contracts went to mandatory classes on how to return to civilian life; interviewing for a job, writing a resume, etc.  Now they go to mandatory classes on how to file for your disability claim.  It appears to me to be the 'new normal' for returning veterans.  Again, if they have a legitimate problem, I want them to be taken care of.


----------



## rainesr (Oct 22, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Prove him sane,convict him-_charge him_ with terrorism and convict him-and then maybe there's an argument for their benefits.



The military will not implicate itself as being incapable of weeding out terrorists from its ranks. 

~Rob


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2012)

Just want to clarify one thing.  There is something called a VA pension, which is needs based and NOT what most of the veterans are filing for.  They are filing for disability benefits, which is different, isn't needs based and doesn't (shouldn't) carry any kind of stigma that welfare connotes.  

As Bill mentions, field medicine and emergency care is so much better than in the past, combined with protracted combat in two arenas, and we're seeing thousands and thousands of injured veterans who would have died in previous combat situations.  That they are surviving is excellent news, but we are failing them.

The VA has, literally, over 800,000 backlogged cases, if you count pending re-evaluations to determine whether a condition has worsened, dependent cases, pension cases and initial disability claims.  That's a lot of cases.  The average processing time for a new claim is over a year, and it's not uncommon to wait over 2 years for an initial decision.  

Also, the criteria for being approved for PTSD has changed within the last few years.  It has been relaxed somewhat.  In the past, there was a need to identify a single traumatic event that would trigger PTSD.  Now, there is an acknowledgement that an accumulation of stress and trauma over a period of time can ALSO lead to PTSD.  As a result, people who were previously denied could now be eligible.   

And in addition to PTSD, the rules have (finally) opened up to include many illnesses related to Agent Orange that were not previously considered "service related."  So, again, this is another workload that the VA has taken on that increases the number of claims dramatically.  

Add to this that our troops are not just going into a combat arena for one tour.  Vietnam was hell, by all accounts, but a soldier did his 12 months and he was done.  Now, it's not uncommon to see troops... theoretically, even our "part time" soldiers in our National Guard or Reserves, being deployed four or five times, for between 6 and 18 months each time.  If they aren't psychologically damaged after 1 or 2 tours in Afghanistan or Iraq, it seems reasonable to me that there is only so much stress and pressure that many minds can take and I am not surprised that a higher percentage of young men and women coming back from overseas tours are having trouble re-acclimating to civilian life.  

It's nuts.  We're over extended.  We're squandering our servicemen and women needlessly overseas, and we're not taking care of our disabled veterans the way they deserve.

Edit:  Just want to add one thing.  I may not have read the thread carefully enough, and if I didn't and am misunderstanding, please forgive me.  But I'm getting the sense that there are some who are insinuating that many of the soldiers applying for disability are malingering and exaggerating their impairments.  That hasn't been my experience working with disabled individuals and at the local VA hospital in my interactions on behalf of my brother (a disabled veteran).  I have to admit that I haven't read through this thread until today, but it chaps my hide to think that our young men and women go overseas, are exposed to a pressure cooker of stress and the threat of harm, see things that I frankly wouldn't want to see and come back effed up only to have people insinuate that they are malingering.  Man, that bothers me.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2012)

No, it's not that they are malingering, but that some may be falling into a psychological self-fulfilling prophecy. What doesn't seem to be taught is that some people will NOT get PTSD and that this is normal as well. The impression driven by the media and other sources is that PTSD is somehow inevitable. Or if you are not "haunted" by your experiences than you are somehow abnormal.

Much like how some people die of survivable gunshot wounds via shock because of the mindset that being shot=death, which has been ingrained from countless "shoot em ups" in our entertainment media. The current method of training is to impress on the student (MIL/LE) that if you are shot and know it you are not dead and statistically unlikely to die (especially from handgun rounds).

Then there is issue of all the psychologists, treatment centers, workers etc who have an investment in treating PTSD...not that they are willfully "selling a package"...but there may be something to the "common knowledge that combat vets WILL get PTSD" that results is *some *people getting PTSD.

And to be honest...from my demobilization experience..the whole PTSD definition seems so nebulous that many people don't know if they have it or not.


----------



## Steve (Oct 22, 2012)

Tgace said:


> No, it's not that they are malingering, but that some may be falling into a psychological self-fulfilling prophecy. What doesn't seem to be taught is that some people will NOT get PTSD and that this is normal as well. The impression driven by the media and other sources is that PTSD is somehow inevitable. Or if you are not "haunted" by your experiences than you are somehow abnormal.
> 
> Much like how some people die of survivable gunshot wounds via shock because of the mindset that being shot=death, which has been ingrained from countless "shoot em ups" in our entertainment media. The current method of training is to impress on the student (MIL/LE) that if you are shot and know it you are not dead and statistically unlikely to die (especially from handgun rounds).
> 
> ...


I see your point, but we're not talking about anything even approaching a majority of veterans who are alleging PTSD.  While the numbers SEEM staggering, that is more a testament to HOW MANY young men and women are serving overseas.  As a percentage, the NIH estimates that the number of Vietnam Veterans suffering from PTSD is about 31%, and based on the lasest statistics I can find, the number of Afghanistan Vets is around 12 to 14%, while those having served in Iraq are up around 20%.  

While the number is in the hundreds of thousands of veterans who are being diagnosed with PTSD, that's not nearly all of them.  Not even most. 

I don't know, man.  I see your point, but at the same time, I think it's about damned time we acknowledge that combat has the potential to screw some people up, and that mental and emotional trauma are EVERY BIT as serious and real as a physical injury, such as the loss of a limb.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 22, 2012)

Something to keep in mind also is that the more time spent in a combat zone, the greater chance of PTSD.  So a soldier going on his 3rd tour is more succeptable than one going on his first tour.  There is a reason that tour of duties were limited in the past. 

I'm not going to be so bold as to say any soldier is creating a "self fullfilling prophesy."  If the physicians in charge of a soldier's care says he has PTSD, that is good enough for me.  That soldier should recieve the best care available and not have anyone second guessing his diagnosis.  We owe anyone serving that much.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I'm not going to be so bold as to say any soldier is creating a "self fullfilling prophesy."  If the physicians in charge of a soldier's care says he has PTSD, that is good enough for me.  That soldier should recieve the best care available and not have anyone second guessing his diagnosis.  We owe anyone serving that much.



I disagree.  Let me repeat some basic statements I made earlier and add to them a bit.

Military men and women are being given mandatory classes in 'how to apply for disability' prior to leaving active duty.  This creates an atmosphere of expecting that one is entitled to some form of disability for having served in a designated combat zone.

The percentage of new veterans applying for benefits is nearly 50%.  That's a lot.  Furthermore, it's unsustainable.

Are a lot of the claims fake?  Yes, I believe they are.  I have no idea what the percentage is, but I do believe that.

I have personal knowledge of this.   I am not going to drag the people who are involved into this issue, but yes, I am quite involved in their lives, and while I love them, I am also very clearly understanding that they never intend to work again, they expect a free ride for the rest of their lives, and there frankly is nothing wrong with them.  This is my opinion.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I disagree.  Let me repeat some basic statements I made earlier and add to them a bit.
> 
> Military men and women are being given mandatory classes in 'how to apply for disability' prior to leaving active duty.  This creates an atmosphere of expecting that one is entitled to some form of disability for having served in a designated combat zone.


Or, it's an acknowledgement that the rigors of serving in the military CAN lead to life long, service related disabilities.  And that in the past, the benefits (because they are benefits, not welfare), were not made available to all soldiers timely.  This ultimately costs the government more money developing applications years down the road.  Determining whether a disability is service related is MUCH easier at the time a soldier is separating from active duty than 5, 10 or 20 years later when that disability begins to denegerate.  

Understand a few things.  First, not everyone who applies is approved.  Second, not everyone who is approved is even awarded 10% disability.  Third, a different percentage is applied to every malady, so one soldier might have damaged his back, mental issues such as PTSD and screwed up knees.  Each of these would be evaluated and rated.  Even a 0% rating for an injury gets it on the record as service related, so if the injury deteriorates later in life, the soldier can apply for a re-evaluation.  There is no more issue with whether the injury was service related, and if severe enough, that veteran could get valuable health care as a result.  

So, where you see the military "teaching" soldiers how to apply for disability, I see the military documenting and inventorying damage they've done to separating vets. 





> The percentage of new veterans applying for benefits is nearly 50%.  That's a lot.  Furthermore, it's unsustainable.
> 
> Are a lot of the claims fake?  Yes, I believe they are.  I have no idea what the percentage is, but I do believe that.


I disagree.  But, more to the point, what evidence do you have that they are fake?  Is this based on documentation?  Is it just your "gut"?


> I have personal knowledge of this.   I am not going to drag the people who are involved into this issue, but yes, I am quite involved in their lives, and while I love them, I am also very clearly understanding that they never intend to work again, they expect a free ride for the rest of their lives, and there frankly is nothing wrong with them.  This is my opinion.


Your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  Having worked in the system, in addition to my own personal experiences, I believe that you are wrong.  Whether approved or denied, I think it's excellent policy to encourage men and women who are separating from service to apply for veterans benefits, including disability if appropriate.  Once again, not everyone who applies is approved, and not everyone who is approved is considered to have significant disabilities.  But it establishes a record and it provides some level of income to disabled veterans who are often unable to resume the jobs they held prior to deployment due to these very same impairments.

Veterans benefits are exactly that.  Suggesting that we discourage, rather than encourage, separating vets from applying for disability where potentially eligible is akin to saying that we should discourage them from using their GI Bill.  

I just can't believe that veterans on these boards are saying some of these things.  It's... surprising, to say the least.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> But, more to the point, what evidence do you have that they are fake?  Is this based on documentation?  Is it just your "gut"?



As I said, my knowledge is personal.  First-hand, observed at the closest possible range.  I am not going to say more than that, as previous discussions about 'drugs' where I mentioned my familiar connections ended up with me being body-slammed for revealing information people prefer not to know.  Suffice to say that my knowledge is personal, first-hand, and based on actual experiences.



> I just can't believe that veterans on these boards are saying some of these things.  It's... surprising, to say the least.



Consider this; veterans may have a closer and more in-depth understanding of how veterans think and behave.  We of all people know that fellow veterans are just like every other segment of the population.  That is, comprised of mostly good people and some criminal element.

Just as citizens who never served a day in the military will seek Social Security disability pensions and Workman's Compensation for injuries they do not have, so too will SOME veterans seek disability pensions for problems they do not suffer from.  Veterans use terms that many do not understand, but one of them is 'the ten percent'.  What is 'the ten percent'?  Those are the military members who are goldbricks, backsliders, ne'er-do-wells, Sickbay Commandos, and s$*#birds.  Every branch has them, every serviceman knows it.  It's discussed openly in the ranks; all veterans accept this as truth; we see or saw it every single day of our military lives.

You know that I am beyond proud of our military and the job they do, and that I am proud to be a US Marine.  You also know that I go above and beyond to support our troops; I routinely annoy others by exhorting them to attend Veterans Day and Memorial Day ceremonies; hell, I'm one of the official photographers for the Detroit Veterans Day parade.  Who loves veterans more than me?  Who supports them more than I do?

So if I say that I believe that a percentage (I do not claim to know what the percentage is) of our current claims for military disability are fraudulent, I mean what I say.  It is no slam on veterans, their service to our nation, or my support of them to say that in my opinion, we've got some criminal activity going on here, and we're giving it a nod and a wink.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Consider this; veterans may have a closer and more in-depth understanding of how veterans think and behave.  We of all people know that fellow veterans are just like every other segment of the population.  That is, comprised of mostly good people and some criminal element.



Okay.  So, out of everything I posted, you pick and choose a couple of sentences to reply to.  Fine.  I get it.  As I said before, I'm surprised and frankly, a little disappointed.   I think we're squandering a generation of young men and women who have served our country, and we're turning our backs on them.  We're seeing a rise in homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction and needless, violent crime, in addition to very high unemployment among our vets. 

And once again, I'm a veteran, from a family of veterans.  Between me, my brothers, my mom and my dad, we have served over 60 years in the US military in just about every significant combat arena over the last 60 years including Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Panama, Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.  Don't presume to speak on behalf of all veterans.  It seems like I have to remind you of that every six months or so. I spent two years loading bombs at the rail head in Morbach Germany and 6 months in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm.  While I've never claimed to be a war hero or anything like that, maybe a little respect for what I have done is in order.  I'm not asking much, but I don't know, at least remembering that I'm a veteran after having shared it several times would be the least I could expect.  And what really pisses me off is you've said this same **** to me in the past.  "I'm a veteran and you're not so just leave the discussions about vets to the vets."  **** you, Bill.  Maybe I'm just crabby today, but I can't off the top of my head think of a way you could be more insulting and dismissive.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> Okay.  So, out of everything I posted, you pick and choose a couple of sentences to reply to.  Fine.  I get it.  As I said before, I'm surprised and frankly, a little disappointed.   I think we're squandering a generation of young men and women who have served our country, and we're turning our backs on them.  We're seeing a rise in homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction and needless, violent crime, in addition to very high unemployment among our vets.



I picked and chose because I had no essential disagreement with your other statements.  I also have no essential disagreement with your statements above.  I don't think that acknowledging that we are failing our veterans in many ways changes the fact that some few are gaming the system we've created to try to address some of those problems.  They're not mutual exclusive.



> And once again, I'm a veteran, from a family of veterans.  Between me, my brothers, my mom and my dad, we have served over 60 years in the US military in just about every significant combat arena over the last 60 years including Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Panama, Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.  Don't presume to speak on behalf of all veterans.  It seems like I have to remind you of that every six months or so. I spent two years loading bombs at the rail head in Morbach Germany and 6 months in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm.  While I've never claimed to be a war hero or anything like that, maybe a little respect for what I have done is in order.  I'm not asking much, but I don't know, at least remembering that I'm a veteran after having shared it several times would be the least I could expect.  And what really pisses me off is you've said this same **** to me in the past.  "I'm a veteran and you're not so just leave the discussions about vets to the vets."  **** you, Bill.  Maybe I'm just crabby today, but I can't off the top of my head think of a way you could be more insulting and dismissive.



I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself.  I'm sorry you feel so angry about my statements, I certainly meant nothing personal.  I certainly do apologize for any offense I have given, however inadvertent.

The last thing I would do is suggest that only vets can talk about vets; that was not my intent.  I meant to point out that veterans have more insight into their fellow veterans than non-veterans.  How could it be otherwise?


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I picked and chose because I had no essential disagreement with your other statements.  I also have no essential disagreement with your statements above.  I don't think that acknowledging that we are failing our veterans in many ways changes the fact that some few are gaming the system we've created to try to address some of those problems.  They're not mutual exclusive.


Any soldiers attempting to game the system should be weeded out through the application process.  And those that successfully game the system are the ones at fault, not the VA and the military for encouraging people to apply for benefits that they might be eligible for.  In other words, I would advocate that we focus on reducing the amount of fraud within the system, than on discouraging (or failing to encourage) people to apply.  I 100% believe that the current policy is the ethically correct one for our military. 





> I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself.  I'm sorry you feel so angry about my statements, I certainly meant nothing personal.  I certainly do apologize for any offense I have given, however inadvertent.
> 
> The last thing I would do is suggest that only vets can talk about vets; that was not my intent.  I meant to point out that veterans have more insight into their fellow veterans non-veterans.  How could it be otherwise?


You presume to speak on behalf of all veterans, because, after all, you're a vet.  And you use this same, arrogant rationale in every discussion in which I disagree with you on veterans benefits and veterans affairs.  In a thread a while back, you suggested to me that I don't understand how important the uniform is to veterans because I'm not a vet.  You've presumed that I'm not a veteran in several threads on similar topics, and each time I remind you that I am, in fact, honorably discharged from the US military.  I manage to remember that you are a marine, and while I don't go out of my way to advertise that I am a veteran, it's come up several times over the yeasr.  So, yeah.  I won't lie.  It comes off to me as personal and intentional.  

You seem to agree with most of what I'm saying, but then casually dismiss the conclusions drawn from actual evidence in favor of your own gut feelings and impressions based on not much more than what amounts to some negative personal experiences and emotion.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 23, 2012)

Bill, as you said, vets are people like anyone else.  So yes, there are going to be people gaming the system.  Most people on assistance of any sort outside the military are not gaming the system, though some try to convince people otherwise.  I think the same is true of our military men and women.  There will be people that try to cheat.  That is something I think we can all agree on.  I just do not think that a large portion are cheating and until proof is given, rather than the anecdotal you know someone cheating, I will continue to believe that the system is *mostly *working as intended.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2012)

Whenever you attach money to something there is going to be a percentage of people who will try to take advantage. Look at workmans comp cases, where some studies estimate a 36% fraud rate. 

I don't think Bill or I are claiming that even the majority of PTSD cases are malingering cases. However I do think that a system that is legally bound to resolve doubtful cases in the applicants favor is open for abuse:

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2011753744_apusthewarwithinfakeclaimsabridged.html



> Already, VA officials are legally bound to resolve &#8220;any reasonable doubt&#8221; in the veteran&#8217;s favor. And Rogers, the retired claims specialist, and others say the system is vulnerable to fraud because of the way it was designed: Doctors make diagnoses without fact-checking the veteran&#8217;s story, and once that diagnosis is made, claims raters&#8217; hands are essentially tied.



What is the solution? Deny real PTSD victims benefits by siding on the other side? I don't know...I don't presume to have the answers.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2012)

How many groups can claim entitlements from the government before the government has to pick and choose? The political fights over this in the future are going to be nasty...

Everyone is going to claim that the entitlements are benefits and that the government owes them these things. In the end, I am pretty sure no one is going to be able to collect. The first special interest group to get put on the block is going to scream like hell and probably elect enough people to avert a real cut...

...until the whole system breaks down...like Greece.


----------



## Steve (Oct 23, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Whenever you attach money to something there is going to be a percentage of people who will try to take advantage. Look at workmans comp cases, where some studies estimate a 36% fraud rate.


Apples and oranges.  Workman's Compensation has a completely different administrative process, as well as a completely different definition of disability.  Social Security has a third definition, based on one's ability to engage in "substantial gainful activity."   Comparisons between these agencies can be very misleading.





> I don't think Bill or I are claiming that even the majority of PTSD cases are malingering cases.


Then what's the problem?





> However I do think that a system that is legally bound to resolve doubtful cases in the applicants favor is open for abuse:
> 
> http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2011753744_apusthewarwithinfakeclaimsabridged.html
> 
> What is the solution? Deny real PTSD victims benefits by siding on the other side? I don't know...I don't presume to have the answers.


It seems to me that you are taking the onus of responsibility off of the true malingerers and penalizing potentially eligible servicemen and women because you _feel_ like there are _too many_ people gaming the system.  But to this point, I haven't seen anything but wild assed guesses and conjecture.  These are not things upon which sound policy decisions are made.  "I think we should make it much more difficult to apply for benefits because I know a guy."  Come on... seriously?

Once again, not everyone applies.  And of those who apply, not everyone is approved.  And not everyone who is approved is 100% disabled.  And not everyone who is 100% disabled has PTSD.  

The burning question here that hasn't yet been addressed is this: do we have a problem with fraud?  I have seen nothing to suggest that we do.  We might, but neither you nor Bill has offered any evidence of it.

The VA hasn't been all that well managed over the past decade or so.  They've been struggling to modernize their infrastructure and hire competent claims authorizers and developers to keep up with the dramatic increases in their workloads, and in spite of all of this hiring, they have amassed a sizable backlog of claims. The VA is also actively working on modernizing and streamlining the applications process not only to make it easier to apply, but also to improve accuracy.  Last I saw, initial decisions (both awards and denials) were around 86% accurate.  The goal is to improve that to 98% accurate over the next few years, and under their current leadership, I expect they'll get a lot closer. 

Encouraging people to apply for disability is smart.  It protects the veteran and ALSO protects the VA because it establishes a paper trail and a baseline determination for that individual.  

And once again, it's not welfare.  It's a benefit, just like any other Veteran's benefit, such as the GI Bill.  Suggesting that we discourage (or fail to encourage) individuals from filing for disability where appropriate is exactly the same as discouraging individuals from using their GI Bill or VA Loan.  

One other thing is that disability benefits are a catalyst for eligibility for a number of other VA benefits, such as voc rehab.  We have a lot of vets, particularly guardsmen and reservists who are coming home unable to return to the jobs they left.  That's part of the reason that unemployment among vets is up around 12%.  

We all agree that fraud should be dealt with.  Philosophically speaking, that's just common sense.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that the answer to the burning question is yes.


----------

