Bush and VA benefit changes

[Rydney]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Can someone who knows please enlighten me on what it was that Bush Jr. did to the VA and/or military health care system? After writing that, maybe he didn't do anything, maybe it was Clinton, I don't know which is why I'm asking. The root of this question was a news piece I remember seeing during the election in '04 about how angry veterans were over changes is health care. I was then told by several people that Bush cut veterans benefits, but upon asking an army medical recruiter about this, and specifically asking him what benefits Bush cut, I was told my friends didn't know what they were talking about. Anyone?

 

[Rydney]

76 views and not a single reply? Did I do something to piss of the whole forum? This is a serious question I have about conservative politics and va benefits. Apparently Reagan did the same thing, according to my veteran father, and someone on this forum must have something they can tell me about it. Either that or let me know what is so wrong with my thread that 76 people chose not to respond to it.

 

[backrow]

another viewer without a response The silent game sure is great👍

Unfortunately not everyone who views a thread will have an answer to the question, it may be that the people who have viewed the thread don't have an answer. Plausible? No?

 

[delicatefade]

Have you tried doing a Google search??? Surely there are articles out there that will answer your question. As far as I know, some co-pays got raised in 2003. Other than that, I have no idea.

 

[resxn]

Where's Rob lately, I'm sure he'd have a chapter or two about it. Personally, I don't know. From what I hear from the guys who have been in for a while, DoD medicine was doing well under Reagan and really started to get the crap kicked out of it when Clinton did his balanced budget thing and slashed the revenue to the military drastically. That's all hearsay from the 0-5's and higher, though.

 

[FlyinBryan]

OK, it's been a few years since I've been dealt with this issue, but I'll take a stab:

DOD medicine and VA medicine are really two completely separate issues. The DOD healthcare system primarily serves active-duty military members, their dependents, as well as military retirees (those who retired from the military after serving 20 or more years, and those who were medically discharged from the service for serious injuries incurred while on active duty)
This system is known as Tricare and falls under the auspices of the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld at the time of the last election), who works for the President

The VA is part of the Veterans Health Administration, which is part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, headed by Secretary of Veterans Affairs, another cabinet level post appointed by and answereing to the President. The VA serves veterans (those who have served in the military for any length of time). Eligibility for VA healthcare depends upon several factors, including whether or not the veteran receives VA benefits for an injury or illness that is deemed "service-related" (e.g. certain types of cancer which may emerge decades after their military service ended and is considered to have been caused or exaggerated by some exposure they encountered during their military service, like agent orange), and the income level of that veteran. There are other factors that go into this determination, but you'd have to talk to a bureaucrat for that.

I think that the controversy to which you're referring was related to eligibility for VA healthcare. To determine eligibility, a veteran is classified into a priority group. A high priority group would include a veteran who receives disability compensation for an injury he/she received in the service. A low priority group would include a vet who has no service related injuries or illnesses, and is able to afford his own health insurance. Every year the secretary of Veterans Affairs must decide where to put the cut-off for enrollment in VA healthcare. Circa 2004, there was a temporary freeze in new enrollments for certain lower priority groups because there simply was not enough alllocated to VA to fund new enrollments. While the president and congress wouldn't hesitate to tell you that they actually raised gross funding for VA, what they don't mention is that when factored against inflation, rising costs, and new enrollments, the funding for VA was a net decrease. Thus the freeze in new enrollments. Understandably, many veterans were upset, as a lot of vets view access to VA healthcare as a right that they earned by serving their country.

At the time, we had a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress in both houses, so take from that what you will, but the fact that Defense and VA are two separate cabinet-level postings under the president illustrates how support and funding for one does not necessarily translate to support for the other

THis poem sums it up a lot more eloquently than I ever could:

God and the soldier
All men adore
In time of trouble,
And no more;
For when war is over
And all things righted,
God is neglected -
The old soldier slighted.

-Anonymous

 

[delicatefade]

I might be missing something here, but is free VA health care for life something that is promised to those who are signing up to serve their country??? I understand that service connected individuals will always have access to the VA and I'm happy that exists for them, but is this same health care promised to veterans who are healthy or have illness/injuries that are not service related??? (especially if they are now working civilian jobs that provide health insurance and/or can afford their own)???

 

[Mirror Form]

I thought that the controversy was in regard to co-pays for medications. Although it's been awhile.

 

[Rydney]

Bryan, this was the kind of post I knew I could get here. Thanks.

 

[8744]

I might be missing something here, but is free VA health care for life something that is promised to those who are signing up to serve their country??? I understand that service connected individuals will always have access to the VA and I'm happy that exists for them, but is this same health care promised to veterans who are healthy or have illness/injuries that are not service related??? (especially if they are now working civilian jobs that provide health insurance and/or can afford their own)???

No, it is not, at least when I enlisted. My relatives all think I get free health insurance and that the military paid for my education which is not the case.

In the old day, "veteran" meant "combat veteran." Today, the term applies to any former-military whether they kicked down doors in Bagdhad or were administrative clerks at the Pentagon for their entire enlistment.

Your eligibility and access to VA health services depends on how "Service Connected" your health problems are. If you are completely service connected you can pretty much get anything. That's why PTSD was played up so much after the Viet Nam war, as sort of a back door to get VA services for people who might otherwise have not qualified. Not everyone carrying a diagnosis of PTSD was actually a combat veteran (Read "Stolen Valor" for one guys take on this) and there is terrific abuse and outright fraud in the system.

Nobody wants to deny combat veterans with war injuries (whether physical or mental) the health care that they deserve. The question is whether some guy who shovelled **** in Louisiana for three years back in the 1950s deserves a lifetime of free health insurance.

 

[8744]

OK, it's been a few years since I've been dealt with this issue, but I'll take a stab:

DOD medicine and VA medicine are really two completely separate issues. The DOD healthcare system primarily serves active-duty military members, their dependents, as well as military retirees (those who retired from the military after serving 20 or more years, and those who were medically discharged from the service for serious injuries incurred while on active duty)
This system is known as Tricare and falls under the auspices of the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld at the time of the last election), who works for the President

The VA is part of the Veterans Health Administration, which is part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, headed by Secretary of Veterans Affairs, another cabinet level post appointed by and answereing to the President. The VA serves veterans (those who have served in the military for any length of time). Eligibility for VA healthcare depends upon several factors, including whether or not the veteran receives VA benefits for an injury or illness that is deemed "service-related" (e.g. certain types of cancer which may emerge decades after their military service ended and is considered to have been caused or exaggerated by some exposure they encountered during their military service, like agent orange), and the income level of that veteran. There are other factors that go into this determination, but you'd have to talk to a bureaucrat for that.

I think that the controversy to which you're referring was related to eligibility for VA healthcare. To determine eligibility, a veteran is classified into a priority group. A high priority group would include a veteran who receives disability compensation for an injury he/she received in the service. A low priority group would include a vet who has no service related injuries or illnesses, and is able to afford his own health insurance. Every year the secretary of Veterans Affairs must decide where to put the cut-off for enrollment in VA healthcare. Circa 2004, there was a temporary freeze in new enrollments for certain lower priority groups because there simply was not enough alllocated to VA to fund new enrollments. While the president and congress wouldn't hesitate to tell you that they actually raised gross funding for VA, what they don't mention is that when factored against inflation, rising costs, and new enrollments, the funding for VA was a net decrease. Thus the freeze in new enrollments. Understandably, many veterans were upset, as a lot of vets view access to VA healthcare as a right that they earned by serving their country.

At the time, we had a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress in both houses, so take from that what you will, but the fact that Defense and VA are two separate cabinet-level postings under the president illustrates how support and funding for one does not necessarily translate to support for the other

THis poem sums it up a lot more eloquently than I ever could:

God and the soldier
All men adore
In time of trouble,
And no more;
For when war is over
And all things righted,
God is neglected -
The old soldier slighted.

-Anonymous

This explains the bitching and whining from people with no service related injuries and the sanctimony from politicians. Just like the public thinks that all physicians are the same, they tend to lump all veterans into the same category. I don't know why people expect to get a lifetime of benefits for a few years of service. I certainly don't.

 

[FlyinBryan]

Your eligibility and access to VA health services depends on how "Service Connected" your health problems are. If you are completely service connected you can pretty much get anything. That's why PTSD was played up so much after the Viet Nam war, as sort of a back door to get VA services for people who might otherwise have not qualified. Not everyone carrying a diagnosis of PTSD was actually a combat veteran (Read "Stolen Valor" for one guys take on this) and there is terrific abuse and outright fraud in the system.

Nobody wants to deny combat veterans with war injuries (whether physical or mental) the health care that they deserve. The question is whether some guy who shovelled **** in Louisiana for three years back in the 1950s deserves a lifetime of free health insurance.[/QUOTE]


There's no doubt but that there are vets who try to milk the system by claiming PTSD or nonspecific back pain to get VA bennies. The flip side of that, however, is that there are many Vietnam veterans that do have PTSD, and probably did when they returned stateside from their tours, but through a pattern of misconduct post-tour (drug use, insubordination, unexcused absences, etc.) were separated with a less-than-honorable discharge. Some of these guys most certainly had undiagnosd PTSD, but their less-than honorable discharge thirty-five years ago makes them ineligible for VA health care. Let's hope that the military is doing a better job of providing counseling for those returning vets who need it, and that they are not ostracised and stigmatized by their peers and chain of command for seeking out such treatment

 

[delicatefade]

It seems the military is really trying to take a much more proactive stance on mental health problems in returning Iraqi veterans. Of course, some will still slip through the cracks, but I think the military seems to have learned some lessons from those Vietnam veterans.

 

[8744]

Anecdotally, I have talked to a lot of veterans at the VA with PTSD and most of their stories don't make sense. For instance, you might have a guy claim he was in the Navy Seals and the Special Forces which is impossible. Or they are pretty vague about their unit or MOS, something that most veterans don't forget. Not to mention claiming they were doing "black ops."

I think there is a lot of fraud in the post-Viet Nam PTSD diagnosis. I mean a lot. And when you think about it, a "pattern of misconduct" night also mean that they were scewed up individuals before their service, not after.

I know for a fact that no SRB review is done on a servicemember to verify his claims of combat duty. Most Viet Nam veterans saw no combat. (That's just the nature of the miltary where it takes a long tail to support the teeth.) It's not hard to look up. I could sign a release form and any one of you could get my entire service record showing everywhere I served and in what capacity, unimpressive as it would be.