"Freedom is never free, it was paid for with the blood of many."
CRDP UPDATE 37 : Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) had no opposition to his
amendment to the 2006 NDAA which was approved by voice vote, without
dissent. It allows those retired veterans who are rated IU (Individually
Unemployable) and compensated at 100% by the VA, to be paid CRSC (Combat
Related Special Compensation) and CRDP (Concurrent Retirement Disability
Pay) retroactive to 1 JAN 05. [Source: USDR Legislative Affairs 9 Nov 05]
VA "UNEMPLOYABILITY" GROWTH : At the 27 OCT 05 Veterans Affairs Committee
hearing Senators sparred over what to make of the sharp rise in the VA's
Individual Unemployability or IU disability rating. Chairman Larry Craig
(R-ID) said, Congress needs to better understand the IU management
process -- the extent to which VA pushes rehabilitation; whether VA
follows up after granting the rating; and whether the rating
"incentivizes" veterans not to return to work, which would disqualify them
for the rating. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) expressed concern that the IU
hearing might send the wrong signal - that expressions of skepticism about
the unemployability rating system might stigmatize and deter deserving
veterans from seeking help from the VA. She urged better access to VA
medical and vocational-rehabilitation services. Murray also recommended
increased funding for such services and a hearing on transition
assistance, reemployment, and financial protections for troops.
The Committee was advised that the number of IU ratings had doubled
since 1999, with Vietnam-era veterans comprising 40% of the total. VA
Benefits Undersecretary VADM Dan Cooper, USN (Ret.) testified that there
is "no single clear explanation" for the increase in IU ratings. He noted
a 384,000 hike (17%) in the overall number of VA disability ratings since
1999 and said that the percentage of veterans with "combined" or multiple
disabilities of 60% or higher had risen from 17% then to 29% today. About
221,000 veterans have an IU rating today. The minimum requirement for
consideration of an IU rating is 60% for a single disability or a combined
70% evaluation with at least one 40% disability. The IU rating is a
judgment by the VA rating official that the individual veteran is unable
to follow a "substantially gainful occupation" as a result of
service-connected disabilities. Asked by Senator John Thune (R-SD) how
many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have an IU rating, Cooper said he did
not have the data but would submit them for the record.
The GAO testified that private sector insurers focus on return-to-work
practices in their disability assessment processes, including incentives
for claimants and employers to encourage and ease return to work. Senator
Daniel Akaka (D-HI) asked how much it would cost to increase the VA's
vocational rehabilitation program, but the GAO had no answer. Asked
whether there should be an age cutoff for the IU designation, Rick Surratt
of the DAV asserted there should not be. MOAA strongly agrees. If a
disabled veteran can't pursue a second career it reduces his or her
available retirement income. Further, stock market slumps and corporate
failures have left more and more older Americans needing to return to work
at least part time to make ends meet. If their service-connected
disabilities preclude that, they need and deserve the IU compensation.
Senator Craig closed the hearing by saying that the IU issue should be
closely monitored. He signaled no legislative action by his Committee.
None of the senators or the witnesses addressed the fact that disabled
retirees with an IU rating (which entails payment at the 100% disability
rate) are precluded from receiving their full, earned military retired
pay, even though others with 100% ratings have their full retired pay
restored. [Source: MOAA Legislative Alert 28 Oct 05]
HEART FAILURE : A diagnosis of heart failure doesn't mean your heart will
stop anytime soon. Heart failure is a common condition-each year, more
than half a million people are diagnosed with it. In people over 65, it is
the most common reason for hospitalization. When a person has heart
failure, the heart muscles lose some of their ability to pump blood. More
blood remains in the heart after each contraction, and the heart's
chambers must stretch to hold this extra blood. Over time, the heart
muscle stretches out and pumps with less force. Causes of heart failure
include damage to the heart muscle or valves (often due to heart attack,
infection, alcohol abuse, or drug abuse); coronary artery disease, which
reduces the oxygen to the heart and thus reduces the heart's function; and
diseases such as high blood pressure, hyperthyroidism, diabetes, and
kidney disease that cause the heart to overwork.
Heart failure affects the body's regulation of fluids, causing edema.
As the body becomes filled with fluid, heart failure is called congestive
heart failure. Sometimes the lungs fill with fluid, resulting in shortness
of breath. Increased fluid weight and decreased oxygen throughout the body
can result in fatigue, weakness, and sometimes dizziness or confusion
(which can contribute to falls). Congestive heart failure also can cause
irregular heartbeats. Heart failure can be diagnosed by the patient's
symptoms and by lab tests, including blood work, x-rays, an
echocardiogram, and an ECG or EKG.
Prevention and treatment of heart failure are important. Stop smoking
and use alcohol sparingly. Treat high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney
disease, thyroid disease, etcetera. If you have signs of heart failure,
monitor your salt, fluids, and weight carefully. Taking diuretics and
other medications, as well as controlling salt and fluid intake, might be
necessary to regulate the buildup of fluid. Take the medications your
doctor prescribes, and let your doctor know about all other medications
you are taking (including over-the-counter medicines, herbal remedies,
vitamins, and prescription medications), as some of these make heart
failure worse. Various surgical procedures sometimes can help a patient
with heart failure. Coronary bypass surgery can treat coronary artery
disease; a damaged heart valve can be repaired or replaced. In extreme
cases, a heart transplant might be an option. More information is
available online from the American Heart Association,
www.americanheart.org. [Source: MOAA Magazine Ask the Doctor Oct 04]
"The health care systems of the Defense Department and Department of
Veterans Affairs are among the world's best. However, four years after the
start of Operation Enduring Freedom, health care officials from both
bodies, in testimony provided during hearings before the House Veterans'
Affairs Committee, acknowledged that they have yet to forge a truly
seamless transition system between the agencies. We have discovered the
lack of even a common understanding of the term "seamless" For example,
say an active-duty service member who suffers a traumatic brain injury
transitions from a military treatment facility to a VA polytrauma center
in Minneapolis, one of four such specialty centers in the VA health care
system. His journey from the military facility to the VA facility and back
to active duty or from the military facility to a VA hospital to
separation should be seamless.
Congress directed VA and the Defense Department to collaborate on
health care in a 1982 law that created a joint committee to improve
medical resource sharing. In 2003, responding to inaction between the two
departments, Congress mandated that they review all aspects of both
agencies to assess potential opportunities to coordinate and share
resources. Despite 20 years of such mandates for resource-sharing, name
changes, studies, hearings, and repetitive vows by officials, the two
agencies still operate in separate worlds. What little progress exists is
inadequate; the jointly conducted Transition Assistance and Disabled
Transition Assistance programs help transitioning service members learn
about veterans' benefits, but they are only optional.
The two agencies should share a system of electronic medical records
and appropriate personal data needed to speed benefits processing. The
complete continuum of a service member's health history should be captured
from induction to separation and shared with VA, which has an excellent
electronic patient record system. (WHAT? LONG BEACH DOESN'T TALK TO VEGAS..)
Billions have been spent by both
agencies in the past decade, but they still cannot electronically share
medical information. Service members leaving active duty must still make
hard copies of medical records to give VA. This is unacceptable. Positive
action was taken by the Defense Department and VA when they signed a
memorandum agreeing to share patient data after years of wrangling over
privacy issues. As we have pressed the departments to collaborate in the
past, we will press them to fulfill this agreement.
Seamless transition is much more than an electronic record. It is a
discharge physical that meets VA's need to consider claims for disability
benefits. It is outreach, counseling, and referral by Defense Department
staff to appropriate VA resources and programs. Most of all, it is a
commitment by the two agencies to make transition work, and the Defense
Department's lack of commitment has been a glaring deficiency over the
past 20 years. I offer compliments to the National Guard, which, in an
exceptional example of leadership, has acted: 850 returning New Hampshire
Guardsmen recently received a three-day out processing that includes time
with VA health and benefits counselors. As a result, almost 50% filed VA
claims and 2% were found too sick or hurt to be demobilized and were kept
temporarily on active duty to receive military health care. Soldiers,
sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen should never be caught in the
bureaucracy. After studying this for two decades, we know what must occur
to make the transition from service member to veteran a seamless one. The
Defense Department and VA must move decisively ahead. It is time for joint
action." [Source: Army Times 31 Oct 05]
RESERVE RETIREMENT AGE UPDATE 07 : Lawmakers trying to improve retirement
benefits for reservists have dramatically scaled back on retired pay
improvements, but they still cannot get complete support for their
proposals. The newest idea, unveiled 7 NOV by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
would reduce the age at which National Guard and reserve members can
receive retired pay by three months for every 90 days in a fiscal year
they spend mobilized in a contingency operation. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
is the chief co-sponsor of the proposal. This is far more restrictive
than the co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus Chambliss has
been talking about as he and other lawmakers have tried to change the
reserve retirement system to allow retirement checks to be paid prior to
the currently authorized age of 60.
Last year, Chambliss drew Bush administration opposition and even talk
of a veto by proposing to provide retired pay one year earlier for every
two years of service, with age 55 being the lowest age at which a
reservist could receive retired pay. When that idea failed, Chambliss
returned in July with another proposal. Under this second plan, the age a
Guard or reserve member would begin drawing retired pay would be reduced
by one year for every mobilization period of 179 days, with age 50 set as
the minimum retirement age. This also drew opposition when he proposed it
as an amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization bill (NDAA). His latest
proposal for three months of earlier retired pay for 90 days of
mobilization at a cost of $300 million over five years is the least costly
alternative offered to date.
This proposal, like the previous initiatives, has support from major
military associations and he has had good feedback from the DoD. However,
it has not received a formal statement of support or opposition from the
Bush administration. Sen. John Warner (R-VA), the Senate Armed Services
Committee chairman and floor manager of the defense bill, said he thought
a deal could be struck on some kind of compromise, but he wasn't ready to
sign onto the newest idea. However, he agreed there should be some
special recognition for Guard and reserve members mobilized for extended
periods. His Committee is studying the amendment carefully and given
enough a little time might be able to work it out. Warner commented that
even with Senate passage, the reserve retirement initiative might be a
short-lived victory because a new Commission on National Guard and Reserve
(appointed by Congress last year as a compromise when Chambliss' proposal
was rejected) only started work two weeks ago and is studying retirement
and other compensation matters.
Senator Durbin (IL) offered an amendment to the NDAA reducing the age
to 55 that a Guard or Reservist could collect retired pay if they had
completed at least 25 years of service. The amendment failed by a vote of
40-59. However, Sen. Chambliss' amendment to the NDAA for three months of
earlier retired pay for 90 days of mobilization was adopted by a vote of
90-0. The next step will be a conference committee with both the US House
and Senate sending members to this conference. Differences between the
Senate and House NDAA bills will be ironed out and the bill resubmitted to
both chambers for a final approval vote. [Source: NavyTimes staff writer
Rick Maze 7 Nov 05 & NGAUS Leg Update 11 Nov 05 ++]
(Your Veteran Advocate .. comments)
Back in the days of the Vietnam War, Reservists and National Guard duty was
considered a way to skip out on "duty." You went to basic, got
some advanced training (at taxpayer's expense) and then went home ...
Look at Bush, our so-called commander-in-chief, for instance
-- he got his "bars" (officer,) "we" spent who-knows-how-much so he could
be a trained fighter pilot, skips out to Harvard, and na-da.
As for v.p. Cheney, well, you've all heard his story, ie, "..didn't have the
time" (to serve ..)
Hoo-rah - Haliburton ! $$$
Now, today's reservist and guardsmen (women too) are activated, served in
harms way in Iraq (and Afghanistan,) come home; rotate back and deserve the
same benefits those that are on active duty (career) get.
Now, that's this vet's opinion.
.. serving in combat, especially today's wars, and having to wait until 65
is ridiculous. That's right .. our do-a-good-deed congressional
group has only made proposals without any action a.k.a. passed !
As more and more Americans wake up,
this becomes a bi-partisan issue.
Many, in politics, didn't want to compare this war
to the Vietnam War in the sense of transformation.
For those that were either too young, or missed that chapter
in history, we have "been here before" .. in Vietnam.
The Vietnamese, in 1973, were supposed to take over
responsibility for their own fates.
We bled for them and when everything
was "said'n done" two years later, the Communist walked into Saigon.
History has shown us our military strategies and strategic mistakes.
Congress, the President and our Military Leaders seem to haven't learned from same.
Two (plus) years and the Iraqi people either don't have the backbone, and prefer we die
for their freedom is ridiculous.
As for "Timelines," this veteran feels their time is up.
I question all our leadership for what they have gotten our young people in.
If you don't see a pattern, of the military war machine, ie, industry,
I sympathize for you. Bring our men and women home .. they can not
appreciate their sacrifice like what comes with wisdom and age.
We are losing the best men and women America will ever have .. right now.
Nothing personal .. they (the Iraqis) either "walk the walk" or fold.
It isn't so much what many, like our President, may consider "coward,"
and provide these so-called allies with the right equipment to fight for themselves.
I may be wrong, but can anyone tell me what nation ever gave us proper 'thanks'
for our sacrifices .. no?
.. the sacrifices, I might add, of our brave .. not those sitting at home watching
things on tv.
Click here for Supporting Our Troops
Editorial 16 Nov 05
& Veteran U.S. Army 16 Nov 66 - 15 May 77
Proud Yankee @ Brockton, Massachusetts ("Home of the Minuteman")
|
The message below, has nothing to do with our freedom, re: Iraq.
The "war on terror" has little to do with Iraq.
Our freedom is not at risk.
Please send me an email for corrections, update
and other important links for vets!
|
