Posted on 01/08/2008 6:32:19 AM PST by NCDragon
They've been to war, and they've come home with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other serious mental ailments. The Department of Veterans Affairs pays them, as it should, for their disabilities, and the payments last a lifetime -- again, as they should. But why is there a variation in vets' disability ratings -- which affect the payments they'll receive -- apparently because of where the veterans live? That's an answer the VA, and the White House, owes those vets who find themselves losing many thousands of dollars in needed lifetime income because they happen to live in a place where those who rate disabilities are less-inclined to give veterans higher ratings. McClatchy Newspapers analyzed 3 million records. The outcome was clear. This country owes veterans a better, fairer system.
Consider that in Albuquerque, N.M., 56 percent of veterans with cases involving mental disabilities were given a disability rating qualifying them for much better monthly payments than those with a lower rating. But in Pittsburgh, only 21 percent received a high disability rating. (North Carolina's VA office in Winston-Salem gave 31 percent of veterans with PSTD high ratings.)
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
Should he get the same benefits as someone that actually went to war?
As long as his injuries were sustained while on active duty. It is the least we can do for those that serve our country.
no, i dont think he should...
and thats coming from someone whos been there.
you should only get disability if it happened due to your service or while on duty.
I know someone on disability and gets everything he wants. His disability? He is grossly overweight. A friend of ours has real issues from his military service and can’t get any help. Go figure. My great uncle finally got his VA assistance. He lost his legs in WWII. He got a check right before Christmas for $78,000. He only got that because my dad is a pain in the rear end and wouldn’t leave the issue alone. Thank goodness.
My feelings on the matter are mixed, I mean I am a big supporter of the US Military and our vets (past and present) as well.. Yes I agree if you have seen combat that you should get full medical and care, but I am not too sure about those who only serve a few months in...I hope this post make sense and I am in NO WAY, bashing the vets..
I am proud of all of past and present vets!
but I am not too sure about those who only serve a few months in...
I am not flaming you, but what if the person has only been in the Service for 18 months and gets run over by a driver that runs a stop sign while the service member is walking to lunch from his duty station? Would he be entitled? i am just curious and not trying to start a fight.
Only reason I ask is because someone I know had this happen and they are receiving disability payments. I personally believe that if the person serves honorably and is injured during their time in service through no fault of their own they should be eligible for disability payments.
I don’t believe that people that get diabetes or some other disability after they are out of the military should get these benefits.
Yes. It is not his choice whether or not there is a war during his service. You go where you are told to go and do what you are trained to do.
cancer related to the Agent Orange..
It should have been covered because the original injury, exposure to Agent orange, was incurred during his time in the service. You have to be tenacious with the VA to get coverage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.