Sen-Webb-Questions-New-Benefit-Vietnam-Vets

[vet12]

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/sen-webb-questions-new-benefit-vietnam-vets

[Pete53]

The article states that Webb says that as of 2009, 262,000 Vietnam Vets were being compensated for diabetes, that 10% of the men who were there! I DONT THINK SO THERE MR WEBB !!! As of 2009 there were approx 850,000 Vietnam vets alive............lets see here....262,000/850,000 were being compensated. I think thats more than the national average for folks who have diabetes. This speaks for itself !!!!!!

That means that 32% of the living Veterans who served in Viet Nam have diabetes service connected

• In 2004, heart disease was noted on 68% of diabetes-related death certificates among people aged 65 years or older.

• In 2004, stroke was noted on 16% of diabetes-related death certificates among people aged 65 years or older.

• Adults with diabetes have heart disease death rates about 2 to 4 times higher than adults without diabetes.

• The risk for stroke is 2 to 4 times higher among people with diabetes.

[BILLYBOB]

Here we go again... Everyone knows we just spent 700 billion plus on stimulating the economy. Does anyone feel stimulated? Senator Webb just spent months passing a new veterans education program worth over 50 billion dollars over the next ten years for those serving since 2001. Compared to the Vietnam era it is extremely generous. The government bailed out wall street, the banks, and even some money went overseas to other countries and now maybe even Greece will get help with some of our tax dollars. All of a sudden our government is concerned about deficits. Now, comes the Vietnam vets and the three new diseases. The cost estimated at 42 billion over 10 years. Suddenly the cost is too much. Do you think Senator Webb or anyone else for that matter would be paying any attention to this if only a few Vietnam Vets had heart disease? Of course not. It's only because many vets have heart disease and the cost for compensation will be a lot.

The war in Vietnam lasted 10 years. When I was there in 1967-68, we had over 500,000 troops on the ground. In Iraq, the most was around 160,000. Many Vietnam vets have the disease because many served and many were exposed. Therefore the cost to treat and compensate will be higher. Agent Orange was everywhere. The run-off from the jungle migrated to the streams and rivers and into our water supply. We cooked with it. We drank it. We bathed in it. What do you think the chances are that a lot of us may have health problems from it? Senator Webb stated that the 1991 rules were established to address those rare cases of agent orange related diseases. Duh... So if a disease was caused by agent orange and it only affects a few veterans then we should take care of the veteran but if a disease, caused by agent orange, affects many veterans, then we should not take care of the veteran. Does this logic make sense to anyone but a politician?

Congress set up the rules in 1991. The VA has followed the rules. The IOM has determined that these 3 diseases meet the same criteria as the diseases already approved in the past. This includes ischemic heart disease. There are four categories that can be assigned by the IOM for the disease studied. They are:1) Sufficient Evidence of an Association, 2) Limited or Suggestive Evidence of an Association, 3) Inadequate or Insufficient Evidence to Determine an Association, and 4) Limited or Suggestive Evidence of No Association. In the past, diseases studied and classified in category one or two were approved. Category three and four were not. The IOM report is 676 pages long. The breakdown of diseases by category is in the report. The IOM went out of their way to be fair and impartial.

In addition, if congress changes the 1991 rules they set up for the VA and also changes the criteria that IOM must use, do we revisit the diseases that have already been approved and apply the new rules to them - thereby changing compensation for already approved diseases? The potential for problems and long delays is limitless and maybe intentional. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. By the way if you want to read the IOM report on line, here is the web site: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Veterans-and-Agent-Orange-Update-2008.aspx

[spsgt]

That means that 32% of the living Veterans who served in Viet Nam have diabetes service connected

• In 2004, heart disease was noted on 68% of diabetes-related death certificates among people aged 65 years or older.

• In 2004, stroke was noted on 16% of diabetes-related death certificates among people aged 65 years or older.

• Adults with diabetes have heart disease death rates about 2 to 4 times higher than adults without diabetes.

• The risk for stroke is 2 to 4 times higher among people with diabetes.

Yes 32% that are aware that they can be service connected !! I have a buddy that I just went to visit in Alabama....he has diabetes and was totally unaware that he could service connected ! THERE ARE ALOT MORE FOLKS OUT THERE THAT ARE STILL NOT AWARE THAT DIABETES CAN BE SERVICE CONNECTED !!

[john999]

Only 850,000 RVN vets left alive and the VA is worried about compensation. They are worried about DIC. At least 2.7 million boots on the ground and 70% dead. That is pretty bad forecast for some of us. Maybe I can be kept alive in a petri dish. Is that a normal death rate for baby boomers who did not go to Vietnam?

[spsgt]

Only 850,000 RVN vets left alive and the VA is worried about compensation. They are worried about DIC. At least 2.7 million boots on the ground and 70% dead. That is pretty bad forecast for some of us. Maybe I can be kept alive in a petri dish. Is that a normal death rate for baby boomers who did not go to Vietnam?

I think RVN vets death rates are near the norm but remember that NCOs and officers were in their 30s and 40s even toward the end of the war. I was 19 when I was there and that was in 71-72. I will soon be 59,and Im in the younger group! There were alot of WW2,and Korea vets who were there also. If someone knows othinks different please chime in.