Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
Jay Johnson
-
Posts
563 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
VA Disability and Benefits Information
VA Benefits News
Store
Posts posted by Jay Johnson
-
-
I did a search of the Portalnd TRICARE and there is a list of 186 psychiatrists that are supposed to accept it, are you saying that all of these are not?
Not a single one. Tricare is a joke and no doctor that actually wants to support his/her family would accept it. My son broke his arm a couple of years ago and the bill for the emergency room was around $5000....tricare paid them around $75, which, by law, they have to accept in that situation.
Tricare pays fractions of pennies on the dollar...they are horrible.
-
the value of the health benefit has improved greatly. For retirees, the promise of “space available care” first made in the 1950s has been replaced with “universal access” to care on base or, more often, through a network of civilian physicians. Adams called it a “highest-quality” benefit having few limitations.
What a joke. I had to take my 9yr old daughter to shriners because tricare won't cover a SINGLE specialist in the Portland area (we're talking an area of 1 million people or so) for a bone growth on her left ring finger. Time and time again tricare refuses to pay for services and when one finally does find a doctor stupid enough to accept tricare, one quickly finds that said doctor is really a PA or among the worst doctors in town. Hell, my wife is 100% SC for PTSD and they won't cover a SINGLE psychiatrist in the Portland area (but they'll cover some wanna-be nurse practitioner). So, I'm forced to pay out of pocket for her to recieve psychiatric care for a condition THEY caused.
I can't believe congress, and the American public, is letting them cut an already terrible program with next to NO benefits at all.....finding a doctor that accepts tricare is like the current administration finding Bin Laden:-)
-
I wasn't trying to imply that a GAF would lead directly to a definitive rating; rather, it gives one a general idea of what to expect and what to fight for. Being that GAF is directly tied to your occupational and social disability level, it should translate, very closely, to the ratings table provided. 31-50 is major to severe impairment in social and occupational abilities, which should project someone into the 50-100% range depending on other circumstances. This should tell you that a rating of 10% would be bogus and I probably wouldn't "expect" them to go with 100% right off the bat (though you should always fight for the highest percentage you think you should get).
-
There's depression that is relatively minor and there's "major depression"...depression can be episodic or it can be chronic. All of these play into how high a rating can be. I would suggest you look up "global assessment of functioning"(GAF) to get a good idea on what symptoms lead to what level of disability. A "GAF" may not be the end all be all, in VA terminology, but it gives one a good idea of how severe their symtpoms impact their lives from a social and occupational standpoint.
-
If you are rated IU for PTSD the only way they can take it away is if you have material improvement in your condition while maintaining or actively seeking gainfule employment. What is the chance of that for most of us? After 5 years and age 55 it becomes even harder. Unless the congress changes the meaning of IU I don't think we have much to worry about. If you are rated 100% for PTSD then apply for housebound. Now you have a 100% disabled vet who is housebound. Hard to reduce and what justification would there be to reduce a person who can't leave their home?
Very true john...one would think:-) But they did "attempt" to lower the wife just several months after getting 100% P&T WITH A&A all for PTSD alone. Believe me, I used every reg in the book that you mentioned above to get back the 100% P&T, but only got housebound back rather than A&A (Lost the will to fight mostly).
The disconnect seems to be that the RO ignores many of those regulations when making decisions (especially PTSD decisions), yet I think the BVA is more likely to uphold VA law. As I've said many times here, we need to hold the ROs accountable then they pull this nonsense, or they'll keep doing it and drawing claims out needlessly.
Jim,
The regs for finality of decisions is under 3.104 and 3.105. Basically, they just say that any decision is to be considered final and binding on all ROs unless there's clear and unmistakable error. Differences in opinion must be remanded to the "central office" for approval....an RO cannot simply disagree with itself, or a different RO, without getting authorization before hand (which I've never heard of).
As for 20yr+ protection - John summed it up nicely. If you have a rating for 20+ years they cannot reduce it unless you obtained said rating under fraudulent circumstances (very difficult to prove) or you, in essence, say you're all better and don't want the money. However, as John stated, IU is ONLY for someone who is unemployed, so if that status has changed they can reevaluate the designation.
-
Jay,
No offense taken, but your ideas are obviously shaped by the liberal ideologies. I mean no offense by that becuase I feel that one ideology would be dangerous. As I stated in my previous post, if you get past the "conservative" slant of what was written, I am all for universal health care and for the government taking the lead, I just feel that we are missing the mark by not setting up health clinics.
By the way, my views on Canadian health coverage were based on speaking to users of the system not to Republicans.
I'm not trying to turn this into a liberal v. conservative thing; rather, it's just "fiscal" conservatism that drives a lot of the stereotypes associated with universal health care. The thing I speak about are not "liberal" in any way....I've worked in the field and I get my information from non-bias groups like the WHO (and a recent report from another neutral source which made our health care system out to be even worse than the WHO's reports).
The simple fact of the matter is that 90% of Americans cannot afford health care on their own....we need to be subsidized by the government or, in our current case, our employers. Now, that doesn't mean that we need one, gigantic VA-like system that is run by the government, in which all health care employees are employed by the government. Rather, we need a single payer insurance that is based on one's income level that covers everyone equally.
Personally, I don't care for systems "run" by the government...I want my health care providers to remain private, but we absolutely NEED a system that covers everyone equally. This would benefit the average American most and, in my opinion, would help veterans a LOT by doing away with the clunky, under funded VA system that keeps much needed dollars out of the compensation system and puts it into the VA health care system.
Simply put, if you're a disabled veteran you go directly into "exempt" insurance status, which would mean NO copays at all (anyone under a given economic line would also fall under this status). Essentially, we need a better Tricare like system that is regulated by the government and that covers EVERYONE in the US....this insurance system should base enrollment fees and copays on one's income level. With that sort of system taxes would go up VERY little, if at all, and we would still have plenty of local choices for private providers.
I believe many European countries use a similar system.....I could be wrong, but I think Australia's is that way also.
-
I hate to disagree with what you all have said, but there are some basic facts that need to be considered. Years, ago, I was working with a Canadian NonCom at Fort Knox. I asked him about the universal health care that is in place in Canada. He noted two problems. First, the cost was passed on to the individual tax payer. He laughed when I noted that many Americans feel that they pay so much in taxes. The other problem that he noted was that it took quite a long time to get an appointment, not only with your primary care doctor, but appointment with specialists could take up to a year (if they are even approved). One only needs to look at how HMOs operate to understand that this is probably the ugly truth.
To assume that if the businesses did not have to provide health coverage would increase a workers wages, while nice in principal, is unlikely to happen. We have all probably complained about high gas prices and the amount of profit that those companies are making, yet they are still making the profit. That is capitalsim at work folks, the American way.
I agree that we need to fix our health care systme, but universal health care will not work. We need to find a way to set up clinics throughout the country where people can come to receive treatment. These clinics need to be overseen by a doctir, but lets face it, most complaints can be handled by someone who has the same training as a medic. There are people out there who are on mediccare and medicaid who go to the doctor if they have the sniffles. If you set up clinics, then you can have someone there to hand out cold medicine rather than have these people see a doctor.
I guess what I am saying is that I agree with universal health care, I just do not agree with universal health insurance using the current medical system that is in place today.
No offense, but I'm guessing your opinions on this were shaped by conservative propaganda. Canada may not be the best health care system in the world, but it is ranked higher than ours in almost every category and, more importantly, the level of care is static; whereas, in America, we have greatly varying care based on economic status.
Australia is known as one of the best health care systems in the world and is universal in nature. Ask ANY US doctor who's been there to compare the two systems. Most of Europe has universal health care and every country over there has better health care than we do. In fact, our highest rated health care insurance in this country is ChampVA, Medicare and Tricare (all government run).
As for taxes - Most countries with universal health care systems pay an equal, or lower, tax rate than we currently do and their economies are doing fine. It is simply fiscal conservative spin that makes us believe that universal health care is going to cost us a bunch of money in taxes....sure, our taxes would likel go up, but government run health care is FAR more efficient than private health care so, overall, it would cost the American public less. The difference is that the top 1% of Americans would have to shoulder the brunt of the health care system's cost (oh, boohoo for them, they can't get that 4th house in malibu).
Right now, we have a system that is worried about profit and NOT health care; which is counterintuitive. How many lives could we save if we gave breast cancer screens to women under 30?? How many lives could we save if we gave prostate screens under 30?? 10's of thousands EASY....But, the insurance companies have done the calculations and they know that screening for something that only a VERY small portion of Americans get under 30 isn't cost effective.....it's cheaper to let those people contract the disease and to treat the disease instead of testing everyone. In other words, it's fiscally more responsible to let 10,000 people die every year because it helps their bottom line.
This is the STANDARD practice in private health care......100's of thousands die every year because companies are more worried about MONEY than they are human life, which is abhorrent. Some things were simply not meant to be privatized and our health is one of them. I don't want to watch my young child die, because some Ahole at an insurance company thought the cost/benefit ratio on a given test wasn't worth the money.
Private health care is the most vicious and hateful thing this country has ever produced, period. To top it of, it is horribly inefficient (twice as costly as medicare per capita) and is terribly ineffective, yet we continue with it for fear of "evil taxes" or some ridiculous notion that the government will put microchips in our brains. In my opinion, we need less fear mongering and more common sense.
P.S. - Your pay WOULD go up under unviersal health care....companies are going bankrupt at the moment trying to pay for health care they cannot afford. If the burden is put on the state, companies WILL make more money. I may not subcribe to the trickle down method of economics, but it would translate to *some* wage increase to help make up for any tax increase. By the way, the ONLY reason the conservatives are starting to support the idea of unviersal health care is that many powerful and rich people (IE - fiscal conservatives) are starting to see how much health insruance is killing their companies; hence the more recent support for the idea.
-
I DONT CARE WHAT THE REGS SAY THE VA DOES WHAT THEY WANT AND IS ALWAYS BENDING THERE RULES. IT IS A CONSTANT BATTLE AND SOME THINK JUST BECUASE YOU GOT P&T THAT THE VA IS NEVER GOING TO BOTHER YOU AGIAN. WAKE UP. THE COST OF VA COMP IS SKY ROCKETING AND MAYBE NOT TODAY BUT IN THE FUTURE THE GOVERMENT IS GOING TO WANT TO LOOK AND SEE IF THE PEOPLE RECIEVING BENIFITS TRULY DESERVE THEM. AND WHEN SOCIAL SECRITY HITS ROCK BOTTOM I CAN BET THE FOCUS WILL TURN TO VA COMP. SO ALL I AM SAYING IS IS BE PREPARED AND I WOULD RATHER HAVE CURRENT DOC NOTES THEN NONE AT ALL. AND IF YOU HAVE NO PROGRESS REPORTS FROM YOUR SHRINK I WILL BET THAT YOU WILL LOOSE YOUR SSD OR SSI. ( I AM TALKING ABOUT US WITH MENTALL DISORDERS )I CAN NOT SPEAK ABOUT PHYSICAL DISORDERS. PEOPLE WITH MENTALL DISORDERS IN SOME EYES ARE NOT DISABLED. I HAVE STORY TO TELL,
THIS HAPPENED TODAY, I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND IN CALIFORNIA IF YOU ARE 100% OR I.U. ONE OF THE BENIFITS IS YOU GET FREE CAR REGISTRATION. ( IT IS EXPENSIVE IN CALI EVERTHYTHING IS.) SO I TAKE MY AWARD LETTER TO THE DMV. AND I HAVE MY 2 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WITH ME. I GIVE IT TO DMV CLERK AND SAY I WOULD LIKE MY CAR REG WAIVED. SHE LOOKS AT THE PAPERWORK AND SAYS GET THIS, " YOU DONT LOOK DISABLED". IT WAS ON, I SAID " WHO ARE YOU ARE YOU A DOCTOR LET ME TALK TO A MANAGER." SHE SAYS, " I AM THE MANAGER" AND YOU HAVE TO PHYISICALLY DISABLED." I SAID BULLSHIT IT SAYS NOTHING IN THE REGS ABOUT MENTALL OR PHYSICALL. SO SHE SAYS NO AND IF IT WERENT FOR MY KID I WOULD HAVE HURT THAT LADY. I STARTED SHAKING AND HAD TO LEAVE FAST. I GUESS I FELT A LITTLE LIKE THE GUYS FROM NAM FELT WHEN THEY CAME HOME. THAT IS F@CK YOU JUST LEAVE WAS THE FEELING I GOT. I TOLD HER JUST BECUSE I CAN WALK AND HAVE MY ARMS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM NOT DISABLED. SO I CAME HOME AND CALLED MY STATE REP AND TOLD THEM WHAT HAPPENED AND THEY SAID TO FAX THE PAPER WORK TOP THEM AND THEY WOULD LOOK INTO IT. SO HAS SOON AS MY KID WAKES UP I WILL AND I WILL KEEP YOU POSTED ON WHAT HAPPENS. AND HAS FAR AS THE MANAGER I AM NOT DONE WITH HER. I CALLED DMV HEADQUTERS AND LAUNCHED A FORMEL COMPLAINT.
I'm not disagreeing with you on the fact that PTSD vets need to continue documenting care (if only for meds), but where we differ is in where that care should come from. I have FAR more control over my wife's civilian psychiatrist than I would a VA psychiatrist and I don't have to worry about some small note stating that "the patient seems to be improved today" that the VA can take out of context and use against her. In essence, a civilian doctor gives US control over what the VA can and can't see AND it stops the RO from going on fishing expeditions whenever they feel like it based on some VA doctor's notes.
As for your car registration - In WA we were able to get vet tags by simply mailing off a copy of her DD214 to the state DMV's veteran's office. It was fairly simple and painless and we didn't even have to go into a DMV to get it (was done all by mail). Perhaps you should check the CA DMV website and see if there's a similar program.
Also, what the DMV did to you may fall under the American's With Disabilities Act and you could have a possible lawsuite on your hands....may be worth looking into.
-
I can see where Jay is correct, I would think permanent is permanent, but at the same time the VA covers their own hides by adding this statement in the beginning of the reg. "but shall not be construed as limiting VA’s authority to request reexaminations, or periods of hospital observation, at any time in order to ensure that a disability is accurately rated."
at least thats the way I understand it. It's like a job description in a way where they state the job requirements, but add the words "but not limited to" just in case they have you do something outside of your normal requirements.
This is true and I think this is whythe VA is TRYING to get away with these P&T C&Ps, but that's not what the exemption is for. The VA can order someone who is P&T back for an exam if A) They get new and material evidence, or :( There is reason to believe the P&T rating falls under clear and unmistakeable error. It does not, however, give broad discretion to the RO to order a C&P whenever they feel like it, because that would be going against existing evidence and medical opinion (which stated that the condition is permanent in nature).
501(a) basically says that the VA has the authority to collect evidence needed to carry out VA law and establish benefits under said laws. It doesn't give the VA the right to supersede existing laws in order to go on a fishing expedition. If the VA has some evidence that puts the P&T into question then they have complete authority to look intothe matter, but fishing for a reason to lower someone goes against medical opinion and the raters to do not have authority to supersede medical doctrine and established opinions.
There's also other regs that blur into 3.327 like finality of decisions, which states that one RO cannot supersede another RO based on opinion, nor can one rater supersede another raters opinion because he/she feels the claim is too high (without CUE).
In short, veteran's ratings are more protected then we think and the regs are clearly on our side, but the SOs, and many veterans, let the VA trounce all over those regs without penalty, which is the true reason why so many vets have a horrible time dealing with the VA.
-
Jay,
Please post the regulation and where in the regulation you quoting when you state that the VA ordering a C&P exam after you're rated P&T is illegal. Thanks.
Thanks,
ts
Says so in 3.327 and it has be said numerous times by the BVA, CAVC and was recently said to congress by the VA's top brass. On top of that, it just doesn't make ANY sense. Perhaps one can argue that the VA has been too liberal with the designation, but that should mean they should become more strict about handing it out; not going around the law because they think they screwed up.
Permanent means permanent...it doesn't mean kinda permanent or sorta permanent. If you don't offer them ANY reason to look at your file (IE - some form of new and material evidence) they have NO right to reopen your claim. But, they've gotten away with it in the past and SOs don't seem to object to it when they do....what I hear most is, "well, what do you have to hide", which completely misses the point.
Calnight,
One can argue that the medical record you've compiled is what can lead to them reopening your P&T case. If you have ONE good day, the RO can use that as justification for "new and material evidence" regardless of the overall disability picture....it is a way out of the regulations that they can use to protect themselves in ordering a C&P.
If you are seeing a civilian psychiatrist and they try to order a C&P, first fight the appointment, then send in an eval from your civilian doc if you're pressed. The laws are VERY clear on lowering 100% and P&T cases.....they need a lot of evidence to get away with it (not saying they wont try though).
-
I don't really agree with that idea. Before we moved out here (and went through hell with this RO) the DE RO was in the process of archiving the wife's C-file despite JUST being found P&T several months earlier. It's kinda hard for an RO to make a surprise C&P without a C-file in my opinion.
Now, I'm speaking mostly to PTSD vets, as it the most subjective disease the VA encounters and is episodic in nature.....physcically disabled vets almost ALWAYS get worse with time....thus is the nature of aging, so there's little to lose. But, for PTSD vets, I strongly feel it's best to seek treatment outside of the VA system.
With that said, I do agree that PTSD vets should continue with some form of treatment in the civilian realm.....my wife still sees a psychiatrist for meds every month to every other month. She's given up on "therapy" though, as 99% of it is voodoo medicine at best, plus "therapy" only made her worse.
By the way, I really wish people would stop accepting surprise C&Ps when someone is P&T. It is illegal and wrong, but they do it because we just accept it as status quo. If you are P&T and they schedule a C&P for NO reason (no new material evidence), then fight the appointment........otherwise, what's the point of P&T?
-
Berta,
The letter is written and formatted brilliantly, but, for future letters, I would write out those acronyms, in full, before using the abbreviated form throughout the paper. Though many of us know the various acronyms used by the VA, someone inside of the Senator's office may not, so it may be wise to list those acronyms at least once in the letter.
Proper format for acronyms is to first list the item in question in full, followed by the acronym in brackets, then you can use the abbreviated version throughout the rest of the letter. Example: "The Veteran's Affairs Regional Office (VARO) sent me a letter.....I feel the VARO was incorrect in its conclusions...".
I know it's a small thing, but those little things can make a difference sometimes:-)
Thanks for your efforts.
-
There's a simple way to fix this: Hold the RO's accountable for their decisions. In my opinion, an RO is in contempt of congress every time they make a decision that is clearly erroneous. If someone files a claim with a 30 GAF and ALL of the evidence shows severe impairment, yet the RO hands down a 50% rating, the rater should have charges filed against him or her for contempt.
The reason so many cases are in limbo is because the RO knowingly makes ridiculous decisions to which they KNOW the BVA won't allow, but the BVA remands it back to the RO so the RO can make another stupid decision....during this multi-year process they hope that the veteran filing the claim gives up or dies off. It may sound brutal, but I bet it saves them millions/billions.
All of this can be stopped by simply holding the RO responsible for decisions that clearly violate VA regulations. But, as it stands now, the RO can do whatever it wants and there's not a single thing we can do about it.....if they do something blatantly wrong, the best we can do is hope the BVA fixes it (in several years).
-
Of course they can:-( But that shouldn't stop you from trying in most cases. If you have good records of all of your conditions and those records show a steady increase in severity, then go for it.
-
Ricky gave a good asessment of why the system is like it is. Even if say a veteran is 80% disabled, he/she may still be able to work full time and collect a full pay check every month. So let's say a 80% disabled veteran is able to earn $1500.00 (take home pay) a month at a full time position on top of the 80% disability, the veteran would have a monthly income of about $2800.00 (without dependents), which is actually amounts to more than the 100% disability from VA.
Granted, this is purely speculative on what type of job and income that individual person is able to earn, as some 70%, 80%, or 90% disabled veterans are only able to earn a couple of hundred dollar extra in a part-time job to supplement their VA disability. However, on the average in the grand picture of eveything these veterans are able to earn a decent income to supplement their disability. Keep in mind this is also why IU is available if this isn't the case. Social Security disability must also be factored into this too.
Vike 17
Which would make sense if the VA didn't award 100% ratings for people who can obtain gainful employment AND their 100% compensation. In the VA, not all disabilities are treated equally. The loss of (or loss of use of) appendages are awarded compensation on employability AND quality of life (in my opinion). Perhaps 40 years ago, the loss of two legs would mean a lot in the work force, but, today, one can lose both legs and be out playing basketball (without a wheelchair) in a year or less.
Now, I'm not saying that those veterans do not deserve their compensation, but there *is* a double standard in the VA. To my knowledge, there is no regulation that states that a 100% vet cannot work (unless it's TDIU), yet the VA *says* that those ratings are based ONLY on one's ability to retain gainful employment.....so how can someone who is capable of retaining gainful employment be 100% disabled?
In my opinion, the VA should compensate for loss of employability AND loss of quality of life to close these gaps in ratings.
-
I know that P&T stands for Permanent & Total Disability, but what does this really mean?
P = Permanent
T = Total
I believe you can be permanent without being total; just as you can be total without being permanent. Basically, someone who is total means that they are completely disabled (IE - 100%). Someone who is permanent has a chronic condition in which there is no likelihood for improvement in the near future. Although ROs tend to grant this at varying times, the regs state that a permanently disabled vet should have a condition that has not improved for a period of 5, or more, years and that age is a factor.
Do you have to be rated at 100% to get P&T?
To be "T", (total), yes (either 100% or TDIU), but I'm not sure on permanence.....I've only seen permanent applied to folks with 100% ratings, but I'm not sure a reg states as much.
Do you have to be unemploye to get P&T?
Depends on the condition, but not in all cases. For instance, someone missing an arm and a leg can be rated at 100%, be P&T (obviously those appendages aren't going to grow back) and be employed making good money.
Are there certain injuries that you have to have to get P&T?
Nope. Either your condition is chronic and not likely to change, or it's not....either your condition is totally disabling, or it isn't.
If your 100% do you have to request P&T or do they automatically give it to you?
Either/or. Sometimes they offer it to you without asking and sometimes you have to fight for it.....if you believe your condition is permanent then request it.
-
Well, gather all the information you can (on the heart condition) and file an appeal for it. As vike said, it's even harder for them to mess with the PTSD rating if it's attached to the current denial for the heart condition because the DRO is only supposed to consider the issue being appealed.
At least you're in a position to weather a long appeals process being that your spouse is already 100%.
-
TAP was in place when my wife was discharged (medically for PTSD) and did NOTHING to inform us about the inner-workings of the VA and how disability REALLY works. The only reason I even went to an AmVet rep, on base, was because my wife met a PTSD vet in the civilian mental hospital who gave her the run-down on the VA and SSD.
TAP is a step in the right direction, but we really need a well informed person, in VA matters, to give a detailed briefing on how the disability process works and what records a departing veteran needs to retain/obtain.
-
Yeah, DIC is a big deal, especially with a heart condition. On the plus side, I don't think an RO likes to question itself....I think my wife's case is more of a "my RO is better than your RO" type of case. In all likelihood, your spouse's TDIU P&T should be fine, just be sure to get copies of the exam (for the heart issue) and don't offer up any personal details that do not pertain to the heart issue (unless asked).
Again, the VA regs are on your side here, but there is NO penalty if an RO does not follow regulations, so they tend to break them from time to time. In the end, you'd likely win back anything they tried to reduce anyway, but it can make life hell in the meantime.
-
"Take back" is a tricky phrase.....can they review the decision and change it, without CUE, as per the regs? No. Have they done it anyway? Heck yeah. They did it to my wife when we simply changed regions. The decision to drop her from 100% P&T with A&A (just received several months before moving mind you) to 50%, was made because, and I quote, "the VA does not grant A&A for a person's willingness to hurt themselves (why they took away A&A)" and "The evidence does not warrant a 100% rating". They based this on a note saying she was able to handle her own finances (to get her out of the god awful fiduciary program).
Eventually, we won the money back (all but the A&A, but we got homebound), but only because I fought them tooth and nail and got in touch with the director of the RO in Seattle.
So, P&T is safe ONLY if you give them absolutely no reason to look at your file...once you open it up, you are subject to the rater's discretion, regardless of the regs saying they cannot do so.
Filing appeals for separate disorders (once already 100%) is a judgment call...personally, I would leave well enough alone. The regs are certainly on your side in this matter, but that doesn't mean the RO cannot put you on the defensive and force you to win the rating back on appeals.
-
This has been on the books for quite some time, but not many people are actually discharged for PTSD. Unfortunately, PTSD tends to have a "delayed onset" of symptoms and even when folks do experience symptoms, while in service, they tend to play them down for fear of peer pressure/stigma.
But, veterans leaving service *should* be told of this before hand...I think the average service member is grossly under-educated on what, exactly, the VA does and how their disabilities *should* be handled. How much easier would SC be, if every service member knew the process by which SC is granted?? If nothing else, I bet the average veteran would keep FAR better medical records and documentation.....
-
What is so very sad to me is that people who have health insurance are in for a real shock when they try to use it. Yes these are the same people who do not want to share with others.
Not only would Universal Health Care in America save a lot of money it would provide better care for 10's of Millions, preventative care for all who wanted it and actually bail out many of the big American Companies who are drowing due to the high cost of employee and retired health plans promise years ago.
Sadly, the highlighted portion is the ONLY reason we'll ever see universal health care....democracy doesn't work when a select few (the rich) have a hugely disproportionate say in public policy:-( When the rich start to hurt, due to private insurance, you'll see a change in public policy......
-
Ask a doctor from another country with universal health care just how good America's system is....to them, we are a complete joke.
The world health organization (WHO), and several other groups, have all put our health care system at around average, at best, or among the worst (depending on the group doing the study and "how" they measured the health care systems). The long and short of this is that the US DOES have the greatest health care in the world, but only for those who can afford to pay for high-end health care out-of-pocket, because the best doctors do not accept insurance. For the rest of us, health care is very dependent on luck....some areas have fairly good health care systems and some don't; it's really hit or miss.
Now, the sad part about our system is that is is ALREADY government run. EVERY business gets government kick-backs (in the form of tax breaks) to furnish their employees with health care. So, in essence, we already pay for our "private" system with tax payer money. But, conservatives like the idea of profit above all else, so our current system allows individuals to get rich off of tax payer money and gives them more companies in which to invest their already inflated bank accounts.
The solution is simple - we need a REAL universal health care system! If we were to give EVERY American health insurance (in one form or another...perhaps something like tricare, but less sucky) it would likely drive taxes up minimally, because our incomes should increase due to the lowered burden on businesses to provide the insurance (which can cost a business over $5/hr per employee).
Also, I would do away with the VA health care system ALL together (as well as medicare, tricare, etc). With EVERYONE being covered there would be no need for the bloated bureaucracies.......The VA would consist of ONLY a compensation department at that point, which would SLASH their costs by billions (which could go to deserving veterans).
One more note - a universal system should be based on income level (as to copays and such). Someone making over 500K/yr should, basically, be paying their entire medical bill (short of catastrophic claims); whereas, someone making 20K/yr should have little, or no, copays. A system like this would end up costing the average American very little because many folks currently covered would actually be paying more for insurance, but most Americans would end up paying less.
But, this will NEVER happen because it makes entirely too much sense and it take profits from the rich. Our government is nothing more than a puppet for corporate greed, so I don't expect any legislation, anytime soon, that actually HELPS Americans.
Perhaps if people actually paid attention when they voted this kind of thing could happen......
-
Six,
Good points. What worries me about PTSD is that the affliction is SO subjective and there's no way to diagnose its level of severity outside of a doctor's *opinion*. Psychiatrists aren't mind readers, nor are they trained to tell if someone is lying and/or over/under-exaggerating....the best they can do is GUESS.
Because of this, I think raters are given a LOT of latitude to "weigh" evidence however they see fit and to sift through evidence and cherry pick the parts that conform to the rater's *opinions*.
When this is coupled with the high/low nature of most PTSD cases, you get very inconsistent ratings from the RO. So, if you go to your regularly scheduled psych appointment at the VA and you're having a "good" day (on a high) your VA doctor might note that you looked upbeat and alert....that information, in turn, can be used against the veteran as a justification to lower them despite the regulations stating that PTSD shouldn't be measured by its high; rather, PTSD should be measured at the low points and how often those low points occur.
So, if the system were fair to mentally disabled veterans I would agree 100% Sixthscents, but it's not and, in my opinion, PTSD vets are better off using tricare/medicare to obtain a *good* civilian psychiatrist.
But, if you trust that the system will always work out in your favor, by all means seek treatment at the VA........just remember that I told ya so when they use that treatment against you in a future eval:-)
However, most other disabilities are far less subjective and VA documentation can actually HELP in future claims....to me, it's a terrible double-standard, but what can we do??
Potential Tricare
in VA Disability Claims Research
Posted · Edited by Jay Johnson
Tricare is run by Tricare and the problem really has nothing to do with the company itself. The problem with Tricare is that not only do they pay pennies on the dollar for claims, they also force "providers" to certify with them EVERY year in training courses in order for Tricare to even work with them. So, if a company comes to you and says, "we're not going to pay you anything and you'll have to work really hard to get next to no reimbursement", would you agree to those terms?
The list of Tricare "approved" psychiatrists was about as long as when I looked 2 years ago, but when I called all of those providers they said they weren't taking "new" patients from "TRICARE" or they were no longer "certified" (because they were tired of the BS)...keep in mind that they weren't accepting new TRICARE patients, but they were accepting new patients (from any other medical insurance).
When Tricare decided to send my daughter to a sports medicine doctor (that was as close as they could get to a bone specialist), the doctor just laughed and said why the hell did tricare send you to me? We discussed how horrible tricare was and he said, "the only reason I take tricare is because I feel obligated to help the military.....they are the worst insurance in the country".
Do yourself a favor and ask your doctor about it the next time you see him/her. Tricare is absolutely HATED in the medical community and the only reason most doctors accept it is because they feel some sense of obligation to military families....and this panel wants to charge more and claims the benefits are unmatched???? They're out of their friggin minds....