Comp To Stop At

[Berta]

This is email from Ray B. Davis- well known vets advocate-

I am not commenting at all on Ray's letter to the Pres- it is just part of the email copy-and no reason to start some political ranting at all here-

I sure didnt see this idea in the Dole Shalala report-

SSA is earned by work credits for retirement-to include military service- and VA comp is due to SC sacrifice-

I cannot imagine why this is even an issue but appraently it is now---

Then again I have not checked this info out-and believe Philpott-not that Ray would put anything untrue on his site- it is just absolutely bizarre to me that anyone would even attempt to pull something like this:

(actually I just managed to delete what Ray said about Bush-if you want to read his letter to Bush go to his web site )

"The article further states that at age 65 all your VA compensation

would go away when you start to receive Social Security. FROM the

article:

" VA compensation likely would be raised under the plan to include a

quality-of-life allowance. But the portion of VA compensation now

provided, and intended only to cover reduced earnings capacity, would

stop at age 65 when social security begins. "

What this means is that if you current get a 50 percent rating and

are paid $712.00 per month (which is the current rate for lost

earnings); the VA may boost your pay for "loss of quality of life" by

10 percent to: $783.00; BUT AT AGE 65 THE LOSS OF EARNING AMOUNT, OF

$712.00 WILL BE TAKEN AWAY, AND ALL THAT WILL BE LEFT IS THE $71.20

FOR THE LOSS OF QUALITY OF LIFE.

(another part deleted by me- full letter at valaw.org)

Sincerely,

Your Editor,

Ray B Davis, Jr

http://www.valaw.org

(Ray's take on it all is interesting -to say the least-and I dont feel appropriate to put it all here but the actual article is the main point)

-- Article on losing Compensation --

Better Pay for Combat-Related Disabilities?

Tom Philpott | August 23, 2007

Bush Backs Separate Combat-Related Disability System

The Bush administration is preparing a legislative proposal to

present to Congress in September that would establish a separate and,

under most circumstances, a more generous disability package for

service members who are injured in war or while training for war,

sources said.

Under the plan, recommended by the Dole-Shalala commission, service

members found unfit for duty as a result of combat or combat-training

injuries, regardless of the number of years served, would qualify for

an immediate lifetime annuity from the Department of Defense.

Annuity amounts would be based on the formula used to calculate

regular retired pay: 2.5 percent of basic pay multiplied by years in

service. A wounded warrior with two years of service thus would get

five percent of basic pay. Likewise, a service member injured in

combat training who had served 10 years when found unfit would get 25

percent of basic pay.

These members also would be get lifetime TRICARE, the military health

and pharmacy plan. Separately they would get disability compensation

from the Department of Veterans Affairs for any and all service-

connected injuries or ailments. VA compensation likely would be

raised under the plan to include a quality-of-life allowance. But the

portion of VA compensation now provided, and intended only to cover

reduced earnings capacity, would stop at age 65 when social security

begins.

The legislation is being drafted by DoD and VA officials and they

continue to work out critical details. One issue outstanding is

whether the changes should be applied retroactively, perhaps to all

combat-related disabled members injured since the attacks of 9-11.

But the Bush administration has decided that these disability pay

changes should apply only to members with injuries from combat or

combat training. That, officials say, adheres to the theme of Dole-

Shalala, also known as the President's Commission on Care of

America's Returning Wounded Warriors. Because the commission's

charter focused solely on the needs of combat wounded veterans, its

recommendations do too.

Under the White House plan, non-combat disabled members still would

come under current service disability retirement, with percentage

awards based only on conditions that make the individual unfit for

service. Non-combat disabled members rated below 30 percent still

would get a lump-sum severance payment instead of an annuity and

would not qualify for TRICARE.

This point is expected to be vigorously opposed by advocates for

disabled members. Though they generally are excited about the changes

planned for combat-related injuries, advocates see stark inequities

in having separate disability packages, one for wounded warriors and

one for members with other service-connected injuries or ailments.

The White House position also seems to be in conflict with a

principle of the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, which will

complete its two-year comprehensive study of disability benefits in

October. That commission already has voted not to treat disability

benefits differently based on whether an injury is received in

combat, advocates point out.

One administration official brought another warning. If the VA-

portion of disability compensation is not boosted as much as

envisioned by Dole-Shalala, then certain disabled warriors actually

might receive less in overall disability pay than non-combat disabled

peers with equal rated conditions.

Though advocates for disabled veterans see the Dole-Shalala

disability pay reforms as overwhelming positive for service members,

which is why they want Congress to apply the changes to all members

being separated as physically or mentally unfit, there are anomalies

to be addressed, they said.

For example, an E-4 with four years' service and a 30-percent rated a

disability that leaves him unfit for duty would get service

disability retirement today of $546.07 a month. Under Dole-Shalala,

if VA compensation remains at current levels, with no qualify-of-life

allowance, the same E-4 injured in war would receive longevity

retirement of $182.02 a month for his four years of service plus VA

compensation of $348. The total of $530.02 a month would be $16 less

than awarded to the non-combat disabled member.

Even in this case, however, VA compensation of $348 a month is only

for the "unfitting" condition. The VA typically will base

compensation for any disabled veteran an average of 20 percent higher

than the rating used for service retirement because the VA considers

all service-connected conditions not just those that make the member

unfit for continued service.

Several military associations and veterans groups met July 31 with

Karen Guice, the Dole-Shalala commission's deputy staff director, to

clarify what commissioners intended regarding two military disability

systems. Retired Air Force Col. Mike Hayden, a benefits expert with

Military Officers Association of America, said Guice assured the

group that commissioners, if asked, would recommend that their

disability pay reforms extend to all disabled members not just the

combat injured.

That seems in keeping with the report's criticism of the confusion

and complexity that now exists with DoD and VA having separate

disability systems. Dole-Shalala would end that dual track, removing

DoD from the rating business. Yet the White House seeks to have

separate disability systems within DoD itself, citing the same

report. This has drawn criticism even within the administration as

concerns rise over the impact on morale of categorizing disabled

members based on where or when they are injured.

President Bush, during an Aug. 13 visit to the VA medical center in

Washington D.C., said the Dole-Shalala recommendations "make a lot of

sense, and we would ask for the Congress to pass those…as quickly as

possible, so I can sign them into law."

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,146937,00.html

To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write Military Update, P.O. Box

231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or visit: www.militaryupdate.com

--end--

Edited August 24, 2007 by Berta

[Jay Johnson]

Jay while not "right" you are better off than a civilian disabled and getting SSD by itself, even active duty soldiers when they retire lose a large portion of their income and styles of living normally change

Except you're not factoring in workman's comp and, more importantly, civil litigating circumstances. Unlike the military, a civilian can actually sue his/her company for injuries, punative damages and/or pain/suffering; you, on the other hand, cannot. Honestly, I would MUCH rather have been able to sue the military for one large 7 figure settlement than have to play these compensation games for a life time.

Do you honestly think that if microsoft put you in a position (purposely) to lose a leg, be raped, etc, that you wouldn't be looking at a HUGE lawsuite?

This may not be for every disabled vet as some injuries are not *caused* by the military, but merely occur while serving, but the overwhelming majority of cases are *caused* by the armed forces and would, therefore, be subject to litigation.

However, I do agree that some civilians end up with far less than what most disabled vets get, but those civilians also didn't have to endure the horrors of war and the crappy lifestyle in general that is military service......even in times of peace, families spend months/years apart from one-another and have to endure hardships that the overwhelming majority of civilians could not handle. Veterans have earned their pay imho.....

[Josephine]

Once againg our President has found a way to short change our Vets. The plan to stop va comp at 65 fails to consider the fact that some vets getting va comp may have a lower income as a result of the disability. As a result their SSA maybe lower than average. The plan stopping va comp at 65 is just away to use a back door to punish those who have defended our county.

This is so true, as most veterans, don't have Social Security to fall back on. If this should pass, with me approaching 65 within a couple of years. I would receive nothing.

When I could not longer work, even part time, each time the Social Security Representive would call me, she would always say, " You don't have enough credits to file.

This would be in 1983.

In 2001, they located the needed credit, as military receive two credits.

I now, at age 62, can draw $ 258.00 monthly.

I thought that I had better pull that little bit in for I may not make it until retirement age of 66.

So, what are young vets susposed to do? So many of our vets have never held outside employment.

The VA did award me a Non- Service connected Pension, back to 1983, for anxiety with depression, but denied due to excessive.

I will never be able to receive a dime, as my husbands' income, or Social Security will always exceed .

He was one of the lucky ones and for this I am thankful, that he was able to go to college with his G. I benefits and to come out of the Vietnam War with no effects.

Josephine

Edited August 25, 2007 by Josephine

[JohnM]

Once againg our President has found a way to short change our Vets. The plan to stop va comp at 65 fails to consider the fact that some vets getting va comp may have a lower income as a result of the disability. As a result their SSA maybe lower than average. The plan stopping va comp at 65 is just away to use a back door to punish those who have defended our county.

JohnM and Wife Dianne

For everyone who agree's to this statement Please write these words to your repersenitives and congressman. If you go into military.com mail system you can write your statement down and your name address and zip and it will send a letter to each of your repersenitives and congress. so all you need to do is write it once. Also add to the statement to Vote No to Dole-Shalala's Plan

(Once againg should be Once again)

JohnM's Wife Dianne

[free_spirit_etc]

I would think this wouldn't stop at the age 65 thing. I would think that if they got that passed - the next thing they would do is to try to prevent vets from drawing both VA and SSD - or offset it - saying that they are already being paid for their inability to work by SSD.

Just a thought

Free

[robert51]

I would think this wouldn't stop at the age 65 thing. I would think that if they got that passed - the next thing they would do is to try to prevent vets from drawing both VA and SSD - or offset it - saying that they are already being paid for their inability to work by SSD.

Just a thought

Free

isnt SSD an insurance plan if you dont pay you dont get? If they did that then we should get all of our money back we paid into the plan. SSD to me is an insurance like auto insurance and should have nothing to do with the VA ..

[Ricky]

SS is an insurance policy in which you have to pay inorder to receive. I would gladly accept a lump sum payment of the money that I have paid into this system instead of monthly payments. Hmmmmmm VA disability and a lump sum reimbursment of my SS payments - thats a good ideal. I think I will start my own commission called the "Ricky Commission" and demand manatory enactment of my recommendations.