diabetes Researchers Examine Increasing Veterans’ Disability Compensation

[carlie]

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/researchers-...ion-1.2028356#5

Researchers examine increasing veterans’ disability compensation

By Belén Cusi

Print this article

Share this article Published: Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The dramatic increase in the number of Vietnam War veterans receiving veterans’ disability compensation since the 1990s has been fueled more by growing incentives for lower-skill whites than by an actual increase in veteran disabilities, social science researchers said.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. candidate Brigham Frandsen, one of the authors of “The Complicated Effects of Military Service on Self-Reported Health,” spoke to about 20 students, professors and veterans at MIT Monday on his findings.

“The main point is to show the long term effect of serving in the military on disability rates,” Frandsen said. “This research speaks to an important component of the legacy cost of war, or at least of the Vietnam conflict and by extension to current wars.”

Frandsen said he found through his research that from 1999 to 2005, the number of veterans receiving compensation for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder doubled, rising from over 90,000 to about 180,000. PTSD was found to be the leading claim for compensation, with diabetes following close behind.

After the Agent Orange decision of 2003 where diabetes was determined to be service-related, he said, the number of veterans claiming compensation for diabetes increased by almost one third in just two years, rising from roughly 140,000 to 180,000.

Dennis Kenney, a veteran who fought in Germany, said he attended the lecture because he is interested in Frandsen’s research. He said he and his fellow veterans were told they could go home once relieved of their duties if they didn’t think they had any service-related disabilities.

“I think there were about eight out of 800 of us who left, myself included,” he said. “I wanted to go home.”

He said he and his peers were advised by older veterans to be picky about their disabilities and try to get as much as they could for compensation, that they should “keep their options open insurance-wise.”

Frandsen said eight million veterans receive compensation from VDC, one-third of whom are Vietnam veterans. Many of these claims are being awarded “individually unemployed” status, which automatically qualifies a veteran for the maximum payment of $2,300 tax-free per month for as long as they live, he said.

Increasing incentives and institutional changes in the late 1990’s may be the cause for the rise in veteran compensation, he said, specifically Vietnam-era veteran compensation.

“The overall effect of serving in the military for these veterans was small,” Frandsen said.

But he said he found a large effect specifically on low-skill white men.

“If you were a low-educated man, getting disability compensation though the program looks like a great deal,” he said. “One way to get compensation is to show PTSD or any other service-incurred disability, and the compensation is fairly generous.”

In the late 1990s, the individually unemployed status began to be granted more freely; extensive paperwork was no longer required, Frandsen said. The VDC also began to presume eligibility instead of requiring that veterans have to file for it, he said, and attitude changes could be another cause for the compensation increase.

Frandsen and his colleagues said they are not suggesting that veterans are committing fraud, but that they are responding to incentives. But the increasing compensation to Vietnam in the present day could mean less compensation for future veterans, such as those of the current war in Iraq, he said.

He said his overall conclusion is the legacy cost of war seems to be more political and incentive-driven than health-related, something more than an inevitable cost of war.

“We’re not suggesting anything,” Joshua Angrist, one of Frandsen’s co-authors, said. “We’re not into call to action, just pointing things out.”

[Jayg]

My Service Connected Disability stole large and valuable chunks of my life. I feel that my loyal service earned the benefits that I get now. I do not feel that the VA was of any help at all in getting Service Connected.

AMEN to THAT!

[SLEDGE]

Like the vet said, our compensation is in no way connected to other disabled vets future comp, or the lack thereof.

The Secretary is supposed to 'ask for more money' if and when more money is needed to complete the mission of the VA's charter.

Our impact on future compensation is zero, does not exist.

The starting place for bitchin about the 'budget' is the Secretary.

Doing whatever it takes to stay within the budget is technically a crime.

Studying the education level of claimants is a do nothing job, I hope somebody got paid a lot because it reads like a political speech, not an accurate tabulation of anything important.

Like I suggested before, the first stumbling block is the word BUDGET.

Technically, there is NO BUDGET.

Congress is obligated to increase funding to the VA whenever the Secretary makes a request for more bucks.

It's the law.

The Secretary simply does not CARE to ask for more money.

Anybody who suggests that any veteran can steal from the medical care or comp of a future vet is a politician stumping on the campaign trail or stupid.

Well, terribly misinformed or simply ignorant.

The Secretary is the only person who CAN effect the so-called budget.

George Washington and Lincoln never implied that the government should limit the funding to the VA.

SO, when the Secretary tells the congress that enough money is already available, and the current budget is adequate, the Secretary is guilty of lying to the congress.

I believe that would be Contempt of Congress.

AND, I'm not the only person with a college education that 'is unemployable' because of PTSD.

sledge

[Ricky]

As I fire up the old BBQ grill, please let me first say that I respect your many postings here on hadit, 'timetowinarace", However, I must disagree with you on this one. You quote, in agreement with Frandsen remarks, " veterans are not committing fraud"... If you read between the lines, that is exactly what he is suggesting. Also he adds that it is the low educated ignorant jerks that are committing that fraud. I say that for the most part "health related concerns" generate the rise in claims. Not politics. I think Frandsen and Josh Have their collective feet down their throats, and diminishes the supporters of such educated dribble.

I tend to agree with Bob in that it is just human nature that when someone says "I'm not saying" tied to "I'm not suggesting anything" that is exactly what one is doing. They are attempting to implicate the subject of their writing in a wrong doing or conducting an act that is not accepted and then suggesting to the reader or target of the piece that they should agree. This is normally done by those who have a hard time with conflict and want to still get their thoughts out into the open air. Most do this when they simply can not handle the flak they know they will get from the accusations. It kinda lets them take it in the side where they feel they can deflect the results and further mitigate their statements. You see it a lot in politics of with the neighbor next door.

[Ricky]

I understand how you feel about this 'research' and I don't blame you. When I read it, I began to draw the same conclusion but decided to keep my mind open. I won't say you are 'wrong' in any way to feel the way you do.

The reason I knew my opinion would be disagree'd with has to do with your paragraph above. I'm aware of how the VN vet's were treated in the 60's, 70's and 80's. I remember attacks on PTSD in the 90's and 00's also. Just a couple of years ago really.

The recent attacks were blatant. There was no reading between the lines. They said fraud.

If you could, I would like you to try to forget history for a minute. Re-read the article without the bias. Try not to add past experience between the lines.

They are not guessing that lower skilled veterans are filing more claims. It is not an opinion. It's a fact. I don't know of a better phrase to use to describe the demographic. They could use lower skilled, low/average income, lower/middle class or what descriptive phrase would you have prefered?

Time not arguing but maybe patriotic economically disadvantaged young men and women

[Ricky]

I am not a VN vet but I think it is all politics in which the vet is used as a pawn to obtain votes.

Back in the day the political parties who supported the war simply watched the reaction of the public. As we all know Jodie back home was not very supportive of the war. When the politician saw this he/she had to find a way to maintain that voting base so they fell in line with the baby killer screamers and had to turn their backs on veterans - they fought and found anything and I mean anything to blame the service member/veteran for. It was politically correct.

Today the attacks of 9/11 fueled the fury of the public and the thoughts of lets go kick some ass. The political parties saw that and seized the opportunity to attempt to maintain that voting base (off we went to iraq and afghan). The overall cost of such an action was never placed into the forumla. As the vets returned they were thought of as hereos due to the attacks on our soil and the American public demanded better treatment. Once again the political parties seized the opportunity as is evidenced by "head of the line syndrome" special processing of claims, news report upon news report of disabled veterans etc - (the only news reports of Vn Vets was the preceived drag on and erosion of society).

As we go along, we as Americans lose interest real quick - so we are now in a period of stop the war, pull out etc..... you will see very quickly, that once again the politicians will seize the opportunity to gain the support of that voting base - and when they do the Iraq/Afghan vets will be tossed aside like a pile of trash - it will be the politically correct thing to do.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Ricky

[Stretch]

Might as well air my gripes about this. He brought up the subject so here goes.

White men have been the majority of fighters in every US War.

White men were the majority of fighters in Viet Nam.

How do I know these things, well I don't as I have never taken a personal survey of my own or have I had access to enlistment and draft numbers and records. My beliefs are an assumption.

For this MIT professor to specifically point out that Low Skilled White Men, had more injuries, is an assumption that is not backed up by evidence. This professor had better do equal studies of gender and race or he has sacrificed his journalist and scientific principals. Even publishing garbage like this without equal studies is dead wrong.

This is occult racial discrimination. It is also against the law.

Also:

His pointing out that Newer Veterans will have to stand in line, behind VN Vets, could be based on the fact that WW2 and Korean Vets incidentally made Vietnam Vets stand in line. This can easily lead to the answer of the problem that he has manufactured and stated in his lectures to others.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Stretch