Could A Fire Sale Cut The Va Claim Backlog?

[pacmanx1]

http://www.armytimes...e-sale-021711w/

[broncovet]

Im not so sure this is a bad idea for everyone only if the Vet himself could decide. It would be a choice between "money now" and maybe more money later.

It does remind me of the "JD Wentworth" commercials. Do you have a structured settlement but you need cash now? Then he says, "Its your money, use it when you need it." This plan would be "Jd Wentworth" of the VA, as it should be obvious that JD Wentworth is not doing this for free. Should we ban JD Wentworth, because people with an annuity would get more money if they just waited? I dont think so. Even tho some people who "take" the early money would likely regret it, some people who buy a new car, regret that decision as well.

There may be compelling reasons to accept less now. One of these would be that the Veteran is too weak, emotionally or physically, to fight the VA in appeals for 7 or 8 years, and just wants to get it over with. There is something to say for a "peace" that you have knowing its over. Remember that many, many, many Veterans "give up" on their benefits and quit fighting and get zero. While we dont see many of those here, because hadit members are fighters, we need to take into account there are about 21 million Veterans, and most of those are not hadit members, tho I will agree that they would be better off if they were.

Bottom Line: Let the Vet decide if he wants (presumably less) money now, rather than maybe more later. Who are we to decide other Veterans financial decisions? Social Security already does this: If you take your social security at age 62, you get less than at age 65, etc. Each recipient decides what is best for his situation. I dont think we need the government making our financial decisions for us...remember the fiduciary scandal where the government "takes care" of the Veterans money for him hasnt worked out all that well for many Veterans.

[broncovet]

Here is an example of a Veteran who may well benefit from this. The Veteran has a good job, but is not making Very much money and unable to "make ends meet" short term. He knows his job well, and is 100% confident that he can move up the ladder and get a nice retirement, but he is worried that he just cant make ends meet until then. Maybe he is commuting a long distance to his job, and desperately needs a new reliable car, but no money to get one. He has a moderate hearing loss, but is able to continue his job, but is worried about trying to get another one.

Enter: VA offers him 30%, about $350 a month, to not apply for any more benefits, ever. He weighs it over, and accepts it, gets his new car (lets just say a new car for $350 a month), and eventually gets his promotions, retirement, etc. While his hearing still probably gets worse, by not having to wait a decade on the VA to pay his benefits, he can get his new car now, be a reliable employee as his car never breaks down, and make up the potential of his hearing worsening by putting more into his 401k or IRA after he gets the car paid for and gets salary increases. In effect, him being able to get to work every day with a reliable car now, could be worth Thousands per month in retirement later, as getting fired for being repeatedly late wont get any retirement benefits.

[broncovet]

Remember, I would only be for this "plan" if the Veteran could decide. While I would agree that it would not be in many Veterans best interest to accept it, we dont want to make the mistake of thinking that all 21 million Vets are "just like me".

The Vet would have the option of "just saying no" to a flat, never to increase 30%. Having more options would not be "bad" for Vets, assuming wise choices. I do not, however, think that all Veterans are stupid and need "government intervention" to prevent us from making stupid mistakes. I make enough stupid mistakes on my own, and do not need some government agency making mistakes for me...if our government made all good choices, then we would not be in some of the messes we are in now.

I would have to think about it long and hard, but sometimes I would like to have the past 9 years I spent fighting with the VA back. This 9 year fight was not without wounds or sacrafice, I can assure you. Some Vets have said they would rather fight the gooks than the VA... while many Vets have waged war with both. I think the VA likes that Vietnam Vets "are already worn down from their wounds" when the VA fights em.

[Papa]

I personally would not go for this deal, as I trust the Va about as far as I can throw a house. Here, is what I see would happen, you turn down the deal, going for a higher rating. The Va says, um, so he/she turned down our offer, the ungrateful #$%@, lets seem, we have a nice storage area under the basement, that would be a great place for the claims of these ungrateful ones.

Papa

[john999]

I got 10% when I first got ouf of the army. Now I have TDIU plus "S". If I had signed off at 30% 40 years ago I would be hurting today. My disabilites did get worse. Some of my conditions were AO conditions that only in the last ten years were SC'ed.

[Chuck75]

The 30% should be paid in ADDITION to the schedular amounts when the VA has delayed a claim for an unreasonable amount of time, say over one year. Or, the VA made an improper denial or other ruling that was overturned by the courts. The only way to force the VA to act in a reasonable and timely manner is to eliminate any financial advantage that is gained by delay or improper denial. An additional 30% paid retroactively for the delay time to the end of the current year would certainly provide the impetus needed! A source of the funds?

How about the Bonus funds?

Edited February 22, 2011 by Chuck75