Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Agent Orange Presumptions In Jeopardy

Rate this question


allan

Question

  • HadIt.com Elder

From: Colonel Dan <colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net> [Add to Address Book] To: Veteran Issues by Colonel Dan <VeteranIssues@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [VeteranIssues] Pass to your friends in OK! Agent Orange Presumptions In JeopardyDate: Jul 20, 2011 8:09 AM

Pass to your friends in OK..

Take action let your reps know..stop this BS

http://capwiz.com/vfw/callalert/index.tt?alertid=51700501

From: Teresa Morris [mailto:tmorris@vfw.org]

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:04 AM

To: Dan Cedusky

Subject: VFW Action Alert: Agent Orange Presumptions In Jeopardy

VFW Action Alert: Agent Orange Presumptions In Jeopardy

Take Action!

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is adamantly opposed to an amendment proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to change the manner in which presumptive disabilities related to exposure to Agent Orange would be determined. The senator wants to require veterans to prove a positive connection between Agent Orange exposure and one or more of the 15 presumptive illnesses that the VA now recognizes. We cannot allow this amendment to pass.

Vietnam veterans have suffered long enough from the effects of exposure to Agent Orange. For decades we told the government that being exposed to Agent Orange made veterans sick. Now that the VA Secretary has determined he had the scientific evidence required to recognize the disabilities, we cannot allow a change in presumptive rules just because the government can't balance its own budget.

The cost of caring for our nation's veterans continues long after the last shots are fired. America and the United States Congress must live up to that obligation.

Please contact both your U.S. Senators today and tell them that Coburn Amendment #564 to H.R. 2055 is a deal breaker with America's veterans.

__._,_.___ "Keep on, Keepin' on"

Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"

See my web site at:

http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

http://www.facebook.com/dan.cedusky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 9
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

Agent Orange presumptions are pretty much "pie in the sky" very similar to the "quality of life 25% across the board increase". The AO presumptive Vets merely got in a very long and getting longer waiting list for Va to process the claims. Result: No more Vets get their benefits, as the VA is maxed out, the only thing that happens is the waiting list got longer for everyone.

While I would like to see AO presumptions, until/unless the backlog problem is fixed the net result is that the same number of Vets get benefits now as got them before AO presumptions. If the VA can process 1000 claims in a day, and they add 100,000 new AO claims and dont increase the number proccessed per day, then a net of "0" Veterans get additional benefits as a result of Agent Orange presumptives. In other words, if 1000 Vets per day get benefits before AO presumptives and 1000 Vets per day get benefits after AO, then zero Vets benefit by AO presumptives. That is, for every AO VEt awarded benefits, another Vets claim gets delayed. AO claimants "compete" with other Vets for the limited resources. Its a "logjam" where only so many claims are processed in a day, and it just makes the backlogs bigger.

According to a federal judge in one year (2007) at least 1400 Vets died waiting on the VA to process their claims in appeals ONLY. More die waiting for an initial decision, too. I am sure this number is higher now, because the backlog is bigger and Vets are older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

There have been AO presumptives since the 1980's. AO presumptives are easy to adjudicate. All you need is the presumptive disease and proof you had either "boots on the ground" in Vietnam, or some other AO area. It is crazy to say AO presumptives are slowing down the process. Thousands of vets have died while waiting for their particular condition to become presumptive. Thousands of spouses must try and get DIC years later. Resources may be limited when it comes to paying claims, but they were unlimited when it came to sending military into AO soaked regions, and exposing them to cancer and numbers of other fatal disease. I don't see AO claims freezing out other vets claims. These are claims that should have been addressed 30 years ago. The blame is on the VA and U.S. Government for failing its veterans. The idea that AO claims are like pie in the sky is weird. AO claims are a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really bugs the cr** out of me, when some one takes a proposal from a Congressman that has about as much chance of even being brought to the house floor as I do of growing about 8 inches and being slim. This is awful rumors and fear mongering. When and if it does hit the floor, then we can fight like hell. There are way too many areas in the budget that we can cut before they even dream of touching us Vets. Saw in the paper yesterday that the National Institute of Health is doing a study on the size of Gay males' privates. Like I said there are a lot more places to cut (no pun intended).

Papa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

The amendment was tabled 69-30 & 1 Senator not voting.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00114

So what load of crap can they drag out next to upset some more vets. Run it up the flag & see what reaction we get from the veterans. That's the drill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read this was part of Rep. Coburn's proposal. Did not realize that it hit the Senate already had this and voted on it.

Papa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake. It is Sen. Colburn not Rep. Colburn.

Papa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Lebro earned a badge
      First Post
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Lebro earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Sparklinger earned a badge
      First Post
  • Our picks

    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
    • Welcome to hadit!  

          There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not.  Try reading this:

      https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/

         However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.  

         When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait!  Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?"  Not once.  Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.  

          However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.  

      That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot.  There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.  

      Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.  

          Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344

       
    • Good question.   

          Maybe I can clear it up.  

          The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more.  (my paraphrase).  

      More here:

      Source:

      https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/

      NOTE:   TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY.  This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond.    If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use