Eliminate Concurrent Receipt Of Retirement Pay And Disability Compensation For Disabled Veterans

[htforjc]

Does anyone on here have knowledge or information on the likelihood of concurrent receipt being eliminated? I read an article about the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) considering eliminating concurrent receipt being paid to veterans who have retired with 20 or more years; and receives disability pay will no longer receive disability pay if approved. I find this to be very disturbing considering how hard most veterans had to fight to get this earned benefit. I posted the article link below. Any insight would be helpful.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44744

[Mikemmlj]

Disturbing trend in going after vets the last few years

[htforjc]

It is disturbing, but I am wondering what the likely hood of this taking effect really is. I'm very concerned that if this happens,veterans will loose their houses, cars, or worse. I cannot believe how this country's politicians can wave the American flag and say we support veterans, but are always looking for ways to take earned benefits away from veterans. Recently in the news you hear the outcry about paying college athletes a compensation for playing sports or to cover injuries. What about veterans? Shouldn't they receive benefits for injuries while serving their country without the constant worry of a politician wanting to take it away?

[boomer2]

I don't think this is likely to happen. The back lash for any politician that brings this up would be political suicide. But, it pays to be forewarned so you can be fore armed.

[Okichewy1]

If this happened, I would really guess that everyone already receiving both would be grandfathered as any other bill passed has done. But can't see it happening.

[Buck52]

Restrict VA's Individual Unemployability Benefits to Disabled Veterans Who Are Younger Than the Full Retirement Age for Social Security

(Billions of dollars)

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2014-2018

2014-2023

Change in Outlays 0 -0.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -6.3 -15.3

Note: This option would take effect in October 2014.

More than 3.4 million veterans with medical conditions or injuries that were incurred or worsened during active-duty service are receiving disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The amount of compensation they receive depends on the severity of their disabilities (which are generally assigned a single composite rating in an increment of 10 on a scale up to 100 percent), their number of dependents, and other factors—but not on their income or civilian employment history.

However, VA may supplement the regular disability compensation payments for veterans whom it deems unable to engage in substantial work. To qualify for those supplemental benefits, termed individual unemployability (IU) payments, veterans may not earn more than the federal poverty guidelines (commonly referred to as the federal poverty level) and generally must be rated between 60 percent and 90 percent disabled. A veteran qualifying for the IU supplement receives a monthly disability payment equal to the amount that he or she would receive if rated 100 percent disabled. In 2012, for those veterans who received the supplement, it boosted monthly VA disability payments by an average of about $1,500. The largest increases were paid to veterans rated 60 percent disabled: For them, the supplement raised the monthly payment by about $1,800, on average. In 2012, nearly 300,000 veterans received IU payments.

Under this option, VA would no longer make IU payments to veterans who are past Social Security’s full retirement age, which varies from 65 to 67 depending on beneficiaries’ birth year. Therefore, at the full retirement age, VA disability payments would revert to the amount associated with the rated disability level. By the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, the savings from this option between 2015 and 2023 would be $15 billion.

VA’s regulations require that IU benefits be based on a veteran’s inability to maintain substantial employment because of the severity of a service-connected disability—and not because of age, voluntary withdrawal from work, or other factors. Consequently, a veteran may begin to receive IU payments, or continue to receive them, after the full retirement age for Social Security. In 2005 (the most recent year for which VA reports such statistics), more than 80,000 veterans who received the IU supplement, or about one-third of the total number in that year, were over the age of 65.

One rationale for this option is that most veterans who are older than Social Security’s full retirement age would not be in the labor force because of their age, so for those veterans, a lack of earnings would probably not be attributable to service-connected disabilities. In particular, in 2010, about 35 percent of men who were 65 to 69 years old were in the labor force, and that number dropped to 10 percent for those age 75 or older. In addition, most recipients of IU payments who are over age 65 would have other sources of income: They would continue to receive regular VA disability payments and might collect Social Security benefits as well. (Most recipients of the IU supplement begin collecting it in their 50s and probably have worked enough to earn Social Security benefits.)

An argument for retaining the current policy is that IU payments should be determined solely on the criterion of a veteran’s ability to work and that having age be a consideration would be unfair. In addition, some disabled veterans would find it difficult or impossible to replace the income provided by the IU supplement. If they had been out of the workforce for a long time, their Social Security benefits might be small, and they might not have been able to accumulate much in personal savings.

.

Related Options:

• Eliminate Concurrent Receipt of Retirement Pay and Disability Compensation for Disabled Veterans

• Narrow Eligibility for Veterans' Disability Compensation by Excluding Certain Disabilities Unrelated to Military Duties

I sure hope this don't pass???

Edited January 28, 2015 by Buck52 (see edit history)

[Pete53]

A lot of stuff that scares Veterans is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

[Buck52]

I agree with ya pete 53,

I think this is Ridiculous!!!

[Chuck75]

This sort of thing has gone on for decades!

"Saving money" is more important to many factions than honoring obligations to veterans.

It's not uncommon to also find that such things are part of a smoke screen, designed to hide

or ignore other changes that are at veteran's or ordinary citizen's expense.

I'd suggest a totally different type of limit be applied.

The combination of SSA, "Concurrent receipt", and any other government pensions

shall not be greater than the highest income year, or 100K, whichever is greater. The dollar amounts

shall be calculated using the same adjustment factors that the government uses

in multi year military contracts. Basically, this involves factoring in things like true inflation/cost factors,

unlike the artificial government "cost of living" or "inflation" numbers, which often understate the real numbers.

I'd also favor making medically related expenses totally deductible up front for pensioners.

Having said that, and considering that VA payments are supposedly for "lost income", or loss of income ----

the payments do not compensate for things like loss of "quality of life" and so forth. When you factor this in,

the VA payment amounts are totally inadequate, and considerably less than what might be considered proper in a civil

settlement. With this in mind, the VA payment amount should not be factored in the calculation limit previously

mentioned.

When you look into things, it's not uncommon to find that calculations used by the government

usually favor the government, unless there is a statute that specifically prevents this from occurring.

[Vync]

I agree with Chuck. It is practically political suicide if the media catches wind of cutting veterans benefits. The CBO's job is to report budget forecasts based on current and "what if" trends. They look at practically every budgeted program and have to apply trend forecasting to them. Of course, the VA is looked at very heavily and gets that extra magnifying glass by certain media outlets who either want or do not want the program cut. When you look at reality, when was the last time the government actually cut anything? A reduction is future budgeted grown is reported as "a cut" by the news media. The only way to get the truth is to look at what they were budgeted this year and compare it to the next. If the future number is higher than the current number, it's an increase, not a cut. Many media outlets purposefully report news like this in order to scare up concern or support. I remember a couple of years ago we did not get COLA. That was not a cut, it was simply a continuation of current funding levels.

[63SIERRA]

Before 2004 there was no concurrent recieipt. It has nt always been in effect. hopefully they leave it the way it is.

[jbasser]

OK folks. Send me some links and I will get to the bottom of it. I will get some folks involved and we will openly discuss it on the air.

I believe these rascals who dream this crap need to be dealt with once and for all.

Basser

[Chuck75]

Another thing to consider. The VA has underserved veterans for as long as I can remember, which goes back quite a few decades.

Obviously, regardless of the whys, any attempts to correct this is going to cost a lot of money, perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood

of twice the current VA budget. At the same time, there is an effort to reduce costs, forgetting that whatever was spent did not "get the job done".

How in the world can the VA "reform" take place?

In a way, the VA started the ball rolling to justify more funding over a decade ago. Remember that the VA was to provide services that they were not funded to provide,

(ignoring the fact that less than wise use of funding was occurring) How? By enrolling more veterans, that's how.

This initially reduced per veteran expenditure, and made the VA "look good" at the time, and later increased the cost, due to a higher number of veterans with serious health problems.

I'd also get into the "true costs of war", since thats closely related, but it would take a book or two.

One result of the wars after WWII is that the dollar is arguably worth about 1/4 of what it was before.

The lesson still to be learned is that when you get into a war, one of the important outcomes/objectives is to get someone else to pay for it.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Chuck75 (see edit history)