TDIU threat to SSA vets is over

[Berta]

Secretary Shulkin just said that at the ball game---Reps2- Dems 0---third inning I think.

[Buck52]

Fantastic   Way to go Secretary Shulkin

  Thank you Ms Berta for all your hard work with this issue.

We all love you!

[john999]

So exactly what was said about TDIU and SSA?  Most of us with TDIU could not survive on it alone without SSA.   100% from the VA is really less than $40,000 a year for vets without dependents.  That is not much in 2017.  So, Berta, you are saying TDIU vets are safe from cuts if they get TDIU?  That was a quick turnaround and grateful to you for finding it.   Takes a load off my mind.  In about four years I will have the IU rating for 20 years.  I wonder if it is protected or if they will pull this stunt again?

 

 

                                   John

[jfrei]

Water under the Bridge 

VA Shelves Plan to Cut Benefit for Elderly Disabled Vets

[Berta]

Here is the statement:

(Washington, D.C.)--“It was a bad idea to begin with, unworkable and essentially uncaring for almost a quarter of a million veterans over the age of 62,” said John Rowan, National President of Vietnam Veterans of America, referring to a provision in the President’s $186.5 billion budget proposal for FY18 that would take thousands of dollars in Individual Unemployability (IU) benefits from the most vulnerable of veterans. “Now the administration has seen the light and retreated from their poorly-reasoned plan.    “Here at VVA, we have been deluged by calls from our members,” Rowan said. “They are concerned.  They are scared. Some are angry. They fear a personal financial disaster that could cost them their house, their savings, their very life.”    “The administration’s plan was, in effect, to take from Peter to pay for Paul, to eviscerate the IU program to make available funds to enhance and expand the so-called Choice program, to the tune of $3.2 billion in FY’18,” noted Rowan.    “Just as an avalanche of calls and e-mails struck all through the VSO and MSO community, so too did VVA and our fellow organizations send letters and offer firm and focused testimony blasting the proposal at a Senate hearing,” Rowan said.   “Once the politically astute in the administration recognized the folly of cutting benefits, which could cost certain veterans almost $20,000 a year, they reversed field, acknowledging that theirs was a non-starter, and that Congress wasn’t going to go along with the proposal,” Rowan concluded."

  Many thanks to all those who raised the alarm, spread the effort and show the Administration their error.  And many thanks to the Administration of President Trump for recognizing the ramifications of such a budgetary policy change."

Courtesy of VNVets site, from the VVA

VNVets

 

http://vnvets.blogspot.com/2017/06/proposed-cuts-to-individual.html

 

[Tbird]

We will have to stay vigilant on this issue it may come up again.

Here's what Secretary Shulkin said during the congressional hearing. He refers to unemployability as unemployment insurance, nowhere in the law does it refer to it as unemployment insurance. I find this a troublesome definition.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?429945-1/va-secretary-shulkin-testifies-fy-2018-budget&start=1214#

Unemployability Excerpt starts at 00:53:03 

CHAIRMAN ISAKSON>I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET FOR A MINUTE IF I MAY. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL UNEMPLOYABILITY CAP. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE OF WHAT WENT THROUGH THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WENT THROUGH THIS?

SECRETARY SHULKIN

>SECRETARY SHULKIN: SENATOR HELLER, MY STARTING POINT IS THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE TO DO BETTER FOR OUR VETERANS. WE HAVE TO DELIVER ON OUR COMMITMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO OUR VETERANS. THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN BOTH DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY FUNDS AND MAKES CHOICE A PERMANENT PART OF FUNDING, BUT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO USE OUR CURRENT FUNDS IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE, BEST FOR VETERANS AND TAXPAYERS. SO WE PROPOSE A PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WOULD REVISE THE INDIVIDUAL UNEMPLOYABILITY BENEFIT. THE IN THE BUDGET A PROCESS. THIS WAS PART OF A MENU OF OPPORTUNITIES. THAT WE HAD FOR THINKING HOW WE COULD MAKE THE BUDGET PROCESS BETTER. AS I BEGAN TO LISTEN TO VETERANS AND THEIR CONCERNS AND THOSE IN PARTICULAR, IT WAS CLEAR THIS WOULD BE HURTING VETERANS AND WOULD HURT VETERANS WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE THOSE BENEFITS TAKEN AWAY. I’M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THIS IS PART OF A PROCESS. WE HAVE TO LOOKING AT WAYS TO DO THINGS BETTER. I’M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT POLICIES THAT HURT VETERANS. SO I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AND ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FIGURING OUT HOW WE CAN DO THIS BETTER. WE HAVE BUDGET NUMBERS AND TARGETS WE HAVE TO HIT BUT WE SHOULDN’T BE DOING THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE HURTING VETERANS THAT CAN’T AFFORD TO LOSE THESE BENEFITS.

Unidentified Speaker

I APPRECIATE HEARING THAT. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY VETERANS WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THIS

Unidentified Speaker

> THERE ARE 330,000 IN RECEIPT OF I.U. ABOUT 200,000 OF THOSE ARE UNDER THE EDGE OF 60 AND WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED.

SENATOR HELLER

>SENATOR HELLER: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RETROACTIVE

Unidentified Speaker

> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POINT FORWARD BUT TO INCLUDE ALL VETERANS IN RECEIPT OF I.U. I DON’T BELIEVE WE’D PULL BENEFITS WE DISTRIBUTED

SENATOR HELLER

BACK — SENATOR HELLER: BUT IF YOU HAD THE BENEFIT YOU COULD LOSE THE BENEFIT YOU’RE RECEIVING.

Unidentified Speaker

> CORRECT.

SECRETARY SHULKIN

>SECRETARY SHULKIN: THAT WAS THE PROPOSAL. BUT WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS

SENATOR HELLER

>BETTER. SENATOR HELLER: I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE AVERAGE IS PER VETERAN, THE AVERAGE INTAKE PER VETERAN?

Unidentified Speaker

> AVERAGE PAYMENT? ROUGHLY $1,600. THAT’S ON TOP OF YOU HAVE TO BE RATED BETWEEN 60% TO 100% AND IT TAKES YOU TO TAMPA RARE 100%.16% IS — 60% IS ROUGHLY

SENATOR HELLER

>SENATOR HELLER: YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL BURDEN IT MAY POSE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL. WHAT I’M MOST CONCERNENED ABOUT IS THE LONG-TERM RETIREMENT TESTIMONY THEY MAY HAVE NOT PREPARED ORBEEN PREPARED IF — IN BELIEVING THAT THAT $1,600 MAY BE THERE.

SECRETARY SHULKIN

SECRETARY SHULKIN: I THINK THAT’S THE ISSUE. THIS IS WHY WE HAD IDENTIFIED THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY. I THINK IF WE WERE DESIGNING THE SYSTEM FROM THE BEGINNING, WE WOULDN’T HAVE USED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TO FUND PEOPLE’S RETIREMENT. I THINK THAT WAS THE CONFLICT. BUT THE END RESULT IS, THAT IS THE BENEFIT. TO WITHDRAW THIS BENEFIT FROM PEOPLE WHO RELY ON THAT MONEY IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO.

[Buck52]

Thank you for posting this Ms T

''BUT THE END RESULT IS, THAT IS THE BENEFIT. TO WITHDRAW THIS BENEFIT FROM PEOPLE WHO RELY ON THAT MONEY IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO.''

 

I think the New VA Secretary is going to be great at his Job and take good care of all Veterans.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Buck52