I’m always looking for new (or unnoticed) healthcare blogs that might interest HealthBeat readers. Recently, I discovered “What If” (American Had a HealthCare System That Worked).
The blog is run by Georgia Berner, (founder and Director) and Emily Cleanth (content manager/ researcher). Berner, who owns a small to medium size company in Western PA where she pays the entire health insurance costs for her 60 employees, has become familiar with the inequities in our system both as an employer, and by talking to voters while running for U.S. Congress in 2006. Cleanth has a Master’s in Public Policy and Management from Carnegie Mellon.
Not long ago, “What If” took a look at healthcare for Veterans. I have reprinted the post below.
I would add only that, since 2000, funding for the VA system has fallen far behind the needs of returning troops and veterans. In the 1990s, the VA was overhauled and became a very good health care system. I’ve written about it here (The VA should not be confused with Walter Reed hospital, which is run by the army. The Veteran’s Administration oversees the VA.) But over the past eight years, funding has not kept up with the needs of badly wounded vets returning from Iraq. Meanwhile, Vietnam vets are aging. This has led to impossibly long lines and, in some cases, has meant that the VA has not been able to hire and retain the medical staff that they need.
“What If “points out that conservatives have protested increased funding for the VA, pointing to and explosion in “entitlement programs.” Like Berner and Cleanth, I believe that veterans are fully “entitled” to timely, high quality care.
I also agree that the cost of healthcare for wounded troops should be included in the cost of the war. Why doesn’t it show up as part of the total cost now? “Because,” they point out, “it essentially doubles the cost of the war in Iraq.”
Shellshocked: Veterans Health Care
Originally posted on “Whatif” . . . (American Had a HealthCare System That Worked)
According to polling in the past few months, the biggest issues troubling Americans are health care and the war in Iraq. What gets talked about less often is the point where these two issues intersect. . .
Around 12% of the 47 million uninsured people in the United States are veterans and their families: this adds up to 1.8 million uninsured veterans. These 1 in 8 veterans are typically 45-year-old men who worked in the past year and are earning from $30,000 to $40,000. Almost two-thirds of uninsured veterans were employed, and nearly 9 out of 10 had worked within the past year.
Why are they uninsured?
Defense Department data released in late 2007 show that thousands of National Guard and Reserve members who had to give up civilian jobs when they were deployed overseas have now permanently lost these jobs and with them their health insurance, pensions, and other benefits. (Federal laws are supposed to protect them from being penalized for leaving civilian employment for wartime service.)
For others it’s a Catch-22: many veterans make too much to qualify for federal benefits and too little to afford it themselves under current regulations. A 1996 law opened VA care to all veterans, but in 2002, limited resources forced regional directors to limit new veteran enrollment. A year later, enrollment was further denied to veterans without qualifying medical conditions or incomes. The question is – What does qualifying mean?
The numbers of uninsured veterans are rising and are predicted to climb further as demands for care and the costs of care outpace the Veterans Health Administration’s budget.
Why are veterans health care costs rising?
A veteran who becomes disabled during military service receives from the government anywhere from $115 a month for a 10% disability to about $2,400 a month for total disability – at least $1.4 million in their lifetime.
A November 2007 report from the Nobel Peace Prize winning Physicians for Social Responsibility predicted that providing medical care and benefits to Iraq veterans could top $660 billion: this is greater than the current operational costs of the war ($500 billion).
Why?
Advances in military technology and battlefield medicine are leading to a high survivor rate for U.S. soldiers, but more than 60,000 have been physically injured, or are medically ill.
|
SIDEBAR: U.S. Wounded and Killed in Iraq and Afghanistan As of October 29, 2007 |
|
|
# of U.S. service members who died in Afghanistan |
453 |
|
# of U.S. service members who died in Iraq |
3,839 |
|
# of U.S. service members physically wounded |
tens of thousands |
|
# of U.S. service members with mental injuries and/or mild traumatic brain injuries |
hundreds of thousands |
|
# of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom veterans who sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs between 2002 and December 2006 |
229,000 |
|
% of Soldiers and Marines in Iraq who will be in a situation where they could be seriously injured or killed |
75% |
|
% of U.S. service members wounded in action in Iraq who are injured in an explosion |
65% |
|
% of U.S. service members who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom who left behind spouses and/or children |
47% |
- Iraq: The ratio of wounded to killed in combat is 8:1, compared with 3:1 for the Vietnam War, and 2:1 for World War II.
- The percentage of injured requiring amputations is the highest seen since the U.S. Civil War.
- The type of warfare soldiers are engaging in often results in Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), which can have symptoms ranging from headache to severe mental and physical impairment, and is difficult and expensive to diagnose and treat.
- Veterans for America cited US Army data in a recent report that found hundreds of thousands of soldiers returning from Iraq are psychiatric casualties or have Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI). (New medical studies show that many cases of PTSDs are actually TBIs, typically caused by being near explosions.)
- Up to 30% are predicted to meet criteria for serious mental health disorders (49% for the National Guard), with a significant fraction of these being lifelong, chronic afflictions.
- As our strategic need for troops increases, soldiers are returning to the field more often, for longer, and with less rest in between. Soldiers on their second tour in Iraq are 50 percent more likely to develop a mental health problem than those on their first tour because they do not have time to “reset” between deployments given the current ratio of 15 months deployed to 12 months at home.
- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder has been recently found to have a genetic link, which explains why some recover more rapidly from it than others.
- Improved understanding and treatments for PTSD have led to a 50% increase since 2000 in the number of World War II veterans seeking belated recognition of and compensation for related disabilities.
- Iraq and Afghanistan combined:
- About 30% of all deployed servicemembers have experienced at least one of 3 problems:
- 18.5% meet criteria for PTSD, depression, or both
- about 19% reported experiencing probable TBI during deployment
- about 7% meet criteria for a mental health problem and also report possible TBI.
- Analysts estimate that about 300,000 returning service members currently have PTSD, depression, or both and that about 320,000 may have experienced TBI.
The other issue is that these kinds of psychiatric or neurological injuries can become long-term problems. Researchers studying the effects of the Vietnam War found that in 1998 – almost 3 decades after the Vietnam War – approximately 10.5% of the surveyed veterans were continuing to experience problems with severe PTSD, down only slightly from approximately 11.8% in 1984 when they were first interviewed. (About 1 in 2 soldiers surveyed met some PTSD criteria both times.) Furthermore, the severity of their PTSD had increased in terms of its negative effects on their life.
The researchers have determined that PTSD is most strongly linked to high combat exposure i.e. being ambushed, shot at, or seeing comrades wounded or killed. Of course the more often we send the same troops into battle in Iraq – a new kind of battlefield that has been described as highly chaotic and violent – and the longer they’re deployed the more likely they are to experience these things.
What’s the solution?
1. Expand coverage
At the end of February 2008, various military and health-field experts, from the Institute of Medicine committees on Veterans Affairs, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives with a set of recommendations to improve and expand veteran health benefits. In general, they called for:
- Revisions to the rating schedule by which various bodily injuries are rated for severity and assigned compensation, including:
- A revision of the weighting of neurological and psychological disorders related to traumatic brain injuries (currently dated 1945)
- An analysis to determine whether mental and physical injuries with the same ratings receive different monetary earnings
- That compensation be provided not only for work-related impairments but for those that affect daily living and quality of life
- An expanded and verified explanation of PTSD, its causes and implications, and the need to improve compensation and treatment for the disorder
- Improved methods for determining the health effects of military service
2. Expand funding for better care
Better medical centers:
March 6, 2008 the House Budget Committee voted to pass a $3 trillion fiscal year 2009 budget resolution that would increase spending for health care for veterans, medical research, and other domestic programs by more than the inflation rate. News articles have since shown the VA system to be short on the needed funds to attract quality medical professionals. Specialists like heart surgeons, radiologists and certified registered nurse anesthetists often command higher salaries in the open markets, particularly in cities with higher costs of living, something Federal VA salary caps can’t account enough for.
Republicans criticized this spending plan for failing to address the “exploding growth” of entitlement programs. Though the budget Bush had submitted was a record-breaking $3.1 trillion, he has promised to veto the House Budget Committee resolution if it is ultimately passed by Congress because it calls for more domestic spending than he had requested.
Is health care for military veterans just another “entitlement program”? And if the brave and strong few who made the terrific sacrifice of fighting to protect the rest of us aren’t “entitled” to full health care, then who is? Do we really want this to be a country where health care is not available to those in need unless they can afford its ever increasing prices?
Better women’s care:
Despite the fact that 90,000 women have served in the military since 2001, is veterans care, as Senator Lisa Murkowski put it, “designed to be one size fits all…the male size”?
The Senator has recently introduced legislation that would expand funding for women’s health care within the VA system, an issue made more critical by recent Department of Defense data showing that a female soldier is more likely to be raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by her fellow soldiers than killed by foreign forces in our current overseas conflicts. (Even more disturbing is that this phenomenon has by all accounts been steadily increasing and the failure to respond is driving women out of the military.)
Better mental health care:
Clearly more veterans need to have full access to evidence-based mental health treatment.
While treating more veterans will cost more in the short-run, RAND researchers think it will only be a couple years before this treatment pays for itself via savings from productivity gains and a lowered risk of suicide. The total costs associated with PTSD and depression alone could be reduced by as much as $1.7 billion in that time.
3. Include these costs in the running costs of our wars
Why doesn’t the cost of the war include the true cost of health care for current and future veterans and their families?
Because it essentially doubles the cost of the war in Iraq, giving fuel to the fire in the belly of the majority of Americans who want to see a swift resolution to our involvement there and our troops returned home safely.
What’s the solution?
1. Expand coverage
At the end of February 2008, various military and health-field experts, from the Institute of Medicine committees on Veterans Affairs, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives with a set of recommendations to improve and expand veteran health benefits. In general, they called for:
- Revisions to the rating schedule by which various bodily injuries are rated for severity and assigned compensation, including:
- A revision of the weighting of neurological and psychological disorders related to traumatic brain injuries (currently dated 1945)
- An analysis to determine whether mental and physical injuries with the same ratings receive different monetary earnings
- That compensation be provided not only for work-related impairments but for those that affect daily living and quality of life
- An expanded and verified explanation of PTSD, its causes and implications, and the need to improve compensation and treatment for the disorder
- Improved methods for determining the health effects of military service
2. Expand funding for better care
Better medical centers:
March 6, 2008 the House Budget Committee voted to pass a $3 trillion fiscal year 2009 budget resolution that would increase spending for health care for veterans, medical research, and other domestic programs by more than the inflation rate. News articles have since shown the VA system to be short on the needed funds to attract quality medical professionals. Specialists like heart surgeons, radiologists and certified registered nurse anesthetists often command higher salaries in the open markets, particularly in cities with higher costs of living, something Federal VA salary caps can’t account enough for.
Republicans criticized this spending plan for failing to address the “exploding growth” of entitlement programs. Though the budget Bush had submitted was a record-breaking $3.1 trillion, he has promised to veto the House Budget Committee resolution if it is ultimately passed by Congress because it calls for more domestic spending than he had requested.
Is health care for military veterans just another “entitlement program”? And if the brave and strong few who made the terrific sacrifice of fighting to protect the rest of us aren’t “entitled” to full health care, then who is? Do we really want this to be a country where health care is not available to those in need unless they can afford its ever increasing prices?
Better women’s care:
Despite the fact that 90,000 women have served in the military since 2001, is veterans care, as Senator Lisa Murkowski put it, “designed to be one size fits all…the male size”?
The Senator has recently introduced legislation that would expand funding for women’s health care within the VA system, an issue made more critical by recent Department of Defense data showing that a female soldier is more likely to be raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by her fellow soldiers than killed by foreign forces in our current overseas conflicts. (Even more disturbing is that this phenomenon has by all accounts been steadily increasing and the failure to respond is driving women out of the military.)
Better mental health care:
Clearly more veterans need to have full access to evidence-based mental health treatment.
While treating more veterans will cost more in the short-run, RAND researchers think it will only be a couple years before this treatment pays for itself via savings from productivity gains and a lowered risk of suicide. The total costs associated with PTSD and depression alone could be reduced by as much as $1.7 billion in that time.
3. Include these costs in the running costs of our wars
Why doesn’t the cost of the war include the true cost of health care for current and future veterans and their families?
Because it essentially doubles the cost of the war in Iraq, giving fuel to the fire in the belly of the majority of Americans who want to see a swift resolution to our involvement there and our troops returned home safely.
I’ve worked in a VA. A giant good luck to ya is in order.
It’s a disgrace to our country that we forsake those who defended her values with their lives! I couldn’t agree more.
The truth about V.A. medical care is:
1. Vets make great lab rats as they are easy to follow in terms of their medical care. The V.A. has a history of using vets as lab rats.
2. Vets are used to teach students, residents, and other medical trainees. While vets suffer all the errors, extended anesthesia, uninformed consent to multiple student exams and procedures, medical abuse and violations while under anesthesia, unnecessary exams and procedures and more for the sake of educating medical staff.
3. Women’s request for female only staff while under anesthesia and intimate procedures is not respected. Many women are raped by medical staff or other patients in V.A. care facilities.
4. as women patients are fewer in numbers in the
V.A. system women under anesthesia suffer a greater burden. Anesthesia is prolonged so many students can perform pelvic, rectal, and breast exams on a single patient. A great demand for training for female care relative to supply of women in V.A.M.C.s result in women being subjected to more students in surgery.
Hello, I am an ILE student and what I say should have no reflection upon my military service. I have been a health care provider for the last 10 years. I have read some of the blogs about the care for our veterns, but what about their dental care.
Dental care is very closely linked to our overall health. There have been several articles connecting poor oral health to other health problems. This is so important for our aging veterns especially.
Also, there is a concern about appointment availablity. When I worked in the VA dental clinic, Veterns would have to wait about two months for appointments due to lack of dentists and dental assistants. A relative, who goes to a VA dental clinic, even said his doc had no assistant on several occassions. That is just not efficient at all. That is just ridiculous!
In the Army we have DCO teams, which consist of a dentist, two dental assistants, and a DTA(they fill the teeth, do relines on dentures and partials, make temporary crowns,etc.) Before this DCO system, I could see only 6-8 patients a day, but with this team I could see 16 to 20. With this system, more vets could get an appointment much easier. Just something to think about.
I hope Ret. Gen. Shinseki really succeeds in giving the VA an overhaul. My husband, my grandfater, and my father are all vets, so this is very near to my heart.
Our vets hold a large part of our history and need to have a place to go to get the most outstanding care. They are our heros that kept us safe and now it is our turn to care for them.
As a former VA health care employee, and veteran, it sickens me to know what I know about VA health care and the horrific waste of taxpayers money to that end.
Veterans would be far better served, at considerably less expense, and often served much closer to home if the VA hospitals were closed down, and veterans were issued cards (i.e. medicare cards) allowing them choice of who their civilian health provider was.
Even now, I know of veterans who wait over a year for some VA medical care (especially surgery), and I know of terribly botch surgeries because they were performed by med students in Cleveland. Vets around here have to drive up to 2 hours to go some often mundane appointment at the Cleveland VA, while that same vet has to wait many months for an appointment that actually helps them.
Taxpayers are paying way too much to operate the VA bureaucracy in a feeble attempt to duplicate local hospitals that already exist and can provide the same type, yet better services.
Thank you for bringing up this,its a good subject to explore. 🙂
by: florence
I agree with Ed Ruess on giving enrolled Veterans cards and letting them choose their own health care from the private sector. The VHA is larded with inept and incompetent non medical administrators, clerks, and guards. Guards who have no function except intimidation of the veteran patient and hinder heath care. The VHA employees rule over their veteran supplicants with impunity. The veteran patient has no rights, no way to appeal VHA employee abuse and its stonewalling administrators who set the employees against the veteran patient and disregard medical ethics and who waste the taxpayers money.
Your loved ones harmed?
The Chief Judge of Congress’s Court of Veterans Appeals stated that the, “Constitution, Statutes and Regulations” are “policy freely ignored” by both “The Veterans Health Administration” and the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) as recorded below, i.e., the “STATE OF COURT” transcript PARAGRAPH 9 with the U.S. CODE, TITLE 38, SECTIONS (§) 511 and § 7252. Decisions of the Secretary; finality. It is now 15 years later without the Chief Judge’s advised Congressional oversight and accountability. The DVA Health Care laymen, “initial adjudicators” still are not held responsible for their “freely ignored” and medically ignorant “Schedule of Ratings for Disabilities” decisions, e.g., this veterans to date “initial adjudicators” ignored “MPerR PERMANENT” “SURGEON HQ ARRC JUN 25 ‘58 MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE”!
Central to the Chief Judge’s remarks is that there is no independent authority separate from the Executive Branch’s DVA that can make them pay attention to the laws of the land!! Congress, as the Legislative “policy” Branch, has not done so. Instead of making the Veterans Court an independent part of the Judicial Branch they made it a without teeth part of their own Branch, e.g., it can not require fines or jail time for disobeying the United States “Constitution, Statutes and Regulations”. The Court’s decisions do not establish precedence that the DVA must follow. The final authority, with Congress’s approval, is the head of the violating Department itself, i.e., the Secretary the DVA. It’s the pot calling the kettle black!! Because veterans have served they have lost their before service rights to the checks and balances between our three (3) branches of government, i.e., Executive, Legislative (Congress) and Judicial!
Please hold your Congressional Representatives accountable.
The complete 16 paragraph “STATE OF COURT” transcript is available on request. Previously at, and now missing from the Chief Judges and state_of_court sites: http://www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker and http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm
STATE OF COURT
CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER
STATE OF THE COURT
FOR PRESENTATION TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS
THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 17-18, 1994
{as it appears in Veterans Appeals Reporter}
——————–PARAGRAPH 9 of 16 in TRANSCRIPT.—————————–
I believe my message is clear. There is, I suggest, no system with judicial review which has within it a component part free to function in its own way, in its own time and with one message to those it disappoints — take an appeal. That is, I am afraid, what we have today in many of the Department’s Agencies of Original Jurisdiction — that is AOJs – around the country. Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA – the Veterans Health Administration — ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays. Let us examine judicial review. Remember, the Court and the Board do not make policy, the Secretary and Congress do. The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy — policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, “I haven’t been told by my boss to change. If you don’t like it — appeal it.” (Emphasis added)
AND THE CONGRESS’S “policy freely ignored” UNITED STATES CODE HEALTH CARE GIFTS TO VETERANS:
1. Congress’s: UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I >
§ 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…11—-000-.html
“(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO ANY SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER OFFICIAL OR BY ANY COURT, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.” (Emphasis added)
THEREFORE, NO COURT REVIEW OF THE MEDICALLY UNTRAINED laymen “initial adjudicators” “schedule of ratings for disabilities” decisions as proven by:
2. Congress’s: UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 PART V > CHAPTER 72 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions
“(b) Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. The extent of the review shall be limited to the scope provided in section 7261 of this title. THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES adopted under section 1155 of this title or any action of the Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule.” (Emphasis added.)
A trust betrayed? Gone for veterans are the check and balances within and between our branches of government. A right that so many have died for! Please hold your U.S. House and Senate members responsible. Thank you.
In 1994 the Chief Judge of Congress’s 1988 established inferior Court of Veterans Appeals stated that the, “Constitution, Statutes and Regulations” are “policy freely ignored” by both the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and “The Veterans Health Administration” (VHA). This is a Congressional Branch no teeth LEGISLATIVE Court. Its Chief Judge describes veterans captured within, an out of control, DVA health care process. Lost is a before military service right to a with teeth, holding accountable (independent from Congress and the Executive Branch’s DVA) superior Judicial Branch Court. Fifteen (15) years after the Chief Judge’s statements the Secretary of the DVA and his laymen “initial adjudicators” still are not held responsible for their “freely ignored” and medically brainless “Schedule of Ratings for Disabilities” decisions, i.e., the “STATE OF COURT” transcript PARAGRAPH 9 with Congress’s law of the land U.S. CODE, TITLE 38, SECTIONS (§) 511 and § 7252. Decisions of the Secretary; finality; REFERENCES [1], [2] & [3].
A couple of examples of the “initial adjudicators” to date “freely ignored” are this veterans 1957 DVA Physician’s resultant USAF Physician’s, “MPerR PERMANENT” “SURGEON HQ ARRC JUN 25 ‘58 MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE” (1952 to 1956)! Then the layman adjudicator’s brainless 6/27/96 Supplemental Statement Of Case (SSOC) no “…competent medical evidence…”. After an ongoing 19 years in the DVA administrative process the veteran receives a 100% disability. To date there is still no recognition of their 1957 DVA physician’s resultant 1958 USAF physician “disqualified”!
REFERENCES (Emphasis added throughout) with comments:
[1] “STATE OF COURT, CHIEF JUDGE FRANK Q. NEBEKER, STATE OF THE COURT, FOR PRESENTATION TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 17-18, 1994 {as it appears in Veterans Appeals Reporter}”
——————–PARAGRAPH 9 of 16 in “STATE OF COURT” TRANSCRIPT records DVA laymen ignoring medical opinion without veteran recourse.—————————–
“I believe my message is clear. There is, I suggest, no system with judicial review which has within it a component part free to function in its own way, in its own time and with one message to those it disappoints — take an appeal. That is, I am afraid, what we have today in many of the Department’s Agencies of Original Jurisdiction — that is AOJs — around the country. Neither the Court, through the Board, the Board, nor the General Counsel has direct and meaningful control over the Agencies of Original Jurisdiction. Indeed, it is also clear that the VHA — the Veterans Health Administration — ignores specific directives to provide medical opinions as directed. And this is resulting in unconscionable delays. Let us examine judicial review. Remember, the Court and the Board do not make policy, the Secretary and Congress do. The Court simply identifies error made below by a failure to adhere, in individual cases, to the Constitution, statutes, and regulations which themselves reflect policy — policy freely ignored by many initial adjudicators whose attitude is, “I haven’t been told by my boss to change. If you don’t like it — appeal it.” The complete 16 paragraph “STATE OF COURT” transcript is available on request. Previously at, and now missing from the Chief Judges and state_of_court sites: http://www.goodnet.com/~heads/nebeker & http://www.firebase.net/state_of_court_brief.htm
The top medically ignorant “boss” is Congress’s confirmed “Secretary” of the DVA.
AND THE CONGRESS’S “policy freely ignored” UNITED STATES CODE law of the land, take away from Veterans:
[2] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 > PART I > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I >
§ 511. Decisions of the Secretary; finality
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc…11—-000-.html
“(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO ANY SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY OTHER OFFICIAL OR BY ANY COURT, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.”
THEREFORE, NO COURT REVIEW OF THE MEDICALLY UNTRAINED DVA laymen and “Secretary” “schedule of ratings for disabilities” decisions as proven by:
[3] UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 38 PART V > CHAPTER 72 > SUBCHAPTER I >
§ 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions
“(b) Review in the Court shall be on the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. The extent of the review shall be limited to the scope provided in section 7261 of this title. THE COURT MAY NOT REVIEW THE SCHEDULE OF RATINGS FOR DISABILITIES adopted under section 1155 of this title or any action of the Secretary in adopting or revising that schedule.”
It’s a disgrace to our country that we forsake those who defended her values with their lives! I couldn’t agree more.
I am a partially disabled Vet. and I have been disgusted with VA healthcare system since I enrolled in it about ten years ago. The fact of the matter is that when you compare the care you get at a VA hospital to care from a private hospital….well, there is no comparison. Why are we still using VA hospitals? I do not think that a Veteran should have to settle for sub standard healthcare. Its clear to me that the US government should allow Vets to go to private hospitals and then the Hospital should send a reduced bill(since they already reduce costs for insurance companies and not for people w/o insurance) to the US government. I have been trying to have surgery (at the VA hospital in Houston) to correct one of the problems I am receiving disability for but every few months my date gets moved back. The problem I have is so bad now that i can’t hold a job. The VA will not let me temporarily up my disability to 100% until I have the surgery. If this continues then I will be living on the street in a couple months.