My Father was a combat injured vet. He was hit by artillery and while he retained some use of his dominate arm, he would lose control o it every so often (My sister told be about the time she was 3 or four and sitting on his lap, and that happened and she rolled to the floor, no injury show just rolled down his leg as he was sitting). She also told me that every so often her or my older brother would touch him on his left side and he would end up in pain (I was younger and by then younger kids we followed what the older kids did and never touched hm on the left).
Anyway in the 1950s he went to the VA so they could double check his injury. Every time he made a comment that his left arm caused him pain, the doctor reviewing him turned off the tape recorder. The tape recorder was turned on when the Doctor asked him about having no pain in the left arm. It was quite clear what the Doctor wanted, my father to say he had no pain. Most times my father had no pain, but it would appear and he would lose control over that left arm. The Doctor did NOT want to record that, for it was clear the Doctor was under orders to find people to be ruled NOT DISABLED.
Similar reports are recorded from WWI vets and Civil War Vets (Through none of the reports site tape recordings). The Government has always looked at veterans as a cost that they have to cut back on, and if that means kicking the disabled off the pension roles they are more then happy to do so. About 20 years ago the local Pittsburgh Paper carried the story of a Civil war washer woman (A position in the US Army that existed till the late 1880s, one washerwoman to every 20 men, a ratio that went back to at least the Crusades, when it was "ancient" practice even then). Like most washer woman she was married to the Platoon Sergeant (Most platoons, prior to WWI had 20 men in them, during WWI this increased today the typical platoon had about 40-50 men in it). Anyway she had a pension, for she had been hit by a musket ball during the Civil War. The Article mentioned the fight she had to fight to get and keep her pension (and that in 1912 she committed suicide due to the pain from the injury, with out mentioning that is the first year you needed a doctor's prescription to buy narcotics, prior to that morphine, heroin and other drugs could be purchased by anyone).
I bring her up, for she had a tough time keeping her pension for many of the same reasons people complain about now, Congress tells the VA to cut costs and does NOT really what to hear how that can be done. That same rationale applied to my Father case, Congress told the VA to cut costs and did not want to hear how it was done at the same time they do not want to hear of veterans complaining. This puts the VA in the middle and like most people in the middle they try to satisfy both sides and ends up doing neither. This is the main cause of the backlog, the VA does NOT want to approve people who do NOT meet the requirements set by Congress, almost more then it wants to give pensions to those that do meet those requirements.
Just a comment, that denying disabled vets benefits can be traced back to the Civil War not just Vietnam. This goes back to which way to err, it is impossible to be perfect, thus the real issue is which way to err, err on the side of giving benefits to people who do NOT deserve them (so you have a system that makes sure people who need them get them as soon as possible) , or err on denying benefits to people who need them (this is the cost to make sure those who do NOT deserve the benefits never get them)? Which way do you want to err? A lot of people will NOT accept this concept of err and want perfection, you have to inform them perfection is impossible, but a lot of people will not want to accept that well known unpleasant fact. This refusal to accept these unpleasant fact is the cause of the dely in VA applications. The VA refuses to err on the side of giving benefits but can NOT admit to that fact. Congress wants the VA to be pefect, even through Congress knows that is impossible, but by wanting the VA to be perfect Congress can avoid the issue of which side does it want the VA to error on. Deciding on which side to err on is a politcal decsion, for people will object to what ever side Congress decides on. Either Congress is wasting money OR denying benefits to those that deserve the benefits. Since Congress does not want to take the heat, Congress demands perfection even when Congress knows that is impossible. Thus the VA must do what is impossible, NOT err on the side of giving benfits to those that do not deserve it, but also not err on denying benefits to those that deserve such benefits. Congress can change this, but will not and thus we are stuck with this delay.
= new reply since forum marked as read
