re: This mid-20s fitness freak is raking in the Veterans disability

quote:

---

These pop up every week now, and most of the “proof” offered is either impossible on its face or isn’t actually evidence of fraud. An 80 percent tinnitus claim doesn’t exist, and “He has a job and a nice truck” isn’t fraud. Once you start noticing how many of these stories fall apart the second you touch them, it’s hard not to wonder how much of this “problem” is just people repeating bad info they never bothered to check about a subject they know little about. When you start noticing how many of these claims are simply untrue, I think it's fair to question whether the issue is being inflated by people who don’t really understand how the system works. And that raises another fair question: if so many stories aren’t accurate, what exactly is driving the motive to make shite up to push the narrative that vets are suddenly gaming the system in unprecedented numbers? Then there’s the OT's favorite stat: the percentage rise in disability claims. And every time it's brought up, any and all context magically disappears. This generation of vets served in a military that was much smaller than it used to be, and that smaller force spent two decades deployed. This generation averaged more days in combat or combat zones and averaged more days in contact than any previous generation of Americans. That’s not the same thing as saying they faced more intense combat than previous generations, but more accumulated exposure does mean significantly more wear on the body. Add in the fact that wounds are far more survivable today and that PTSD/TBI are actually recognized instead of brushed off as “walk it off,” and it shouldn't be the gigantic fricking shocker for so many on here that the numbers went up that it seems to be.. The plot twist is that Americans overwhelmingly supported sending these people to war. Meaning, statistically, a lot of the people complaining in this thread were probably cheering it on in the beginning, even though no one admits it now. The pivot to framing vets as milking the system when the bill finally comes due for injuries and conditions they sustained doing exactly what the majority of the country (and many in this thread) asked them to do is deeply disappointing. Fraud exists, sure. But the giant shadow version people keep describing being supported by so many claims that fail to survive initial contact should at least lead to a small question about where these narratives are coming from and why they’re so popular with folks who can’t explain how the VA rating system works or understand the basic difference between VA disability compensation and Social Security disability insurance.

---

If I could give you two upvotes, I would.

The reason why these narratives are so popular is that middle class people have been conditioned for years to believe that their struggles are because of some other group’s laziness, theft, etc it the cause of their problems.

Do they get military disability related to their active duty?

My Dad was UDT in Vietnam. He has never taken disability even though he can barely walk now.

Not just veterans, but disability in general, the amount of people who get disability for bullshite reasons is unbelievable.

This was several years ago, but I never forgot this one. Long story short, someone I know was talking to this woman I know of. And the woman was telling the person I know that her husband was approved for disability for his shoulder and she said something along the lines of "He decided to just go on disability so he could play music every weekend".

Her husband was or maybe still is in some swamp pop band and they play at festivals, places in Texas, Mississippi. So he plays music on the weekend, gets paid in cash and is on disability. People don't have shame these days.

But they can investigate into whether or not people are really disabled right? I would think this dude would be on the radar? If you can run a marathon you can work.

quote:

---

I play cards with a cop who gets PTSD pay from military. 6K a month.

---

Moar fake news

quote:

---

Know of a guy who got indicted for claiming veteran disability from being able to work but also receiving benefits for having a veteran owned business.

---

Most people getting disability are able to work full time jobs. It's part of the rating criteria not eligibility criteria. He was indicted because he filed a false claim.

I had a roommate that was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes 100 days before graduation. He was allowed to graduate but not allowed to serve. He received VA disability for diabetes and had a veteran owned construction company at the same time.

quote:

---

He was an MP and never saw combat or deployed to a combat area.

---

What is this strange idea that injuries only “count” if they happen in certain MOSs and under combat conditions? I know infantry soldiers rated at 100 who were permanently disabled doing routine stateside training. One buddy fell from a ropes course, snapped his neck, and is now a paraplegic. No firefight, no deployment, not even a war yet (this was 99).

I also know a mechanic rated at 100 who lost a leg and suffered severe burns over most of his body after crawling into a burning vehicle to save another soldier. The soldier he saved was an infantry PFC fresh out of OSUT (army infantry basic) who walked away with minor physical injuries and now also holds a 100 rating, mostly for PTSD.

Under the feelings-based system some of you are proposing, we’re supposed to believe the infantry kid deserves a higher rating than the man who pulled him out of the fire. You can try to unfrick that logic if you want, but good luck.

Or, we could make this simple and fair by rating the actual injury received.

Instead, some of you keep trying to reinvent the wheel and come up with new ways to disqualify service members from the disability compensation they were explicitly promised in the event they were injured. And yes, it is compensation. It is not civilian disability insurance, no matter how many people in these threads confuse the two or fail to comprehend the clear difference. Service members sign contracts that give the military total control over what risks and injuries they may be subjected to throughout their term of service. These injuries occur both stateside and overseas as well as in combat or in training. The compensation exists because of that reality.

What kind of idiot would attend jump school, for example, fully aware they could be seriously or catastrophically injured, and just arse out of luck and potentially no ability to earn a living unless the injury happens during a combat jump?

This obsession with narrowing who “deserves” compensation isn’t principled and it collapses the second you apply it to real cases instead of hypothetical stereotypes because, in reality, you're just proposing a system based on emotions about which jobs you personally respect rather than logic. Why do all this bullshite instead of just basing it on the only thing that actually matters: the injury itself?

Tinnitus is only 0-10% plus hearing aids

quote:

---

I know several veterans IRL that get disability and work full time

One of them described it as a partial disability or something of the sort

---

I know quite a few veterans that were in daunting MOSs like logistics or air traffic control that never saw a shot fired in anger that claim disabilities. As a former infantry officer that destroyed an ankle, crushed my spine while losing my hearing by running ranges I never even contemplated applying for partial disability.

Name, shame, and send a link to Pete over at. Department of war.


He honestly does look at tweets and has done shite