Reply to OMB trying to change guidance to no back pay

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "OMB trying to change guidance to no back pay "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This obviously sucks. But what sucks even more is that some people who are excepted and working have been told to mark their timecards as furloughed. So if this comes to pass, they won't get paid even though they've been working as usual. [/quote]

I’d refuse to do one ounce of work and I wouldn’t go in to office. [/quote]

And that is what sets civil servants apart. Many of us believe in what we do. I for one believe our military service members have earned the health care I provide and to withhold that care because my paycheck may be delayed, or even absent, is disrespectful of their sacrifice.[/quote]

Did you read that WP article about all of the disability fraud veterans are collecting?[/quote]

Not a veteran, but this PALES in comparison the SSDI fraud. I’m shocked at what I see first hand with some relatives I have. [/quote]

There are so many inaccuracies and the language used is offensive and inflammatory.  It is clear none of these authors have served a day in the military.  The VA doesn’t encourage veterans to file as many claims as possible to “milk the system.”  Many claims are rated at zero but it’s important to get it all on record if it is service connected so you can get it treated later if needed.  These would be listed as “claims” but it doesn’t mean service members get paid anything for it.  There is also a law of diminishing returns with claims (i.e. 10 ailments rated at 10% does not add up to a 100% rating) so looking at them in isolation is misleading, and that’s assuming good intent.  [b]I would also say sleep apnea is, in fact, a service related injury, particularly at the higher severity levels.  If the authors did any kind of research into it, they would know that sleep apnea rates among service members deployed to the Middle East are far greater than the general US population.[/b] The rating for that has also changed downward recently, but even before that, very few loss of limb ratings were lower for any kind of significant loss of functionality (the author cites only one). Every parent who has had an infant knows the torture it is to go day in and day out with few hours of really solid sleep, which is what sleep apnea is like but instead of your child eventually sleeping, it’s like that for the rest of your life. Not to mention the risk of heart attacks and not breathing.  I could go on but why?  It’s hard to believe at least one is a Pulitzer Prize winning author.

Lastly, many veterans have PTSD they don’t admit to due to stigma and a fear of the loss of rights. There has been a better focus on this in recent years, but there is still an issue with getting those veterans the actual help they really need.

I would agree with the PP that fraud in VA benefits, as demonstrated by the few examples in the article compared to the millions of veterans who have served, is far less than in other government programs. [/quote]

This is way off topic, but re the bolded, correlation does not equal causation.  Also, on what basis are you asserting that sleep apnea is service related?  No one is disputing that it can be a severe condition, but that is, frankly irrelevant to the military disability determination.

Finally, this sentence is just silly:

"I would agree with the PP that fraud in VA benefits, as demonstrated by the few examples in the article compared to the millions of veterans who have served, is far less than in other government programs."

The logic, if you can call it that, appears to be that since the Post article didn't catalog every instance of suspected disability fraud in the military, the inescable conclusion is that there are "far less" (sic) instances of fraud in the military ?  OK.  
 
I have no idea if the post article is well-researched or not.  But knee-jerk reflexive defense of all things military is not particularly compelling.[/quote]

Ok, then you go do it.  You serve in the ME for years and tell me how you feel when you get back after all that breathing in of toxic pollutants.  Seriously, go do it.

Not defending all things military, don’t hear what I am lot saying.  And correlation isn’t necessarily causation, agreed, but it is nearly impossible to prove causation since these issues evidence so far into the future, not right after exposure.  The same can be said for any exposure to environmental chemicals that cause diseases that take time to develop in severity.  This is the whole reason for the PACT Act.

When taken in sum total, the misrepresentations and inaccuracies can only lead to one conclusion.  That the authors are trying to convince you of a particular view.  This is what happens when you don’t report objectively.  This appears to have worked for you.[/quote]

DP, if you were talking about, say, lung cancer, then I might understand. But sleep apnea- particularly obstructive sleep apnea- 10+ years later really isn't likely to be related.

But certainly we should get CPAPs/BiPAPs for those who need them.[/quote]

Come talk to me after you have served.  Otherwise your opinions aren’t really relevant.  [/quote]

So people who have never been pregnant can't make decisions about reproductive rights?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics