Key numbers: “This year 6m veterans—or a third of the total—qualified for payments, with an average monthly benefit of $2,200.”
Estimated average monthly cost of living, USA, Single person: $3,360src
Difference between those values: $1,160 (not including medical expenses)
[From a 2019-2021 study,] 12.8% of veterans aged 25–64 had problems paying medical bills, 8.4% had forgone medical care, and 38.4% were somewhat or very worried about being able to pay their medical bills if they got sick or had an accident. CDC
Presumptive disability benefits are not some kind of catch-all, where every vet with type-2 diabetes gets disability. The benefits are subject to limitations, the most significant of which seems to be that chronic illnesses need to be diagnosed within a year after release. Click to read more from the VA
As of 11 March 2024 the US Department of Defense fiscal year 2025 (FY2025) budget request was $849.8 billion. Wikipedia
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is requesting a total of $369.3 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2025, a 9.8 percent increase above FY 2024 estimated levels. VA.gov
Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since its founding, receiving about $310 billion (adjusted for inflation) in total economic and military assistance. CFR
Since the start of Israel’s war with Hamas on October 7, 2023, the United States has enacted legislation providing at least $12.5 billion in direct military aid to Israel, which includes $3.8 billion from a bill in March 2024 (in line with the current MOU) and $8.7 billion from a supplemental appropriations act in April 2024. Other analysts—Linda J. Bilmes, William D. Hartung, and Stephen Semler, from Brown University—have reported [PDF] that Israel received $17.9 billion in U.S. military aid during this period, a figure that additionally accounts for the cost to the U.S. Defense Department of replenishing the stock of weapons provided to Israel. CFR
I mean, i don’t know much beyond the article so please correct me but it seems like there’s got to be something between “suffer in deprivation” and getting almost 50k a year for life because at some point you developed type two diabetes, or sleep apnea, neither being particularly rare.
Online videos with tips about how to boost your disability rating are widespread. It is common for veterans to start on the programme at a 50% disability rating for, say, sleep apnea linked to service stress, only to then add more disabilities and have the rating increase to 100% within a few years.
Edit: Clearly folks didn’t read the article. I’ll note another relevant section here, emphasis mine:
Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.
It’s called the cost of war. And if taking care of veterans after they return from said wars, is too much for you, then I suggest you contact your government representatives and discourage them from engaging in more wars. But nothing you could say would ever free them or the government of the obligation they have towards those who fight their wars.
It’s the cost of war, and if you don’t like it, stop fighting wars.
The full cost of Vietnam started coming 20 years after it went in full swing as the veterans started ramping up the benefits they were promised. That same wave for Afghanistan/Iraq is hitting right about now.
Taking care of veterans is one thing. But I’m not sure the obligation extends to someone who develops diabetes, or is one of the 1/5ish Americans who will develop sleep apnea etc.
Sorry, I assumed folks would read the article which was clearly a bad assumption. From the Economist, fairly early on, emphasis mine, just in case folks don’t want to read the full paragrapb:
Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.
Yeah we read the article and we know it is bad. That one-phrase summary of presumptive conditions clearly uses leading language to paint an inaccurate picture of the term.
Notably, there appears to be a requirement that diagnosis happen within one year of release, which the Economist rather lamely and conveniently ignores.
Note: If you have a condition listed in Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a), you won’t need to show the problem started during—or got worse because of—your military service. This is because we automatically assume (or “presume”) that certain conditions that appear within 1 year after discharge are caused by your service. We call these presumptive conditions.
Read Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a) for a complete list of covered illnesses
I’d also note that here’s some of the suggestions google noted while I was looking for the one year diagnosis:
Like, absolutely , there is a huge obligation to veterans and too many have been screwed over the years. But can we also admit that there is definitely some room for abuse or at the very least, for the system to not function quite as intended?
Yeah, this corroborates 100% of what I’m saying. The conditions have to appear within 1 year of discharge.
And sure, it could be abused. You know what definitely shows signs of abuse? The Pentagon failing 7 audits in a row. Keep things in perspective and don’t fall for propaganda that makes you look down on the victims of war.
Oh, I forgot, veterans just become regular people as soon as they become medically inconvenient. Fighting a war, and get a disease later? The government should just tell them to fuck off, right? Because as soon as you get sick, you’re not a veteran anymore, you’re just a common piece of trash, right?
You are missing the service connected requirement. Not all diabetes or sleep apnea is covered.
A service-connected condition is an injury or disease that was caused by or worsened by a veteran’s active military service.
In other words, the military ordered you to do a thing that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, caused/worsened an injury or disease. Thats different than voluntarily making personal choices that have the same effect.
You are missing the service connected requirement. Not all diabetes or sleep apnea is covered.
A service-connected condition is an injury or disease that was caused by or worsened by a veteran’s active military service.
That’s literally exactly not the case and kind of the problem. Sorry, I assumed othets read the article. From the Economist article, emphasis mine:
Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.
Thanks for bringing this confusion to attention, I have added the following fact check to the body text of the post:
Presumptive disability benefits are not some kind of catch-all, where every vet with type-2 diabetes gets disability. The benefits are subject to limitations, the most significant of which seems to be that chronic illnesses need to be diagnosed within a year after release. Click to read more from the VA
Note: If you have a condition listed in Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a), you won’t need to show the problem started during—or got worse because of—your military service. This is because we automatically assume (or “presume”) that certain conditions that appear within 1 year after discharge are caused by your service. We call these presumptive conditions.
Read Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a) for a complete list of covered illnesses
I’d also note that here’s some of the suggestions google noted while I was looking for the one year diagnosis:
Like, absolutely , there is a huge obligation to veterans and too many have been screwed over the years. But can we also admit that there is definitely some room for abuse or at the very least, for the system to not function quite as intended?
This is such a weird and new holy-conservative-crusade against Veterans. It’s been slowly picking up steam the past couple of weeks so I imagine this is being blasted across conservative media atm and on things like tiktok. I wonder if this is a strategy to stranglehold the military’s funding unless they play ball with Trumps administration, only reason I can think that they want to turn on the troops now.
You do know this is just another in a long line of conservative hit jobs. Latest was election interference (no actual statistical interference found), then there was “Drug users on government assistance” (drug testing was extremely more expensive than the funding-support on the low number of recipients who actually tested positive), and now it’s veterans getting extra benefits?!?
I would definitely admit that no program is perfect, that’s not going to happen. Now are we basing the veteran benefits off of actual data that was researched and presented or is this just click-bait anecdotal evidence that a few individuals are presenting? There is currently an estimated 18 million US veterans, how many would statistically need to be scamming for their to be a financial incentive to make the process harder and move expensive for the individual and government?
I mean, i don’t know much beyond the article so please correct me but it seems like there’s got to be something between “suffer in deprivation” and getting almost 50k a year for life because at some point you developed type two diabetes, or sleep apnea, neither being particularly rare.
Edit: Clearly folks didn’t read the article. I’ll note another relevant section here, emphasis mine:
It’s called the cost of war. And if taking care of veterans after they return from said wars, is too much for you, then I suggest you contact your government representatives and discourage them from engaging in more wars. But nothing you could say would ever free them or the government of the obligation they have towards those who fight their wars.
It’s the cost of war, and if you don’t like it, stop fighting wars.
Say it again for those in the back.
The full cost of Vietnam started coming 20 years after it went in full swing as the veterans started ramping up the benefits they were promised. That same wave for Afghanistan/Iraq is hitting right about now.
Taking care of veterans is one thing. But I’m not sure the obligation extends to someone who develops diabetes, or is one of the 1/5ish Americans who will develop sleep apnea etc.
Sorry, I assumed folks would read the article which was clearly a bad assumption. From the Economist, fairly early on, emphasis mine, just in case folks don’t want to read the full paragrapb:
Yeah we read the article and we know it is bad. That one-phrase summary of presumptive conditions clearly uses leading language to paint an inaccurate picture of the term.
Here is the actual description of the benefit, I recommend you read it: https://www.benefits.va.gov/BENEFITS/factsheets/serviceconnected/presumption.pdf
Notably, there appears to be a requirement that diagnosis happen within one year of release, which the Economist rather lamely and conveniently ignores.
From VA.gov:
I’d also note that here’s some of the suggestions google noted while I was looking for the one year diagnosis:
Like, absolutely , there is a huge obligation to veterans and too many have been screwed over the years. But can we also admit that there is definitely some room for abuse or at the very least, for the system to not function quite as intended?
Edit: missed the quote symbol.
Yeah, this corroborates 100% of what I’m saying. The conditions have to appear within 1 year of discharge.
And sure, it could be abused. You know what definitely shows signs of abuse? The Pentagon failing 7 audits in a row. Keep things in perspective and don’t fall for propaganda that makes you look down on the victims of war.
Oh, I forgot, veterans just become regular people as soon as they become medically inconvenient. Fighting a war, and get a disease later? The government should just tell them to fuck off, right? Because as soon as you get sick, you’re not a veteran anymore, you’re just a common piece of trash, right?
You are missing the service connected requirement. Not all diabetes or sleep apnea is covered.
A service-connected condition is an injury or disease that was caused by or worsened by a veteran’s active military service.
In other words, the military ordered you to do a thing that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, caused/worsened an injury or disease. Thats different than voluntarily making personal choices that have the same effect.
That’s literally exactly not the case and kind of the problem. Sorry, I assumed othets read the article. From the Economist article, emphasis mine:
Thanks for bringing this confusion to attention, I have added the following fact check to the body text of the post:
Presumptive disability benefits are not some kind of catch-all, where every vet with type-2 diabetes gets disability. The benefits are subject to limitations, the most significant of which seems to be that chronic illnesses need to be diagnosed within a year after release. Click to read more from the VA
Just copying this from another response but:
From VA.gov:
I’d also note that here’s some of the suggestions google noted while I was looking for the one year diagnosis:
Like, absolutely , there is a huge obligation to veterans and too many have been screwed over the years. But can we also admit that there is definitely some room for abuse or at the very least, for the system to not function quite as intended?
This is such a weird and new holy-conservative-crusade against Veterans. It’s been slowly picking up steam the past couple of weeks so I imagine this is being blasted across conservative media atm and on things like tiktok. I wonder if this is a strategy to stranglehold the military’s funding unless they play ball with Trumps administration, only reason I can think that they want to turn on the troops now.
You do know this is just another in a long line of conservative hit jobs. Latest was election interference (no actual statistical interference found), then there was “Drug users on government assistance” (drug testing was extremely more expensive than the funding-support on the low number of recipients who actually tested positive), and now it’s veterans getting extra benefits?!?
I would definitely admit that no program is perfect, that’s not going to happen. Now are we basing the veteran benefits off of actual data that was researched and presented or is this just click-bait anecdotal evidence that a few individuals are presenting? There is currently an estimated 18 million US veterans, how many would statistically need to be scamming for their to be a financial incentive to make the process harder and move expensive for the individual and government?