Battling bureaucracy to ensure long term care for veterans

March 28, 2008
Battling bureaucracy to ensure long term care for veterans
I discovered this article surfing military.com the other day and found it emotionally riveting. Many of us who served in the Armed Forces were fortunate enough not to have sustained life altering injuries of the magnitude described during a recent hearing on March 13th reflecting on the Care of Seriously Wounded After In-Patient Care conducted by the House Veterans' Affairs Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. The purpose of the hearing was to assess how the Department of Veterans Affairs cares for our nation's most seriously wounded veterans following inpatient treatment.

An opening statement by the Chairman, Representative Harry E. Mitchell, from Arizona set the tone for the hearing:

"We are here today to hear from veterans, their families, and the Department of Veterans Affairs about the long-term care of our most severely wounded Afghanistan and Iraq veterans. We know that DoD and VA provide the excellent inpatient healthcare for these warriors. But many of the most seriously injured require extensive outpatient care, some of them for life. Their families need care and assistance as well. Unfortunately, once these veterans leave the hospital, the care they receive does not seem to be on par with what they received directly following their injury. I think we can do better."

He went on to say:

"...The Department of Defense and the VA are large organizations with an overwhelming bureaucracy. Their care and services often overlap in messy and unpredictable ways. At a time of enormous stress, this bureaucracy only hurts the injured warrior and his family... We are going to hear from people that have been dealing with the difficulties of the system for a long time. On February 14, 2004 Army Sergeant Ted Wade lost his right arm and suffered severed traumatic brain injury, along with many other injuries, in an IED explosion in Iraq. Sgt. Wade is here today with his wife, Sarah."
go here for the rest
http://asmba.typepad.com/veterans/2008/03/battling-bureau.html

Non-combat wounds and "non-service connected" are two terms we need to dispose of. If they are deployed, then it is a combat wound. Doesn't matter if it was because of TBI, vaccines, tainted water, bombs, bullets, accidents or Post Traumatic Stress. If they were not deployed then fine, it's non-combat. If they went, they went into combat zones and came home wounded. What are they afraid of? Too many Purple Hearts to give out? Then let them design another kind of badge of honor for everyone else wounded. How they could even consider PTSD or TBI a non-combat wound is beyond reason.


When you hear "non-service connected" that does not mean it was not connected to service but the Veterans Administration has not yet acknowledged the claim. This happens when they claim is in process of being approved or denied, denied and on appeal or trapped between the two. Until a claim is approved, they call it "non-service connected" even if you are sitting there with two missing legs blown off by an IED. This leaves the wounded veterans SOL and out of income. It adds to the stress they already have to deal with trying to heal when they have bills coming in and no way to pay them because they have a claim that is not approved yet. The answer the VA gives is "Well once your claim is approved it's retroactive and then you'll have your money" but this does not tell them how to pay the bills between wound and approval. It does not tell them how they can find faith in the system of the government they served, were willing to lay down their lives for, were wounded in the service of, when the same government is allowing them to be penalized for the lack of planning to make sure all departments were ramped up in order to take care of them.