The Economist: American Vets benefits are too rich
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
Find fraud but never cut disability benes for cops, military, firefighters, etc
Listen to this story.
Donald Trump delights in projecting strength, meaning he loves America’s armed forces. During his first term, the president-elect signed legislation to spend more on defence, before proclaiming that he had “accomplished the military”. On the campaign trail, he doubled down, vowing further increases in defence spending and promising to tackle a recruitment shortfall. Yet he also wants to cut government waste, and has hired Elon Musk to lead a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
When it comes to the Department of Veterans Affairs, these two instincts may be in tension. The department’s budget has surged over the past two decades, rising from $86bn in today’s dollars (then equivalent to 2.6% of the federal budget) in 2000 to $336bn (5% of today’s budget) this year. It now receives almost three times as much as the Department of Transportation. Remarkably, this boom has occurred despite a nearly one-third decline in the veteran population, which has fallen from 26m to 18m. Annual spending per veteran, as a consequence, has risen six-fold.
Chart: The Economist
Mr Musk is zeroing in on discretionary spending, which includes programmes such as the department’s medical services. But the main driver of its spending surge is mandatory outlays for disability compensation. Between 2000 and 2024, such payments ballooned from $26bn, in today’s prices, to $159bn. Last year alone saw a 17% jump. And the department’s latest budget request forecasts that compensation will soar to $185bn over the next two years.
The current system was introduced during the first world war. It provides tax-free monthly payments to soldiers who are injured or sick owing to their service. From 1960 to 2000, roughly 9% of veterans qualified for payments, typically for ailments such as hearing loss or burns. The department assigns a rating from zero to 100% based on the severity of disabilities. In 2000 the average rating was 30%; monthly payments averaged the equivalent of $975 today. Few qualified for the top tier.
The modern programme bears little resemblance to its original form. This year 6m veterans—or a third of the total—qualified for payments, with an average monthly benefit of $2,200. Veterans may file claims for an unlimited number of disabilities and appeal against decisions as often as they wish. The average rating has climbed above 60%, and one in four disabled veterans now receives the once-rare 100% rating. Such a designation ensures a generous $4,000 monthly payment for life, with no conditions attached. Starting at the age of 25, a former soldier could earn well over $2m in present-value terms.
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. The reasoning for such expansion is not always robust. For instance, a department-funded study found only “limited evidence” linking herbicide exposure in Vietnam to type-2 diabetes. In 2022 President Joe Biden’s PACT Act expanded eligibility further, with illnesses such as asthma and chronic rhinitis gaining approval, as some soldiers had picked up the conditions from “burn pits” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is unclear if the spending is even benefiting veterans. Research by Mr Duggan and co-authors finds that disability compensation has reduced employment, with one in five new recipients leaving the workforce after the change in 2001. As nearly 2m additional working-age men have gone on the rolls since then, this implies 400,000 may have been discouraged from work. A study in 2022 by David Silver, then of Princeton University, and Jonathan Zhang, then of McMaster University, found that extra compensation had failed to boost veterans’ mental and physical health. Indeed, suicide rates have increased relative to comparable non-veterans.
To rein in costs and focus the department’s mission, policymakers could take a page from the Congressional Budget Office’s recommendations. The non-partisan scorekeeper advises narrowing eligibility for disability compensation to veterans with severe service-connected conditions, lowering benefits for some veterans and introducing a means test. Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise. America’s veteran obsession has gone too far. ■
Donald Trump delights in projecting strength, meaning he loves America’s armed forces. During his first term, the president-elect signed legislation to spend more on defence, before proclaiming that he had “accomplished the military”. On the campaign trail, he doubled down, vowing further increases in defence spending and promising to tackle a recruitment shortfall. Yet he also wants to cut government waste, and has hired Elon Musk to lead a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
When it comes to the Department of Veterans Affairs, these two instincts may be in tension. The department’s budget has surged over the past two decades, rising from $86bn in today’s dollars (then equivalent to 2.6% of the federal budget) in 2000 to $336bn (5% of today’s budget) this year. It now receives almost three times as much as the Department of Transportation. Remarkably, this boom has occurred despite a nearly one-third decline in the veteran population, which has fallen from 26m to 18m. Annual spending per veteran, as a consequence, has risen six-fold.
Mr Musk is zeroing in on discretionary spending, which includes programmes such as the department’s medical services. But the main driver of its spending surge is mandatory outlays for disability compensation. Between 2000 and 2024, such payments ballooned from $26bn, in today’s prices, to $159bn. Last year alone saw a 17% jump. And the department’s latest budget request forecasts that compensation will soar to $185bn over the next two years.
The current system was introduced during the first world war. It provides tax-free monthly payments to soldiers who are injured or sick owing to their service. From 1960 to 2000, roughly 9% of veterans qualified for payments, typically for ailments such as hearing loss or burns. The department assigns a rating from zero to 100% based on the severity of disabilities. In 2000 the average rating was 30%; monthly payments averaged the equivalent of $975 today. Few qualified for the top tier.
The modern programme bears little resemblance to its original form. This year 6m veterans—or a third of the total—qualified for payments, with an average monthly benefit of $2,200. Veterans may file claims for an unlimited number of disabilities and appeal against decisions as often as they wish. The average rating has climbed above 60%, and one in four disabled veterans now receives the once-rare 100% rating. Such a designation ensures a generous $4,000 monthly payment for life, with no conditions attached. Starting at the age of 25, a former soldier could earn well over $2m in present-value terms.
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. The reasoning for such expansion is not always robust. For instance, a department-funded study found only “limited evidence” linking herbicide exposure in Vietnam to type-2 diabetes. In 2022 President Joe Biden’s PACT Act expanded eligibility further, with illnesses such as asthma and chronic rhinitis gaining approval, as some soldiers had picked up the conditions from “burn pits” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oh dark hundred
Once on the payroll, veterans usually remain beneficiaries for life. The stigma around collecting payments has faded in recent decades. 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. “It’s a programme that helps a lot of people who deserve it, but getting on the programme becomes an escalator to higher disability ratings and compensation,” says Mark Duggan of Stanford University. “Once you qualify you have an incentive not to get better.”It is unclear if the spending is even benefiting veterans. Research by Mr Duggan and co-authors finds that disability compensation has reduced employment, with one in five new recipients leaving the workforce after the change in 2001. As nearly 2m additional working-age men have gone on the rolls since then, this implies 400,000 may have been discouraged from work. A study in 2022 by David Silver, then of Princeton University, and Jonathan Zhang, then of McMaster University, found that extra compensation had failed to boost veterans’ mental and physical health. Indeed, suicide rates have increased relative to comparable non-veterans.
To rein in costs and focus the department’s mission, policymakers could take a page from the Congressional Budget Office’s recommendations. The non-partisan scorekeeper advises narrowing eligibility for disability compensation to veterans with severe service-connected conditions, lowering benefits for some veterans and introducing a means test. Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise. America’s veteran obsession has gone too far. ■
I think there's some truth there.
At one of the local restaurants, there was a VFW table set up and I was talking to the guys and they asked me what I did in the Army. I told them I listened to Russians. They asked if I had any disabilities. I laughed and said no, by job didn't require too much physical activity.
Honest-to-God, they said "How's your hearing?" I said fine. They said are you sure? You hearing may have been affected by your job (we wore headphones). I laughed and they said no, really - I could get disability from the VA if I failed a hearing test (wink, wink). Evidently, a hearing disability is easy to get, espcially if you were on a flight line or were firing off artillary or such jobs.
My nieces father-in-law was in at the same time and has like 70% disability from some back problems, yet I've never seen the guy have any issues at all.
I think it's pretty easy to claim a disability if you were in the military in almost any era or locality. It's all percentages. It just pisses me off so many are clearly not in a 'disability' situation.
Take that money for the questionable ones and give it to the guys who lost limbs or suffer real mental issues.
I used to know a guy through work we worked with some similar clients... He was in his late 60s at the time and this was a decade ago. But he talked about getting his VA disability check. Also while bragging about the thousands of acres Iowa farmland he owned. He kept working into his 70s as he didn't like retirement. But he was probably worth $10m but was still getting $3k/mo VA disability or whatever it was.
Your data here inspired me to look up the process. Very interesting. Very different than social security disabilityListen to this story.
Donald Trump delights in projecting strength, meaning he loves America’s armed forces. During his first term, the president-elect signed legislation to spend more on defence, before proclaiming that he had “accomplished the military”. On the campaign trail, he doubled down, vowing further increases in defence spending and promising to tackle a recruitment shortfall. Yet he also wants to cut government waste, and has hired Elon Musk to lead a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
When it comes to the Department of Veterans Affairs, these two instincts may be in tension. The department’s budget has surged over the past two decades, rising from $86bn in today’s dollars (then equivalent to 2.6% of the federal budget) in 2000 to $336bn (5% of today’s budget) this year. It now receives almost three times as much as the Department of Transportation. Remarkably, this boom has occurred despite a nearly one-third decline in the veteran population, which has fallen from 26m to 18m. Annual spending per veteran, as a consequence, has risen six-fold.
Chart: The Economist
Mr Musk is zeroing in on discretionary spending, which includes programmes such as the department’s medical services. But the main driver of its spending surge is mandatory outlays for disability compensation. Between 2000 and 2024, such payments ballooned from $26bn, in today’s prices, to $159bn. Last year alone saw a 17% jump. And the department’s latest budget request forecasts that compensation will soar to $185bn over the next two years.
The current system was introduced during the first world war. It provides tax-free monthly payments to soldiers who are injured or sick owing to their service. From 1960 to 2000, roughly 9% of veterans qualified for payments, typically for ailments such as hearing loss or burns. The department assigns a rating from zero to 100% based on the severity of disabilities. In 2000 the average rating was 30%; monthly payments averaged the equivalent of $975 today. Few qualified for the top tier.
The modern programme bears little resemblance to its original form. This year 6m veterans—or a third of the total—qualified for payments, with an average monthly benefit of $2,200. Veterans may file claims for an unlimited number of disabilities and appeal against decisions as often as they wish. The average rating has climbed above 60%, and one in four disabled veterans now receives the once-rare 100% rating. Such a designation ensures a generous $4,000 monthly payment for life, with no conditions attached. Starting at the age of 25, a former soldier could earn well over $2m in present-value terms.
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. The reasoning for such expansion is not always robust. For instance, a department-funded study found only “limited evidence” linking herbicide exposure in Vietnam to type-2 diabetes. In 2022 President Joe Biden’s PACT Act expanded eligibility further, with illnesses such as asthma and chronic rhinitis gaining approval, as some soldiers had picked up the conditions from “burn pits” in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oh dark hundred
Once on the payroll, veterans usually remain beneficiaries for life. The stigma around collecting payments has faded in recent decades. 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. “It’s a programme that helps a lot of people who deserve it, but getting on the programme becomes an escalator to higher disability ratings and compensation,” says Mark Duggan of Stanford University. “Once you qualify you have an incentive not to get better.”
It is unclear if the spending is even benefiting veterans. Research by Mr Duggan and co-authors finds that disability compensation has reduced employment, with one in five new recipients leaving the workforce after the change in 2001. As nearly 2m additional working-age men have gone on the rolls since then, this implies 400,000 may have been discouraged from work. A study in 2022 by David Silver, then of Princeton University, and Jonathan Zhang, then of McMaster University, found that extra compensation had failed to boost veterans’ mental and physical health. Indeed, suicide rates have increased relative to comparable non-veterans.
To rein in costs and focus the department’s mission, policymakers could take a page from the Congressional Budget Office’s recommendations. The non-partisan scorekeeper advises narrowing eligibility for disability compensation to veterans with severe service-connected conditions, lowering benefits for some veterans and introducing a means test. Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise. America’s veteran obsession has gone too far. ■
The numbers of able-bodied people collecting Medicare-disability is a travesty. I can’t imagine it’s any different for the military.
Find the right physician and judge…presto.
When they are processed out they are basically told they are dumb if they don't take the disability rating and everything that comes with it. There is abuse of the system but everyone is afraid to do anything about it because then they are seen as attacking vets.
Really, we are basically a country in decline. Ethically, morally, physically...there is a current or not too distant generation that is going to face that reality eventually and it will be ugly.
Dad's VA physicians and his surgeons that repaired his largest aneurysm all encouraged him to try to get his ratings increased. It's been a long process in order to do so. I can't imagine that it's easier for others than it has been for him.
There is a metric shit-ton of shameful vets defrauding the government for benefits. The lack of dignity is outrageous.
This vet knows the fraud is real and it’s shameful. I refused everything because nothing is wrong with me - except what the haters here will say…🤓
Revisiting Sebastian Junger
Journalist, author, and filmmaker Sebastian Junger discusses his book Tribe—an exploration of how a fractious society disengaged from war may contribute to PTSD suffered by veterans.
The “PTSD” rate is double the rate of those that actually experienced combat. The system is broken.
PTSD is very real - but most of the people claiming to have it - don’t. They’ve either been made to believe they have it or are shameful fraudsters.
I believe most of the vets I work with who are working full-time are 100% disabled. They appear able bodied. Some run marathons on weekends. But who am I to judge as wounds are unseen. Regardless, they are very proud of that 100% mark and have no shame in saying it. It's openly discussed and I hear them discussing how those who are not at 100 should do x, y, z to get 100. 3k checks per month. No property tax. Free medical and dental. Family too I think. Free college for all children. The list goes on. They also love to rail against Uncle Sam. You might say the hypocrisy is rich.
I always thought 100% disabled means you are a vegetable and need on the clock assistance, but not in this system. My friend is a doc in another country and they have a similar system and he has vets constantly coming in looking to bump up their ratings.
Meanwhile, I sadly suspect there are some with far more serious lifetime injuries who either are too prideful or have not figured out how to play the game and are not at 100. I find it very sad personally.
No one has the balls to expose it, but the rating system needs material revision.
Vivek and Musk are saying things that lead me to believe that their reform efforts are going to be a failure. There are some pretty simple reforms that could occur that would improve things immensely. Firing 70% of the federal workforce isn't that.
If you read the IG reports most of the answers are already there.
I absolutely support looking at every penny with a fine tooth comb. I would start with the most ridiculous budget concept. Use it or lose it. I have no budget but we watch our money very carefully. And we don't pay $25k for $250 toilet seats. Or $70,000 for a $700 missile.
Imo all that will come out of this administration is grift and chaos. The concept sounds great but very few actors in American politics or society are working in the interest of the public. There has been a complete breakdown in the American social contract. And that long precedes this administration.
Let. Them. Cook! There’s no way they’d even have a rudimentary understanding of how things work yet.
I've seen both sides of it.
I have an ex Navy in-law in his late 60's who slipped and fell and has been drawing VA disability benefits from it since the 80's...never worked a day in his lazy, hillbilly life since.
OTOH, my brother-in-law in his early 50's wrecked his back in the early 90's while in the Marines ANGLICO @ jump qualification. He's not receiving any disablity benefits.
I have an ex Navy in-law in his late 60's who slipped and fell and has been drawing VA disability benefits from it since the 80's...never worked a day in his lazy, hillbilly life since.
OTOH, my brother-in-law in his early 50's wrecked his back in the early 90's while in the Marines ANGLICO @ jump qualification. He's not receiving any disablity benefits.
Youthful pride more than likely. Laid him up for a few weeks and he went back at it until he left the service. But he was never physically the same. By the time it started giving him real trouble in civilian life, he was the sole breadwinner for a family of 6 working labor intensive jobs in paving. He did what he felt he needed to do and soldiered on. Now his kids are grown, he's divorced and he has a number of other health related maladies unrelated to his service. At the cajoling of my wife he just started the process of getting disability benefits, but he's still working 40-60 hours a week during the busy spring-fall months.
None of the bolded comes with a disability rating. If you want to debate something, try using accuracy and facts.
In the 80s, children of disabled vets got the majority of in-state tuition paid at state schools. Not sure if that's still a thing or not.
Definitely not free college though.
I don't know where you live but I just googled it and in Texas the no property tax is directly tied to a 100% disability rating.
I'm not an expert on this. I mean free in state tuition by free college. That's what I think of as free college. Not that they are paying them to go to Harvard.
In Texas I believe dependents of 100% disabled vets receive free in state tuition up to 150 credit hours. I'm not a vet or disabled so I haven't felt the need to dig into it further.
There are some different perks for vets in different states. In some states retired pay doesn’t get taxed, for example. Same for disabled vets. The things he lists are different programs not related to disability rating.
Like I said above. My tuition was reduced by a significant amount in the 80s. I just had to stay in state at a public university. It figured into the equation when I was deciding between playing college basketball at a small private school or going to IU. In hindsight, I'm happy with the choice to give up basketball and get tuition mostly covered at IU. It was easier financially on my parents too.
Ok so in Texas some of the benefits are directly tied to your rating. I was only speaking to what I overhear which was clear in my post.
Not sure how you can say that when there are programs in various states for disabled vets. You're not a disabled vet unless you have a rating.
Having excessive benefits leads to fraud. This is true of vets’ benefits just as it’s true for SSI and welfare.
It’s the way I understood it. Also monthly pay for 100% disability is almost $4,000.
No, I don’t have that rating. 😉
