LET"S GET VETERANS' ISSUES RIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL THIS TIME

question teen if you will .

the liberals said they would allow vets choose a lifelong pension .

do you think that pension should be the PA pension ?

not asking if you think it can be done or if it should be done before during or after some form of act amalgamation .

just asking if you think its right for afgan vets to have a choice of the PA pension.

propat

no not a patchwork benefit a choice of one that already exists .

the one the NVC vets want .

quality .

fairness.

no problem with a merger fix the problems first.

DONT give us another NVC that now not only fracks the new guys but the old guys as well .

propat

Fine then take the best from both acts. Dumb down the legal ease from each one and CREATE a new act.

Don't future veterans deserve to gain from our pain and waiting for the right veterans act for them?

nothing im thinking . not on the harmonization that was my one word to explain a long complicated proses .

but merger that ait it that's NOT a merger at all teen . a merge would be to combine the two pieces of legislation into one that's it that all .

when you start changing the intent of ANY pieces of EITHER act then its NOT a merger at all.

it would not be a new act merging the existing two but a whole new act altogether .

propat

Well guys I have to disagree with you. What you want to do is just add a patchwork benefit for the short game.

Me I'm for the merge and/or a properly thought out answer for the long game.

There is too much crap keeping the NVC together that it's time to fix it properly. Make it so it is direct and easy to read and understand for today's veterans and future veterans.

Well in my conversations with ADM's, staffers, policy makers and the OVO whenever the word merge the two acts 'harmonization' of language was never said.

The words actually used were taking sections of each act, as each one has their good points, and make one act.

So there is no need to harmonize each act then merge them. Just take it make the wording understandable and do it properly.

But hey what do these people know about merging two acts together? Right?

you give the NVC guys an option to choose the PA pension . THATS ONE VET ONE STANDARD .

because the buyout vs the monthly pension is the biggest difference between the two BY FAR.

propat

Teen, I agree with Propat. The entire NVC does not need to be rewritten, only the disability award/pension section. It should be less complex than when they changed the NVC to allow for an election to receive a monthly amount over x number of years, because there are no calculations, or clauses for changing their minds later on, or even cluases dealing with the remainder of amounts owed upon death of the Veteran. It is still an election, but instead of stating under Para 52.1 titled Election as to payment of Award, that states the following;

"(a) to be paid the amount of the disability award as a lump sum;

(b) to be paid each year, in lieu of the amount of the disability award, for up to the number of years indicated by the member or veteran, an amount equal to the amount determined by the formula

A/B + C

where

A
is the amount of the disability award,
B
is the number of years indicated by the member or veteran, and
C
is the amount of interest for that year determined in accordance with the regulations;"


It could simply state

(b) To be paid as a monthly pension, in accordance with the Pension Act

that's what a merger is teen .

but im not the one talking merger nor have I here'd JT talking merger .

not that I wouldn't like to see it happen but not until the problems are fixed .

because you will need to harmonize both acts on paper so they can make sure all the language is compatible before you can merge them witch can take a while and at times turn into a crap show . if they decide to fix the problems at the same time as doing all that the whole thing can turn out to be BIG CRAP SHOW .

fix the problems first WITH compatibility in mind . then the merger becomes a purely administrative exercise and they can take all the time they want to do it.

propat

And why would you think they would merge the two acts as they are?

never said I would want to let the vet choose with ACT they wanted but witch pain and suffering benefit they wanted . the buyout or the PA pension .

propat

no teen if you merge the two acts AS THEY ARE you would not create one vet one standard at all .

propat

So instead of a merge which would actually create "one veteran one standard" you would want to keep both acts viable and let the veteran "choose" which act they want?

its not never said it was .

I said offering the the PA pension as an option is simple .

propat

Then what exactly makes you think it is a simple process?