Each year as Congress assembles, new legislation is introduced. Some bills relate to Vietnam veterans who did not have boots on ground. Many who served at sea and in the air need VA benefits — including compensation — for their survival.
Agent Orange Dioxin, a herbicide used in Vietnam from 1962 to 1973, causes many life-threatening diseases for those who served.
Congress and the VA are well aware of this. Despite this fact, Congress continues to fail our veterans. Without proper funding, the VA can not help many suffering Vietnam veterans. The backlog of submitted claims is overwhelming — it can take a year or more for the VA to review a claim.
Often, the veteran is asked to provide more evidence in support of a claim, but many do not know how or where to find additional evidence. Veteran Service Officers are trained by the VA to help but are overwhelmed with inquiries. They can only provide so much time, and it falls upon the veteran to locate evidence. Many vets just give up because they don't know how and where to find required evidence.
The VA should provide more resources to help veterans.
There is legislation out there to cut the red tape. The backlog can be significantly reduced for those who did not have boots on ground, but are sick nonetheless.
It is about the dollars and politics, not about the veteran. What is a veteran worth? The American people must step forward to urge Congress to do what is right for our nation's veterans.
Media, Delaware County
The writer is a retired from the U.S. Navy, a Vietnam veteran and a veterans' activist.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.