u/Tasty-Window

1. If you’re currently 70% and apply for TDIU, does that typically involve a new C&P exam?

2 If TDIU later ends because you return to substantially gainful employment, does that usually require another exam, or do you simply revert to the underlying schedular rating?

3. If your underlying conditions were previously marked static, do they generally remain static afterward, or does pursuing TDIU commonly lead to additional future reviews?

Assuming the evidence supports it, my concern is that I may need TDIU now, but I still hope to improve enough to work again in the future and don’t want to unintentionally jeopardize my current ratings.

Hey all, wanted to put this on people’s radar because it could directly affect Reservists and Guardsmen.

There’s a bill in Congress called the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act. The House version is H.R. 1423 and the Senate version is S. 649.

The basic idea is that more paid Guard and Reserve duty should count toward Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility. Right now, a lot of time spent in uniform does not always count the same way active-duty time does, even when it is required training, schools, exercises, missions, or other paid duty.

Supporters describe the goal as making sure every day in uniform counts.

This matters because a lot of Reserve Component soldiers spend years balancing civilian jobs, family, school, BA weekends, AT, orders, military schools, missions, and deployments. The Guard and Reserve have been used heavily for years, but the benefits system does not always reflect that service.

This bill has not become law yet, so do not assume your benefits have changed. But it is active legislation and has bipartisan support.

Look up:

H.R. 1423, Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act
S. 649, Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act

If this is something you support, consider contacting your Representative and Senators and asking them to support it.

Not trying to make this political. Just sharing because this could affect a lot of TPU, IMA, Guard, and Reserve folks who have put in years of paid service that may not fully count toward GI Bill eligibility right now.

TL;DR: There is a proposal in Congress to expand Post-9/11 GI Bill eligibility for Guard and Reserve members by counting more paid days in uniform. Look up H.R. 1423 and S. 649.

Just came across a proposed House bill that may interest Guard and Reserve folks:

H.R. 6225, the “Expanding Home Loans for Guard and Reservists Act”

The bill would expand VA home loan eligibility to people who performed at least 30 consecutive days of Active Duty for Training (ADT), even if they do not otherwise qualify under current VA loan rules.

Important part:

• Basic training/boot camp would NOT count
• But the bill language suggests other training periods potentially could

Relevant text:

>

This could potentially affect:

• National Guard
• Reserve
• IADT / MOS school situations
• Long AIT / tech school pipelines

There is still ambiguity about whether certain initial-entry training pipelines (like OSUT or Marine IADT) would count, since the bill excludes “basic training” but does not fully define where that exclusion ends.

Bill text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6225

Looks like there has been some interest in the bill, but no movement so far. If this would affect you, might be worth writing your representatives and letting them know Guard/Reserve home loan eligibility matters to you.

A lot of people here have seen headlines about "new mental health rating changes coming." Here's the actual background, because this has been sitting in limbo for over four years and there's a lot of confusion about it.

What the VA proposed (Feb 2022)

On February 15, 2022, the VA published a proposed rule to rewrite the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders in 38 CFR 4.130. Official Federal Register link: federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/15/2022-02051/schedule-for-rating-disabilities-mental-disorders

The big proposed changes:

• A new five-domain framework. Instead of matching your symptoms to a tier description, raters would score impairment in five areas of functioning: (1) cognition, (2) interpersonal interactions and relationships, (3) task completion and life activities, (4) navigating environments, and (5) self-care. Each domain gets scored 0 to 4 based on how severe the impairment is and how often it happens.
• Eliminating the 0% rating. Every service-connected mental disorder would get at least 10%. The VA's reasoning: a real DSM-5 diagnosis inherently involves dysfunction, so zero impairment basically never happens.
• An easier path to higher ratings. A score of 4 in just one domain would warrant 100%; a 3 in one domain would warrant 70%. The VA's own proof-of-concept study suggested more veterans would land above 50% under the new system.
• Folding eating disorders into the same formula. The separate Rating Formula for Eating Disorders would be deleted.
• Three new "Notes," the most controversial being Note 2, which says to rate the veteran based on their symptoms after the ameliorating effects of medication are taken into account.

Like all regulation changes, it went out for public comment

Federal rulemaking requires a public comment period. This one closed April 18, 2022, and the docket received 800+ comments. You can read them here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/VA-2022-VBA-0010-0001/comment

First, the three "Notes" the rule would add, since the comments reference them constantly:

• Note 1: coexisting mental disorders get a single combined rating, not separate ratings (anti-pyramiding). This seems to already be practice (aside from eating disorders?)
• Note 2: rate the veteran's symptoms after accounting for the ameliorating effects of medication.
• Note 3: frequency means the percentage of time in a given month that impairment occurs.

How the major organizations weighed in (most supported the general direction but objected to specific pieces):

• The American Legion opposed the rule overall, though it commended several individual changes as favorable. It argued ratings should stay based on the "severity, frequency and duration of symptoms," and challenged the VA's proof-of-concept study, contending the methodology VA cited actually described drug trials and that a 100-veteran sample was far too small.
• DAV supported the overall changes but took specific exception to Note 2, calling it contradictory to Jones v. Shinseki and saying VA "must remove the proposed second note." DAV also flagged that the current formula lists suicidal ideation at the 70% level and "persistent danger of hurting self or others" at 100%, and that both were dropped from the proposed system. DAV urged VA to add them back.
• VFW supported the new domains but called Note 3's frequency tracking impractical and the 30-day lookback too short, recommending "no less than 180 days" and possibly a full year.
• Vietnam Veterans of America argued the "No difficulties / Mild / Moderate / Severe / Total" criteria require medical expertise that VA raters don't have, tying this to the court's ruling in Colvin v. Derwinski, and warned of absurd results, like a veteran with weekly hallucinations failing to hit the "25% of the time" threshold and dropping from 100% to 30%.
• PVA called Note 2 "not supported in law, dangerous to veterans, and bad public policy." Their line: VA "would never consider reducing the rating of an amputee based on the sophistication of the prosthetic."
• Wounded Warrior Project worried Note 1, combined with new overlapping symptom language, could pressure raters to fold PTSD and TBI (which is rated under a separate section, 38 CFR 4.124a) into a single rating, undercompensating veterans with both.
• AVAPL, the VA's own psychologists' association, and several others opposed Note 2, warning that rating veterans on their medicated state would discourage treatment, since medication non-adherence is common with serious mental illness.
• NAMI was broadly supportive and actually urged VA to "finalize the changes as proposed," while cautioning generally against penalizing veterans who stay on medication.

The recurring themes across comments: remove or fix Note 2 (medication effects), clarify or lengthen the Note 3 time standard, and put suicidal ideation back into the criteria.

Where it stands now (May 2026)

Still not final. Four-plus years later, it remains a proposed rule. The VA's Unified Agenda projected a final rule in August 2025; that came and went. At a House VA subcommittee hearing on January 14, 2026, the VA testified it now hopes to finalize the four remaining body systems (including mental health) by the end of FY2026. A GAO report at that same hearing (GAO-26-108844) basically said the VA has missed every deadline on this project for a decade, and that the earnings-loss data underneath the whole rating schedule still dates to 1945.

What this means for you:

• The current 38 CFR 4.130 is still the law. Nothing has changed for filing today.
• By statute (38 USC 1155), a rating schedule update cannot reduce an existing veteran's rating. Anyone already rated would be grandfathered.
• Don't trust the "changes are here" content from claim-consultant sites; it's a proposed rule that hasn't been adopted.
• If and when it's finalized, the version that takes effect may look different from the 2022 draft given the volume of critical comments.

I've created a few over the years to manage different projects, and I've lost track of some of them, is there anyway to look this up somewhere? Obviously, I could sign into at least 1-2 of them.

For those trading SPY/SPX 0DTE, how are you actually using charm exposure or CHEX?

Do you find net charm useful directionally, or do you mostly look at per-strike charm around spot?

I’m especially curious whether anyone uses CHEX imbalance, meaning heavier absolute charm exposure above vs. below spot, to help identify trend days versus chop.

Do you combine it with GEX/gamma levels, order flow, or price action? And is it more useful late day, or mostly theoretical?

Would appreciate any practical observations, papers, or backtests.

I recently had thyroid labs done and my TSH was 1.15, with the reference range listed as 0.55 - 4.78, so it appears normal.

I don’t currently have results for free T4, free T3, or TPO antibodies.

I’m trying to understand whether hypothyroidism is still possible with a normal TSH, especially if someone is skinny and dealing with things like poor muscle growth/recovery, fatigue, or low energy.

I can't afford to have these tested, I just pulled this TSH level up from a recent hospitalization (they did not include T4, T3, etc. in the panel).

EDIT: I found an older thyroid panel from 2023

TSH: 1.87, range 0.40-4.50
Total T4: 9.1, range 4.9-10.5
Free T4 Index/T7: 2.6, range 1.4-3.8
T3 uptake: 29, range 22-35

I do not see free T3, total T3, TPOAb, or TgAb results. My newer test only showed TSH of 1.15, range 0.5-4.78.

I felt the same symptoms I was feeling then as I was feeling now though?

He’s a Senate candidate in Maine.

Did he disclose it voluntarily or am I missing something here? I was under the impression these are private.

I assume he voluntarily disclosed this information ?

Context: https://x.com/magine\_3037/status/2054220115416129618?s=46

I’m a Florida resident and have been for over 10 years. I have a Florida driver’s license, Florida insurance, and another vehicle already registered in Florida.

I’m buying a used car from a private seller in Pennsylvania and want to drive it back to Florida. The car currently has no valid plate I can use.

Is there any way to register/title the car in Florida remotely and get a Florida plate or temporary tag before driving it down?

Thinking of doing this in Turkey, and I know it can be hit or miss. Is there some unbiased way to find out what places are worth it? And where the work is actually being done by the doctor not a tech, etc.

Curious about the pros and cons of doing this and what (if any) rules exist around it. Maybe you can declare unlimited losses (lol)?

I know there’s a handful of good ones and a bunch of crap ones, trying to see what y’all recommend. My goal is get stats, compare percentages and performance on different opportunities. Thanks!

To be clear, I've never tried it, but I do qualify. I'm put off by what I've found in my research here.

It just seems like it's a crapshoot. You either find an absolute angel who gets you exactly what you need, or you get some tyrant who tells you what you should do, or you get given the runaround for 2+ years.

You think in the age of AI these counselors can just be automated away.

Other people shouldn't really have a say in what program YOU want to do. If you are not interested in it, you simply won't do it? Or then you end up wasting years counselor-shopping it seems.

I absolutely rate 70% and believe I have evidence to support 100% too, but definitely a weaker case than 70% (to bad there wasn't like an 80% or 90%)

Anyways, I honestly am afraid to poke the bear without a lawyer.

What are your thoughts on this?

I know there's a rumor that the criteria for MH might change in the Fall from Total Social/Occupational to a domain-based system, but nothing official yet AFAIK.

I’m finally feeling comfortable with some of the tools, like Claude Code but it opens a whole new set of challenges, like: data source, deployment environment, and the interesting problem of being able to look at anything you want - there’s so many github repos I want to look at and integrate bits and pieces into my dashboard.