# Soldiers squander disability payouts



## PMedMoe

*Article Link*

OTTAWA — Canada’s top soldier says he’s concerned some younger vets are blowing their disability awards on trucks and sports cars instead of saving money, and he hopes Veterans Affairs will offers soldiers different payments options if they are wounded. 

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of the defence staff, told QMI Agency each soldier is different and the Department of National Defence is working with Veterans Affairs to see “what are the gaps” so new veterans, those coming back from Kandahar, can be taken care of. 

Veterans' groups are overwhelmingly opposed to a new policy by the Conservative government that eliminated monthly disability pensions in favour of lump-sum payments, up to a maximum of $276,080, if they are permanently disabled. 

Natynczyk told a group of soldiers, concerned they’ll have nothing left if they get their legs blown up and spend their award adapting their homes for their disability, that he’s aware there’s a problem. 

“The monthly pension was great for younger vets and the lump-sum payment was better for older veterans. But now we have a mix,” he said. “Some younger veterans took their cash and bought Porsches, boats and souped-up trucks, and now they are broke. It’s always hard when you have people who are 21, 22 and 23 years old.” 

Natynczyk told QMI Agency, each person is different and Veterans Affairs should consider that when they look at the types of programs in the future.

More at link

I can certainly see this as being a problem.


----------



## OldSolduer

But the Winnipeg Sun reported that 69% of those that received the lump sum payment were OK with it. Mind you, of over 9000 pers that had received a lump sum, just over 1,000 bothered to answer the question.


----------



## gaspasser

It looks too that some of our vets and disabled coming back are not receiving proper financial counseling or attending SCANs ?
Too much money too fast without a plan will get our guys into trouble fast.  Perhaps that is why the high schools here are starting a new compulsory credit course on financial planning and budgeting.
I don't make enough to worry about buying a Porche or big truck... ;D
Regards, BYTD


----------



## HItorMiss

From experience....

VA offers financial counseling to any member receiving an award over a certain amount (without checking what that amount is I cannot say for sure but I believe over 10k) You have the option of taking this counseling however if you do not you must sign a form stating that you do not require it.


That all being said the system is wrong and cheaps out. You CANNOT tell me that my friend who lost both his legs and in all honesty will never properly work again would have made 250k in the 30 some odd years he had left in the CF had he not been injured serving his country. The system works great for the older vets (god bless them) but we new vets are starting (sadly) outnumber them and IMO the system should cater to the majority.


my 2 bones and you get what you paid for it.


----------



## SeanNewman

I don't think it would take a rocket scientist to identify that giving that much money to a younger person would result in some extravagant purchases.  Even the guys who don't get wounded and come back from a tour with $20,000 in the bank manage to spend it all on new cars / motorcycles half the time.

It would be nice to see that $250,000 spent on a house or something because then at least that major expense is covered right off the bat for the rest of that person's life (not to mention how much interest they're saving).

That way if they work it's just to pay for living expenses other than the house, which is sort of equivalent to getting thousands of dollars a month for life.

But how can you force someone to spend money responsibly?  The guy just lost his legs for his country, should we cut him some slack and let him buy a hand-controlled Corvette if he wants?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Petamocto said:
			
		

> But how can you force someone to spend money responsibly?  The guy just lost his legs for his country, should we cut him some slack and let him buy a hand-controlled Corvette if he wants?



Simple, you return to an annuity.  That way the soldier always has something coming in to pay for those living expenses a fancy car does not replace. With an annuity, those few who might misuse a bulk payout are not some day standing there empty-handed, claiming the government didn't do enough to make sure they didn't make bad decisions.


----------



## Rifleman62

> Veterans' groups are overwhelmingly opposed to a new policy by the Conservative government that eliminated monthly disability pensions in favour of lump-sum payments, up to a maximum of $276,080, if they are permanently disabled.





> *But Veterans Affairs Minister Jean Pierre Blackburn believes there is absolutely no need to revisit lump-sum payments and he’s opposed to providing soldiers with options. *



It appears clear that Blackburn has his marching orders, but from whom? The PM or the bureaucrats that run VAC. Just prior to Thompson (the previous Minister) push out of VAC (oh, sorry, he retired prior to a cabinet shuffle), Thompson "complained" that he was seldom home as he travelled so ofter on VAC business. Sounds like get the boss out of the office.

Our Vets were immensely short changed by the new Veterans Charter. Receiving a tax free, indexed (only .5% last year, but indexed), guaranteed income for life, with a % for a beneficiary, awarded for sacrifice, is what a nation should be granting. Giving a lump sum, and write-off is not.

Annuity? Taxes/stockmarket/low rate of return/uncertainty. Would young servicepeople contribute to CFSA if they had the option, or use the annual deduction for a car payment? Can you buy and maintain a housing unit everywhere in Canada for $276k? How do you pay for the utilities? Repairs? Food?


----------



## SeanNewman

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Can you buy and maintain a housing unit everywhere in Canada for $250k? How do you pay for the utilities? Repais? Food?



Paying $250,000 cash for a house is roughly equivalent to paying $500,000 over the life of a 25 year mortgage, though.  I agree with you that $250,000 won't buy a house everywhere in Canada, but it will still buy a nice house in a hell of a lot of places that the soldier can live.

I don't think that the money is meant to say that the person never has to earn another dime in their life, so much as it is just a huge head start.  However, with a house theoretically paid for, that person would now only need to earn relatively little to pay for their bills with no mortgage.  

But the problem is that if the soldier doesn't spend that money responsibly on a house (or other financially stable way), now they're double screwed because then they not only have to still pay for a house but they're not getting VAC payments every month.


----------



## captloadie

I am interested in knowing how many of the people who responded they were happy with a lump sum were disabled to the point they either can't continue in the military, or will likely never be able to find another meaningful career. That's why there should be options. 

However, I believe it is human nature to take what you can get now as opposed to waiting to get more over time. That's why people settle in court cases, take a bulk payout on lotteries instead of spreading it over 30 years, etc.


----------



## Teeps74

> A survey by his department of 1,048 recipients of the lump-sum payments suggested 69% of respondents preferred the lump sum.


 From the linked article.

I am sure that the survey in question was completely unbiased and did not guide the respondents down their desired path...  :

Blackburn is an idiot, and I would love the opportunity to call him thus to his face. He is a bureaucrat, trying to save money to make his master pleased. The lump sum payouts are not to help soldiers, they are to shut them up and send them on their way. 

It is nothing short of criminal IMHO.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Unfortunately, that 69% isn't further broken down by those who preferred it because it paid for their shiny new truck, or because it let them set up a trust fund for their childrens' education.


----------



## Gunner98

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> *Article Link*
> 
> Natynczyk told a group of soldiers, concerned they’ll have nothing left if they get their legs blown up and spend their award adapting their homes for their disability, that he’s aware there’s a problem.



If they have to use their awards to adapt their homes then VA and the CF will be failing them.


----------



## OldSolduer

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> If they have to use their awards to adapt their homes then VA and the CF will be failing them.



That should not be happening.


----------



## RHFC_piper

captloadie said:
			
		

> I am interested in knowing how many of the people who responded they were happy with a lump sum were disabled to the point they either can't continue in the military, or will likely never be able to find another meaningful career. That's why there should be options.
> 
> However, I believe it is human nature to take what you can get now as opposed to waiting to get more over time. That's why people settle in court cases, take a bulk payout on lotteries instead of spreading it over 30 years, etc.



Regarding the question on the survey pertaining to the 'lump sum', if memory serves, I believe it was presented as such; "would you prefer to recieve your compensation all at once or in small amounts over a longer period of time?"  

As opposed to what everyone assumed would be the question "would you prefer a lump sum or a pension?"

Essentially, what they asked was; "Would you want everything you're entitled to now, or exactly the same amount, with no interest, over a longer period of time".

Again, if memory serves, I answered that, in this scenario, I prefered the lump sum... Simply because an investment of a lump sum into a RRSP accrues more interest than small amounts added over time. 

I don't recall being asked whether or not I'd prefer a pension, just whether I wanted the money all at once, or the same amount of money a bit at a time.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I agree the revamp of the benefits for veterans and the wounded was done with the intention of cheapening out on expenses and ridding themselves of nuisances.  
Any time someone from Ottawa trumpets on some new thing done for our benefit I am always suspicious and find to my understanding they have given with one hand and taken back more with the other.  Smoke and mirrors sleight of hand parlour tricks to fool the public and gullable IMHO.  :2c:


----------



## Teeps74

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Regarding the question on the survey pertaining to the 'lump sum', if memory serves, I believe it was presented as such; "would you prefer to recieve your compensation all at once or in small amounts over a longer period of time?"
> 
> As opposed to what everyone assumed would be the question "would you prefer a lump sum or a pension?"



In other words, the survey attempted to compare apples to pineapples, without presenting context. About as honest a question as a used car salesman, "This car is going to give you great fuel economy!" (Because it is going to travel only to the garage and back for repeated repairs....)


----------



## RHFC_piper

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> In other words, the survey attempted to compare apples to pineapples, without presenting context. About as honest a question as a used car salesman, "This car is going to give you great fuel economy!" (Because it is going to travel only to the garage and back for repeated repairs....)



Pretty much...

Basically, their implication was; "you're getting the set amount no matter what; how would you like it?"

As stated in a previous post; they're not revisiting the question of lump-sum vs. pension...  now they're just looking at the result of this question and how it's affecting the soldiers.


----------



## Rifleman62

Every survey that I have ever seen over the years, conducted/produced by VAC has been favourable to everythinhg that VAC does or what ever the question was. May be I missed one.

Anyone read Salute??


----------



## Nemo888

The New Veterans Charter saved the taxpayers tonnes of money.  I heard a "rumour" that the cost of Veterans payouts was still going to be more than prosecuting the entire war even with the cutbacks. Sobering thought if it is true.

I received as a lump sum what I would have received in 6.7 years on the old system.  I was hurt before the change over, but didn't apply till after.  It wasn't really enough money to do anything worth while long term. It paid for my wife's education so my kid could have some financial security.

 276,000 is for 100% disability, quadraplegic or death. 

A buddy lost her knee and got 20%. Before she ran 8k a day. Now she can barely do housework and can't keep up on walks. I don't think 55K will even cover her lost wages. She does get free snow shoveling though. 400$ a year if she does all the paperwork correctly.


----------



## OldSolduer

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The New Veterans Charter saved the taxpayers tonnes of money.  I heard a "rumour" that the cost of Veterans payouts was still going to be more than prosecuting the entire war even with the cutbacks. Sobering thought if it is true.
> 
> I received as a lump sum what I would have received in 6.7 years on the old system.  I was hurt before the change over, but didn't apply till after.  It wasn't really enough money to do anything worth while long term. It paid for my wife's education so my kid could have some financial security.
> 
> 276,000 is for 100% disability, quadraplegic or death.
> 
> A buddy lost her knee and got 20%. Before she ran 8k a day. Now she can barely do housework and can't keep up on walks. I don't think 55K will even cover her lost wages. She does get free snow shoveling though. 400$ a year if she does all the paperwork correctly.



Did she appeal the decision?


----------



## Nemo888

Nah, not the type to belly ache. A real soldier. (unlike me) I don't even think she'll do the paperwork for the snow shoveling. She has her pride. She knows when someone is trying to shuffle her out the door. I don't  know if she appealed or not, but I could never see her doing it.

If she did I doubt her appeal would get her any more. I think personally 20% is the nightmare payout. It's just a bad knee right. Throw some metal in there and you are good as new. Your life is screwed but you are not totally crippled. You can't really work or live pain free. Your are basically about as able as a 70 year old, but before you were an elite athlete. VAC doesn't seem to get this. 

Though the doc giving me my exam for VAC did. He started crying at the end. I didn't know why till later. Not a great system unless you are a bean counter on the hill.


----------



## OldSolduer

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Nah, not the type to belly ache. A real soldier. (unlike me) I don't even think she'll do the paperwork for the snow shoveling. She has her pride. She knows when someone is trying to shuffle her out the door. I don't  know if she appealed or not, but I could never see her doing it.
> 
> If she did I doubt her appeal would get her any more. I think personally 20% is the nightmare payout. It's just a bad knee right. Throw some metal in there and you are good as new. Your life is screwed but you are not totally crippled. You can't really work or live pain free. Your are basically about as able as a 70 year old, but before you were an elite athlete. VAC doesn't seem to get this.
> 
> Though the doc giving me my exam for VAC did. He started crying at the end. I didn't know why till later. Not a great system unless you are a bean counter on the hill.


Encourage your friend to appeal. And help with the paper work for the snow shovelling.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Nah, not the type to belly ache. A real soldier. (unlike me) I don't even think she'll do the paperwork for the snow shoveling. She has her pride. She knows when someone is trying to shuffle her out the door.


Speaking as a taxpayer, and someone who appreciates the service rendered and sacrifices made by all CF members, if elements of the system are making her (or others) feel like an inconvenience, this is f***ed up.  This.  Is.  Wrong.


----------



## Rifleman62

Yeah, It's wrong. What can anyone due about it? The Minister stated: 





> _*absolutely no need * _   to revisit lump-sum payments and he’s opposed to providing soldiers with options.



So much for the VAC review of the New Veterans Charter that has been supposedly going on and was to take at least a year.

Is it still called situating the estimate?


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

Minister Blackburn holds a degree in administration and has been a businessman all of his life.  He is a manager and administrator and has no connection with the military nor an understanding of the environment.  Perhaps its' time to put someone in the job that actually understands what military members endure.


----------



## armychick2009

This doesn't have much to do with the last few replies but - with the original message....

I watched this program last week about millionaires and how this one guy won $3 million. He was only in his early thirties. He didn't think it would be enough to retire on, etc. but he still wanted to enjoy life a bit. 

They (his accountant) ended up giving him about $100 000  and called it "Mad Money".... use this money to buy whatever you want, do whatever you want, vacation as much as you want... and the rest became monthly salary and investments. Obviously $250-some thousand dollars, isn't enough to retire on. Out of that, so what if you spend $40 000 on a truck? Part of that money is to make you feel better about life again, to try and make best of a bad situation. If driving around in a new $40 000 truck that will last you 10 years, makes you feel good, then do it! I wouldn't call that squandering -- I call that taking back some of the life you lost. As someone who lived with constant pain several years ago (it's gone now, thank God!) the small settlement I got was nothing for the pain I had endured. In fact, it barely covered the cost of the extra living expenses incurred because of the injury.  I'm so grateful I was fortunate enough to recover but- for most of these veterans, they won't be able to. 

So, maybe they need a bit of 'mad money' to get the things they really want to feel good... let them decide, let them begin to feel like they have some form of control in their life.


----------



## Brasidas

armychick2009 said:
			
		

> So, maybe they need a bit of 'mad money' to get the things they really want to feel good... let them decide, let them begin to feel like they have some form of control in their life.



And if losing a leg nets you a $50k lump sum or losing a hand gets you $25k, what would you suggest that they can afford to burn? There's not really money to spare in terms of setting themselves up.


----------



## blacktriangle

IMO, if someone sacrifices that much for the country, we should be able to afford to give them a lump sum at the start PLUS a pension for the rest of their lives. That would allow them to spend some "mad money" while still having a guaranteed income later on in life. 

This type of stuff needs to be sorted out while the CF is still at the forefront with Afghanistan etc, otherwise good luck getting anything changed a decade from now. Memories fade fast in this country. 

Edited to add: We waste a lot of money on stupid things in this country...so it's not like we can't afford it.


----------



## Future Pensioner

I am no math wizard, so I hope someone on the forum can help me illustrate a point.

Let's say that a person were to receive a 25% disability assessment from VAC, is 35 years old, married with one child.

Under the "old" system, the person currently would receive $827.26 per month tax free award for the rest of their life according to the 2010 rates.

Under the new system, the person would receive a one time, lump sum award of $69, 019.93.

The math help I need is this:  how long would the person be able to draw a $827.26 tax free monthly payment (indexed by 2% per year) until the $69, 019.93 had been depleted (or drop below the set monthly payment), assuming that the lump sum was invested *safely* at 7% compound interest annually  (I believe this to be a reasonable interest rate for a "safe" investment - but I am not financial wizard either).

I can pretty well guess at the answer, but I would like to see the actual numbers.  And this example does not even take into account the amount of money their spouse would receive if the person were to die before their spouse while receiving the "old payment" method..

Can anyone assist?


----------



## Occam

Using the calculator at http://au.pfinance.yahoo.com/calculators/savings-plan-simulator.html, if you start with nothing, and make $827 deposits monthly with a 7% interest rate, you will have $66,345 after 5.5 years - completely disregarding the indexing factor.


----------



## SeanNewman

Spectrum said:
			
		

> IMO, if someone sacrifices that much for the country, we should be able to afford to give them a lump sum at the start PLUS a pension for the rest of their lives.



Nobody is going to disagree with you that there's no way you can repay someone who has given up that much, but the sad part is that there are now so many wounded vets (likely well over 1,000) that the country really would go broke.

We are I believe the only military as it is that spends over half the budget on personnel-related costs (pay, moves, benefits, etc).


----------



## Future Pensioner

And another point to consider:

Under the old system, if you were awarded a disability pension, your monthly award was backdated to the day you applied.  Therefore if it took VAC 10 months to decide your case, you would get 10 months of payments in one lump sum, plus still get your monthly award, indexed annually, until you die, at which time our spouse is entitled to a survivors pension.  And, if you appeal the decision and your appeal is successful, your award is adjusted and back dated to the date of your application ( in most cases to a maximum of 36 months - could be longer in certain circumstances).  This "adjusted amount" would have resulted in a lump sum "retro" payment paid to you once the decision paperwork has been processed.

Under the new system, if it takes VAC 10 months to settle our claim, your lump sum award is paid out at that time - no such thing as a "retro" amount back dated to the date of application.  And, if you appeal and are successful, you award will be increased by the amount they determine on the date of the decision, again - no retro amounts.


----------



## Brasidas

Future Pensioner said:
			
		

> I am no math wizard, so I hope someone on the forum can help me illustrate a point.
> 
> Let's say that a person were to receive a 25% disability assessment from VAC, is 35 years old, married with one child.
> 
> Under the "old" system, the person currently would receive $827.26 per month tax free award for the rest of their life according to the 2010 rates.
> 
> Under the new system, the person would receive a one time, lump sum award of $69, 019.93.
> 
> The math help I need is this:  how long would the person be able to draw a $827.26 tax free monthly payment (indexed by 2% per year) until the $69, 019.93 had been depleted (or drop below the set monthly payment), assuming that the lump sum was invested *safely* at 7% compound interest annually  (I believe this to be a reasonable interest rate for a "safe" investment - but I am not financial wizard either).
> 
> I can pretty well guess at the answer, but I would like to see the actual numbers.  And this example does not even take into account the amount of money their spouse would receive if the person were to die before their spouse while receiving the "old payment" method..
> 
> Can anyone assist?



I made up a quick spreadsheet, and the money ran out before 9.5 years. I can send the spreadsheet to your e-mail address if you wish.


----------



## Future Pensioner

Occam said:
			
		

> Using the calculator at http://au.pfinance.yahoo.com/calculators/savings-plan-simulator.html, if you start with nothing, and make $827 deposits monthly with a 7% interest rate, you will have $66,345 after 5.5 years - completely disregarding the indexing factor.





Thanks Occam, but not quite what I was looking for.  I would like to know how long the money from the "new system" would last if it were to be invested safely and still provide the individual with an equivalent monthly pension under the old system.  If I am reading the 'folks" properly, this is what is suggested that soldiers should be doing with the "lump sum" and thus "they" would consider that the new system is just as "good" as the old system.


----------



## 57Chevy

A whole lot of questions being asked......not very many answers.
I recently received this through my email. It may not answer too many questions, but
it will give you an idea of what is happening regarding the New Veterans Charter:

For Immediate Release
June 21, 2010 

Robert Oliphant, M.P. Calls on the Government to 
Enact Committee Recommendations on the New Veterans Charter 

OTTAWA – Robert Oliphant, Member of Parliament for Don Valley West and Official Opposition Critic for Veterans Affairs, called on the Conservative Government to support the recommendations put forward by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in a report tabled in the House of Commons.

 The committee spent the past seven months studying and reviewing the New Veterans Charter, hearing from a variety of witnesses, and learning about the challenges Canadian veterans continually face when dealing with the Charter.  The report, tabled on Thursday, June 17, 2010, provides a summary of the testimony provided by various government officials (Veterans Affairs and National Defence), veteran’s organizations, medical experts and individual veterans.  The report makes 21 recommendations to the government, indicating how Veterans Affairs Canada can improve the New Veterans Charter, and thus provide greatly improved services for our Veterans.

 “The testimony provided to our committee made clear that the New Veterans Charter was failing Canadian veterans,” Oliphant said.  “After four years of inaction on this file, I want to encourage the government to support our recommendations based on months of hearings and make the significant amendments to the Charter that have long overdue.”

 The New Veterans Charter, which was developed and passed under the previous Liberal government late in 2005, was designed to allow the minister to correct flaws in the Charter as they emerge, update it to react to changing circumstances, and ensure that the programs and services offered to veterans reflect their emerging needs. Furthermore, the Charter gives significant powers to the Minister to make adjustments without having to come back to Parliament for approval.  

 “This comprehensive review is further evidence of how this parliament can be productive when Members of Parliament are able to work together to accomplish common goals.” Oliphant Concluded 

Contact:

Office of Robert Oliphant, MP: 613-992-2855

Link to the Report:  http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/403/ACVA/Reports/RP4634723/403_ACVA_Rpt01_PDF/403_ACVA_Rpt01-e.pdf


----------



## armychick2009

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And if losing a leg nets you a $50k lump sum or losing a hand gets you $25k, what would you suggest that they can afford to burn? There's not really money to spare in terms of setting themselves up.



Oh, I understand that. I had to pay almost $35K in retraining myself and only received $4000 after leaving a $55 000 a year job...  there is no "ideal" amount of money. It's not easy coming back from injury and no amount of money is ever "enough" to recover whatever it was, that was lost.


----------



## Occam

Future Pensioner said:
			
		

> Thanks Occam, but not quite what I was looking for.  I would like to know how long the money from the "new system" would last if it were to be invested safely and still provide the individual with an equivalent monthly pension under the old system.  If I am reading the 'folks" properly, this is what is suggested that soldiers should be doing with the "lump sum" and thus "they" would consider that the new system is just as "good" as the old system.



Ah, I got you now.  You want to deposit the lump sum and draw an annuity from it - and want to know how long the money would hold out.


----------



## Future Pensioner

Brasidas said:
			
		

> I made up a quick spreadsheet, and the money ran out before 9.5 years. I can send the spreadsheet to your e-mail address if you wish.



Thanks Brasidas!

I must say that 9.5 year was even less that I would have guessed.  I was thinkin that it would last at least until the person was 60 years old (ie 25 years) - I wasn't even close!!!

So, I guess people can draw there own conclusions, but for me - WOW what a difference, considering that a individual could reasonably be expected to live until the age of 75!


----------



## blacktriangle

Petamocto said:
			
		

> We are I believe the only military as it is that spends over half the budget on personnel-related costs (pay, moves, benefits, etc).



Maybe it's not how much we spend on pers...but how little we spend on everything else.  ;D 

(Yes I realize we are very well paid)


----------



## dogger1936

I got friends who were injured in yugo making 1000 plus dollars a month in non combat related injuries. I.E ballhockey. I got friends severly injured in IED's who got 25,000 $. Throw in the young guys blowing their 20,000 or 50,000 is smoke and mirrors. Fact is getting injured in the past was a great deal better than getting inured today.

Being permantly injured for the rest of your life is worth nil. When your legs are bolted together with metal rods...they are FIXED!!! Thus even though its just as well you did lose em...they are still attached to your body..thus you get bugger all for em.

Wanna hear what 26,000 is worth? PM me and I'll send you a list of medical problems....which has been appealed and denied.

The new system is very flawed...again as for young guys coming home and blowing their money....what else are you gonna get for 26,000 as a single guy? A down payment on a house you wont be able to afford once you get released?


----------



## George Wallace

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I got friends who were injured in yugo making 1000 plus dollars a month in non combat related injuries. I.E ballhockey. I got friends severly injured in IED's who got 25,000 $. Throw in the young guys blowing their 20,000 or 50,000 is smoke and mirrors. Fact is getting injured in the past was a great deal better than getting inured today.



Ah yes!  Yugo.  As I understand it, injuries on UN Tours could qualify for a UN Medical Pension as well.  Is this the case with your friends?


----------



## dogger1936

No George many years later during the SFOR days. Rough game of ball hockey at Zgon, torn ACL"S etc. 1000 bucks a month tax free for that compared to two reconstructed legs a new collar bone all teeth knocked clear out, reconstucted jaw etc etc worth 26,000 lump sum. So basically on par with the SFOR injury for 26 months.


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah yes!  Yugo.  As I understand it, injuries on UN Tours could qualify for a UN Medical Pension as well.  Is this the case with your friends?




Really?

George Links Uber quick!

First I have ever heard.

dileas

tess


----------



## ModlrMike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah yes!  Yugo.  As I understand it, injuries on UN Tours could qualify for a UN Medical Pension as well.



Not quite. This pension was supposedly only available to soldiers who's nations did not have a similar plan. Ergo, it didn't apply to us (and I speak from personal experience here).


----------



## OldSolduer

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Nobody is going to disagree with you that there's no way you can repay someone who has given up that much, but the sad part is that there are now so many wounded vets (likely well over 1,000) that the country really would go broke.
> 
> We are I believe the only military as it is that spends over half the budget on personnel-related costs (pay, moves, benefits, etc).



Yet we spent $1 Billion on a security net for the G8/G20. The country won't go broke.


----------



## SeanNewman

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> ... The country won't go broke.



Technically it is and it is getting broker (tm).  If judged by the same yardstick as a person's financial situation, Canada is quite bankrupt.

Think about it, what would you call a person who already has a ton of debt, and they are still spending more than they make?

Some people may say "Well a person can't print more money like Canada can", but that only makes things worse.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Following your logic then, there are plenty of useless feel good social programs and giveaways that should be cancelled and the money transferred to the injured soldiers.

Why should a Vet suffer along on a cheap payout when some crack addicted baby factory on Jarvis St collects a $1000 a month to prolong her existence?


----------



## Jarnhamar

A friend of mine lost both legs and an arm overseas. As far as I recall he recieved the same amount from VA as did a friend of his who lost a foot. 
Stranger still my friends relitive got "whiplash" in a car accident (She can still work and play sports) and recieved well over twice the amount of $$$ as him from her insurence company.


I can understand trying to "save a soldier from himself" in so far as not giving them a huge lump sum to blow but it's the nature of the beast.  Soldiers on pre-deployment training will go buy a 30 or 40 thousand dollar truck before they are even half done their training (and then get kicked off tour as happened to 2 of my friends).
If VA _does_ offer soldiers classes on money spending and they don't take it it's their fault.  
Three times I've blown all the extra money I made overseas and have near absolutely nothing to show for. Fourth time I bought  a modest SUV because I was getting tired of leasing vehicles. I'm renting a half finished house at $1000 a month because I can't afford a down payment on a house and I'm the only one to blame.

I'm with MidAgedSilverback though.  Looking at the money we dumped into the stupid G20 security I'd like to see more money go towards the wounded vets who will have a hard time finding good work.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> I'm with MidAgedSilverback though.  Looking at the money we dumped into the stupid G20 security I'd like to see more money go towards the wounded vets who will have a hard time finding good work.




Soldiers getting medically released, receive Vocational rehab from SISIP, then From VAC (Both include help with resumes, and Job placement). They are also eligible for Priority Hiring within the Public Service.

dileas

tess


----------



## Gunner98

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Think about it, what would you call a person country who already has a ton of debt, and they are still spending more than they make?


  Fixed that for you!

Answer: The United States.


----------



## SeanNewman

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you!  Answer: The United States.



The answer is Canada, too (and just about every other modern western country).  It's just that the US is in even worse shape.

My point is that the country is broke; in fact it's way worse than broke because broke just implies out of money where as the country itself is extremely in debt and getting worse.

Why that is relevant on this thread is that everyone believes that wounded vets deserve more but as some point the credit card gets maxed out.


----------



## Gunner98

The cost of the G20 summit security equals the annual budget of The Ottawa Hospital, just imagine the good it could have done elsewhere.  Broke financially is a relative term when it comes to countries - is it millions, billions or trillions in debt.  Perhaps if the US and other warring nations did not export billions of dollars to rebuild Germany, Japan, Iraq it might not be so broke.  When a soldier returns a single, double or triple amputee should his future become a charitable venture?  Charity begins at home.  

Let's not forget we spent a ton of money on the Olympics and its security as well.  It seems that this broke country has no fear of throwing extravagant parties.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Why that is relevant on this thread is that everyone believes that wounded vets deserve more but as some point the credit card gets maxed out.



I believe that this particular thread is not so much about "wounded vets deserve more" than it is about whether or not we have created a system that establishes the potential for failure (and increased future hardship) when those few don't take actions that accept that the one-time payout is in lieu of the pensions their predecessors received.


----------



## dogger1936

Wounded vets deserve what previous wounded vets received; which unfortunately is more. 26,000 dollars is far from a fair deal when you are broken beyond. And although they seem to throw around the top payout a lot....250,000 could buy you a house...but at that payout your basically a torso. (I know that sounds crude, but its true)

Giving a guy 1000 bucks a month tax free for the rest of his life gives him something to base his life off of. Giving him 26,000 gives him the same stability for 26 months. I plan on putting my money into a fund for my children for education (depending  what I get).

The letter from VAC saying members is awarded 26,000 for injuries and will get the best medical treatment leaves a bad taste in troops mouths. Especially when their WO who is GTG except for some knee pain after a ruck is collecting 1000$ .....and the young guys are PCAT unfit military duties with a "petty" amount sitting in their bank account.

I was talking to one soldier last night in reference to this. He worked it out that if he put it in the bank and drew it out as a monthly payment  until he was 65...it would work out to 12 dollars a month.


----------



## OldSolduer

We are not setting the conditions for success for our ill or injured members. As far as I'm concerned VAC, with the lump sum, is setting them up for failure. We have some that are successful, and its no thanks to VAC. The soldiers have acted, taken responsibility, and with some assistance from the CoC, have gone on to restart their lives.
St Annes Hospital? A farce....its smoke and mirrors.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Excellent resource to compare the Monthly rates, with the lump sum can be found at the legion website;

http://legion.ca/ServiceBureau/RateCharts_e.cfm

They have 2010 rates, so you can see what a person that is grandfathered, with monthly sums, makes as opposed tothe Lump Sum.

Also note, the monthly rates, are given extra for spouses and each child, which the NVC lump sum completely ignores.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss

I am firm believer and it is something I have on occasion talked about with members of VAC, that there should a lump sum payment and a monthly stipend. I was hurt and even after appealing the original verdict what I got was a pittance compared to what I have to go through each day.

The Payout was a nice to get at the time and I agree there should continue to be a onetime lump sum but I also believe there should be in most cases a monthly disability allowance as well not just the VIP program that cuts your grass, shovels your driveway and hires a maid ( a great service BTW and one I fully support). I don't need top notch medical care ( My doubts about that statement are numerous) I am 30, I am still serving I am; what I could use is the ability to not have to work the way I do just to make ends meet. I work in pain everyday because I need the cash might be nice of I could cut er back a little and maybe not hurt so much. If I take the drugs I need for pain I am not able to work I would be legally impaired if I don't take them and just stay with the max dose of OTC drugs then my pain is a dull roar that gets louder and louder as the day goes on.

It is my catch 22, I got paid out BUT I still have to work because I sure as shooting don't have the ability to not work even with my injuries.


----------



## dogger1936

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100703/national/afghan_cda_mission_wounded


----------



## blacktriangle

Yeah reading all this stuff really gets me angry. We really need to find a way to get this dealt with, before Canadians forget all about Afghanistan and the many that sacrificed life and limb there. Canadians may not agree with Afghanistan, but I think they might be a wee bit more supportive of wounded soldiers. Someone (preferably with the help of wounded vets) should draft an acceptable proposal, and then start a national petition...

Don't let the issue fall from view in the media, keep pushing it and pushing it. We weren't able to bring everyone home from Afghanistan alive...let's honour them by at least giving proper compensation to their comrades that did make it back, albeit severely wounded etc. 

Don't tell me we can't afford it. That's bullshit. If giving a lump sum, monthly pension, and medical care to less than 1000 wounded vets is going to bankrupt this country, let's just get on with it and declare ourselves broke. I don't buy it.


----------



## dogger1936

I know of one soldier who is getting ready to raddle some chains with his member of Parliament and is preparing to get quite vocal about this issue. 

We were discussing how sad it is that a good guy like him has to resort to such things, as he see's it as not being loyal. However when push comes to shove his life is destroyed, he will be dealing with a huge number of disabilities for the rest of his life. The government was happy enough to send troops there to do a job, they must ensure they do THEIR jobs here at home. Hopefully someone expected that there would be residual costs of war even after the pull out right?

I fear if something isn't sorted out quick this issue will be a forgotten cause. I'm guessing in the next little whilemedia may get some stories reference this, as there are many vet's who feel they have been ripped of. The old system needs to be brought back.

Edit to add: He also recieved a letter from VAC with suggestions from them on how to properly take care of his fantastic 26,000 dollar pay out. This done nothing but anger him. Like he said WTF am I suppose to do with 26,000 other than put it on bills to prepare to be unemployed? And telling him to invest it was a joke to him.


----------



## Drift Pin

We all know why there is no money left for the soldiers who are really hurt so let's not beat around the bush.

It's because for every honest soldier who has a legit injury there are 5 more C***s****** who fake it just to get some extra coin.  We have so many people bleeding the system now that there will soon be NO money left for those who actually deserve it.  If I hear about 1 more Goddammed clerk or cook on a PTSD claim because they heard a rocket hit 2 KM away from the board walk I am seriously going to snap.

Something needs to be done to weed the legit from the bullshit claims.


----------



## blacktriangle

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I know of one soldier who is getting ready to raddle some chains with his member of Parliament and is preparing to get quite vocal about this issue.
> 
> We were discussing how sad it is that a good guy like him has to resort to such things, as he see's it as not being loyal. However when push comes to shove his life is destroyed, he will be dealing with a huge number of disabilities for the rest of his life. The government was happy enough to send troops there to do a job, they must ensure they do THEIR jobs here at home. Hopefully someone expected that there would be residual costs of war even after the pull out right?
> 
> I fear if something isn't sorted out quick this issue will be a forgotten cause. I'm guessing in the next little whilemedia may get some stories reference this, as there are many vet's who feel they have been ripped of. The old system needs to be brought back.
> 
> Edit to add: He also recieved a letter from VAC with suggestions from them on how to properly take care of his fantastic 26,000 dollar pay out. This done nothing but anger him. Like he said WTF am I suppose to do with 26,000 other than put it on bills to prepare to be unemployed? And telling him to invest it was a joke to him.



Dogger,

I have 26 000 sitting in the bank, and it wouldn't go far if I was unemployed, disabled, had a family to feed etc. 

I am in full agreement with you on your post. I think it is really time to start rattling some chains. 

After seeing all those G20 protests....why isn't anyone protesting on this issue?

I would be interested to hear the positions of the various political parties on this issue.


----------



## dogger1936

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Dogger,
> 
> I have 26 000 sitting in the bank, and it wouldn't go far if I was unemployed, disabled, had a family to feed etc.
> 
> I am in full agreement with you on your post. I think it is really time to start rattling some chains.
> 
> After seeing all those G20 protests....why isn't anyone protesting on this issue?
> 
> I would be interested to hear the positions of the various political parties on this issue.



I would be very interested in Mr. Harpers stand on it. And your right besides paying off a car that I can't afford after release...what the heck do you do with 26,000. As far as putting it into a education fund as I said before, we unfortunately have to deal with the NOW and ensure the kids have clothes and food/ shelter...stability. The current system leaves the severly injured soldiers with nothing in the end.


----------



## OldSolduer

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> We all know why there is no money left for the soldiers who are really hurt so let's not beat around the bush.
> 
> It's because for every honest soldier who has a legit injury there are 5 more C***s****** who fake it just to get some extra coin.  We have so many people bleeding the system now that there will soon be NO money left for those who actually deserve it.  If I hear about 1 more Goddammed clerk or cook on a PTSD claim because they heard a rocket hit 2 KM away from the board walk I am seriously going to snap.
> 
> Something needs to be done to weed the legit from the bullshit claims.



First of all, I can empathize with your situation. Yes there are some phonies.....but....they are the minority, not the majority as you attest to.

Secondly, we are all traumatized in different ways. Your experience is not that of what we used to call the "REMFs". While you may shrug off a rocket attack, they are not tained to the same level as you, physically, technically and mentally. Their fear is quite real. I would not be so quick to condemn them.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> We all know why there is no money left for the soldiers who are really hurt so let's not beat around the bush.
> 
> It's because for every honest soldier who has a legit injury there are 5 more C***s****** who fake it just to get some extra coin.  We have so many people bleeding the system now that there will soon be NO money left for those who actually deserve it.  If I hear about 1 more Goddammed clerk or cook on a PTSD claim because they heard a rocket hit 2 KM away from the board walk I am seriously going to snap.
> 
> Something needs to be done to weed the legit from the bullshit claims.



Contrary to Mess round table discussions, having a diagnosis of an OSI is not as easy at your anecdote perpetuates.  It is attitudes like yours, that actually hinders the "Legitimate" soldiers that are suffering from coming forward.  They fear that people like you are looking at them for being "Dishonest".

Let us keep to the theme of the thread, and leave your unfounded biases out of this Please.

dileas

tess


----------



## REDinstaller

When I returned from TF1-07, my mental health debrief indicated a presence of PTSD. I was in the midst of releasing to go work civi side, until I disclosed that I had be diagnosed with PTSD. I have been told by VAC to apply for this condition, but have not for fear of being branded as mentally unstable along with the T/PCAT follow up. As for the the lump sum, I think it should only be for conditions that aren't life altering ie severed finger or such items that don't result in pending medical release. Conditions that may result in release situations should be paid a monthly pension, so that the benefactor can continue to have access to those funds awarded through out his life. Unless you keep the stub from your Disability award, try proving to a Judge that the 26000 you have in the bank is not up for the taking by an ex spouse.


----------



## wildman0101

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, OTTAWA — Canada’s top soldier says he’s concerned some younger vets are blowing their disability awards on trucks and sports cars instead of saving money, and he hopes Veterans Affairs will offers soldiers different payments options if they are wounded. 

Bull**** ... If someone walked the walk and was awarded said
its said person's decision how he spends(blow's) his disability.
and if he is broke afterward's that's said member's responsib-
ilty. 

Veterans' groups are overwhelmingly opposed to a new policy by the Conservative government that eliminated monthly disability pensions in favour of lump-sum payments, up to a maximum of $276,080, if they are permanently disabled. 

what veterans groups?

counseling (sheesh))bullshit) i dont remember anyone councelling me
regard's my financial responsibility's...

Veterans' groups are overwhelmingly opposed to a new policy by the Conservative government that eliminated monthly disability pensions in favour of lump-sum payments, up to a maximum of $276,080, if they are permanently disabled. 

bull****
my personal copy,
11 years miltary (8-ch/rcd)
med released 3-Fucking B 1986
served in 3 Special Duty Area's
Due to my security Designation i'll  go for 2-srikes/one ball.
Cyprus/Golan Heights/Germany
med release started germany ,,, med remuster //// waited last 2 
yrs outa the 4 i was there,,,,,,,,,got a message,,, release 3-b.
Confidential(message read).
CMRB Decision:
the board agreed to release Cpl Brandt under the provisions
on medical grounds being disabled and unfit medically to perform
his duties in a forces trade or employment and nt otherwise em-
ployable under service policy.... in other words thank-you f***
y** your gone bye-bye.
Applied for disability vet-affairs
wow man i got a settlement (lump-f***ing) 400 canadian dollars;
wooopppeeee. F*** so said hell with it at the time i was still
married had 2 kids to raise ect... 3 yrs after my med release the 
mrs says i wanna divorce(she dont like being married to this old 
busted up soldier she would rather be with her old high school 
sweet heart.. 
Sorry got carried away,,, bout 1992 got a lil flyer in with my 
pension cheque... said something bout med 3-b and srb benefits.
part 3 of the canadian superannuation act(cfsa). lol and behold 
i was approved... wasnt for the cfsa i would be still living in 
poverty (410.00) being my cf pension after serving my country
for 11 years... just my 2-cents... take it which-ever way you all
want.... cause frankly i dont give a damn ,,,i walked my walk.
decorated 3-on the tree... 2 peacekeeping, 1 nato... 
so having said said as far as im concerned said member awarded 
vet affairs-lump sum/payments/srb he/she bloody earned it...
and what they do with it is nobody's bloody business..
(helmet-on) (sheild-up) (fu** that) been there done that
regards
scoty b


----------



## dogger1936

At least you got 410$ thats a hell of a lot more than todays soldier who has "walked the walk".


----------



## Drift Pin

> ....leave your unfounded biases out of this Please.



Unfounded biases ?  Have you ever served with a reg for unit returning from a tour?  Have you seen the troops who are so messed up that they can't be around an army uniform but still manage to get in 8 hours of modern warfare 2 each day ?  What about the ones who can't do morning PT or go to the field but somehow can spend every night out at the bar rippen er up ?

My boss gets 500 bucks a month or more because of twisting his back on roto 11 in Bosnia. He is planning a bowhunting trip this september which is more physically demanding than most things we do at work and despite the fact he is "undeployable" due to his injuries and can't run with me in the morning wearing BN PT strip I see him at the gym in civies each night and he has somehow healed enough to lift more weights than I can with a good back.

Please don't give me the "it's hard to tell who's faking" bullshit because you don't need to be a Goddammed doctor to tell who is hoppin on the free money train.  There are many people who deserve the monthly sum of money, yes.  My heart goes out to these people who are only getting $26000.00 after losing limbs.  Some of these people are close friends

IMO, the reason there is no money left to pay these people is because every tom, dick and hairy who wants to cheat the system can do it unchecked these days.  There was such an ammount of claims that there JUST ISN'T ANY MORE MONEY for those who need it.  The next time you feel angry about just pat the guy on the back who is getting 600 bucks a month for the past 15 years because he twisted an ankle while he was posted in Lar Germany.  

My biases are founded on experience and common sense thanks,  something not likely achieved no matter how many thousand posts you have on army.ca.

Step away from the computer once and a while and look at what's going on in the *real* world vice the "cyber" one.


----------



## aesop081

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> Have you ever served with a reg for unit returning from a tour?



He served on tour with me several years ago and got shot a few times for his troubles. You might recognize the jeep he was driving, its the one full of bullet holes in the war museum.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> My biases are founded on experience and common sense thanks,  something not likely achieved no matter how many thousand posts you have on army.ca.
> 
> Step away from the computer once and a while and look at what's going on in the *real* world vice the "cyber" one.



Your 'facts' are based on personal bias, opinion and innuendo. You are entitled to those. Just don't preach them here as truth unless you are willing to prove it all.

In the meantime, if anyone needs to 'step away from the keyboard' it's you. Your personal biases are clouding the conversation.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He served on tour with me several years ago and got shot a few times for his troubles. You might recognize the jeep he was driving, its the one full of bullet holes in the war museum.



Bingo, but actually he was the passenger 


> the angry Serbs had loosed a vicious fusillade of small arms fire into the back of the Iltis. Over 53 rounds had penetrated the little jeep at point-blank range. The two men were each hit over half a dozen times and the radio was shattered.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6972/is_5_12/ai_n28275254/



Milnet.ca Staff

Maybe this is 'real world' enough for you Drift Pin


----------



## 57Chevy

I had the idea to make a suggestion to have a veterans corner where we could discuss the many
issues concerning veterans. Like hearing problems, feet and ankle issues, back problems, spinal
cord injuries, neck related injuries, knee problems, amputations, etc, etc. Not to mention the ongoing "agent orange" issue, and the multitude of other things covered or not covered by the new veterans charter.
But then I read the last few entries of this thread. I find that some people should just STFU.
Like it or not, all soldiers have "walked the walk" whether in training or overseas.
Only a doctor can diagnose sustained injuries and provide the necessary proof required to make
any decision by Veterans Affairs. So don't go thinking some guys are getting pension monies for squat.
Sorry if this was a bit off topic......but I hope it clears up some fog.


----------



## MARS

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> Have you ever served with a reg for unit returning from a tour?
> My biases are founded on experience and common sense thanks,  something not likely achieved no matter how many thousand posts you have on army.ca.
> 
> Step away from the computer once and a while and look at what's going on in the *real* world vice the "cyber" one.



Oh.my.God.





Wow.

I know I am a mentor here and supposed to help users who ram their feet into their mouths....but holy s***.  All I can do is  op:


----------



## George Wallace

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> At least you got 410$ thats a hell of a lot more than todays soldier who has "walked the walk".



 :

"Today's soldier".  Do you realize how fucked up that is?  He is soon to be "Yesterday's soldier" like all before him.  Get off your high horse.


----------



## OldSolduer

Drift Pin said:
			
		

> Step away from the computer once and a while and look at what's going on in the *real* world vice the "cyber" one.



That wasn't called for. I don't care if it wasn't directed at me or not. 
It's pretty obvious your mind is made up.


----------



## SeanNewman

Drift Pin,

In the name of helping things progress in the right direction, consider this:

I will agree that some of the points you made are true.  I don't agree with your entire post, but I have also witnessed some of things you mentioned.

However, once you turn the post into an attack you're probably going to find that you've now turned people against you and any good points you made are going to be for not.

Build 1,000 bridges...


----------



## armyvern

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Drift Pin,
> 
> In the name of helping things progress in the right direction, consider this:
> 
> I will agree that some of the points you made are true.  I don't agree with your entire post, but I have also witnessed some of things you mentioned.
> 
> However, once you turn the post into an attack you're probably going to find that you've now turned people against you and any good points you made are going to be for not.
> 
> Build 1,000 bridges...



No. His post was complete and utter bullshit. Full stop. His insinuations that abusers of the system are a majority, and that the sytem is "broke" because of it, is out to lunch and is not reflective of actuality and fact. It is based simply upon his own harboured biases and assumptions. He, and you, are not medical doctors and ergo with each and every assumption that is made that "someone is getting it who shouldn't" the myth perpetuates. THAT does no service or good to those injured who legitematly need access to VAC services but fail to seek out the help they need because of idiots who make "assumptions". Those assumptions DETER people from getting help who need it.

So, CEASE. Now. Quit feeding the myth and stop babying him and all those types like him. It's got sweet fuck all to do with him "making it a personal attack" - it's got to do with biases, assumptions, and the MYTHS he perpetuates that cause harm in the long run to our injured too afraid to seek help exactly because of commentary and bullshit made like his.

We all know there are a very select few who slip through and manage to abuse benefits (there is a thread on this site for that supposition; this is NOT it) - no one denies that. Do not use that as a basis to perpetuate myths and biases which can cause further harm to our injured personnel who will then NOT seek help because they don't want to have you"assume" anything about them. NOT making those "assumptions" is what proper leadership would do.


----------



## Wookilar

To put hings a bit more on track (for at least 1 post  ;D);

I know speaking with VAC  here in Gagetown, they are extremely happy to hear my family's plan for the coming settlement, however much (or little) it may be. All to often, Michelle (VAC, very nice lady, easily the best I have worked with on 3 bases) is told by the (usually) younger members, some which are due to be released and quite broken, that they can't wait to get that new truck/bike/boat etc. Financial counselling is available, in some form or another so the web site says, but it has never been offered to me and I have been a "client" of VAC since ....  ??? '04? Something like that...

Given the amount of time a member has to wait to get their lump-sum payment now (18 months and counting for the latest bone breaks) there is ample time to be able  to give financial advice. A simple solution would be for VAC to provide a referral service to SISIP, they are all over the place and would cost the Dept nothing extra.

Wook


----------



## SeanNewman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No. His post was complete and utter bullshit. Full stop.
> 
> We all know there are a very select few who slip through and manage to abuse benefits...



I do not know how your post could be any more self-contradictory.

You agreed to the same thing I did about his post.  Some people abuse the benefits.

How can his entire post be BS (full stop) if you agree to some of it?

Instead of slamming a 50 cal finger on his chest like you though, I was attempting to help him be more productive.

You know, like a proper leader.


----------



## armyvern

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I do not know how your post could be any more self-contradictory.
> 
> You agreed to the same thing I did about his post.  Some people abuse the benefits.
> 
> How can his entire post be BS (full stop) if you agree to some of it?
> 
> Instead of slamming a 50 cal finger on his chest like you though, I was attempting to help him be more productive.
> 
> You know, like a proper leader.



I didn't agree to a single bit of his post. Not an iota. "A very select few" is a FAR cry from the myths of "for every one who deserves it, 5 are abusing it and so the system is broke" and - you must have missed the part where I mentionned THIS is not the thread for it.

Start reading. Less "woe is me". His post, and this follow up by you (again picking and choosing the bits to use to your own benefit)- is bullshit and is counterproductive to those who need nto seek help.

I'm done with responses about "cheaters" in this thread. Good leaders know when to STFU; I see you're still wotking on that ... in lots of threads on this site.


----------



## MARS

Pet,

He doesn't suggest, like Vern is, that a _minority_ are abusing the system.

He says, and I quote:



> because you don't need to be a Goddammed doctor to tell who is hoppin on the free money train.



WRONG!

(catch me in another thread at 8pm folks, when the Navy officer tells the infantry how to mount attacks, because I don't need to be a Goddammed (I'm gonna Trademark that spelling mistake) infantry officer to tell who is doing it wrong.  Why bother even having lanes anymore?)

and



> IMO, the reason there is no money left to pay these people *is because every tom, dick and hairy * who wants to cheat the system can do it unchecked these days.  There was such an ammount of claims that there *JUST ISN'T ANY MORE MO*NEY for those who need it.


 (emphasis added)

which, in addition to being a gross and incorrect generalization, is about the most f***tarded thing I have read today.  Next stop: "Whats the dumbest thing I heard today" thread.




> My biases are founded on experience and common sense thanks



Well, at least he got part right - the bit about having biases...(which leads to prejudging and genralizations) ...although the common sense bit eludes me.

edited for clarity


----------



## Redeye

It does seem prudent to try to make sure as much financial counselling as possible is provided, because receiving this lump sum is like any other most likely for many people, it leads some - not all - but some - to indulge in things that aren't particularly prudent.  In my day job life I worked with a widowed partner of a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan, and she's thanked me innumerable times for basically taking the insurance proceeds and gratuity and all and basically putting it away.  We've looked after her retirement already, she bought a house (didn't pay cash, we financed it and used an investment to basically make the mortgage payments, all tax deductible etc), and most importantly, when all the "friends" and "family" come out of the woodwork with great ideas for the funds, she can tell them that she hasn't got access to any of it.

As for people ripping off the system, you'll never get around that, unfortunately, and I think it's probably a very small minority that would do so.  They seem to be pretty thorough, I finally applied for benefits as a result of two injuries I got as an Officer Cadet that continue to haunt me.  I don't care if I get some big payout (I won't, I have an idea of what at most I'd get), what I really would like is for some coverage of things like orthotics I now need.  It took six months for DVA to come back with "Not Enough Evidence" when I thought I'd given them ample - and so they're being thorough and so am I.


----------



## Tank Troll

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> *Article Link*
> 
> 
> Veterans' groups are overwhelmingly opposed to a new policy by the Conservative government  that eliminated monthly disability pensions in favour of lump-sum payments, up to a maximum of $276,080, if they are permanently disabled.



Ummm. This new VAC was done by the Liberals just before the left power and the Conservatives inherited it. (they've done nothing to change it but it was a liberal brain child that gave us this)


----------



## aesop081

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Ummm. This new VAC was done by the Liberals just before the left power and the Conservatives inherited it. (they've done nothing to change it but it was a liberal brain child that gave us this)



and fully supported by the RCL..........


----------



## Tank Troll

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> and fully supported by the RCL..........



When it passed through the house the Libs had a majority Government so even if the RCL opposed it they had no way to stop it. And like I stated they have done nothing to change it.


----------



## aesop081

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> When it passed through the house the Libs had a majority Government so even if the RCL opposed it they had no way to stop it.



My point was that the same vet groups who supported the changes at the time, are the same ones saying the changes were bad. The RCL was more than happy at the time, to stand at press conferences, saying the the new policies were the best thing since the discovery of fire and that they were the one true voice of vets that made it happen.


----------



## Tank Troll

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> My point was that the same vet groups who supported the changes at the time, are the same ones saying the changes were bad. The RCL was more than happy at the time, to stand at press conferences, saying the the new policies were the best thing since the discovery of fire and that they were the one true voice of vets that made it happen.



Seen.


----------



## dogger1936

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> "Today's soldier".  Do you realize how ****ed up that is?  He is soon to be "Yesterday's soldier" like all before him.  Get off your high horse.



High horse? Where did you get me pointing out that yesterdays vets got way more than we do? 410 dollars is crap no doubt, but I know many guys who would LOVE to get something on a monthly basis.

Apologise for coming off that way. I'm done posting on this forum.


----------



## SeanNewman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Good leaders know when to STFU....



And when to not lose their cool, go on a rant, and type things like "STFU" which should according to site guidelines put you on the warning system but I'm sure you'll be fine.


----------



## aesop081

Petamocto said:
			
		

> And when to not lose their cool, go on a rant, and type things like "STFU" which should according to site guidelines put you on the warning system but I'm sure you'll be fine.



Dear lord........let it go. You were the first one to claim the moral high ground, start acting like it.


----------



## Teeps74

$410/month* over 20 years is $98400, just as an example... No small peanuts when taken in the context of life time tax free earnings (a little rusty, but medical pensions are tax freee right?).

But that pension is for life, not 20 years... So, if the member lives another 40-60 years, it is still 410/month. The lump sum does not address that.

I am going over the VAC site now, and wow... The monthly pension, IMHO serves those of us who may need it past/present/future better. This lump sum, well, irks me.  At the end of the day, a lump sum would be fine in the event of a non-permnent or non-debilitating injury. But I know in my case, were I to lose my legs, or another limb or two, I would find the lump sum to be insulting.

*Just borrowing an example from an earlier post as a demonstration.

(Disclaimer.  I am not now injured or drawing pensions... Just projecting as I still have another 20 years of service left in me *touch wood*)


----------



## SeanNewman

[On track]

Teeps,

In getting back to the original post, what seems to be the problem is that even if the amounts were the same (say $500,000 now vs $500,000 spread out over 25 years [adjusted for inflation so they'd actually make a tad more than 2010 dollars] the word "squander" for me suggests that it would be better spread out.

The fact that they are being issued a double-whammy is what really stinks.  Not only are they getting it all at once, but they are getting much less overall, as well.

A 20 year-old with no legs does not need a check and a kick out the door even if it were a lot of money, but a life full of ongoing care and small increments of money that he should not have to pay for any injury-related expenses out of.


----------



## Occam

I think it's important to note that most of the discussion has been related to the "Disability Award", which is, according to the Ombudsman, compensation for pain and suffering.

There are other programs under the New Veteran's Charter which deal with those servicemembers who are partially or completely disabled, and provide for income assistance.  See http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/programs/fb.  I don't know much about these programs, or their eligibility requirements.


----------



## the 48th regulator

There now, it is good to get that all off your chest.  That shit causes indigestion, and we would not want you taking up a spot at the MIR, from the ones with the real injuries.   I also want to thank the posters and friends that have given you a bit of my back ground, but, let's plug away at your rant....



			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> Unfounded biases?



Yes, UNFOUNDED BIASES.  I wish I could find the smiley that does the sign language thingy, you know that kind I would be giving you right now, when you don't understand something clear and concise.



			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> Have you ever served with a reg for unit returning from a tour?



Yep once.



			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> Have you seen the troops who are so messed up that they can't be around an army uniform but still manage to get in 8 hours of modern warfare 2 each day?  What about the ones who can't do morning PT or go to the field but somehow can spend every night out at the bar rippen er up ?




I have the unfortunate privilege of doing so, on a daily basis.  Because of this, I am again asking you to refrain from Posting innuendos, and biases.  These actions are what stops the soldier who is hurt, from coming forward to seek the treatment he needs, not the amount of fakers that you "Believe" there are.



			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> My boss gets 500 bucks a month or more because of twisting his back on roto 11 in Bosnia. He is planning a bowhunting trip this september which is more physically demanding than most things we do at work and despite the fact he is "undeployable" due to his injuries and can't run with me in the morning wearing BN PT strip I see him at the gym in civies each night and he has somehow healed enough to lift more weights than I can with a good back.



Make an official complaint, and solve the problem.  You seeing this happen, ignoring it, and coming here opnly helps those fakers you claim exist.





			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> Please don't give me the "it's hard to tell who's faking" bullshit because you don't need to be a Goddammed doctor to tell who is hoppin on the free money train.


  

I never ceases to amaze me, at the quality of training today’s soldiers have.  So let me see, you know better than a Doctor of Medicine, Psychiatry, and all the other clinicians.  It must be your x-ray vision that helps you.




			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> There are many people who deserve the monthly sum of money, yes.  My heart goes out to these people who are only getting $26000.00 after losing limbs.  Some of these people are close friends


  

You lost me on this one.  I have always been a huge supporter for the old system, of Monthly payments, like you.  However, having friends who have lost limbs give you the right to spout inaccuracies.




			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> IMO, the reason there is no money left to pay these people is because every tom, dick and hairy who wants to cheat the system can do it unchecked these days.
> There was such an amount of claims that there JUST ISN'T ANY MORE MONEY for those who need it.



Can you please point us to an official document, or report where this is true.  Once again, I feel that this is another Barrack room rumour, to back up your claim of fakers.



			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> The next time you feel angry about just pat the guy on the back who is getting 600 bucks a month for the past 15 years because he twisted an ankle while he was posted in Lar Germany.



The one that defended the west, from a possible invasion of the Soviet Block.  Just because it did not happen, does not mean a threat was not there.  Remember, Canada had warriors before 2001.






			
				Drift Pin said:
			
		

> My biases are founded on experience and common sense thanks, something not likely achieved no matter how many thousand posts you have on army.ca.
> 
> Step away from the computer once and a while and look at what's going on in the *real* world vice the "cyber" one.



Teeheehee, that was cute pumpkin, but I digress.  Let us not make this about personal attacks, and let us talk about truthful stories, and support a change towards the Charter.  You coming here ranting and raving with anecdotes, and stories that you thought sound true, do little in fixing the system.

I am part of a group of people who has gone through a broken system, seen it improve itself, and now work to make it even better.  You just fired both barrel in my direction, because I told you to knock off the Biases.

I stand by my request.

Dileas

Tess


----------



## REDinstaller

Now back on target again. Does anyone have the stats to compare what rate of files were approved as a disability pension as opposed to awards?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Now back on target again. Does anyone have the stats to compare what rate of files were approved as a disability pension as opposed to awards?



That is a very good question.  However, what you are asking is moot, because no one after the veteran's charter was given a Monthly Pension.

I believe someone did post the stats on the amount of people who have been awarded under the new system, though, in this thread.  Let's take a look.

dileas

tess


----------



## REDinstaller

This is true about the charter, but i think that it would show a trend on applications and determine what medical issues would be better served by reintroducing the long term disability pensions.


----------



## Scott

Right, this thread has been cleaned up. No need for anymore bunfights or popcorn eating smileys. If you have something to add then by all means speak up.

The Staff


----------



## Sapplicant

Scott said:
			
		

> Right, this thread has been cleaned up. No need for anymore bunfights or popcorn eating smileys. If you have something to add then by all means speak up.
> 
> The Staff




Roger that, back on track...


Perhaps instead of a large cash settlement the Gov't could assist by setting them up with a small business tailored to their hobbies/interests? This can benefit everyone in the long run, as they now have a source of income, and are putting into the economy.


----------



## SeanNewman

Sap,

Very outside the box but actually a brilliant idea, however I can't even see it happening due to the sheer number of injured vets.

That being said, sadly we have gotten very good at a lot of things (ramp ceremonies, burials, assisting officer, etc) and if a small cadre were tasked with your idea they would only get more efficient with time.

But yes, someone tasked with walking them through all of the hurdles to start-up a business would be great.


----------



## 57Chevy

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I had the idea to make a suggestion to have a veterans corner where we could discuss the many
> issues concerning veterans. Like hearing problems, feet and ankle issues, back problems, spinal
> cord injuries, neck related injuries, knee problems, amputations, etc, etc. Not to mention the ongoing "agent orange" issue, and the multitude of other things covered or not covered by the new veterans charter.
> But then I read the last few entries of this thread. I find that some people should just STFU.
> Like it or not, all soldiers have "walked the walk" whether in training or overseas.
> Only a doctor can diagnose sustained injuries and provide the necessary proof required to make
> any decision by Veterans Affairs. So don't go thinking some guys are getting pension monies for squat.
> Sorry if this was a bit off topic......but I hope it clears up some fog.




Obviously DP......you could never take part in ANY constructive conversation regarding my pondered
                        suggestion. People like you usually leave these things to the more apt and mature.
                        Veterans young and old must stand united together for changes to be adopted 
                        into the current veterans charter. As this site membership contains soldiers from
                        just about all trades, air, sea, and land, and with much expertise, it is in my military 
                        mind, a forum well equipped to provide an excellent blueprint for needed changes
                        to legislation concerning all veterans. And these things cannot be done by making
                        unnecessary accusations and insinuations. Let alone heated arguments.
                        So, start walking the walk

                        Have a nice evening.......just the same.
                        57


----------



## 57Chevy

I didn't notice to clean-up.........my one finger typist is a slow one ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Beyond the Pension Act payments, thetre are programs in both DND and VAC to assist with transition to a non-military career.


----------



## SeanNewman

Correct but I have not heard it phrased in the sense of starting a business before; it has been about putting the soldier to work to have one less unemployed person.

If one wounded vet's business were to take off, that's now 10, 20, 100+.


----------



## Sapplicant

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Correct but I have not heard it phrased in the sense of starting a business before; it has been about putting the soldier to work to have one less unemployed person.
> 
> If one wounded vet's business were to take off, that's now 10, 20, 100+.




That's exactly what I was getting at. Don't send them to work in an factory, in this day and age, anyone willing to volunteer their life to their country like this, deserves a lot more. Personally, I'm hoping that when my service is up, I retire to a hunting/fishing lodge where people pay to get out of the city...


----------



## dapaterson

Vocational Rehab.  http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/programs/canvet

Skills Completion Program.  http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/dli-dai/er-re/pro/scpreg-ppcfc-eng.asp

Educational reimbursement: http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/dli-dai/er-re/fin-eng.asp


Lots of resources available.


----------



## 2010newbie

The US government has offices that assist veterans with setting up businesses and the DoD has a percentage of business that is allocated to be spent with veteran owned businesses each year. The company I work for is owned by an ex-Marine who was injured and we have the title of a "Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business".

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/programs/veterans/index.htm

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=24517

http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/ovbd/index.html

What about the normal Canadian government benefits? There are a variety of programs for people to start their own businesses; including offering payment of EI benefits during the intial start-up and mentoring support. Is there any reason why a veteran could not pursue these options?

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/tcu/employees/selfEmployment.html

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability_issues/funding_programs/opportunities_fund/index.shtml


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Correct but I have not heard it phrased in the sense of starting a business before; it has been about putting the soldier to work to have one less unemployed person.



Surely it is YOU who phrased it that way, unless you have a source that states otherwise of course.

I have been unable to find any reference in the official literature that states this is all about unemployment figures.   Moreover, I have some more than just peripheral experience with the various organs of government, be they CF, Regimental, VAC, case workers etc, and I have yet to sense that the program for caring for our veterans is all about reducing unemployment.

Unless you have some understanding of the situation that extends beyond what you may have heard in the smoking area, gym, or mess, it might be helpful if you avoided gross generalizations.


----------



## SeanNewman

I may have misspoke.  I did not mean that it was about unemployment figures, so much as it was helping the wounded vet get a job.

When I said it could help other unemployed people, it was to state that helping a wounded vet start a business would (IMO) be better for the economy than just helping him get a job.

I certainly know it's not about unemployment figures, but to me it seems like a better idea to potentially put many people to work than just one, and the direct benefit to the soldier is that we're potentially giving him a chance to really make it big instead of a job placement at Blockbuster.


----------



## OldSolduer

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I may have misspoke.  I did not mean that it was about unemployment figures, so much as it was helping the wounded vet get a job.
> 
> When I said it could help other unemployed people, it was to state that helping a wounded vet start a business would (IMO) be better for the economy than just helping him get a job.
> 
> I certainly know it's not about unemployment figures, but to me it seems like a better idea to potentially put many people to work than just one, and the direct benefit to the soldier is that we're potentially giving him a chance to really make it big instead of a job placement at Blockbuster.



There is a program in the US that assists veterans to start businesses. All well intentioned, but not every veteran is a business type person. Those that are will get there are some point. 
The Public Service also has Priority Hiring.


----------



## Danjanou

The idea of small business for injured/wounded vets definitely has merit. There are precedents that could be used to develop a working model through VAC, RCL, or elsewhere. Ontario Works ( Welfare) runs a very successful program for clients who otherwise would never return to the "work force" for a variety of reasons. 

http://www.canadabusiness.ca/eng/summary/2667/

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/directives/directives/OWDirectives/8_6_OW_Directives.aspx


This could be easily modified to the needs of veterans including the use of the agencies that teach the business procedures to make a small business viable. Some 85% of small business fails, most not due to the viability of the business, but often due to other reasons, financing, cash flow etc.

Most of the more successful ones have been built around hobbies including, PC repair, gardening, photography, tropical fish breeding, woodworking etc. For military purposes, medal mounting, or military regalia (T-shirts etc) might also be viable.


----------



## 57Chevy

There is also a program in Canada for starting ones' own business also, which was mentioned
above and which also details some programs for the disabled.
This one: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability_issues/funding_programs/opportunities_fund/index.shtml


----------



## Wookilar

These are all great ideas, however, there is no current political will to make the changes (that we see as) necessary. As much as the various Vet's groups try to push this, I cannot see the Charter changing until the current fiscal realities change. Once more money becomes available, things may get more of a push.

When it comes down to it, our service (and sacrifices) is/are not that valuable to some people. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people, both in and out of the system, that care very much and work hard for all the Vet's. Unfortunately, not too many of them seem to be in positions of authority. What is the Veterans Ombudsman doing with this? 

Or maybe I'm just in a bad mood as VAC tells me it could be another 6 months before a decision is reached (2 years for some broken bones, seriously?)....I'm at a point now where I almost don't care, I just want it done.

Wook


----------



## aesop081

Wookilar said:
			
		

> As much as the various Vet's groups try to push this, I cannot see the Charter changing



Considering the support that the RCL gave the new charter, i'm not surprised there is no movement.


----------



## dogger1936

Sorry for the spouting off angry there...stamping my feet holding my breath. ;D Drift pin put me in a mood....and I'm sure he wouldnt say anything about me faking...he can have my local if he wishes.

Anywho..
I stumbled along something called the PIA. I aplogise if I havent researched enough but does this just reply to the past vet's and not us? If not how does one apply for a permant impairment allowance?
http://legion.ca/_PDF/SBureau/Rates2009_PIA_e.pdf
As well I am on a IE20 and may be medically released. I have plus of 10 years in. I understand that if I am medically released I will get 2% for each year served based on my best year Sgt? Is that correct? Im just trying to determine what I would be looking at for a income. However my mind is so jumbled I can't seem to find that pension calculator I use to have bookmarked.

Anyone give me a rough estimate of what a Sgt would make after 10 yrs med release?

I'm having a difficult time even working right now and am thinking working towards a med release may be the best for myself and the military. I can't do my job right now at all. There in body not mind.


I did do a search here for the answers, however most links were outdated. 
The posting to where my family lives seems impossiable, the Dr's suggested it however we have no positions in that province for my trade. If I was from Ontario I would be sent to family in a heartbeat...east coast...not so much.


----------



## dapaterson

A bit of info on the PIA is online at:

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/programs/fb

That`s all I`ve been able t ofind with a quick search; there may be more info elsewhere.


And re: medical release after 10 years of service - roughly speaking, your pension on release would be 20% of your average pay for the last 5 years.  A VERY rough estimate: about $1000 per month (before taxes).  As a medical release, you'd get immediate indexing of your pension - that is, annual increases due to inflation.


----------



## wildman0101

Doggy,,
Let me carify.
Veteran's affairs lump sum. 400.00
army anniuity,,, 11 yrs service 410.21 (monthly)
1975-1986 released 3-b,,, reread post.
12 dec 2006  supplementary Retirement Benifits(srb)
as part 3 of Candian superannuation Act Aproved.
Released (CMRD) 1986 15.01 Item 3(b)...
On medical ground's being unfit and disabled and 
unable to perform duties in his present trade and is 
otherwise unemployable under existing service policy.
Notice Doggy... 
You might bark Puppy but i got a bigger bite...
So Nice doggy ,,, 
Scoty B
P.S. Go fetch


----------



## dogger1936

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A bit of info on the PIA is online at:
> 
> http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/programs/fb
> 
> That`s all I`ve been able t ofind with a quick search; there may be more info elsewhere.
> 
> 
> And re: medical release after 10 years of service - roughly speaking, your pension on release would be 20% of your average pay for the last 5 years.  A VERY rough estimate: about $1000 per month (before taxes).  As a medical release, you'd get immediate indexing of your pension - that is, annual increases due to inflation.



Cheers DA.



			
				wildman0101 said:
			
		

> Doggy,,
> Let me carify.
> Veteran's affairs lump sum. 400.00
> army anniuity,,, 11 yrs service 410.21 (monthly)
> 1975-1986 released 3-b,,, reread post.
> 12 dec 2006  supplementary Retirement Benifits(srb)
> as part 3 of Candian superannuation Act Aproved.
> Released (CMRD) 1986 15.01 Item 3(b)...
> On medical ground's being unfit and disabled and
> unable to perform duties in his present trade and is
> otherwise unemployable under existing service policy.
> Notice Doggy...
> You might bark Puppy but i got a bigger bite...
> So Nice doggy ,,,
> Scoty B
> P.S. Go fetch



Nice use of an imagery.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

wildman0101,

PM sent


----------



## George Wallace

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> As well I am on a IE20 and may be medically released. I have plus of 10 years in. I understand that if I am medically released I will get 2% for each year served based on my best year Sgt? Is that correct? Im just trying to determine what I would be looking at for a income. However my mind is so jumbled I can't seem to find that pension calculator I use to have bookmarked.
> 
> ...............................................
> ...............................................



Not to get too personal, but it sounds like you should probably be on a Medical pension right now.  I had a Cpl working for me, who was collecting a Medical pension of approx $700 a month tax free due to his damaged knees.  He was collecting this while still serving.  VAC and SISIP cover different things, and I am not clear as to what his exact benefits were from each, other than he was really pissed at one deducting the others pension in their calculating of entitlements.  Drop in on your Reps and find out, or see one of the Legion Reps to help you out.  

I have a feeling that some, perhaps many, don't know that they do not have to be Released before collecting a Medical pension.


----------



## dogger1936

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not to get too personal, but it sounds like you should probably be on a Medical pension right now.  I had a Cpl working for me, who was collecting a Medical pension of approx $700 a month tax free due to his damaged knees.  He was collecting this while still serving.  VAC and SISIP cover different things, and I am not clear as to what his exact benefits were from each, other than he was really pissed at one deducting the others pension in their calculating of entitlements.  Drop in on your Reps and find out, or see one of the Legion Reps to help you out.
> 
> I have a feeling that some, perhaps many, don't know that they do not have to be Released before collecting a Medical pension.



Thats very interesting George.
I knew of quite a few guys who were collecting medical pensions while still in. However I thought that was only under the old system. I know I will still get my VAC settlement as a lump sum due to the new rules, and still will be able to serve.  If anyone knows anything on this further please help me out! Im learning moe from discussions with people than im drawling from the written word...Im having huge concentration issues ...that being the largest problem.

I am in the system with VAC......now just waiting.


----------



## OldSolduer

dogger have you called the JPSU/IPSC?

They can assist you.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> dogger have you called the JPSU/IPSC?
> 
> They can assist you.




Very, very wise advice, I second that, dogger.

Just watch out for the crotchety Sgt. Major types.  The OSISS fellows are usually neat.  

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> dogger have you called the JPSU/IPSC?
> 
> They can assist you.





			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Very, very wise advice, I second that, dogger.
> 
> Just watch out for the crotchety Sgt. Major types.  The OSISS fellows are usually neat.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I will "third" this!   Absolutly contact JPSU/IPSC.

JPSU/IPSC has a lot of resources* and direct lines to VAC, D Med Pol and SISIP.  

(* I would go as far to say "a metric sh!t-load" of resources.. far more than can be written here.)

I was lucky enough to have a very switched on assisting officer who jumped through a lot of hoops (and pissed off all the wrong people) to ensure I got squared away. Now that the JPSU exists, there aren't as many hoops to jump through, and far less middle-men to piss off. 

Just keep in mind; it is JPSU's entire job to know how to take care of injured soldiers.  This includes how to make use of all the resources available to them; reference note above *.


----------



## Nemo888

This really turned into a trainwreck. Glad it is getting back on track. I was screwed too till I got an assisting Officer. I went the route of documenting how I was treated. Eventually got fed up and rattled some cages way above my pay scale. When the disciplinary action started I forwarded all my info. Then got an apology and a Major for an advocate.

Lump sum still blows though. Wish I would have applied earlier when it was still the old system. The little things about getting injured are often what really hurts. How your wife looks at you changes, or how she is always worried about money. Having your dad not tell you he is laying the new patio stones,...


----------



## the 48th regulator

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> This really turned into a trainwreck. Glad it is getting back on track. I was screwed too till I got an assisting Officer. I went the route of documenting how I was treated. Eventually got fed up and rattled some cages way above my pay scale. When the disciplinary action started I forwarded all my info. Then got an apology and a Major for an advocate.
> 
> Lump sum still blows though. Wish I would have applied earlier when it was still the old system. The little things about getting injured are often what really hurts. How your wife looks at you changes, or how she is always worried about money. Having your dad not tell you he is laying the new patio stones,...



The dad not tell you he is laying the new patio stones is always the trigger....

dileas

tess


----------



## OldSolduer

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Very, very wise advice, I second that, dogger.
> 
> Just watch out for the crotchety Sgt. Major types.  The OSISS fellows are usually neat.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



There are no crotchety Sgt Major types in the JPSU!! Just a bit crusty!!  ;D

But there is one thing we all have in common: We all want to see the soldiers get the proper treatment in a timely fashion. 

We're really all big softies in the JPSU!!


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... according to this from Postmedia News:


> .... Blackburn also said the government is looking at ways of improving the lump-sum payment provided disabled veterans, along with 75 per cent of their "pre-release" salary during rehabilitation.
> 
> *"I'm not saying that we will deliver more money but if some people don't have the capacity to have all that money at one moment, we will offer them other solutions," he said. "For example, if somebody receives $100,000 because he's got injuries, maybe we could deliver the money in three or five payments."*
> 
> While a department survey showed the majority of disabled veterans like the lump-sum system and used or invested the money wisely and efficiently, it is among the most frequently criticized aspects of the New Veterans Charter ....


----------



## dogger1936

Is that a solution!

I believe the main reason soldiers are "squandering" their payouts is due to the very little amount of money you get for coming back ****** up.

Personally I understand why the 20,000 payout is blown the week they get it. It's going to pay off their cars so they don't have bill's. So thats one less stress when they are booted out/ released to start a new life.

What majority of veterans like the lump sum? From all my comrades who were blown clean out of their vehicles who woke up a bloody mess, who woke up in bagram without recolection of WTF happened who deal with nightmares everynight of seeing 19 year old soldiers in pieces, who are in  constant pain now and worsening...find the payment they are getting a punch in the face. 

Again some smoke and mirrors to make the new veterans charter seem awesome to the Canadian public. Any civilian I have told about what I get or what my friends get...they are shocked. They assume you put your life on the line, you almost die, you get taken care of. 

Want to fix this "squandering?" lets go back to the old system of tax free pensions every month for the rest of the soldiers lifes. At least then they have something.


----------



## len173

So basically, if you are blown to pieces and are permanently disabled, you get a payout of 250k? What about the pension you would have earned after a 30yr career? Does this differ for reg and PRes? Is there anything else out there for these men and women, or is it just 'here is your money, have a nice life'?


----------



## George Wallace

Jayell said:
			
		

> .......... What about the pension you would have earned after a 30yr career?



If you have served 30 years, then you get a pension for that time.  If you haven't served 30 years, you do not get a pension for 30 years of service.  There is no change there.


----------



## dogger1936

Jayell said:
			
		

> So basically, if you are blown to pieces and are permanently disabled, you get a payout of 250k? What about the pension you would have earned after a 30yr career? Does this differ for reg and PRes? Is there anything else out there for these men and women, or is it just 'here is your money, have a nice life'?



You have to be really messed up to get 250k. We got guys losing limbs and basically getting a years pay. There are programs there to help transfer into civilian life, owever I believe the troops deserve the same pensions the previous generation recieved. I don't know how they thought this was a good idea for the troops....except on a VAC spreadsheet on how they can save money over time.


----------



## Greymatters

One person on here mentioned that the thinking behind the payouts was that soldiers would invest payout funds on their own in order to form a portion of their future income.  Is that speculation or is that the actual reasoning?


----------



## CallOfDuty

Heres a link to VAC's just the facts page......http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=department/facts-fait/lump-sum-disability

The bottom line says..        "The Lump Sum Disability Award is a tax-free payment of up to $276,080, based on the extent of the disability. Veterans are *counselled* about the importance of getting independent financial advice, the cost of which may be covered by Veterans Affairs Canada."

  As a side note...I just registered on VAC's " My VAC account" and for the people who think the lump sum disability award is all you get...... I see :

           War Veterans Allowance	
	Temporary Earnings Loss Benefit	
	Extended Earnings Loss Benefit	

	Supplementary Retirement Benefit	
	Canadian Forces Income Support		
        Permanent impairment allowance

Now, I'm only new to the system, and I don't know how it all works but there seems to be more than just a lump sum payout.


----------



## Greymatters

Hmmm, not quite the same thing I was thinking of... never mind.


----------



## len173

> War Veterans Allowance
> Temporary Earnings Loss Benefit
> Extended Earnings Loss Benefit
> 
> Supplementary Retirement Benefit
> Canadian Forces Income Support
> Permanent impairment allowance



This is sort of what I was getting at. I'm wondering if there is some kind of monthly allowance for individuals who are permanently disabled (i.e. the loss of limbs) on top of the max payout. It just seems really screwed up that a troop could lose an arm or a leg, get a years salary payed out, and a kick on the ass.


----------



## dogger1936

not that I'm aware. Listen I've said it a few times to get that max payout you have to be severly messed up. I'm talking multiple limbs missing etc. Now if you managed to keep your legs although they are held together with plates and screws.Where you wake up in pain everyday, cant run ruck,walk more than 500m. Your looking at 10% pension payout. No monthly payment, dont pass Go or collect 200 bucks.

I'll look into the other benifits however IIRC War Vet allowance is a past thing I.E WW1-2.

I will look into the other benifits you listed when I get the time, but from personal experience with my buddies who got it worse than me:

Med release
10 yrs or less return of contibutions
10 or more 10% for ten years and 2% for each year after.


And your cash payout from VAC.


----------



## OldSolduer

There is no monthly pension for those that fall under the New Veterans Charter.

I agree, that this is totally f**ked up. 

I only have a few years of military service left. Once I retire (again) I can start criticizing government policy. This will be one of the first if it has not changed.


----------



## Pusser

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Med release
> 10 yrs or less return of contibutions
> 10 or more 10% for ten years and 2% for each year after.



If you're talking about Canadian Forces Superannuation Act Benefits (CFSA), and it appears that you are, this is not quite correct.  The formula is 2% x *every* year of service x average of best five years of salary.  So, someone with 14 years service would get 28% of the average of his/her best five years.  This is the same for all releases (save disciplinary).  The key difference between a medical release and a voluntary release is that pensions on medical releases are indexed right away, whereas other released members may have to wait for indexing to kick in (depends on age, years of service and other factors).


----------



## dapaterson

In addition, the qualifying period for CFSA part I (Regular Force and some long-full-time service Reservists) is now 2 years, vice ten.


----------



## Rifleman62

> While a department survey showed the majority of disabled veterans like the lump-sum system and used or invested the money wisely and efficiently, it is among the most frequently criticized aspects of the New Veterans Charter ....



I would love to see all the details, including the demographs, of every self preservation survey done by VAC.


----------



## Pusser

I wouldn't be too quick to call this self-preservation at all.  When you think about it, it is far more beneficial to VAC's future to maintain monthly payments and the whole infrastructure required to support them, than it is to make lump sum payments.  It requires a lot fewer people and systems to deal with a file only once than to have to deal with it monthly for the rest of someone's life.  Reducing VAC's workload (which a lump sum payment system does) only makes it easier to eliminate them as redundant.  This is not self-preservation at all.


----------



## Rifleman62

> It requires a lot fewer people and systems to deal with a file only once than to have to deal with it monthly for the rest of someone's life.



Sorry, disagree with the above. The monthly is spit out by computer and is not reviewed again unless the recipient appeals a deterioration of the disability. I do believe VAC can review the entitlement, as so warned (threatened) when appealing.

I posted here years ago. Almost all of the WWI Vets were gone (now gone), WWII Vets were in their 80's, Korea Vets where five years behind. What would happen to VAC's huge infrastructure and thousands of employees? The career paths, the power.

Well, make everyone a Vet, and piss off more generations of deserving ex service people.


----------



## Brutus

Pusser said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be too quick to call this self-preservation at all.  When you think about it, it is far more beneficial to VAC's future to maintain monthly payments and the whole infrastructure required to support them, than it is to make lump sum payments.  It requires a lot fewer people and systems to deal with a file only once than to have to deal with it monthly for the rest of someone's life.  Reducing VAC's workload (which a lump sum payment system does) only makes it easier to eliminate them as redundant.  This is not self-preservation at all.



Financial settlements for disabilities are only one aspect of VA's services. I don't really think the lump sum system was implemented to save time and money for the reasons you stated.


----------



## Pusser

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Sorry, disagree with the above. The monthly is spit out by computer and is not reviewed again unless the recipient appeals a deterioration of the disability. I do believe VAC can review the entitlement, as so warned (threatened) when appealing.



Have you ever actually worked in this area?  Computers only make it easier to manage records.  They shift, but do not eliminate work.  If you can close a file completely with a single transaction (i.e. a single lump sum payment), workload is reduced considerably.  Monthly payments, even if computer generated, still need to be monitored, audited, updated, approved, etc.  Furthermore, monthly payments cost money to issue.  Whether it's a cheque, a PWGSC allotment or an electronic funds transfer to a bank account, there are charges for each transaction, which add up pretty quickly.  



			
				Brutus said:
			
		

> Financial settlements for disabilities are only one aspect of VA's services. I don't really think the lump sum system was implemented to save time and money for the reasons you stated.



Perhaps not, but my comment was in reference to another poster stating that a VAC survey which showed veterans are in favour of lump sum payments was an exercise in self preservation.  My argument is that lump sum payments are actually detrimental to the future of VAC (i.e. reduction in workload = opportunity to reduce workforce and perhaps eliminate the Department with another, which is/was being considered) and, therefore, a survey result that supports lump sum payments is not self-preserving.  Whether VAC intended lump sum payments to achieve savings in this way is irrelevant to my point.


----------



## Rifleman62

No Pusser I have not worked in the area. I over simplified spit out of a computer in my post. I will state that you are correct, and my opinion is wrong.


----------



## prairefire

In 1987 I was injured in a parachute accident that resulted in permanent nerve damage to my spine that has left me with random attacks of sciatica and severe and debilitating pain and occasional lack of motor control to my left leg. While this has impacted my overall quality of life I consider myself lucky that I received a pension under the old provisions of the DVA pension benefits. Using the 2010 table as a simple base for comparison it is easy to see that I am much better off than had I had a similar injury today.  Maybe I am missing something but if I live to 78 years of age I think the old system will leave me much better off. I also believe the only reason for the Veterans Charter was to save the govt money.

Married with 2 children born after the injury						

Basic Pension at 20%	    $479.56					
Additional Amount for Married	    $119.88					
Additional Amount for 1st child	      $62.36					
Additional Amount for 2nd child     $45.56					
Total Montly Pension	    $707.36					

Injured at age 30 in 1987					
Granted 20% Disability Pension in 1990 at age 33						
Assume Average Life Expectancy of 78 years						
Basic Pension payable for 45 years						
Use 2010 as a base figure for averaging basic benefits  45 years X 12months x 479.56			
Life time basic benefit is 	$258,962.40					
Married Benefit over 45 years			        45 years X 12 months X 119.98			
Life Time Married Benfit is 	$64,735.20					
18 years of child benefit			        18 years X 12 months X (62.36+45.56)			
Life Time child benefit is	$23,310.72					
Total DVA Pension Benefit is 	$347,008.32					
Veterans Charter Payment	$55,215.94					
Net Additional Benefit over life	$291,792.38


----------



## CallOfDuty

prairefire said:
			
		

> Using the 2010 table as a simple base for comparison it is easy to see that I am much better off than had I had a similar injury today.  Maybe I am missing something but if I live to 78 years of age I think the old system will leave me much better off. I also believe the only reason for the Veterans Charter was to save the govt money.


  
  Exactly......that's why the ombudsman is putting the big push on now for getting rid of the lump sum payments.  Let's hope that things change for the better.


----------



## Pusser

Please note that I'm not defending the lump sum payment as I agree that a lifetime pension benefit is more appropriate

However, one thing that I think people are missing is that the lump sum payment is not intended to be placed under a mattress and provide sufficient funds for the rest of one's life.  The intent is that it is to be invested and the interest is supposed to provide income for the rest of one's life.  Presumably, the lump sum payment is of sufficient amount to purchase an annuity that would provide a monthly payment of about the same amount of the older pension plan.

Unfortunately, doing this requires a certain amount of financial discipline that many of us lack.  There is a real possibility that someone will spend all the money without investing it and be left with nothing in the end. Therein lies the problem.


----------



## prairefire

The more realistic problem is that if my assumption of the $55K payout for an equivalent injury to mine is correct under the Veterans Charter there is a very definite problem.  I would like you to find me and insurance product, annuity or such other financial instrument that will yield an immediate monthly net pension such I am currently receiving and have been since 1990. You would require a return on investment of at least 12% to 15% that was tax free and even then I do not believe it would come close.


----------



## dapaterson

You can get 5% from dividend-paying stocks, which reduces but does not eliminate the tax bill.  On $55K, that would be $2750 per year or about $220/month, before taxes.


----------



## observor 69

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You can get 5% from dividend-paying stocks, which reduces but does not eliminate the tax bill.  On $55K, that would be $2750 per year or about $220/month, before taxes.



I guess one of your points is to note that dividend stocks have a tax advantage, true.
As for a dividend -paying stock that one could purchase with confidence that it would pay out 5% per annum it would be quite difficult in these times to find such a stock.
Even if you took a large time frame window on returns one would have to appreciate that the stock market is a gamble on the risk/return involved.
My choice would be a properly asset allocated portfolio of index funds. Many experts regard this as an average approx. 5% return.


----------



## dogger1936

Investing into stocks is a great idea. However what about all those bills when you unemployed and too broke to work. I keep seeing 
excellent ideas presented, or precieved excellent idea's. Yet most don't bother to factor in realities of the injured. From what I seen here only the injured or those close to the injured are absolutely angry.


----------



## CallOfDuty

Pusser, when you're injured and receive a lump sum benefit, there is absolutely no mention of what to do with the money, except for anything over 12,000 they do offer you 500$ worth of financial planning.  If you choose to take it.


----------



## Greymatters

Good financial planning is only part of the issue; choice of lifestyle and housing location also plays a big part.  

Most of the same principles that apply to higher level financing are the same ones you apply to good lower level spending practices.  

Are you paying for what you need or what you want?
When buying are you paying the higher price or could you buy it cheaper somewhere else?
Does it really have to be 'name brand'?
How much are you paying in unnecesary bank or financing fees?
Are you getting the best interest rate for your money?
Are you getting the lowest interest rate for your loans/debts?
Are you letting someone else manage your money or are you doing it yourself?
Have you gotten rid of (or at least control of) your 'small debt' prior to signing on for 'big debt' (i.e. mortgage)? 

Lots of other questions to ask yourself before getting involved in the stock market or any other high level ventures...


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You can get 5% from dividend-paying stocks, which reduces but does not eliminate the tax bill.  On $55K, that would be $2750 per year or about $220/month, before taxes.



And if your "investment choice" did not tank as many others did over the last couple of years, you are still behind the eight ball and losing.  The only winner here is VA with all the bucks they save.  Any time they trumpet that they are doing something for our benefit, like this NCV usually it's BS and all smoke and mirrors.  I really hope that I never need the services of these clowns.  It's like the insurance industry, you may wish to suck it up as they will hammer you for putting in a claim and cut to ribbons what you do claim.


----------



## Tank Troll

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And if your "investment choice" did not tank as many others did over the last couple of years, you are still behind the eight ball and losing.  The only winner here is VA with all the bucks they save.  Any time they trumpet that they are doing something for our benefit, like this NCV usually it's BS and all smoke and mirrors.  I really hope that I never need the services of these clowns.  It's like the insurance industry, you may wish to suck it up as they will hammer you for putting in a claim and cut to ribbons what you do claim.



That is it in a nut shell


----------



## Greymatters

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's like the insurance industry, you may wish to suck it up as they will hammer you for putting in a claim and cut to ribbons what you do claim.



Ive had several insurance claims and so far havent had a problem, which has surprised me. I suppose they'll get me eventually on a future one...


----------



## Pusser

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> Pusser, when you're injured and receive a lump sum benefit, there is absolutely no mention of what to do with the money, except for anything over 12,000 they do offer you 500$ worth of financial planning.  If you choose to take it.



So what's your point?  There is financial counselling available.  Take advantage of it.


----------



## dogger1936

I'll be taking advantage of it and posting the results here. I really want to hear what they want me to do with it. Pay off normal bill's to become debt free for a easier transition or invest etc.

I will gladly post what I am getting and what they are gonna suggest. Plus Ill take their 500 dollars just cause.


----------



## CallOfDuty

Pusser said:
			
		

> However, one thing that I think people are missing is that the lump sum payment is not intended to be placed under a mattress and provide sufficient funds for the rest of one's life.  The intent is that it is to be invested and the interest is supposed to provide income for the rest of one's life.  Presumably, the lump sum payment is of sufficient amount to purchase an annuity that would provide a monthly payment of about the same amount of the older pension plan.


  My point was that you are wrong.  You presumed what the lump sum was for...and that's not what it's for.  According to VAC ...."The disability award is meant to recognize and compensate for the non-economic impacts of a service-related disability."


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And if your "investment choice" did not tank as many others did over the last couple of years, you are still behind the eight ball and losing.  The only winner here is VA with all the bucks they save.  Any time they trumpet that they are doing something for our benefit, like this NCV usually it's BS and all smoke and mirrors.  I really hope that I never need the services of these clowns.  It's like the insurance industry, you may wish to suck it up as they will hammer you for putting in a claim and cut to ribbons what you do claim.



You left out the fact that the "mandarin" that had his staff save all this money, and at the same time had them contribute more than any other Dept to the United Way, gets a six figure bonus at the end of the year.


----------



## Pusser

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> My point was that you are wrong.  You presumed what the lump sum was for...and that's not what it's for.  According to VAC ...."The disability award is meant to recognize and compensate for the non-economic impacts of a service-related disability."



No I am not wrong.  The lump sum payment replaced the monthly payment under the Pension Act, which states:

2. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.
R.S., c. 22(2nd Supp.), s. 1.

This shows that the intent of the Pension Act was essentially the same as what VAC is now saying - that the payment, in whatever form, is to provide compensation for service-related injury and/or disability.  The only thing that has changed in this regard is the method of payment.  Now, instead of receiving a monthly pension, the recipient is simply given the means to purchase an investment vehicle to provide that monthly pension.

Theoretically, nothing much has changed in what the should get in the long run.  What has changed is that now the recipient has been saddled with a much greater responsibility to manage the benefit in order to get it.

On a final note, please do not think that I think this is the best way to provide for injured and/or disabled veterans.  Frankly, they generally have enough crap on their plate that adding the kinds of decisions required to properly manage the lump sum payment is a recipe for disaster.  However, in presenting arguments for policy change, one needs to have a full understanding of what's involved.


----------



## armyvern

Pusser said:
			
		

> No I am not wrong.  The lump sum payment replaced the monthly payment under the Pension Act, which states:
> 
> 2. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.
> R.S., c. 22(2nd Supp.), s. 1.
> ...
> 
> Theoretically, nothing much has changed in what the should get in the long run.  What has changed is that now the recipient has been saddled with a much greater responsibility to manage the benefit in order to get it.
> ...



The greater part and what you fail to take into account is that the NVC has the Vets themselves assuming ALL the financial risk by trying to "invest" a lump sum into a plan that will provide for a monthly stipend on which they can live monthly in a dignified and respectful manner.

If those Vets fail at that - too bad for them; DVA is off the hook. That's wrong. 

These vets have already risked enough, and, have already lost enough ---- else they wouldn't be involved withg DVA nor receiving lump sums in the first place.

It is DVAs job to assume the risk and ensure those Vets (who already assumed their risk) who are injured due to their service are looked after for the long term - not the Vets themselves.

DVA is NOT an investment tool or a stockbroker firm. It's raison d'etre is to look after our injured vets - it is NOT to pass them off to Bay Street.


----------



## dapaterson

Vern:  I think Pusser has made it clear that he's explaining the thought process, and not necessarily supporting the end-state.

Or, in other words, he's making sure we understand how things got to where they are - since any attempts to change or influence change must start with an understanding of where things are today to know where discussions have to start.


----------



## armyvern

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Vern:  I think Pusser has made it clear that he's explaining the thought process, and not necessarily supporting the end-state.
> 
> Or, in other words, he's making sure we understand how things got to where they are - since any attempts to change or influence change must start with an understanding of where things are today to know where discussions have to start.



DAP,

Am posting loaded; please use english.   8)


----------



## dapaterson

Vern:

We have to know what the current situation is and how we got here before we can try to make any changes.

Saying "This bites" doesn't really get us anywhere.


----------



## armyvern

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Vern:
> 
> We have to know what the current situation is and how we got here before we can try to make any changes.
> 
> Saying "This bites" doesn't really get us anywhere.



This does bite. Understanding what DVAs raison d'etre is _supposed_ to be as opposed to what it currently _seems_ to be is also important. We got here precisely because they have forgotten that role with the NVC.

Currently, they are acting as referral agents for stockbrokers on Bay Street.

That is not what DVA was intended to do. Their primary task is far different - it's to look after Vets - and they ain't getting the job done with the NVC.

IMHO.


----------



## mbtshoes

Yes,I agree with you!Too much money too fast without a plan will get our guys into trouble fast.  Perhaps that is why the high schools here are starting a new compulsory credit course on financial planning and budgeting.


----------



## CallOfDuty

Pusser, Seen.  I get what you are saying now.   It's just frustrating when you work with people who are fully functional members in the workplace...can pass a PT test no problem....and for the most part are living normally with a bad knee or creaky ankles and make 600$$ a month for the rest of their lives tax free under the old veterans affairs pension.
   Then you take me, who had a severe injury...will definately impact the rest of my life, not just work wise but at home as well, I will most likely have to change trades, if not ,get released...and they throw me a one time 5% disability award??   That will in no way, provide to me long term what a monthly tax free disability award would provide....no matter how it's invested.  
  Sorry if it sounds like I'm bitching.....


----------



## PuckChaser

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> Sorry if it sounds like I'm bitching.....



You're not bitching. The lump sum award was designed to save them money and screw us. You have a valid point.


----------



## shamu

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/08/19/f-veterans-anger.html


----------



## dogger1936

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> Pusser, Seen.  I get what you are saying now.   It's just frustrating when you work with people who are fully functional members in the workplace...can pass a PT test no problem....and for the most part are living normally with a bad knee or creaky ankles and make 600$$ a month for the rest of their lives tax free under the old veterans affairs pension.
> Then you take me, who had a severe injury...will definately impact the rest of my life, not just work wise but at home as well, I will most likely have to change trades, if not ,get released...and they throw me a one time 5% disability award??   That will in no way, provide to me long term what a monthly tax free disability award would provide....no matter how it's invested.
> Sorry if it sounds like I'm bitching.....



Aint bitching at all brother. many of us are in the same boat.


----------



## OldSolduer

If we want to change things, we have to act. Writing MPs is one way. Vets who are already retired/released *can* speak to the media. This issue has to be kept in the spotlight, because its my feeling that once that last troop leaves Afghanistan....people will start forgetting. And that includes politicians, VAC and even some of our own uniformed members.


----------



## mover1

I just wrote a letter to the Royal Canadian Legion saying that they helped uus get into this mess then they can help us get out of it too.


----------



## Pusser

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The greater part and what you fail to take into account is that the NVC has the Vets themselves assuming ALL the financial risk by trying to "invest" a lump sum into a plan that will provide for a monthly stipend on which they can live monthly in a dignified and respectful manner.
> 
> If those Vets fail at that - too bad for them; DVA is off the hook. That's wrong.
> 
> These vets have already risked enough, and, have already lost enough ---- else they wouldn't be involved withg DVA nor receiving lump sums in the first place.
> 
> It is DVAs job to assume the risk and ensure those Vets (who already assumed their risk) who are injured due to their service are looked after for the long term - not the Vets themselves.
> 
> DVA is NOT an investment tool or a stockbroker firm. It's raison d'etre is to look after our injured vets - it is NOT to pass them off to Bay Street.



I haven't failed to take anything into account.  I am fully aware of the consequences of DVA actions and in fact I even stated that veterans are left holding the bag of responsibility for their own futures (as opposed to the previous method).  For the record, I do NOT support this aspect of the NVC.  But understanding it is important in order to fight it.  Presenting emotional arguments based on half-truths and misunderstanding gets you nowhere and in fact can cause even bigger problems.  It remains to be seen whether Col Stogran's public rant will help or hinder the cause.

On another note, it is worth noting that the people who came up with this did not spend their nights lying awake, thinking up ways to screw vets.  I think they honestly believed they were doing a good thing.  Remember, this received ALL party support, so be wary when the opposition parties start campaigning that they support vets while the Governement does not.  Frankly, most parties have a lot to answer for in their treatment of veterans and the military for the last 50 years.


----------



## Rifleman62

Another sage post Pusser.


----------



## mover1

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=140575162639696&ref=mf

This is on Facebook. I find it quite interesting. And relevant to the topic.

BTW I got two replies from the legion today. 

"The New Veterans Charter comprises more than just a lump sum award. It also includes other financial benefits such as Earnings Loss Benefits which can benefit not only the Veteran but his/her spouse. As member of the NVC Advisory Group, we have identified gaps in the programs and services provided under the NVC. This is where we are focusing our advocacy.
Pierre"

Thanks for  your comments.  The Legion is working to fix the New Veterans Charter and along with the other veteran organizations, we sit as part of the NVC Advisory Group.  This group has made a series of recommendations which are being considered.  In addition, we have testified before parliamentary and senate committees on what we believe should be fixed with the New Veterans Charter.

We are working on your behalf to get this done.

Sincerely,

B.K. (Brad) White


----------



## Kat Stevens

So apparently, there are four great un-truths, not just three...  >


----------



## Rifleman62

Question: How many of the RCL members that sit as part of the NVC Advisory Group have former service in the Military?


----------



## dogger1936

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/new-veterans-charter-shortchanges-our-disabled-soldiers/article1682761/

Alice Aiken and Amy Buitenhuis

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail 
Published on Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2010 5:00AM EDT

Last updated on Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2010 8:53AM EDT


.The decision not to reappoint the Veterans Ombudsman to a second term has put the spotlight on the New Veterans Charter, federal legislation that determines the programs and services available to veterans injured in the service of their country. Our financial analysis shows that the charter does not adequately meet the needs of veterans who are severely disabled.

The New Veterans Charter, which came into effect in 2006, was established by Veterans Affairs Canada to meet the needs of “new” veterans, especially those who have served in Afghanistan. The assumption is that these veterans have different needs from those who served in the Second World War and Korea or with United Nations peacekeeping missions. The charter provides an earnings loss benefit, a financial award and other allowances to veterans who have been assessed as having a service-related disability. It replaces the Pension Act, which provided these benefits to “traditional” veterans under a different legal structure. The single biggest difference is that the charter offers a one-time lump-sum disability award, whereas the Pension Act offered a monthly tax-free pension for life and a survivor benefit.

Our analysis compared financial programs offered under the charter with those offered under the Pension Act. We also determined the effects of factors such as degree of disability, rank and family status on the total financial benefits available under both plans.

We created and examined the case of a 40-year-old male army captain who is injured and discharged from the Canadian Forces. We assumed he has a disability assessment of 80 per cent, a classification given by Veterans Affairs based on severity of disability, either psychological or physical. This classifies him as “severely disabled” and depends not only on the diagnosis but also on how it affects his life. The financial benefits under both the charter and the Pension Act were totalled and compared. We also assumed that the captain was married with two children.

It was found that, in today’s dollars, assuming this veteran lived to be 78 and that he was entitled to all financial benefits, he would have received a total of $1,479,854 under the Pension Act and $967,203 under the New Veterans Charter. This means that, under the charter, this officer would receive only 65 per cent of what he would have been entitled to had he been injured before 2006.

Additional analyses showed that the Pension Act is more sensitive to factors that may increase a veteran’s financial need. If our captain’s disability was assessed at 100 per cent, for example, the charter would award him only 58 per cent ($1,022,419) of what he would have received under the Pension Act ($1,755,187). The charter doesn’t take into account marital status or number of children; so, under the Pension Act, a veteran’s pension is higher still if he’s married or has children. In addition, the Pension Act provides more money per year lived after 65 than does the charter. Finally, a higher military rank provides more money under the charter even if the severity of the injury to the captain and his higher ranked comrade are the same and might have resulted from the same incident. No such rank/entitlement discrimination exists in the Pension Act.

Our analysis included all programs under the New Veterans Charter. But some of the programs are very restrictive and not frequently awarded. For example, the permanently incapacitated allowance, a monthly amount paid to veterans permanently and severely impaired, has been awarded to only 16 people. This equates to 0.1 per cent of the 20,796 veterans receiving financial allowances under the charter. It’s unlikely, therefore, that our captain would qualify for this allowance.

Our study demonstrates that veterans are financially disadvantaged under the New Veterans Charter. In addition, the compensation gap between the charter and the Pension Act widens if a veteran lives longer, has more children, has a higher disability assessment or is released at a lower rank. Changes need to be made to this charter if members of the Canadian Forces, and Canadians generally, are to be assured that severely disabled veterans receive compensation equivalent to that under the Pension Act.

Alice Aiken is an assistant professor in the School of Rehabilitation Therapy at Queen’s University. Amy Buitenhuis is a research student with the Canadian Disability Policy Alliance at Queen’s.


----------



## Occam

Original link

War vets underpaid, study finds
New compensation system deemed to be short-changing most troops

By MURRAY BREWSTER
The Canadian Press
Mon, Aug 30 - 4:53 AM

OTTAWA — Ordinary soldiers wounded in the line of duty, veterans with families and the most severely disabled of troops are the biggest losers under Ottawa’s new system of compensating those who’ve put their lives on the line for their country, says an independent analysis.

The detailed actuarial study, commissioned by the Veterans Ombudsman’s office and obtained by The Canadian Press, was presented last year to Veterans Affairs Canada, but the department sat on the document and has not formally responded to its findings.

The 77-page report compared the system of lump-sum payments and qualified benefits under the New Veterans Charter and the old policy of guaranteed lifetime pensions, which was set up for soldiers after the Second World War.

The findings buttress the vocal arguments made by outgoing Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran, whose term the Conservative government has refused to renew.

Stogran, a blunt-talking former army colonel, accused federal bureaucrats earlier this month of "penny-pinching" veterans and stonewalling or killing his efforts to improve benefits for former servicemen and women.

The study found senior officers, the ones at the highest end of the pay scale, benefited the most from the new system. The lower the rank, the worse off the soldiers become and it gets even more difficult if the wounded veteran is married and midway through their career.

"Based on our assumptions, we are of the opinion that the actuarial present values of benefits identified in our evaluation offered through the (New Veterans Charter) are lower, in the majority of cases, than the actuarial present values of benefits offered under the Pension Act," says a final report by Aon Consulting Inc., dated Dec. 18, 2009.

It determined that young, single soldiers come out slightly ahead under the new system — as long as their cash settlements are invested with a rate of return between 3.75 and four per cent. But critics have warned that many young, wounded troops are blowing their payments.

War widows and orphans are better off with the new system, says the report.

The study took aim at the lump-sum payments, which can be up to $276,000 for the most severe injuries. It concluded that over time the previous system left soldiers with more money in their pockets and that the existing one-time payout was too cheap.

Aon Consulting created an actuarial model and entered more than 600 profiles of potential cases, which were then evaluated. In almost every instance, taking into account gender, age, family status, level of disability and pre-injury income, soldiers at the bottom end of the pay scale came out poorer.

"The Disability Award payable under the (New Veterans Charter) does not appear to be sufficient to compensate for these differences in the majority of cases," said the exhaustive study.

Critics have long argued that the lump sum payout was too cheap and point to Britain where injured soldiers are offered tax-free payments equivalent to $929,000.

Veterans Affairs has argued that wounded soldiers receive other stipends in addition to the lump-sum payment, including earnings loss protection and income support. The Aon study factored in those additional benefits and the numbers still came out the same.

That’s because, unlike the previous system, most of the new benefits are subject to income tax.

Soldiers permanently disabled in Afghanistan, by a roadside bomb as an example, must pay tax on their permanent impairment allowance, while the old system of exceptional incapacity allowance was tax-free.

The taxation erosion of benefits gets even worse when you factor in where the soldier lives. Those in highly taxed provinces, such as those on the East Coast, get slammed even harder, according to the analysis.

Female soldiers, since they have a tendency to live longer than men, are also hurt by the new system.

The study encompassed both permanently and partially disabled veterans, as well as war widows.

Veterans Affairs is reviewing the impact of the New Veterans Charter, and minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn noted the ombudsman’s analysis.

"I am pleased that this study demonstrates that certain clients, such as survivors and orphans, benefit from the NVC. For clients for whom the NVC seems less advantageous, this is something that we are currently looking into," he said.

"Therefore, as I said many times, the Charter is a living document and something I am ready to act on. Soon, I will receive a full evaluation of all the services and financial aspects of the Charter and I will be in a position to make decisions."

He did not say why the department has not responded directly to Stogran’s office.


----------



## 57Chevy

"New compensation system deemed to be short-changing most troops"

Is that to imply that the old system did no such thing ?  ;D

"soldiers at the bottom end of the pay scale came out poorer."

You got that right !
 :yellow:


----------



## dogger1936

I find it funnt that NONE of my buddies are getting "permanent impairment allowance". I would love to see the numbers of those who are getting it. To me it seems like a fancy catch phrase/ smoke and mirrors. How permantely impaired does one have to be?


----------



## Bin-Rat

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I find it funny that NONE of my buddies are getting "permanent impairment allowance". I would love to see the numbers of those who are getting it. To me it seems like a fancy catch phrase/ smoke and mirrors. How permanently impaired does one have to be?




Well here is VAC response to the OVO Office...The following is in response to Ombudsman Observation Paper #03-2009
(February 13, 2009): 

 http://tinyurl.com/27jwr6p

Now I have read this many times and I still am not sure what they mean in this mumbo jumbo


----------



## Tank Troll

Bin-Rat said:
			
		

> Well here is VAC response to the OVO Office...The following is in response to Ombudsman Observation Paper #03-2009
> (February 13, 2009):
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/27jwr6p
> 
> Now I have read this many times and I still am not sure what they mean in this mumbo jumbo



Smoke and mirrors mixed with government none speak


----------



## Pusser

Actually it says to me that they got smacked right between the eyes with the law of unintended consequences.  Unfortunate, but not intentional.  It also says that they are unaware of any specific cases where a resolution has not been found, but they are open to reviewing other cases if identified.  In short, Veterans Affairs is saying they will deal with cases that fall outside the intent, but they're not going to make any broad policy changes without evidence that the problem is big enough to warrant them.

This is not an unreasonable approach.  Bureaucrats do not lie awake at night dreaming up ways to screw people.  Most want to do the right thing, but unfortunately, the "right thing" can be a matter of perspective and the right thing for one person, may not be the right thing for another.  As long as there is a review and appeal process that keeps the intent, vice the letter, of the policy in mind, everything should be OK.  It is pretty much impossible to write policy that will keep everybody happy.


----------



## Tank Troll

Pusser said:
			
		

> It is pretty much impossible to write policy that will keep everybody happy.



They don't have to keep every one happy ...................... just the veterans



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Bureaucrats do not lie awake at night dreaming up ways to screw people.



That's what they have their day job for!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> That's what they have their day job for!



 :rofl: how true it seems, how true


----------



## Pusser

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> They don't have to keep every one happy ...................... just the veterans



However, "veterans" are not a single homogenous group for whom a single policy will work.  Every veteran has different needs and desires.  Unhappy veterans are not a new phenomenon with the NVC.


----------



## Tank Troll

Pusser said:
			
		

> However, "veterans" are not a single homogeneous group for whom a single policy will work.  Every veteran has different needs and desires.  Unhappy veterans are not a new phenomenon with the NVC.



I don't know a single Veteran happy with the NVC. If there is one out there please introduce yourself and tell me why you like it. I understand that you are going to make everyone happy........................but if no one is happy then there is a serious problem.


----------



## dogger1936

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I don't know a single Veteran happy with the NVC. If there is one out there please introduce yourself and tell me why you like it. I understand that you are going to make everyone happy........................but if no one is happy then there is a serious problem.



Agreed. give me 1 person injured in Afganistan who is pleased with what they got. Then I will agree with pusser. Otherwise I'm gonna go with smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Agreed. give me 1 person injured in Afganistan who is pleased with what they got. Then I will agree with pusser. Otherwise I'm gonna go with smoke and mirrors.



You don't have to have been injured in Afghanistan. None of us were happy with our treatment before that either.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Only folks I have talked with of that might be remotely classed as satisfied with the results are all pre-NVC clients.  Anyone of the post-NVC era I have talked to,  every man jack of them feel they got f***ed by VA, but are helpless and had to take what they were offered or get SFA.  Sorry Pusser, but I can't agree to be "Pusser" and are with d1936, TT and recceg.


----------



## dogger1936

recceguy said:
			
		

> You don't have to have been injured in Afghanistan. None of us were happy with our treatment before that either.



Agreed. however I think the public needs to see the guys with parts missing with what he's been offered. Some were gonna....yet it was suggested they didnt. I'd love to see who get's PIA as well. I got many friends and maybe even myself who I would think would get PIA...yet...no one knows anythign about it..im gonna look into this tomorrow.


----------



## dogger1936

I've been told I need to be more posative...so  Iwill say that when dealing with the frnot line workers (the Pension assistants) they were friendly and great to work with! Whn I attack VAC it's the policy not these hard working people....how appeals are handled...thats a whole other can of worms.


----------



## OldSolduer

You soldiers on here send me PMs with your concerns.  Love to hear the stories, and we do have people that can help.


----------



## Pusser

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I don't know a single Veteran happy with the NVC. If there is one out there please introduce yourself and tell me why you like it. I understand that you are going to make everyone happy........................but if no one is happy then there is a serious problem.



Happy people generally don't complain and so those who do complain, although very vocal, are often also in the minority.

Having said that, I am not thrilled with some aspects of the NVC either and I am not supporting it over the Pension Act.  However, as I have said on numerous occasions on this forum (and even in this thread), winning a dispute requires the logical presentation of verifiable facts in support of your argument.  Simply jumping up and down and screaming that something is wrong (standard naval debating society tactics notwithstanding) will only serve to cloud the argument and cause you to lose.  We need to remove the emotion from the debate and stick to the facts.  Does the NVC really and truly screw people over, OR do veterans simply believe they are being screwed over because the NVC deals with things in a different way?  You also have to look at the entire package when making the assessment.  Singling out benefits for one on one comparison does not necessarily help your argument either.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Pusser said:
			
		

> Happy people generally don't complain and so those who do complain, although very vocal, are often also in the minority.
> 
> Having said that, I am not thrilled with some aspects of the NVC either and I am not supporting it over the Pension Act.  However, as I have said on numerous occasions on this forum (and even in this thread), winning a dispute requires the logical presentation of verifiable facts in support of your argument.  Simply jumping up and down and screaming that something is wrong (standard naval debating society tactics notwithstanding) will only serve to cloud the argument and cause you to lose.  We need to remove the emotion from the debate and stick to the facts.  Does the NVC really and truly screw people over, OR do veterans simply believe they are being screwed over because the NVC deals with things in a different way?  You also have to look at the entire package when making the assessment.  Singling out benefits for one on one comparison does not necessarily help your argument either.




Pusser,


Very well said, you capture my sentiments to a tee.

dileas

tess


----------



## dogger1936

Pusser said:
			
		

> Happy people generally don't complain and so those who do complain, although very vocal, are often also in the minority.
> 
> Having said that, I am not thrilled with some aspects of the NVC either and I am not supporting it over the Pension Act.  However, as I have said on numerous occasions on this forum (and even in this thread), winning a dispute requires the logical presentation of verifiable facts in support of your argument.  Simply jumping up and down and screaming that something is wrong (standard naval debating society tactics notwithstanding) will only serve to cloud the argument and cause you to lose.  We need to remove the emotion from the debate and stick to the facts.  Does the NVC really and truly screw people over, OR do veterans simply believe they are being screwed over because the NVC deals with things in a different way?  You also have to look at the entire package when making the assessment.  Singling out benefits for one on one comparison does not necessarily help your argument either.



Its pretty basic Pusser. THose of you who were serving like me in Bosnia et al got a monthly payment for minor little things. 
Lets use PTSD as an example., as I know people who have it from Bosnia. He is recieveing 1600 dollars a month tax free
for the rest of his life. While continuing to serve in a high rank position. A Mcpl here in my unit got 80,000 and thats it. Do some math.


----------



## Pusser

No, it's not that basic.  You are singling out one aspect of the entire Charter.  You have to look at everything else.

Furthermore, if you stick your lump sum payment under a mattress, you're right, the amount you receive is probably less than you would likely receive with a pension.  But that's not a winning argument because Government simply retorts that if you invest the money properly, you can create a fund that will pay you the equivalent of that pension.

A better argument would be to state that the NVC fails in its intent of continuing to support veterans in a sustainable way that was at least as good (if not better) than under the old Pension Act.  One can do this by pointing out that the actuarial calculations upon which the lump sum payments are base are flawed, or that the assumption that veterans were capable of managing the money effectively was also flawed.  There are a number of ways to tackle this effectively without simply yelling, "this is wrong because this doesn't equal that!"  That argument will get you nowhere.  Attack the disease (the flawed reasoning) not the symptom (fact that dollar for dollar, the lump sum does not equal pension). 

Careful who you challenge to do the math.  The government has access to plenty of actuarial accountants who can produce charts and graphs that will make your head spin and prove without a doubt that the earth is flat.


----------



## Nemo888

Pusser said:
			
		

> Having said that, I am not thrilled with some aspects of the NVC either and I am not supporting it over the Pension Act.  However, as I have said on numerous occasions on this forum (and even in this thread), winning a dispute requires the logical presentation of verifiable facts in support of your argument.  Simply jumping up and down and screaming that something is wrong (standard naval debating society tactics notwithstanding) will only serve to cloud the argument and cause you to lose.  We need to remove the emotion from the debate and stick to the facts.  Does the NVC really and truly screw people over, OR do veterans simply believe they are being screwed over because the NVC deals with things in a different way?  You also have to look at the entire package when making the assessment.  Singling out benefits for one on one comparison does not necessarily help your argument either.



The VAC Doctor examining me cried after giving me a positive decision and thanked me profusely for my service. It was never disputed. I think the poor people at VAC know full well that we are being treated unfairly on the new system.


----------



## Future Pensioner

Pusser said:
			
		

> No, it's not that basic.  You are singling out one aspect of the entire Charter.  You have to look at everything else.
> 
> Furthermore, if you stick your lump sum payment under a mattress, you're right, the amount you receive is probably less than you would likely receive with a pension.  But that's not a winning argument because Government simply retorts that if you invest the money properly, you can create a fund that will pay you the equivalent of that pension.
> do the math.  The government has access to plenty of actuarial accountants who can produce charts and graphs that will make your head spin and prove without a doubt that the earth is flat.




Which of course has been proved incorrect on this forum a number of times.

While I agree that this needs to be handled correctly, the biggest thing that needs to be made very clear is that this is not necessarily about the money or "getting what is owed to me".  As far as I am concerned this is about the feeling that one was treated fairly and equally (all tings considered).  Currently the system does not do that - whether it be VAC or the VRAB.  The system is broke and does not do a good job in treating people in a fair and consistent way.


----------



## kratz

Canada asks 100% from their service members and is only willing to pay out a minor percentage if the member suffers a permanent injury in the service of the nation?

Despite all claims, the NVC I am not impressed with the results.

Anyone can send their thoughts about the NVC and the Legion's support of it directly to RCL Command through this link.


----------



## dogger1936

Pusser said:
			
		

> A better argument would be to state that the NVC fails in its intent of continuing to support veterans in a sustainable way that was at least as good (if not better) than under the old Pension Act.  One can do this by pointing out that the actuarial calculations upon which the lump sum payments are base are flawed, or that the assumption that veterans were capable of managing the money effectively was also flawed.  There are a number of ways to tackle this effectively without simply yelling, "this is wrong because this doesn't equal that!"  That argument will get you nowhere.



It's called pure anger about not being treated fairly. I don't know your history, however I'm guessing you are one of the very few who have lost body parts in a tour of duty and are being served under NVC AND are pleased? If not I suggest driving down to Pet and having a chat with some of the guys who WERE going to go on CTV and show the canadian public what a few grand buys you and if they thought it was fair. Then you can maybe understand a bit of the anger.

While I agree with your stance that anger and arm flailing will get nothing, you idea about taking 80,000 and  putting it into a magical investment to make 1500 sounds flawed as much as your argument that this new charter is good as or better than before.

If this is better can I choose to be treated poorer under the old veterans act? If so I will gladly take a monthly payout.

As well if this magical investment is only possiable in NDHQ/Ottawa can you please invest it for us and just give us the same as they handed out before?


----------



## Tank Troll

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> It's called pure anger about not being treated fairly. I don't know your history, however I'm guessing you are one of the very few who have lost body parts in a tour of duty and are being served under NVC AND are pleased? If not I suggest driving down to Pet and having a chat with some of the guys who WERE going to go on CTV and show the canadian public what a few grand buys you and if they thought it was fair. Then you can maybe understand a bit of the anger.
> 
> While I agree with your stance that anger and arm flailing will get nothing, your idea about taking 80,000 and  putting it into a magical investment to make 1500 sounds flawed as much as your argument that this new charter is good as or better than before.
> 
> If this is better can I choose to be treated poorer under the old veterans act? If so I will gladly take a monthly payout.
> 
> As well if this magical investment is only possiable in NDHQ/Ottawa can you please invest it for us and just give us the same as they handed out before?



That is what it comes down to right there you hit it squarely on the head.


----------



## Beech Boy

I've read through this thread with great interest.

My understanding is:

There was an old act in place.... It was replaced by a new act.... and those in charge claimed they were making the change  to better meet the need of veterans. However, from reading the comments on this thread that hardly appears to be the case.

I must be missing something, but to add to Dodger1936's point, would it not be a logical argument that if those in charge truly have the best interest of the veterans at heart then they should give them an option between the old and new formulas? I do not understand how it could be claimed that the compensation is now as good or better than before, but that a veteran can not choose to utilize the old act.

Again, I am admittedly ignorant on the topic, but I am trying to become more informed as the thought of people making such huge sacrifices for our country and then not being treated fairly infuriates me. Please someone let me know what I'm missing, all I could speculate was that it may be an administrative nightmare... But again that is just an uninformed guess.

Beech


----------



## GAP

I would suggest you read the act, or at least a summary....


----------



## Beech Boy

I'll take that reply to mean that my comment was way off base. I apologize, I'll go back to eyes and ears open, mouth shut (or in this case fingers still).

Beech


----------



## GAP

Like you, I don't know all the implications, but, I follow the thread on listen....

I have nothing worthwhile to add that is going to contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Nostix

I'll just take the time to point out once again that just because someone is pointing out the government's thought process on the new act, doesn't mean that they are arguing for it. 

It's very important to be able to understand the whole argument so that you can fashion a concrete, comprehensive response. The key here is to quantify into facts why the new system is broken, something that anecdotes and opinions fail to do.


----------



## 57Chevy

The system needs to include both the monthly payment and
some sort of portion of the calculated payout figure.
That way, the monthly payment would include the cost of living increases
and the payout.....although less......would likely go toward
the betterement of the pensioners quality of life.
(In which ever manner he/she chooses.)

And don't forget.......you can ask for a review of you case. (things can worsen)

Injuries don't go away.....
Pensions for injuries should be the same.


----------



## SeanNewman

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Injuries don't go away...



While I agree with you in the majority of cases, I'm not so sure that's always the case.

Of course if someone loses a leg that's permanent; that person is disabled forever.  That being said though, the human body really is impressive for regenerating itself if the cause of the disability is something like a musc/skel issue.

I'm certainly no MD, but I like others on these threads know that some people are milking the system.  I'm not saying that person was not injured when they said they were, or the doctors had it wrong, but do people get re-assessed every 5-10 years or so?

What if the body naturally gets better after a decade?  What if the CF could pay for a new surgery in the future that would completely remedy a broken spine that someone's getting $4k for per month right now?

So to re-state my question (sorry if it has been answered on one of the thousand posts on the topic): With a pension is it considered a one-time decision (not including appeal) that once the member is considered disabled they get paid for life or their lump sum and never need to prove over time that they're still disabled?

Has anyone ever thought about what would happen with the one-time payments if something ever happened with the example above if in the future broken spines and paralysis can be repaired?  Would that soldier have to pay back a chunk of his lump sum pro-rated for how much of his life he has left?  It seems to me like the monthly payments would make far more sense for that reason; they can just be amended on the fly if a 20% disability becomes a 50%, or a 10% or even 0%.

The soldier would have still been compensated for the time they were disabled but it's still flexible if they get better/worse.


----------



## Alea

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Injuries don't go away.....
> Pensions for injuries should be the same.



+ 300 for these wise words 57Chevy!

Alea


----------



## dogger1936

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I'm certainly no MD, but I like others on these threads know that some people are milking the system.  I'm not saying that person was not injured when they said they were, or the doctors
> The soldier would have still been compensated for the time they were disabled but it's still flexible if they get better/worse.



I'm certainly no MD + KNOW  that some people are milking the system.

I've been injured mentally and physically. My CoC didnt diagnois me....a MD did. however I do remember when Troop warrants werwe cross trained as MD`s (I.E that knee is ok...etc ;D) As for yourself as a Capt in the military why don't you do a admin review if you KNOW these members are playing the system?  I as a Sgt have even got rid of my TCAT even though it hurts like hell daily. Cause that whole soldier on attitude is ingrained. HOWEVER I have done admin reviews on my troops who have been in the UMS more than at work. Not only does it benifit the unit by cutting people who cannot be employed,it also provides the member with a place to heal up to either come back OR released or OT`d medically. Win Win.


Pusser: The comments before were not a dig at yourself in anyway, thanks for adding to the conversation. but please realise where the anger is coming from.


----------



## SeanNewman

Dogger, 

As my thread specifically stated, I am not accusing any doctors of ever getting anything wrong.

However, is it not possible for a doctor to diagnose something and then have the ailment get better or worse over time?

The same way one would expect a soldier to be awarded more compensation money if their condition got assessed as worse, is the inverse not true that we would expect them to stop getting paid of they got better?


----------



## Future Pensioner

Nostix said:
			
		

> It's very important to be able to understand the whole argument so that you can fashion a concrete, comprehensive response. The key here is to quantify into facts why the new system is broken, something that anecdotes and opinions fail to do.



I would agree, as would most people on this forum, that this topic needs to be fully understood to be properly addressed.  I for one realize this fact, but I also realise that there is a proper time and place in which to fully articulate my concerns.  I would suspect that most people on this forum are just fed up and frustrated at the way they have been treated and "marginalised" and in my case, I have limited time and effort in which to deal with this.  So you will have to excuse me if I chose not to spend my energy outlining everything on this forum - I believe that this is not the purpose of the forum.  I believe that most people are sharing their "anecdotes" and "opinions" so that they can "vent" and, in doing so, hopefully get responses that let them know that they are not alone in their frustration and challenges they are facing in dealing with or having dealt with the "system".

I for one am very grateful to all the people that have took the time to post something on this thread.  I hope that folks keep posting their "opinions" and "anecdotes" - it helps to comfort some of my frustration to know that I am not alone in my boat, rowing all by myself. 

Once again - THANK YOU TO ALL FOR YOUR POSTS!


----------



## dogger1936

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Dogger,
> 
> As my thread specifically stated, I am not accusing any doctors of ever getting anything wrong.
> 
> However, is it not possible for a doctor to diagnose something and then have the ailment get better or worse over time?
> 
> The same way one would expect a soldier to be awarded more compensation money if their condition got assessed as worse, is the inverse not true that we would expect them to stop getting paid of they got better?



First off you must be 22...nothing gets better with age! (except my good looks).

In all seriousness you can get re assessed if it gets worse. For sure if it gets better I would agree with a ceasing of funds....so would most people who are seriously injured. fact is most injured will never get better, infact it's a good bet they will decline with age. Providing a quality of life to our injured vet's is a cost of war.

Agree future pensioner. If I get released Im going right to CBC CTV. And I suggest everyone released missing limbs etc show the canadian public your injuries and tell them what you get.


----------



## SeanNewman

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> ...fact is most injured will never get better...



Which is the first thing I wrote a couple posts ago  

My question was for the minority.


----------



## Pusser

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Pusser: The comments before were not a dig at yourself in anyway, thanks for adding to the conversation. but please realise where the anger is coming from.



I understand where the anger is coming from, but I also know that sometimes the anger of the mob is misguided.  Just because everybody thinks something is true, doesn't make it so.  I agree that the NVC is not doing what it should, but everybody seems to be looking at the Pension Act as if it was some heaven-sent ray of perpetual sunshine.  It isn't now and never was.  Unhappy veterans are nothing new.  There were unhappy veterans before the NVC and there will likely be unhappy veterans after whatever comes next.  The NVC likely attempted to address some problems that were identified in the old system.  Was it successful?  We don't know for sure.  The NVC is still in its infancy.  Did the law of unintended consequences kick in and create new problems?  It would seem so.  However, it takes time to identify flaws and develop solutions.  It's never as simple as simply saying we're going to do this one thing differently


----------



## Future Pensioner

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Dogger,
> 
> As my thread specifically stated, I am not accusing any doctors of ever getting anything wrong.
> 
> However, is it not possible for a doctor to diagnose something and then have the ailment get better or worse over time?
> 
> The same way one would expect a soldier to be awarded more compensation money if their condition got assessed as worse, is the inverse not true that we would expect them to stop getting paid of they got better?



Petamocto:

I think you will find that when dealing with disability pensions and VAC that a doctor's "diagnosis" is only one small part of the assessment process.  If you look at all VAC Medical Questionnaires, they contain "in depth" questions regquire the doctor to make an assessment as to the extent of the disability and whether or  not they expect the condition to improve and to indicate what treatments are currently underway and/or planned.

So, it is just more than a "point in time" diagnosis that may get better over time - as you seem to be eluding to.


----------



## 57Chevy

Petamocto
wait....
Thanks ALEA....

Monthly Pensions are protected by legislation
That is to say, that even with the magical cure, surgical intervention, specific invention or whatever,
the pension remains......Even if by adapting your lifestyle, and your condition improves, it remains.
If your quality of life improves......then Veterans Affairs is doing their job.


Spinal cord injuries, such as herniated discs (known as degenerative disc disease) and litteral spinal snap will cause other symptoms over an extended period of time.......sometimes forever.
Sometimes these symptoms get worse over time.
This is the reasonning behind the review.
The Problem.......
As the payout seems to be a beauty......that's the end of it.
you no longer have access to that review.

Another thought to ponder upon.
Those injuries you may have sustained earlier on in your career have a time limit.
Symptoms resulting from injuries over 25yrs ago are hardly considered in most cases.

Keep a good record of any......and all injuries.
witnesses where possible. Timings, Details, incident reports, etc.

All these thing may come in handy........one day.


----------



## Kat Stevens

If you could guarantee me that my health, both physical and mental, could be restored to the same condition as they were the day before they went wrong, I would gladly pull the plug on my pension the following day.


----------



## SeanNewman

57Chevy said:
			
		

> That is to say, that even with the magical cure, surgical intervention, specific invention or whatever, the pension remains...



That answers my question, thank you.

So you can get paid more if you get worse but not paid less if you get better.


----------



## PuckChaser

Part of the calculation for the payment/pension is the pain and suffering. So even if you're better now, you can still get a claim for an injury. A coworker broke his knee pretty severely about a decade ago, might not have been able to walk again. Got surgery, it healed, and he's able to do BFTs and maintain a 4 handicap. Still gets $600 a month under the old charter, and he's still in the Forces.


----------



## the 48th regulator

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Monthly Pensions are protected by legislation
> That is to say, that even with the magical cure, surgical intervention, specific invention or whatever,
> the pension remains......Even if by adapting your lifestyle, and your condition improves, it remains.
> If your quality of life improves......then Veterans Affairs is doing their job.



That is good to hear,

Can you show me the part of the Pension Act, or other source that states this.  I have been told otherwise,a nd that would be good information to present to the people who told me this.

dileas

tess


----------



## 57Chevy

Petamocto said:
			
		

> So you can get paid more if you get worse but not paid less if you get better.



Getting better does not mean cured.
adapting is a better term......taking into consideration your condition or injury.

A leg injury may prevent you from running. It may stop you in your tracks.
So, in that case, if later, through personal effort and determination, you are able to walk,.........then you have gotten better.
It doesn't mean you can run.


----------



## 57Chevy

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That is good to hear,
> Can you show me the part of the Pension Act, or other source that states this.  I have been told otherwise,a nd that would be good information to present to the people who told me this.
> dileas tess



My Pension Advocate informed me of this recently.
I have no idea which part of the act though.

My day in Court for a review is for tomorrow morning.
Very anxious and hoping it goes well ;D


----------



## Tank Troll

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Part of the calculation for the payment/pension is the pain and suffering.



That's not what I was told by the Doctor in St John NB when I finally got looked at 2 1/2 years after the injury (they stalled long enough sending the paper work so I would fall under the NVC). She told me they (the board) didn't care about how much pain I was in or about my quality of life just about how much mobility I had lost in that limb, that was it. They didn't care that that the surgeon that worked on me said that I would have arthritis in that joint with in 2-3 years, and it would get progressively worse. My settlement worked out to be the equivalent of $300.00 a month paid out to 6 years under the old pension act. It has been 5 years since I got injured and I'm in costant pain with arthritis and I have no recourse to get reassessed.


----------



## Occam

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> That's not what I was told by the Doctor in St John NB when I finally got looked at 2 1/2 years after the injury (they stalled long enough sending the paper work so I would fall under the NVC).



Whether you fall under the Pension Act or the NVC was determined by the date you submitted your application, not the date that any supporting documents were provided by doctors.  You could've submitted the application by itself, and provided the documentation later in order to qualify under the Pension Act.


----------



## SeanNewman

57Chevy said:
			
		

> A leg injury may prevent you from running. It may stop you in your tracks.  So, in that case, if later, through personal effort and determination, you are able to walk,.........then you have gotten better.  It doesn't mean you can run.



Absolutely, but the way I understand it (I have gone though a lot of the website) they base percentages of disability on many factors including pain, loss of mobility, etc.

So in your example, say someone has a muscular chunk of their leg shot off, and when he is assessed he can't run or walk.  Well if those types of injuries are deemed (for example) a 30% disability if you can't run and a 70% disability if you can't walk, he's going to get the 70% because when he's assessed he's at X level of disability.

What I am trying to figure out (and I believe you already answered), is if that guy in the future, through physio or surgery (or whatever) is able to walk again, what happens to his pension?  If he was getting paid monthly it could have been adjusted but if he received a lump sum for a 70% disability for the rest of his life, if after a few years he's only at a 30% disability because he can walk again, then it is what it is.


----------



## CallOfDuty

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> That's not what I was told by the Doctor in St John NB when I finally got looked at 2 1/2 years after the injury (they stalled long enough sending the paper work so I would fall under the NVC). She told me they (the board) didn't care about how much pain I was in or about my quality of life just about how much mobility I had lost in that limb, that was it. They didn't care that that the surgeon that worked on me said that I would have arthritis in that joint with in 2-3 years, and it would get progressively worse. My settlement worked out to be the equivalent of $300.00 a month paid out to 6 years under the old pension act. It has been 5 years since I got injured and I'm in costant pain with arthritis and I have no recourse to get reassessed.


  Sounds like a conversation I had with someone from the board of pension advocates yesterday.  When I got my claim in the mail, there was a letter with it that said I was totally free to appeal the decision for whatever reason I wasn't happy.  So I did.  I brought up the daily pain and suffering..the quality of life issue..the things I can't do with my family like I used to etc....
  The first thing she said was "  Well did you see the chart that we sent you that showed how we calculated your award?"  I said yes.  She said that's their bible and thats exactly what they have to use to decide your award.  She said..." have you lost 80% of your mobility in the last 2 months?"  When I said no...but my quality of life has changed....she simply said it doesn't matter.  
  However,  we totally can have the appeal go through( even if they think you don't deserve it) and will get assigned a VAC lawyer and they will review our case. 
  It just seems to me like everything with them is black and white......with no room for a grey area.  I'd say everyones case is quite different and there are so many factors involved with a disability.  But they use their charts( bible) to try to calculate everyone the same.


----------



## Tank Troll

Occam said:
			
		

> Whether you fall under the Pension Act or the NVC was determined by the date you submitted your application, not the date that any supporting documents were provided by doctors.  You could've submitted the application by itself, and provided the documentation later in order to qualify under the Pension Act.



I know how it worked they (DVA) stalled in sending me the paper work to fill out to apply for a pention. Then they lost my papper work, I got posted from Edmonton to Gagetown more time was lost in the mail and by the time they received the paper work it was under the NVC


----------



## Occam

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I know how it worked they (DVA) stalled in sending me the paper work to fill out to apply for a pention. Then they lost my papper work, I got posted from Edmonton to Gagetown more time was lost in the mail and by the time they received the paper work it was under the NVC



This is going to sound harsh, but the Application for VAC Disability Benefits is available online, and has been for many years.  I know because I used the form I obtained online, and mailed the form (being careful to get a photocopy of the envelope once it had been postmarked) on March 31, 2006.  I fell under the Pension Act.  You really can't blame VAC for your situation.


----------



## CallOfDuty

I find the best way to deal with them is to go right into the office....face to face


----------



## Tank Troll

Occam said:
			
		

> This is going to sound harsh, but the Application for VAC Disability Benefits is available on line, and has been for many years.  I know because I used the form I obtained on line, and mailed the form (being careful to get a photocopy of the envelope once it had been postmarked) on March 31, 2006.  I fell under the Pension Act.  You really can't blame VAC for your situation.



One needs a computer to go on line and also needs to know it is on line. The time frame was short, there was a posting in there, a messy divorce, and a couple of other mitigating factores. So yes I take some of the blame for the reslts. How ever I had dealt with VAC before and never had a problem with them they were always prompt and acted like they were working in my best intrest, so why should I think other wise on the last occasion. Since then it has been nothing but f*ckery



			
				CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> I find the best way to deal with them is to go right into the office....face to face



Hind sight being 20/20 yes that would have been the best way to go about it, and that is what I do now.


----------



## Bin-Rat

Under the old pension scheme Your pension can be reduced if you Refuse to undergo Medical or Surgical treatment.
Pension Act online http://tinyurl.com/287sxjm

Refusing to undergo medical or surgical treatment
40. (1) Where an applicant or pensioner should undergo medical or surgical treatment and the applicant or pensioner unreasonably refuses to undergo that treatment, the Minister may reduce, by not more than one half, the pension to which the extent of the applicant’s or pensioner’s disability would otherwise have entitled the applicant or pensioner.

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a refusal to undergo a *major surgical operation.
*
R.S., 1985, c. P-6, s. 40; 1995, c. 18, s. 58.


Now with that being said, there is also a Clause that states that once attain the age of 55, and your condition is unchanged for 3 year's then your pension can not be lowered

Section 35
Limitation on reduction

(2.1) Where a member of the forces has attained the age of fifty-five years and the assessment of the extent of a disability of the member has remained unchanged for a period of three years or more, no reduction in the assessment of the extent of that disability shall be made.


----------



## 57Chevy

Petamocto. 48th
I discussed with my pension advocate this morning.

If you have recovered from your injury (totally) within the initial 3 years of receipt of your pension,
it may be revoked.
After three years, it remains. 

I have been pondering on some scenarios where this might arise.
Apparently, there are some injuries that do completely heal 
without further consequence.

It was pointed out to me to compare the monthly pension award to the new VA charts.
Any difference found in the rates outlined on the table would entitle an increase to benifits.

Good post bin-rat

One of the things I have noticed, is that it seems to take forever and ever to get finalized. ;D


----------



## mover1

http://www.cbc.ca/informationmorningns/2010/09/nova-scotia-veterans-take-on-the-minister.html

Good Podcast.

Give it a listen. CBC called the Minister a puppet. BTW he ( the minister)  is whacked right out of it.


----------



## armyvern

Pusser said:
			
		

> I understand where the anger is coming from, but I also know that sometimes the anger of the mob is misguided.  ...





			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> No, it's not that basic.  You are singling out one aspect of the entire Charter.  You have to look at everything else.
> 
> Furthermore, if you stick your lump sum payment under a mattress, you're right, the amount you receive is probably less than you would likely receive with a pension.   But that's not a winning argument because Government simply retorts that if you invest the money properly, you can create a fund that will pay you the equivalent of that pension.
> 
> A better argument would be to state that the NVC fails in its intent of continuing to support veterans in a sustainable way that was at least as good (if not better) than under the old Pension Act.  One can do this by pointing out that the actuarial calculations upon which the lump sum payments are base are flawed, or that the assumption that veterans were capable of managing the money effectively was also flawed.  There are a number of ways to tackle this effectively without simply yelling, "this is wrong because this doesn't equal that!"  That argument will get you nowhere.  Attack the disease (the flawed reasoning) not the symptom (fact that dollar for dollar, the lump sum does not equal pension).
> 
> Careful who you challenge to do the math.  The government has access to plenty of actuarial accountants who can produce charts and graphs that will make your head spin and prove without a doubt that the earth is flat.



Is this all the result of simply writing it off to "a misguided mob who squanders their disability monies away?" I certainly do not believe this to be the case; nor do many (the majority perhaps??) others. 

I am also far from convinced that the yellowed point above is "an invalid and unwinnable argument."

The NVC is certainly better in a few areas than its predecessor. In the areas of OSIS coverage, oversight and access to services - the NVA is by far the superior way to go. It actually corrected a problem in an area that was sorely lacking in the not so recent past. The NVA covering that, access to retraining (if possible) etc etc are ALL superior and are improvements brought with the NVA.

However, that portion of desperately required revamping does not negate DVAs responsibility to ensure that our injured veterans are also looked after financially and physically for their remaining years. This is where the NVA fails miserably. I would agree that some (but certainly not a majority) of lump-sum recipients are 'squandering' that payout away without making wise decisions. Is this because they are young, depressed, injured, suffering continual stress and have been through hell in recent years and thus are having troubles even getting on with a 'normal' life each day let alone being responsible to maintain, invest and provide for their own future despite their OSIS injury where they are having trouble even dealing with mundane & routine daily tasks? Because, certainly some of those who are 'squandering' are exactly like those just described.

How do we solve that? We get rid of the lump sum and return the "financial support" portion of the NVA to a monthly pension. That way, DVA can be assured that soldiers can not simply 'squander it away'. 

Additionally, what do we do about the quadruple amputee who has recd a whopping 1/4 million lump-sum? Are you suggesting that he invest it wisely now to provide for his future needs? It certainly seems that that is VACs reasoning and expectation. Here's the reality of that expectation: 

DVA is NOT purchasing or modifying a home for that amputee to make it comfortable and liveable (read some stories about our Afghan vets trying to get money out of them via claims for these things --- blood from stone) without one heck of a fight (and sometimes an MP having to make a public comment about it). Thus, that soldier who is permanently disabled is utilizing some (a whole lot!) of this lump sum payout to accomplish that ... simply to be able to get one with daily life in a dignified, but assisted, manner;

DVA is NOT purchasing customized vans, cars, or motorcycles for our veterans in this position either - are they expected to rely on the goodwill of others for life for their transportation needs?? And, these soldiers are all not "lucky" enough to have had their face and story streamlined in the mass media as some sort of poster child which therefore resulted in them seeing these items donated by some worthy business, group or enterprise. I am very glad for those soldiers for they are the lucky few who have had someone from outside DVA provide them with something they desperately required free of charge. Those other soldiers though, some of them are now willing to be poster childs for the other side of the house in the area of "_this_ is where the NVA fails us, your Nation's injured". Those soldiers too are NOT squandering their monies when they purchase these customized vehicles for disabled transport. For them, it is a necessity and a fact of life.

How do we fix that? Once again, we bring back the monthly pension in lieu of the lump-sum payment; this ensures that those pers have the required monthly income - for life - to make payments on those necessities that allow them to repair/replace as required and to LIVE in a respectful and dignified manner. Geez, all problems solved; how easy was that and where is my consulting fee??

So, in essence, in the majority of cases it comes down to: "do I purchase what I need now when I am freshly injured and require it to be able to carry on with life?" or "do I invest my 1/4 mil and live miserably without any semblance of mobility and dignity until I can collect from that invested money years down the road when I really need that income NOW?" Not a nice position to be in is it? Well, that IS the reality that today's vets are facing.

Do that, and VAC doesn't need to worry anymore about "soldiers squandering their disability payouts" and we owe our veterans and our injured that at the very least.

So despite the improvements in the way of mental health and occupational therapy/availability, counselling with the NVA, there has been a distinct reversion and shortfall in the NVAs ability to provide an adequate means that ENSURES (that is their mandate) a financially stable future that will ensure a dignified and acceptable QoL for those with lifelong physical, emotional and mental injuries. This, of course, is just my humble opinion.

DVA polls may (& according to them - do) indicate a different satisfaction rate. I'm STILL waiting to meet a single person who answered "Yes, I am satisfied with the NVA". Where are these satisfied people at?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> Careful who you challenge to do the math.  The government has access to plenty of actuarial accountants who can produce charts and graphs that will make your head spin and prove without a doubt that the earth is flat.



To be blunt, I think that's where the perception fails to meet expectations, i.e., because the math isn't "out there."

And there's one critical factor that's not been put out for consideration.

It is possible that the VAC calculations do ensure that the average lump-sum payout will match the old pension payments _based on the one piece of data they aren't sharing_ - the average life span of recipients after starting to receive their pensions. 

And, if anything, that makes it an even colder approach. They may have crunched their numbers based on the old pension benefits, averaging them over how long recipients have collected them in the past, and then calculated the lump-sums that would have achieved the same result - _if, and this is the big "IF"_, the recipient knew before-hand how long they were expected (by the VAC program) to live. 

The problem is that no-one plans to die young. And common-sense and optimism lead us to plan for an average life span.

So their cold, sterile math may have a grounding in collected data - but it conflicts with _human_ expectations of life span and lifestyle, and _human_ perceptions of fair entitlements.

So, where's the real math behind the numbers?


----------



## SeanNewman

Bin Rat and 57C,

Great replies, thank you for digging up the info.

I wasn't trying to be a Devil's Advocate, I was genuinely curious about what happened with the small percentage of people who got better.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace

A point that really pops out to me is the statements from  VAC that the member can place their "one time payment" into a financial plan or investment, is a total crock.  That is telling the Vet to gamble on how the Markets are going to move.  I remember my original briefings when we were offered the SRSP when it first came out and how we could all have $1 Million after so many years if we invested so many dollars a month into our plan.  Well, after thirty years, and the numerous downturns in the Markets, my SRSP is nowhere near $1 Million.  These statements from VAC are OVERLY OPTOMISTIC PROBABILITIES, not reality.


----------



## Nostix

Investing the proceeds to generate an income is a valid idea, but expectations should be tempered. While it's certainly overly optimistic to assume that everyone turn an investment into significant growth, reality isn't as bleak as you paint it either. Every one of the 'numerous downturns' of the last 30 years has been followed by a period of massive growth.  See: http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia19802000.html

The problem is that it is foolish to A) think that you can just give someone money and expect them to make proper investments without extensive training or help, and that B) you can presume that those investments will pay off reliably in any sort of short-term time-frame. 

Should investment be a tool that is used in the monetary compensation? Of course. Should all of the risk and responsibility be passed down to the end personnel? Probably not.


----------



## Bin-Rat

Evening All...

And thank you.. with my dealings with VAC I've done a whole wack of searching on the internet for answers
So, if I know for sure an answer then I'll will say something, otherwise I read and read...

Just some other links if you interested in reading, I have these ones as well

Veterans Review and Appeal Boards Act - http://tinyurl.com/26bctfb

War Veterans Allowance Act - http://tinyurl.com/2427omp

Department of Veterans Affairs Act - http://tinyurl.com/23cxr37

Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act - http://tinyurl.com/2ecmngt

Pension Act - as posted before

There are a few other Acts that the Minister of Veterans Affair is responsible for which are listed here as with the one's I posted
http://tinyurl.com/2896o9s


----------



## dogger1936

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The NVC is certainly better in a few areas than its predecessor. In the areas of OSIS coverage, oversight and access to services - the NVA is by far the superior way to go. It actually corrected a problem in an area that was sorely lacking in the not so recent past. The NVA covering that, access to retraining (if possible) etc etc are ALL superior and are improvements brought with the NVA.
> 
> How do we fix that? Once again, we bring back the monthly pension in lieu of the lump-sum payment; this ensures that those pers have the required monthly income - for life - to make payments on those necessities that allow them to repair/replace as required and to LIVE in a respectful and dignified manner. Geez, all problems solved; how easy was that and where is my consulting fee??
> 
> So, in essence, in the majority of cases it comes down to: "do I purchase what I need now when I am freshly injured and require it to be able to carry on with life?" or "do I invest my 1/4 mil and live miserably without any semblance of mobility and dignity until I can collect from that invested money years down the road when I really need that income NOW?" Not a nice position to be in is it? Well, that IS the reality that today's vets are facing.
> 
> Do that, and VAC doesn't need to worry anymore about "soldiers squandering their disability payouts" and we owe our veterans and our injured that at the very least.
> 
> So despite the improvements in the way of mental health and occupational therapy/availability, counselling with the NVA, there has been a distinct reversion and shortfall in the NVAs ability to provide an adequate means that ENSURES (that is their mandate) a financially stable future that will ensure a dignified and acceptable QoL for those with lifelong physical, emotional and mental injuries. This, of course, is just my humble opinion.



Thats your humble opinion vern........and from those of us who are wounded. well said. I have issues articulating myself/ keeping focused for peroids of time. thank you very much for that








[edit to fix "quote"]


----------



## mover1

If you go and listen to the podcast I linked earlier you will hear Mr Blackburn talk about how the new systems helps veterans. At one point he implies that the DVA gives 75% salaries until we get retrained and working again. (I thought this was a SISIP benefit correct me if I am wrong) and he say the NVC will help because under the old system veterans waited around month to month for their cheques like we were lazy and on welfare.

he pissed me off

It sounds like he has no idea that the system is broken.


----------



## Tank Troll

Invest the lump sum I keep hearing that and I think it is a crock. I know nothing about the stock market or investing other than put it in an RSP and you will have more later. If I was any good at numbers I would have become an accountant or a finical adviser, but I'm not good at numbers so I joined the army. That way I could have a job were as long as I showed up at the right time wearing the right cloths in the right place and did as I was told I would get  paid for as long as I wanted to do that job. Now with having a whole bunch of WWII Vets and Korea Vets for Uncles and a Father I knew there was a chance that I might get hurt, but if I got hurt the government would look after me. Now that isn't true any more. Their attitude is " Here some money that's all you get don't ask for more cause you aren't getting any. Hope you invest it wisely. " This coming from people that can't balance their own books which is kinda ironic. Well I can tell you one thing that I do know about investing  the money they gave me that I'm suppose to "live on"  They tax the living hell out of it  :rage:


----------



## Nostix

In Canada, capital gains are actually taxed at half of your marginal tax rate. You get to keep comparatively more money from an investment than you do from a regular paycheck. 

I realize that it doesn't help with the frustration of the situation at all, but I figure it is a prudent point to make.


----------



## 57Chevy

Mr Blackburn does mention the Charter as being 'living', therefore, open to suggestion for change.
Many good points are shared by members on this forum, and on many others.

With all due respect.
Minister

Creation of a split pension, enabling both a monthly indemnity and award, where a payout figure after calculation has been awarded.
This could be based on the recipients age and marital status.
Included could be a number of tables where those recipients could choose the monetary
pension scenario that best suits his/her financial needs. (after careful consideration)
ie.... Table A, Table B, Table C, etc
This would be much more financially responsible on the part of VA to the recipients.


The extension of the 25yr claim limitation to 100yrs or simply eliminated. (You know why)


Provision for 'professional lesion' status where warranted
example, NBC use/missuse (Agent Orange) 
PTSD, repetetive injuries, etc


More stringent documentation of injuries by supervisors in all service components.
This could include the implementation of a "Member Injury Record Book" similar
to the "Paratrooper Jump Record Book" duly signed and x ref to other pertinent data
(ie Xrays, incident reports, etc.)

 :yellow:

no charge


----------



## Tank Troll

Nostix said:
			
		

> In Canada, capital gains are actually taxed at half of your marginal tax rate. You get to keep comparatively more money from an investment than you do from a regular paycheck.



My point is that the pension no matter how much it is doesn't get taxed at all. I don't care how much or how little they take in taxes the fact that they take any is what pisses me off.


----------



## dogger1936

mover1 said:
			
		

> If you go and listen to the podcast I linked earlier you will hear Mr Blackburn talk about how the new systems helps veterans. At one point he implies that the DVA gives 75% salaries until we get retrained and working again. (I thought this was a SISIP benefit correct me if I am wrong) and he say the NVC will help because under the old system veterans waited around month to month for their cheques like we were lazy and on welfare.
> 
> he pissed me off
> 
> It sounds like he has no idea that the system is broken.



Waiting around for a monthly payment....I don't believe Mr Blackburn was waiting around in Afganistan "waiting" for airburst to come in to repel a ambush...or waiting for a chopper to come and extract your best friend who has his jaw ripped off and is lying in a puddle of his own blood feces and sand. Or waiting to see if that Pri cas is going to turn into a VSA...which is professional talk for Mrs.whomever's son/ your driver is gonna die on his way to KAF.


----------



## Tank Troll

May be Mr Blackburn should have his pension changed to a lump sum so he doesn't have to wait around for it. Oh by the way Mr blackburn your only going to get the equivalent of 6 years worth. But if you invest it you should do well


----------



## Pusser

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Is this all the result of simply writing it off to "a misguided mob who squanders their disability monies away?" I certainly do not believe this to be the case; nor do many (the majority perhaps??) others.
> 
> I am also far from convinced that the yellowed point above is "an invalid and unwinnable argument."
> 
> The NVC is certainly better in a few areas than its predecessor. In the areas of OSIS coverage, oversight and access to services - the NVA is by far the superior way to go. It actually corrected a problem in an area that was sorely lacking in the not so recent past. The NVA covering that, access to retraining (if possible) etc etc are ALL superior and are improvements brought with the NVA.
> 
> However, that portion of desperately required revamping does not negate DVAs responsibility to ensure that our injured veterans are also looked after financially and physically for their remaining years. This is where the NVA fails miserably. I would agree that some (but certainly not a majority) of lump-sum recipients are 'squandering' that payout away without making wise decisions. Is this because they are young, depressed, injured, suffering continual stress and have been through hell in recent years and thus are having troubles even getting on with a 'normal' life each day let alone being responsible to maintain, invest and provide for their own future despite their OSIS injury where they are having trouble even dealing with mundane & routine daily tasks? Because, certainly some of those who are 'squandering' are exactly like those just described.
> 
> How do we solve that? We get rid of the lump sum and return the "financial support" portion of the NVA to a monthly pension. That way, DVA can be assured that soldiers can not simply 'squander it away'.
> 
> Additionally, what do we do about the quadruple amputee who has recd a whopping 1/4 million lump-sum? Are you suggesting that he invest it wisely now to provide for his future needs? It certainly seems that that is VACs reasoning and expectation. Here's the reality of that expectation:
> 
> DVA is NOT purchasing or modifying a home for that amputee to make it comfortable and liveable (read some stories about our Afghan vets trying to get money out of them via claims for these things --- blood from stone) without one heck of a fight (and sometimes an MP having to make a public comment about it). Thus, that soldier who is permanently disabled is utilizing some (a whole lot!) of this lump sum payout to accomplish that ... simply to be able to get one with daily life in a dignified, but assisted, manner;
> 
> DVA is NOT purchasing customized vans, cars, or motorcycles for our veterans in this position either - are they expected to rely on the goodwill of others for life for their transportation needs?? And, these soldiers are all not "lucky" enough to have had their face and story streamlined in the mass media as some sort of poster child which therefore resulted in them seeing these items donated by some worthy business, group or enterprise. I am very glad for those soldiers for they are the lucky few who have had someone from outside DVA provide them with something they desperately required free of charge. Those other soldiers though, some of them are now willing to be poster childs for the other side of the house in the area of "_this_ is where the NVA fails us, your Nation's injured". Those soldiers too are NOT squandering their monies when they purchase these customized vehicles for disabled transport. For them, it is a necessity and a fact of life.
> 
> How do we fix that? Once again, we bring back the monthly pension in lieu of the lump-sum payment; this ensures that those pers have the required monthly income - for life - to make payments on those necessities that allow them to repair/replace as required and to LIVE in a respectful and dignified manner. Geez, all problems solved; how easy was that and where is my consulting fee??
> 
> So, in essence, in the majority of cases it comes down to: "do I purchase what I need now when I am freshly injured and require it to be able to carry on with life?" or "do I invest my 1/4 mil and live miserably without any semblance of mobility and dignity until I can collect from that invested money years down the road when I really need that income NOW?" Not a nice position to be in is it? Well, that IS the reality that today's vets are facing.
> 
> Do that, and VAC doesn't need to worry anymore about "soldiers squandering their disability payouts" and we owe our veterans and our injured that at the very least.
> 
> So despite the improvements in the way of mental health and occupational therapy/availability, counselling with the NVA, there has been a distinct reversion and shortfall in the NVAs ability to provide an adequate means that ENSURES (that is their mandate) a financially stable future that will ensure a dignified and acceptable QoL for those with lifelong physical, emotional and mental injuries. This, of course, is just my humble opinion.
> 
> DVA polls may (& according to them - do) indicate a different satisfaction rate. I'm STILL waiting to meet a single person who answered "Yes, I am satisfied with the NVA". Where are these satisfied people at?



I've seen enough misinformation posted here and in other forums to stand by my "misguided mob" argument.  What I've often seen is not entirely wrong (there is always a grain of truth in even the most fantastic of rumours), but it is not entirely correct either.  

Once again, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE NVC.  However, I've been involved in enough negotiations on these sorts of things to know that you need to have your ducks in a row in order to produce change.  People who write and implement policy will defend it against all comers, so you need to understand their thought process and produce arguments that show where it was flawed.  Simply saying the lump sum payment is not enough so we need to revert to a monthly pension is not a winning argument because they already have an answer for that (i.e. it just needs to be invested properly).  We need to argue that their actuarial calculations are flawed, that the assumptions (i.e. that injured veterans would invest the money "properly") are flawed, that something additional for home modifications need to be included, etc.  We need to highlight the impediments to "proper" investment.  

Furthermore, the system was changed for specific reasons, which may include the idea that the previous system was fiscally unsustainable (don't quote me on this - I honestly don't know the specific reasoning).  Remember that looking after veterans is only one of the Government's many responsibilities.  All things must be balanced.  And please spare us the the "we owe our veterans everything" argument.  Nobody, including the Government, is disputing that.  The question is, how do we best do that with the resources we have available?  There is no bottomless pit of money and there are many competing demands.   Remember the Government completely overhauled the way the CFSA is managed because the way we were going was unsustainable (talk to GM - we were doing it the same way they were until the mid-90s).  However, no one is complaining (too loudly) about the changes to the CFSA because they were largely transparent to the recipients and in no way have effected the money they receive.

In summary, our arguments for change need to be better.  It is not sufficient to simply scream it's not enough we need more.  We need to show why it's not enough, but that argument cannot be rooted in a comparison to what people received under the Pension Act or a simple statement that a veteran cannot live on that amount.  We have to show how the underlying reasoning is flawed and how it fails in meeting the intent of the NVC itself.  We also need to be receptive to other means of satisfying the requirement.   Thus far, the only solution offered has been a demand to revert to the Pension Act and monthly pension payments.  Frankly, if that was the perfect solution, we'd still be doing it.  Governments do not produce drastic change without forethought and planning in a belief that it is an improvement.  Perhaps a hybrid solution is the most appropriate where we take some aspects of the Pension Act and other policies to inject into the NVC.

Finally, remember that the NVC received all-party support.  We may be able to get it amended, but I highly doubt we'll see it revoked.


----------



## Pusser

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> May be Mr Blackburn should have his pension changed to a lump sum so he doesn't have to wait around for it. Oh by the way Mr blackburn your only going to get the equivalent of 6 years worth. But if you invest it you should do well



You're comparing apples and oranges.  Mr Blackburn's pension is better compared to our CFSA benefits, which are a monthly payment.

Debating 101:  Never give your opponent a chance to prove you wrong on something irrelevant.  Remember it's not enough to simply be right in fights like this.  You have to be seen to be right in the court of public opinion.  Making statements that are easily defeated by facts will cloud people's judgement and help them doubt the veracity of the other things you say.  Emotional outbursts can be self-defeating.


----------



## Tank Troll

Pusser said:
			
		

> You're comparing apples and oranges.  Mr Blackburn's pension is better compared to our CFSA benefits, which are a monthly payment.
> 
> Debating 101:  Never give your opponent a chance to prove you wrong on something irrelevant.  Remember it's not enough to simply be right in fights like this.  You have to be seen to be right in the court of public opinion.  Making statements that are easily defeated by facts will cloud people's judgement and help them doubt the veracity of the other things you say.  Emotional outbursts can be self-defeating.



He still has to wait around every month for ......................... why bother


----------



## the 48th regulator

My question, and this may open up a whole new can of worms; If we return to a monthly system, what will happen to those that have fallen under the NVC, and received a lump sum?

dileas

tess


----------



## PuckChaser

The fairest way would be to slightly reduce their monthly payments compared to someone with the same injury, as they already received some of the payments up front. I'm not talking about a massive reduction, $100 a month over 50 years covers off a lump sum of $60,000.


----------



## Nostix

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The fairest way would be to slightly reduce their monthly payments compared to someone with the same injury, as they already received some of the payments up front. I'm not talking about a massive reduction, $100 a month over 50 years covers off a lump sum of $60,000.



That is in fact a very good deal for the soldiers. So good that you might have trouble getting it past any government accountants.


----------



## SeanNewman

This is just my opinion and not based on anything official whatsoever, but since they received that lump sum expecting no more money from that point forward, wouldn't it make sense to to continue paying them nothing until that lump sum would have been paid and then start giving them the monthly rate?

For ex, if they got $60,000 which would have been $500/mo before, I think the fairest thing would be to wait 120 months (10 years) and then start giving them the $500/mo (?)


----------



## 57Chevy

48th,
        The same way as we paid our fines, if any, over the course of our TI. ;D

I don't think returning completely to the old system is the preferred answer to the problem
amongst the majority of those in receipt of a lump-sum.
I could be wrong.
Actually, or supposedly, a simple time/monetary equivalency equation is easily calculated.
Either calculated to receive and immediate monthly indemnity, or
a deferred one as mentioned by Petamocto. (which would surely be unpopular)
No offence.

I enjoy Pussers' mention regarding injection of hybrid solutions
That..... is a step in the right direction.
I can go as far as saying that those in receipt of a monthly pension for sustained injuries
should receive an award solely by reason of the injury.
Is that so far-fetched ?

Truly.....Pusser
if, as you say (which is true). that NVC received 'all-party' support,
And thereby, surely by the people.......Why is there a time limit on making a claim for any normally pensionable injury of 25 years ?    And furthermore,
Why should that limit be a hurdle, in any way, in the process of such claims ?

Pain and Injury are completely separate......one the other.
You can be injured, and not feel a thing. Not even know anything about it for years to come.
While another, with the same injury the pain can be so excruciating right now, and last years.
On a scale of 1 to 10, How much did your injury hurt ?
Answer........What is the importance of the pain level over the fact of the injury ?
Does the injury not warrant an award in itself ? Even when and if the injury has consolidated ?

What I'm trying to say........Is that that there should have always been an award for injury,
and a pension for the consequences thereof, for life. (including reassessments, etc)

I suppose, this is why I like the idea of the split pension method I mentioned earlier.
And, you might agree, it is plausible.

I would like to take the opportunity to add :
In my dealings with VA, I have always been treated with the highest courtesy, respect, and understanding. Bare in mind, I have on occasion, become a mite angry over something or another.
It can be quite frustrating.

*correction to "our fines"


----------



## SeanNewman

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Actually, or supposedly, a simple time/monetary equivalency equation is easily calculated.
> Either calculated to receive and immediate monthly indemnity, or a deferred one as mentioned by Petamocto. (which would surely be unpopular)
> No offence.



None taken, but I don't see how a wounded vet couldn't take it as good news.

Under the current system, a Vet has been told that they are getting a large cheque and that is the end of it.  They are thus in the mindset that's all they're going to get for their injury forever.

If they go back to monthly payments after someone got a lump sum, I don't see how it would be unpopular that in 10 years (or whatever the balance turns out to be) they will start getting more money every month.

That to me is like a win-win, because they are getting the same amount of money overall for that first 10 years, but they basically got a 10 year interest free loan.


----------



## CallOfDuty

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Under the current system, a Vet has been told that they are getting a large cheque and that is the end of it.  They are thus in the mindset that's all they're going to get for their injury forever.


  Not quite though.  They tell you after you get your claim that you are free to appeal it every two years, in case things change for you medically or whatnot.

   I think the hardest thing to deal with is that say you break your back and receive a lump sum payment of 13,800$.  And the guy next to you had the same injury before the new charter and  he makes about 1,200$ a month, tax free for the rest of his life.  So he makes in 1 year, what you technically may receive when it's all said and done.  MASSIVE difference.


----------



## dogger1936

Pusser:
Your saying quote:
I've seen enough misinformation posted here and in other forums to stand by my "misguided mob" argument.  What I've often seen is not entirely wrong (there is always a grain of truth in even the most fantastic of rumours), but it is not entirely correct either.  


Instead of holding back why not tell vern and tell us whats correct. Throwing out political speak like this says one of two things. You don't have a clue what your talking about, or you know something but aint sayin.

Why not enlighten us with your knowledge so everyone can benifit.  Iwould love to see where vern's post is not correct. Maybe you can help the misguided mob.

As well I still stand by my offer for you to come down and meet up with a handfull of guys....body parts may vary.


----------



## Occam

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Instead of holding back why not tell vern and tell us whats correct.



He has been.  Unfortunately, you're stuck in transmit and aren't paying attention to what I see to be very well thought out (and tactically sound) arguments.  He's not the bad guy - and he's telling you what has to be done in order for veterans to win this one.


----------



## armyvern

Pusser said:
			
		

> ... People who write and implement policy will defend it against all comers, so you need to understand their thought process and produce arguments that show where it was flawed.  Simply saying the lump sum payment is not enough so we need to revert to a monthly pension is not a winning argument because they already have an answer for that (i.e. it just needs to be invested properly).  ...
> Finally, remember that the NVC received all-party support.  We may be able to get it amended, but I highly doubt we'll see it revoked.



I've already put forth my reasonings for DVAs "it just needs to be invested properly" retort being flawed and NOT reflective of reality. As someone else has posted, if it is that easy ... I'm quite sure Mr Blackburn et al would be willing to do such with their own pensions n'est ce pas? Funny --- I don't see that occurring any time in this millennium.

I haven't seen anyone hear argue for the NVCs "revocation", but rather the return of the financial portion to the pension vice lump sum; after all the NVA is a living document according to their own words; so why aren't they fixing the problem?? 

Because some invisible poll somewhere that they are using to back themselves up (& save themselves beaucoup d'argent on the backs of our injured's futures ...) had a whole bunch of anonymous "satisfied" people who are, apparently, DVAs majority. Yet not a single "unsatisfied" soldier who forms the minority has ever met, heard from, or heard mention of a single name of, any one of these invisible "satisfied" customers. 

Perhaps DVA should be mandated to "put that data" onto the public table rather than just quoting figures that only they are allowed to see; they keep using that as an "excuse" to say that there is not a problem (that's their fault or responsibility to correct) with the lump sum --- then they can ante up the proof. It is NOT, nor should it be, our injured's job or responsibility to prove them wrong.

DVA exists under it's mandate to look after these personnel. It is their job to correct their problems ... without long, drawn-out decades long court battles. I am old enough to have served during the decades when our vets had to sue them to get paid the interest on their pensions that "DVA had earned on the vets money, but not paid to the vet" ... and when spouses lost their pension when they remarried after their vet had passed on. No, it certainly has never been about the money & savings for DVA.

Our injured should not be required to fight for dignity and respect. They should not be required to go through this simply because "all party support" bought into the bureaucrats "spin on how vets would be better off" when that has now been shown to be an errone us and flawed spin. Especially in the years that should have been their golden years - years that these others will be enjoying their grandkids and playing catch with them - while our vets are guaranteed SFA by way of dignity, respect, QoL or financial stability during their very own "golden years"; golden years which have now begun far too soon due to injuries received at the very behest of those who "supported" the NVA.

Perhaps those "supporters" who now obviously know that the NVA is flawed --- should do the right thing and "support" the evolution of this financial document whereby the lump-sum is modified to a return to the monthly pension; after all, there shouldn't be any issues about doing that coming from any party because, as they say, "it isn't about the money".


----------



## Future Pensioner

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> My question, and this may open up a whole new can of worms; If we return to a monthly system, what will happen to those that have fallen under the NVC, and received a lump sum?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess




A suggestion:

"Fix" a start date.  Figure out what the monthly pension amount will be.  Start the individual on the monthly system.

To account for the lump sum payment:  Go back to date of application, figure out how much the individual should have received on the "monthly" plan over the term (adjusted for every year).  Deduct this amount from the lump sum.  The balance is what is "owed" by the individual.  This can either be paid back by the individual all at once, or, like a buy back of pension system, a loan is opened in the balance amount at a REASONABLE interest rate and then is paid back by the individual.

*Example:*

20% award level.  Applied on 01 Sep 07 (therefore 36 months for purposes of calculation) - granted a $51,145.85 lump sum (This does not take into account any other monies that the individual would have received under the NVC (ie PIA, 75% factor, etc...) - but they can be calculated in).  

Today's rate for 20% monthly pension - $661.80;  2009 - $640.92;  2008 - $625.28;  207 - $613.03

(5 months x 613.03)+(12 months x $625.28)+(12 months x $640.92)+(9 months x $661.80) =  $24,215.75

$51,145.85-$24,215.75= $26,930.10 owed either lump sum or payments.  Maybe the monthly payment can be deducted from the new $$661.80 monthly disability award that the individual will begin receiving.



This is an example only and may not be a perfect system, but then again it is just a suggestion.


----------



## SeanNewman

To me it seems absurd to make the members pay it back, interest or not.

First, it was given under the assumption that they were fully entitled to it, secondly it could be tied up in investments or a house, and lastly it's dumb to pay it back when the monthly payments will eclipse it at some point anyway.

Your last example of subtracting it from his new pay makes a tad more sense, but it not completely because as per above all that money is going to find its way back to the soldier anyway.


----------



## 57Chevy

Being a member of CAFA , I sometimes receive letters of concern by veterans circulating around throughout
the many other respected associations. Through the grapevine so to speak. This one is of particular interest.
With respect, NNNPD (PM for provision if need be)
             
                ______________________________________________________________

Subject: Is it time for veterans collectively to help each other? No one else appears to be committed to resolving Veteran's problems.


      Gentlemen; Recent events concerning the firing of veterans Ombudsman Stogran and the apparent lack of interest by Canadians in general would seem to suggest that veterans groups and organizations that claim to represent veterans in the resolution of their problems, had better become much more vocal in assisting veterans who need help, because apparently no one else will.
      
      Two events that have taken place in the past year have convinced me that if veterans of any era ( WWII, Korea, Peacekeeping, Afghanistan, etc.), do not step up and help each other now, perhaps we don't deserve help!
      
      The first event was a series of veterans "round table" meetings established by VAC and held across Canada during the summer of 2009. Veterans were invited to these meetings and present to the VAC representatives, all of their concerns( pension, health and other issues). I attended two of these round table meetings, held in Cochrane and Calgary Alberta respectively. To my surprise and disappointment, only 7 veterans attended the Cochrane meeting, chaired by David Sweet of Veteran's Affairs, while fewer than 20 attended the Calgary meeting, chaired by then Minister Thompson himself. After these meetings, I summarized the items discussed and personally presented a list of 8 recommendations to the Minister. I've heard not one word from anyone in VAC regarding this list of suggested improvements to the New Veterans Charter and I can guess why. So few veterans showed up at these meetings, that VAC didn't believe there were enough veterans who cared about veterans problems to pay any attention! 
        
      The second event that should cause concern among veterans and their apparent unwillingness to stand together for their common good took place in Edmonton during 12 - 22 August 2010 at the annual Fringe Festival. The event was a series of  7 performances of a play called WAR & THERAPY, about a psychologist and her attempt to help a veteran suffering from the trauma of memories of war. I learned about the play from Keith Black of VAC, who forwarded a request that at least one veteran volunteer to attend each of the 7 performances to participate in an interactive Q&A session with the audience at the conclusion of each performance. (To help educate the public about war and the issues that affected soldiers who were involved after returning home).
         
       I forwarded Mr. Black's request, as well as a brief description of the play and it's significance to my contacts at 4 Veteran's Associations, encouraging these groups to have members volunteer to attend the Q&A sessions. NO ONE VOLUNTEERED, even though Edmonton is literally filled with veterans and returned soldiers! I volunteered to participate in two of the Q&A sessions and the comments by civilians in those audiences made it clear to me that Canadians generally do not understand soldiers and their role in a democratic country, nor do many of them seem to care and our politicians know this ! That's why they don't care either !
         
      The results of this apparent lack of interest by veterans to stand up for each other and tell their stories in these two examples of opportunities presented and missed, suggest to me that if we don't get off our asses and help ourselves, we don't deserve help!  Lets face it, if VAC tells the Canadian public that approximately 70% of our veterans are happy with the New Veterans Charter and no one speaks for the other 30%, will anything change if we don't get vocal ! ! 
         
      To conclude, I encourage each of you to share this message with your Association and it's members and I further suggest that if individual veterans are concerned about how Canadian Governments treat Canada's veterans, that they are not shy about writing to their MP to declare their displeasure. I have already contacted my Member of Parliament.


----------



## Turner

As a member that received a lump sum for PTSD I really wish that I could have received a monthly payment. With PTSD, your lifestyle has to be changed in order to deal with the mental illness. A lump sum is just a big spending spree for a few months. A monthly payment could help support your growing needs to do "other things" in order to not fall into a downward spiral (which could easily happen with PTSD) I would return my lump sum if it was going to be a monthly payment instead. Except I don't have much of it left so that would difficult to do I guess!


----------



## 57Chevy

There is no law against the seemingly squandering of money with regards to receiving a lump-sum. 
It is well known that shopping is a type of therapy in itself. Looking around at new things, clothing, equipment, tools and so on is a great idea. Buying everything is not.

It seems that during the time a recipient is waiting for his unknown amount, he already has the twinkle in his eye on something or other, be it repayment of loans or other debt........ I think that's pretty well normal.
I mean, lets face it, if your driving an old clunker.........you probably had your eye on a better one.
Maybe even a new one.

 Turner, 
Thanks for sharing that.
Best regards


----------



## Wookilar

I was one of the ones polled.

I said, I would prefer it over time. Now, I do not remember all the questions (4?5?, not many), but it seemed to me at the time that the questions were definately skewed for a particular outcome. While I may have failed my Stats course the first time, I certainly passed the second time, so I understand at a very basic level at least, on how to build a survey to come up with a certain data set.

As it comes to "squandering" my lump sum payment, I'm like Turner (and probably many others), there's not much left. I even went to SISIP with 9D and we presented our plan to them and got a thumbs up on all counts (which felt very good, by the way. The amount of sweat and lbs I probably lost scared I was going to piss it away).

A monthly pension, even a small one, would be far superior to any lump sum, except possibly at the max upper end (where you could see some very quick, and substantial, returns if invested in the right areas). Problem is, who the hell gets the max award? Someone so screwed they're lucky to be still breathing. How much capacity will they or their family have to properly plan anything when they are just going to be focused on surviving?

Before I get on a full on rant, I'll pause there...

 :2c: for what it's worth.

Wook


----------



## Alien1

$250,000.... Wow.... This check should come with a money managing course. With that, you can have a $750,000 loan and buy up to 20 apartments building in Montreal and create your own $12,000 monthly pension check.....


----------



## Michael OLeary

It does come with available financial advice. The problem is that those who might not invest it wisely likely won't take the advice anyway.

I was at a VAC briefing this week. The rep who spoke to us acknowledged that the lump sum payment is currently under review.


----------



## Alien1

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It does come with available financial advice. The problem is that those who might not invest it wisely likely won't take the advice anyway.



I agree with you but why are they complaining then if they don’t listen advices??? It’s nobody’s fault if some soldiers lack of financial education. Knowledge is power and it’s everyone owns responsibilities to get the necessary education and knowledge to invest that money in a proper way. Taking soldier by the hand like a 5 years old kid doesn’t help.... at the end, they cry like kids to have more candies. At lease, it’s good if they can have choices. A monthly check for those who can’t manage money and a full check for those who can make millions out of it.


----------



## SeanNewman

Alien1,

A lot of what you are now discussing has already been covered on this thread if you go back to the beginning.

All the pros/cons about each system, and first hand accounts of those who have and are going through the process.


----------



## armyvern

Alien1 said:
			
		

> $250,000.... Wow.... This check should come with a money managing course. With that, you can have a $750,000 loan and buy up to 20 apartments building in Montreal and create your own $12,000 monthly pension check.....



Wow. When are you going to inject some reality into your assinine post?

That guy or gal who is receiving 250 000k (pretty much the max) is also going to be minus about 4 limbs. That means, he or she is purchasing himself a specialized vehicle (as a necessity with some of that initial payout) and will also be hiring staff to look after him each month and other staff to go out and manage all those apartments he is leasing out to all those tenants that he isn't able to go collect rent cheques from, to do the repairing of appliances, to do the maintenance and upkeep (lawn, snow removal etc), landlording on his behalf.

12k a month doesn't pay for too many staff  ... it certainly won't be 12k a month in his/her own bank account --- especially after he contributes to their UIC, pension plan etc as their "employer". He's actually be going into the hole (ie: the financial red) every month.

I suggest that you also require some financial planning courses if you suggest that your "obvious" suggestion that these troops just don't "listen to the advice they're given" (especially from "planners" such as yourself with "plans" like you've just suggested) are the ones behaving like kids who need to be taken by the hand.

That's my own HO of course.


----------



## SeanNewman

Vern,

Are you sure that he has to pay for his own things like a vehicle conversion out of that $250k?

I'm not challenging everything you wrote, I just thought that it had already been pointed out that a soldier doesn't have to pay out-of-pocket for disability-related things like a ramp, car conversion kit, etc.


----------



## 57Chevy

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It does come with available financial advice. The problem is that those who might not invest it wisely likely won't take the advice anyway.
> 
> I was at a VAC briefing this week. The rep who spoke to us acknowledged that the lump sum payment is currently under review.



It certainly does, prior to or just after receiving the lump sum, you get a little package in the
mail with lots of good information to consider.

That review should be good news for soldiers and veterans alike.
Thanks Mike


----------



## Occam

57Chevy said:
			
		

> It certainly does, prior to or just after receiving the lump sum, you get a little package in the
> mail with lots of good information to consider.



You get more than just a package of information.

You may be eligible for financial planning paid for by VAC.

From the link:

_Financial advice

Under the New Veterans Charter, disability awards, detention benefits and death benefits are lump sum amounts. You may wish to seek out the advice of a financial expert to help you manage your lump sum payment. If the payment is $12,500 or more, some, or all, of the fees related to this advice may be paid by our Department, up to a maximum of $500._


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Wow. When are you going to inject some reality into your assinine post?
> 
> That guy or gal who is receiving 250 000k (pretty much the max) is also going to be minus about 4 limbs. That means, he or she is purchasing himself a specialized vehicle (as a necessity with some of that initial payout) and will also be hiring staff to look after him each month and other staff to go out and manage all those apartments he is leasing out to all those tenants that he isn't able to go collect rent cheques from, to do the repairing of appliances, to do the maintenance and upkeep (lawn, snow removal etc), landlording on his behalf.
> 
> 12k a month doesn't pay for too many staff  ... it certainly won't be 12k a month in his/her own bank account --- especially after he contributes to their UIC, pension plan etc as their "employer". He's actually be going into the hole (ie: the financial red) every month.
> 
> I suggest that you also require some financial planning courses if you suggest that your "obvious" suggestion that these troops just don't "listen to the advice they're given" (especially from "planners" such as yourself with "plans" like you've just suggested) are the ones behaving like kids who need to be taken by the hand.
> 
> That's my own HO of course.




Any modification to his home, or vehicles, are covered by either VAC or DND.  This also includes any medical care he requires, such as staff.  It does not come out of the lump sum payment.

Please let's not cloud the thread with innuendos.

dileas

tess


----------



## dogger1936

Offical announcement tomorrow. I await to see if it' gonna be smoke and mirrors or an actual fix/improvement.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100918/wounded-soldiers-aid-100918/


----------



## CallOfDuty

I hope it all works out.  Unfortunately I can see it turning into a pissing match between those of us injured at home vs. the guys injured overseas........


----------



## OldSolduer

It our position that if the injury/illness is attributable to military service, then there should be NO distinction.


----------



## Nemo888

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Offical announcement tomorrow. I await to see if it' gonna be smoke and mirrors or an actual fix/improvement.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100918/wounded-soldiers-aid-100918/



I vote smoke and mirrors. Separating deployed from undeployed injuries is not dealing in good faith in my opinion. _Divide et impera._ Don't give 100%+ until you are overseas troops. Otherwise your health coverage won't even cover expenses.


----------



## dogger1936

It is smoke and mirrors.Fortunately myself and many comrades still have our limbs...although their held together with nuts and bolts. Honestly I'm glad those with more serious injuries are gonna get some extra money. And believe this is what I needed to finally fell the "number" we all are. Time for a vocational change. I would suggest to any young man wanting to join the combat arms...don't. It's not worth the pain.


----------



## riggermade

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> I hope it all works out.  Unfortunately I can see it turning into a pissing match between those of us injured at home vs. the guys injured overseas........



Every time the government wants to make a big announcement those injured in battle are always brought up, it as if the rest of don't fit into the equation


----------



## OldSolduer

riggermade said:
			
		

> Every time the government wants to make a big announcement those injured in battle are always brought up, it as if the rest of don't fit into the equation



That is incorrect. It doesn't matter how you got hurt. If you are ill/injured and that is attritbutable to service, you will be covered.


----------



## dogger1936

So in laymens terms this new "up to 1000" bucks is to bring troops upto a 46,000 a year living when they are completing their 2 years of schooling etc? What happens after ocational rehab is complete?

As well those who are missing limbs may get a medical pension.

Thats what I got out of the changes.
Am I correct in that?


----------



## dogger1936

I will be very interested in seeing what defines a catastrophic injury.


----------



## PuckChaser

riggermade said:
			
		

> Every time the government wants to make a big announcement those injured in battle are always brought up, it as if the rest of don't fit into the equation



Easiest way to sell it to the general populace is to equate the injury to combat. If they said it was for pers in the military who lost limbs to cancer or car accidents, everyone will want to know why they don't get the same cash.


----------



## mariomike

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Easiest way to sell it to the general populace is to equate the injury to combat. If they said it was for pers in the military who lost limbs to cancer or car accidents, everyone will want to know why they don't get the same cash.



"In the Line of Duty" is popular: "All that is normally required in some area of responsibility."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/line+of+duty



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I will be very interested in seeing what defines a catastrophic injury.


Reply #4:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/96607/post-972749.html#msg972749


----------



## 57Chevy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That is incorrect. It doesn't matter how you got hurt. If you are ill/injured and that is attritbutable to service, you will be covered.



Unless they say that too much time has elapsed since your injury......over 25 years ago according to Section 45 of blah blah blah you get squat. You can appeal and they tell you to do so.
The Lawyer gets paid by Veterans Affairs.......and so does the Judge. 

A Snowball in Hell would have a better chance.


----------



## Rifleman62

Who decides.? See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/96219.0.html


----------



## 57Chevy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It our position that if the injury/illness is attributable to military service, then there should be NO distinction.



What about Oseoartritis:
"There are two categories of OA – primary and secondary.  Primary, or idiopathic, OA appears without any apparent cause.  It is usually seen in the elderly.  Secondary OA occurs in joints that have sustained an injury.  This injury can be a result of previous trauma to the joint."

Joint Trauma and Osteoarthritis

As I read above, This new injury would be a direct result of an older injury, and therefore likely to emerge far later than after the 25 year limit. So then a young soldier gets injured early on in his
career, serves 25+years, eventually retires and developes Secondary OA afterwards, He has no
recourse to Veterans Affairs ?  It doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## pamela steel

Hi
I'm a reporter from looking to talk to people from Ontario about their experiences coming home - including struggles with VAC and lump sum payments.

Anyone want to talk?

pamela


----------



## Jarnhamar

pamela steel said:
			
		

> Hi
> I'm a reporter from looking to talk to people from Ontario about their experiences coming home - including struggles with VAC and lump sum payments.
> 
> Anyone want to talk?
> 
> pamela



Good luck


----------



## Occam

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> For a reporter your language skills seem to be severely lacking.  You don't articulate very well, where did you do your schooling?



They forgot a word.  Is that enough to deserve "severely lacking"?  

It wouldn't hurt for you to ease up a bit.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Fair enough, I'll edit my post and wait


----------



## pamela steel

I may be more a wordsmith than I am a typist. Meant to write - a reporter from metroland media. Thanks for the input.


----------



## mariomike

I enjoyed reading two of your recent stories, Ms. Steel.:
http://www.cottagecountrynow.ca/localprofile/article/871578--muskoka-mosaic-introducing-janice-paterson
http://www.cottagecountrynow.ca/news/article/865374--dizzy-lizzy-gets-help-from-friends

You certainly have a better command of the English language than I do.


----------



## pamela steel

Thanks so much.


----------



## Pusser

????  How can he be deployed in the sandbox with a disability that will pay him a lump sum big enough to put a down payment on a house?

If you're just talking about the extra money he's making for being in the sandbox, then you're in the wrong thread


----------



## Bluebulldog

Pusser...yes, my apologies.

Wrong thread. 

I'll go give myself 40 lashes.....


----------



## Turner

$1000 a month is a joke. That won't pay for squat!


----------



## Wookilar

Is anyone else concerned about the breach in privacy at VAC or is it just my paranoia acting up again?
Is there any _real_ reason to be concerned? On a personal basis I mean, I'm very concerned on a systemic basis...

Wook


----------



## Jarnhamar

Turner said:
			
		

> $1000 a month is a joke. That won't pay for squat!



So take the $1000 a month away since you can't buy anything with it anyways?


----------



## OldSolduer

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Is anyone else concerned about the breach in privacy at VAC or is it just my paranoia acting up again?
> Is there any _real_ reason to be concerned? On a personal basis I mean, I'm very concerned on a systemic basis...
> 
> Wook



Yes there is a need for concern. Its not paranoia, unless I have it too.


----------



## Nemo888

Probably makes some vets think twice about speaking out. I agree with what he said about using someones psych profile against them publicly being very Stalinist. Why isn't someone in jail for this?


----------



## OldSolduer

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Probably makes some vets think twice about speaking out. I agree with what he said about using someones psych profile against them being very Stalinist. Why isn't someone in jail for this?



The bureaucracy is not like the military. PM enroute to you.


----------



## riggermade

Turner said:
			
		

> $1000 a month is a joke. That won't pay for squat!



Since I am getting nothing and can't work a $1000 would do nicely right now


----------



## Nemo888

The Legion looks especially complacent if not right out corrupt for not speaking out on any of this. Can we cut their funding or change the top brass since they are not fulfilling their mission?


----------



## sheikyerbouti

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The Legion looks especially complacent if not right out corrupt for not speaking out on any of this. Can we cut their funding or change the top brass since they are not fulfilling their mission?



 My branch will gladly allocate some of our funds so that you may be educated in the use of search engines, ideally you will then learn that the Royal Canadian Legion is a non-profit organization that is wholly supported by membership subscriptions and donations from the public at large.

 The Royal Canadian Legion has, and will continue to, address their concerns about the spirit of the New Veteran's Charter and the timely implementation of recommendations to further enhance the offerings of the NVC so that it will meet the future needs of servicemen and women in the CF.

 Quote from Mr. Pierre Allard (RCL) to the Standing Committee on Veteran's Affairs Thursday, October 29, 2009
"It is becoming obvious that some are less than enamoured with
the new veterans charter benefits. 
 It is also becoming evident that
critically wounded veterans may not be provided adequate financial
security under the new veterans charter.
The Legion cares for those who serve and those who have served.
They and their families need our support. A living charter has to be
more than words. If the required urgent corrective actions and
improvements to the new veterans charter are not implemented, we
will come to the logical conclusion that the foundations of the new
veterans charter are built on sand."


In a nutshell, the Legion supports the charter but only as far as they could throw it.Instead, Blame your member of parliament instead for choosing the reduction of future fiscal liability over any current Federal responsibility to care for its employees.


----------



## dogger1936

riggermade said:
			
		

> Since I am getting nothing and can't work a $1000 would do nicely right now



Agree. AT least 1000 bucks a month would make some financial planning possiable.  I would welcome 1000 a month for sure.


----------



## goldwing

With regards to this questionnaire, when was it sent out?  I received a lump sum payment about a year ago and I wasn't told about a questionnaire.  I would have said the lump sum payments are a bad idea and it has been proven that way.  We need to go back to the monthly disability payments.


----------



## Dog Walker

Canada shafts soldiers
Wounded vets forced to fight bureaucracy for financial support and it’s ‘soul destroying’ for them
By MERCEDES STEPHENSON, QMI AGENCY
Last Updated: October 3, 2010 2:00am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/mercedes_stephenson/2010/10/01/15551586.html

Last week, I had the privilege of holding Pte. Dawson Bayliss’ beautiful baby boy, Deacon. Tragically, Bayliss will never hold his own child. I held baby Deacon on the day of Bayliss’ funeral.
Bayliss died as a result of injuries sustained in Afghanistan, just days after seeing baby Deacon for the first time on an ultrasound screen.
Pte. Bayliss was injured when the massive turret on a LAV III unexpectedly swung around smashing into his head (the result of an Afghan truck clipping the LAV), destroying his bullet-proof helmet beyond recognition and fracturing his skull.
Ironically, it happened the day after the New Veterans Charter came into effect, a document that would do little to ever help Bayliss.
Bayliss returned home with post-traumatic stress disorder and post concussion syndrome, and was never the same again, something he and his family struggled to prove to the system that was supposed to help him.
Instead, a disturbing picture emerges of serious administrative errors, glacier-slow processing times and an insurance company-like mentality that questioned the extent and legitimacy of Bayliss’s injuries, even after he died from them.
Sean Bruyea, a veterans’ advocate, sums it up when he states that for soldiers forced to fight the bureaucracy of the country they once fought to defend, the humiliation is “soul destroying.”
Ultimately, the once-proud Pte. Bayliss, of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, burned his uniform in frustration.
Bayliss was a soldier who served Canada faithfully, but was treated with disregard and dishonour by the country he defended and, ultimately, gave his life for.
It is a refrain that is becoming all too familiar, brave young soldiers who are coming back to us broken, physically and psychologically, left feeling ashamed of their injuries, instead of honoured for their service.
Canadians have the power to reach out and change a system that is treating our veterans like second-class citizens. The Conservatives have made welcome announcements of additional funding, and new policies, but these are somewhat vague, and amount to tinkering on a system in need of a drastic overhaul.
All parties need to renew their commitment to Canada’s wounded soldiers, working together to redesign the system, immediately.
Looking at our allies, it is clear how low we’ve set the bar.
Canada will spend less than $4 billion this year on veterans while Australia, a country with a much smaller population and far fewer veterans, will more than triple our spending, at $12 billion.
It’s hardly out of our financial reach for Canadians to fund a multitude of social programs fulfilling the state’s responsibility to care for those wounded in its service.
The New Veterans Charter should be scrapped, or rewritten, to bring back the option of a pension.
No one ever got rich off their pension, but the financial security of a guaranteed monthly income (and a substantially more generous compensation) ensures that a soldier who is injured for life, is looked after for life.
Compensation should be determined solely by the severity of injuries, not designed to limit the financial liability of the people who sent the soldier to war in the first place.
And, no, spreading the current $276,000 lump-sum payment over several months, or years, won’t count as a return to the pension system.
Most importantly, Canada needs to deal with the culture and attitude veterans are faced with at Veterans Affairs Canada.
Frequently veterans leave the VAC feeling they are being perceived more like scheming insurance defrauders from a John Grisham novel, than heroes injured in the line of duty to this country.
A simple solution is to commit to hiring a substantial number of veterans to work in the department that serves them.
More than 30% of the employees at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs are veterans (90,000 vets). After all, who is better qualified for the job?
After the Second World War, Canada, with nowhere near today’s welfare state apparatus, offered a university education, land, or money to start a business to thousands of veterans.
Canada must expand the limited programs offered to today’s veterans, providing the equivalent of past opportunities investing in veterans.
It would be a small gesture of gratitude to those who invested their lives, and limbs, protecting us.
mercedes.stephenson@sunmedia.ca


----------



## CallOfDuty

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Frequently veterans leave the VAC feeling they are being perceived more like scheming insurance defrauders from a John Grisham novel, than heroes injured in the line of duty to this country.


  That's exactly how they made me feel after I decided to appeal a decision.......


----------



## Chilme

Soldiers need to know that them and their families will be taken care of if the unthinkable happens.  Soldiers serve Canada, and Canada MUST serve its soldiers!


----------



## PuckChaser

VAC's bureaucracy is a hold over from the Chretien-era of minimal as possible support to the CF to keep them from releasing in droves. Everyone at the VAC needs to be fired, and if they want a job back, they will have to compete with a vet for the position.


----------



## SevenSixTwo

The monetary difference between us and Australia is pretty crazy.

I however, find his WW2 analogy a bit off.


----------



## RHFC_piper

> Frequently veterans leave the VAC feeling they are being perceived more like scheming insurance defrauders from a John Grisham novel, than heroes injured in the line of duty to this country.





			
				CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> That's exactly how they made me feel after I decided to appeal a decision.......



This is pretty much how I've felt (been made to feel) since coming home and asking for help... and not just from VAC.


----------



## Bin-Rat

His WWII quote was to simply state that...

WWII Veterans were able to get land as Under the Veterans Lands Act, in which they could get Farm land,
Also at the time, Veterans could get Low interest Loans, which are not offered today.
The education well we still have that..

But there are a few programs like what i have mentioned that VAC went, Oh we don't need this program  no more
and just Killed it, or dropped it.. Without going through the legislation and having it removed, VAC decided it was no 
longer being offered.

 Veterans Land Act 
Veterans’ Land Act

1970, c. V-4

An Act to assist war veterans to settle upon the land 

Now NOT AVAILABLE Dropped by VAC

I'll search for some links and info of Lost and forgotten programs by VAC


----------



## dapaterson

Have you read the act?  It is specifically limited to WWII veterans.  VAC has no authority to offer benefits under that act to anyone not enumerated therein.  Not a VAC decision, but a political decision to only offer the benefits under that act to WWII veterans.



> “veteran” means a person who at any time during the war declared by His Majesty on the 10th day of September 1939 against the German Reich and subsequently against other powers, has been therein engaged on active service in a naval, army or air force of Canada, or of any of His Majesty’s forces if at the time of his enlistment he was ordinarily domiciled or resident in Canada, and
> (a) whose service has involved duties required to be performed outside the Western Hemisphere,
> (b) who has served only in the Western Hemisphere for a period of at least twelve months, not including any period of absence without leave or leave of absence without pay, time served while undergoing sentence of penal servitude, imprisonment or detention, or service in respect of which pay is forfeited, or
> (c) who, wherever he may have served, is by reason of disability attributable to or incurred during such service in receipt of a pension, and has been honourably discharged from such naval, army, air force, or other of His Majesty’s forces, or has been permitted honourably to resign or retire therefrom;
> 
> and “veteran” also means a British subject who was ordinarily domiciled or resident in Canada at the beginning of the said war and who is in receipt of a pension in respect of a disability incurred while serving upon a ship during the said war;


----------



## Bin-Rat

Yes I have read the VLA.. 
And the point wasn't to who is eligible it was to show what WWII veterans had in benefits and were entitled to.

And what things items that they dropped. I am pretty sure they wanted they could of done an amendment
to include Current CF if they wanted to. But it was as said an entitlement they were able to get WWII, and Korean
war veterans.


----------



## dogger1936

Wow Article written byt the media who has it nailed. Awesome article. Glad to see someone saying the lump sum is junk and if they simply divide the lump sum...it's still junk.

Bravo and thank you sir for writing it. While I have had reserves on the media in Afganistan it's them who will get this story out and maybe save our butt's. Thank you!


----------



## Nemo888

Better late than never. Soldiers have been sucking it up in silence for too long.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I haven't seen the math that proves that the monthly payments are better than the lump sum. Can someone enlighten me?


----------



## PuckChaser

A person who would get $1,000 a month for at least 25 years would make over $300,000. If I'm not mistaken, that's already $50,000 over the maximum lump sum payment, and if the member is fairly young, they could be looking at well over $500,000 in a lifetime.


----------



## the 48th regulator

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the math that proves that the monthly payments are better than the lump sum. Can someone enlighten me?



http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/consultations/topic-sujet/pc-eng.cfm?24

dileas

tess


----------



## prairefire

If you check my comment from much earlier in this thread I have given a very specific example of the difference in benefits as it applies to my case.


----------



## Rifleman62

Side bar: http://www.themarknews.com/authors/899-mercedes-stephenson

Mercedes is a very bright media person who has appeared on several military and security affairs TV programs etc.

Bio at link. Extract: Named one of Maclean’s Magazine's 25 Best and Brightest Canadians under age 30, Mercedes Stephenson is the host and producer of several documentaries and two national television series Mercedes Stephenson Investigates and The Underground Royal Commission Investigates, she also co-hosted the series It’s Your Government. Focussing on public policy, defence, and politics Mercedes has interviewed a range of personalities including prime ministers, ambassadors, generals, CEOs, and most importantly, concerned Canadian citizens.


----------



## Rifleman62

Vern, she has a gold plated pension but:

The Canadian Press
Date: Tue. Sep. 21 2010 

Guarnieri announced on the weekend that she was diagnosed four years ago with MS. The 57-year-old has decided only now to reveal her condition to explain why she won't seek re-election whenever the next federal election is held.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20100921/ms-rally-100921/

That is why the government have not been standing up and stated it was a Liberal bill etc, etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Guarnieri announced on the weekend that she was diagnosed four years ago with MS. The 57-year-old has decided only now to reveal her condition to explain why she won't seek re-election whenever the next federal election is held .... That is why the government have not been standing up and stated it was a Liberal bill etc, etc.


That, perhaps combined with the fact that everyone at the table seemed happy with it at the time - from the referenced news story above (highlights mine) ....:


> On May 9, 2005, then-prime minister *Paul Martin* was flying back from the Netherlands after attending Victory in Europe celebrations. All three opposition leaders had joined him and were on board – the Conservatives’ *Stephen Harper*, the Bloc Québécois’ *Gilles Duceppe* and the NDP’s *Jack Layton*.
> 
> Seizing the rare opportunity to strike a deal, Ms. Guarnieri, then veterans affairs minister, *managed to bring all four leaders together at the front of the plane to hammer out a plan that would see the new Charter approved within a week with virtually no debate.
> 
> With all parties on side, barely a word of concern was voiced as the legislation zoomed through Parliament.*


Three of the four party leaders at that table who (at least appear to have) OK'ed the deal are _still_ party leaders.  Something about throwing rocks in a glass house...


----------



## Wookilar

As far as the politicians involved are concerned, it's all about the _appearance_ of doing good. It's a win-win for them. Everyone gets good press for doing something for Vets.

For the bureaucrats involved, it's all about saving money, don't give a damn about Vets. Their behaviour over the last few years proves that beyond a doubt.

Wook


----------



## The Bread Guy

From Question Period Friday:


> _Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):_  Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have still not granted the main request of our veterans. The changes announced this week do absolutely nothing to change their situation. The lump sum payment does not cut it.  Will the government finally amend the veterans charter and restore the lifetime monthly pension for injured soldiers, as the ombudsman has called for?
> 
> _Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC):_  Mr. Speaker, over the past few days we have announced several measures to support our veterans, especially recent veterans. We plan to address lump sum payments next week.  *What we have heard about the lump sum payment is that some people, although not everyone, were having difficulty managing the amount of money when they received it in a single payment. We are in the process of looking at that, and we will be making a positive announcement for our veterans in a matter of days.*


----------



## the 48th regulator

I have a feeling that "SISIP" will somehow play a part in "Educating" individuals on how to save, and invest their lump sum.  After the plan is put in place, the sum will be released on a Monthly basis, to ensure the individual follows the plan and benefits to the out most.


Anyone wanna start a pool going?

dileas

tess


----------



## Rifleman62

And several more public servants will be hired, along with a half dozen managers, to administer the program. Qualifications required: no  financial experience necessary.


----------



## George Wallace

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And several more public servants will be hired, along with a half dozen managers, to administer the program. Qualifications required: no  financial experience necessary.



You left out "visible minority, preferably a new Canadian".  This just enhances the lack of understanding towards what their clients contribute to the nation.  Living in Ottawa, and being exposed to the Public Service and listening to its members talk about inefficiencies and incompetence is very disheartening.   We are to blame for the twits we have elected on all levels of government.

Sorry.  It is Municipal Election time and what is being offered really sucks.


----------



## dogger1936

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that "SISIP" will somehow play a part in "Educating" individuals on how to save, and invest their lump sum.  After the plan is put in place, the sum will be released on a Monthly basis, to ensure the individual follows the plan and benefits to the out most.
> 
> 
> Anyone wanna start a pool going?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess




I bet your 100% right. I will have someone planning for my future dependant on the markets. I'm sure that will make me and my family feel real secure in our future.

And no matter how bad it sounds i have ZERO empathy for Ms. Guarnieri. I wonder if having a bad disease like MS has made her think about how many vet's have been put in bad positions like her....I wonder if she ever considers if she had to fight to get paid to go along with her disease.

I'm a big believer in Karma. Nuf said on that.

If anyone needs a mental picture to rage on::http://www.liberal.ca/mp/albina-guarnieri


----------



## Pusser

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And several more public servants will be hired, along with a half dozen managers, to administer the program. Qualifications required: no  financial experience necessary.



Do you realize that SISIP does not employ public servants?


----------



## Rifleman62

No I did not, but the I was stating VAC would do the admin and control the funds, and others stating SISIP would do the educating.


----------



## daftandbarmy

prairefire said:
			
		

> If you check my comment from much earlier in this thread I have given a very specific example of the difference in benefits as it applies to my case.



Seen. There, but for the grace of the God that keeps Paras whole, go I.

It's too bad, but we really haven't seemed to solve the problems identified by this guy over a hundred years ago. Maybe we need a 'master singer' of our own to shame the system into doing more:

The Last of the Light Brigade 
Rudyard Kipling
________________________________________
There were thirty million English who talked of England's might,
There were twenty broken troopers who lacked a bed for the night.
They had neither food nor money, they had neither service nor trade;
They were only shiftless soldiers, the last of the Light Brigade.

They felt that life was fleeting; they knew not that art was long,
That though they were dying of famine, they lived in deathless song.
They asked for a little money to keep the wolf from the door;
And the thirty million English sent twenty pounds and four !

They laid their heads together that were scarred and lined and grey;
Keen were the Russian sabres, but want was keener than they;
And an old Troop-Sergeant muttered, "Let us go to the man who writes 
The things on Balaclava the kiddies at school recites."

They went without bands or colours, a regiment ten-file strong,
To look for the Master-singer who had crowned them all in his song; 
And, waiting his servant's order, by the garden gate they stayed,
A desolate little cluster, the last of the Light Brigade.

They strove to stand to attention, to straighen the toil-bowed back;
They drilled on an empty stomach, the loose-knit files fell slack;
With stooping of weary shoulders, in garments tattered and frayed,
They shambled into his presence, the last of the Light Brigade.

The old Troop-Sergeant was spokesman, and "Beggin' your pardon," he said,
"You wrote o' the Light Brigade, sir. Here's all that isn't dead.
An' it's all come true what you wrote, sir, regardin' the mouth of hell;
For we're all of us nigh to the workhouse, an' we thought we'd call an' tell.

"No, thank you, we don't want food, sir; but couldn't you take an' write 
A sort of 'to be continued' and 'see next page' o' the fight?
We think that someone has blundered, an' couldn't you tell 'em how? 
You wrote we were heroes once, sir. Please, write we are starving now."

The poor little army departed, limping and lean and forlorn.
And the heart of the Master-singer grew hot with "the scorn of scorn." 
And he wrote for them wonderful verses that swept the land like flame,
Till the fatted souls of the English were scourged with the thing called Shame.

They sent a cheque to the felon that sprang from an Irish bog;
They healed the spavined cab-horse; they housed the homeless dog;
And they sent (you may call me a liar), when felon and beast were paid,
A cheque, for enough to live on, to the last of the Light Brigade.

O thirty million English that babble of England's might,
Behold there are twenty heroes who lack their food to-night;
Our children's children are lisping to "honour the charge they made - "
And we leave to the streets and the workhouse the charge of the Light Brigade! 

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_brigade.htm


----------



## shamu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyX_Yo2740k


----------



## daftandbarmy

shamu said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyX_Yo2740k



Bravo!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well said as usual, Rick!


----------

