# Should Soldiers Receive VAC Services while Deploying?



## riggermade (26 Sep 2009)

While I agree to most of what Paul says I think alot of the problem is the mentality in the CoC.  I myself got out before it went to a medical release, a huge part due to the way I was treated because of physical disabilities that although not visible were there.  After many years of jumping I have arthritis in every major joint and degenerative disc disease.  Because it was not visible I was considered a slacker and being a WO you get crap from above and disrespect from below.  I did four tours and there was no fanfare about what we did, Afghanistan has brought to light alot of problems that have never been dealt with before.

I have some issues with VA as I am sure many do and I find that being released and not medically has caused me alot of problems with getting help from VA.

My biggest complaint is with serving members receiving VA help and then going on tour to Afghanistan.  If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VA help.  I have voiced this to people at VA and am always told it doesn't happen but I personally know people doing it.

Paul I wish you well in your future endeavours and keep up the fight

_edit to clarify thread title_


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Sep 2009)

riggermade said:
			
		

> My biggest complaint is with serving members receiving VA help and then going on tour to Afghanistan.  If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VA help.  I have voiced this to people at VA and am always told it doesn't happen but I personally know people doing it.
> 
> Paul I wish you well in your future endeavours and keep up the fight



Some of the services provided by VAC, for those that are injured and still serving, cover expenses for the member that the military does not cover.  i,e, Psychologist.  Also, if the member is diagnosed with a mental injury, and receives a VAC pension, their family members are entitled to treatment being paid for by VAC.  The Military, and Provincial health plans do not cover this.

So before you moan to VAC, realize there are a broad spectrum of services, that benefit serving members and their families that are not covered by anyone else.  It took too long for people to fight for these services, we don't need uneducated Soapboxing to destroy these services.

dileas

tess


----------



## riggermade (26 Sep 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Some of the services provided by VAC, for those that are injured and still serving, cover expenses for the member that the military does not cover.  i,e, Psychologist.  Also, if the member is diagnosed with a mental injury, and receives a VAC pension, their family members are entitled to treatment being paid for by VAC.  The Military, and Provincial health plans do not cover this.
> 
> So before you moan to VAC, realize there are a broad spectrum of services, that benefit serving members and their families that are not covered by anyone else.  It took too long for people to fight for these services, we don't need uneducated Soapboxing to destroy these services.
> 
> ...



I am not uneducated and I am not soapboxing and who do you think you are to comment to that effect? I agree that there is  conditions that require help but there are people who ar double dipping and if you think it is not happening then you best pull your head out of wherever it is.

When a member is receiving a VA pension for let's say a bad back but they are fit enough to do multiple tours you don't think there is a problem with the system?


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Sep 2009)

riggermade said:
			
		

> I am not uneducated and I am not soapboxing and who do you think you are to comment to that effect? I agree that there is  conditions that require help but there are people who ar double dipping and if you think it is not happening then you best pull your head out of wherever it is.
> 
> When a member is receiving a VA pension for let's say a bad back but they are fit enough to do multiple tours you don't think there is a problem with the system?



It is not double dipping and it is not compensatory in the sense it replaces the wages lost.  It is an award for the pain and suffering one receives due to an injury.  Pull your head out of whatever it is you have it, and get your facts straight before you pontificate on behalf of the downtrodden.

The problems with the system are slowly being fixed, and if you want to help, get informed and understand what the VAC system is about, before you come on here piping up how you think you are championing some sort of crack within the system.

dileas

tess


----------



## riggermade (26 Sep 2009)

You have your opinion and I have mine.  If you can go on tour then why do you need a pension from VA?  I am not championing anything I am voicing my opinion and if you have a problem with that...tough.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Sep 2009)

riggermade said:
			
		

> You have your opinion and I have mine.  If you can go on tour then why do you need a pension from VA?  I am not championing anything I am voicing my opinion and if you have a problem with that...tough.




No no,

It is not a matter of hiding behind opinion.  The fact is that VAC is a method of compensating for the pain and suffering, and a system to allow a soldier to carry on with their lives.

You want to roll back that system that people like me have pushed hard to clean up.  Every single soldier that has been wounded deserves to be paid, and to be serviced.  We are also pushing, as Paul is trying to do, to have soldiers still serve when injured.

By you concept, Paul (Sorry to use you mate) should not have been looked at at all, by VAC, until he left the military.

You call this a "fair" opinion?

dileas

tess


----------



## riggermade (26 Sep 2009)

I am not saying if you are wounded you shouldn't be compensated or that members should be released if they can contribute.  What I am saying there is members who are using the system to their advantage who do not deserve to be helped.

In all honesty if a member is receiving a monthly pension for a bad back but they can do the BFT every year and do a tour that they are really in need of help?

Now I realize there are conditions VA helps the members and thir families with,  the CF has to step up and start helping out.  I realize VA has an interest in this but you know as well as I do that the military is lacking in helping families


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Sep 2009)

riggermade said:
			
		

> I am not saying if you are wounded you shouldn't be compensated or that members should be released if they can contribute.  What I am saying there is members who are using the system to their advantage who do not deserve to be helped.
> 
> In all honesty if a member is receiving a monthly pension for a bad back but they can do the BFT every year and do a tour that they are really in need of help?
> 
> Now I realize there are conditions VA helps the members and thir families with,  the CF has to step up and start helping out.  I realize VA has an interest in this but you know as well as I do that the military is lacking in helping families


`

Now you have lost me here.  A guy with a bad back, who can do the universality of serivce does not deserve to receive a pension.  Okay;  What about Capt. Simon Mailloux?  Since we no longer award monthly pensions, just a lump sum payment, you would have him return the amount he has received?

Again, I do not see how you can sit there and justify such a draconian way of thinking, with regards to how we compensate soldiers for doing their duty and being injured.

We are not talking about someone with a blister, or nipples being chafed by a run....


dileas

tess


----------



## kratz (26 Sep 2009)

The serve or get out approach has harmed the CF a number of times over the years. 

Now that there are changes occurring and decision makers observing, to revert back to the old approach due to those who abuse the system does a disservice to those who truly need the assistance.

To understand "the system", and it's mandates, you need to know who is responsible for what. What the modern CF and VAC are responsible for are truly morphed from the cold war era.


----------



## riggermade (26 Sep 2009)

I am done debating here as you think you have an answer for all.  What i am saying is there is an abuse of the system by some members and you are sadly mistaken if you think it isn't happening.  I agree there are members who deseve the help but there are those who don't


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Sep 2009)

riggermade said:
			
		

> I am done debating here as you think you have an answer for all.  What i am saying is there is an abuse of the system by some members and you are sadly mistaken if you think it isn't happening.  I agree there are members who deseve the help but there are those who don't



I call BS,

You are done here, because your "Opinion" has been torn apart as being an asinine concept of capturing the small number of abusers, by denying the majority of services deserved by the injured and wounded.

Maybe next time you should rethink such knee jerk posts, before you hit the send button, as where this topic is concerned I will _never_ be done....

dileas

tess


----------



## lou-reed (26 Sep 2009)

I am going to add my opinion probably to the dismay of the majority on this forum but I have to agree with riggermade.

Not on how he presented his opinion or his somewhat draconian thought process, and definitely not going back to the old way but I do think that serving members on VAC pension should not be allowed to go on tour.

If a soldier is injured either physically or mentally then that soldier should have all the access to all and every service available to them to ensure their recovery.  It does not matter if it is a soldier who has lost limbs or a soldier who has nightmares because he has seen flagged draped coffins off loaded from a herc.  Doesn't matter.  

However, in my opinion, if a soldier can carry on with full duties and meet the criteria for deployment (BFT, medical, etc..) and deploy then that soldier should be considered to be recovered from their injuries.  

With their injuries recorded on file they can apply for pension when they retire or when they feel that their injury precludes them from deploying, or continuing to serve.

I retired after 20 years service because I felt that I could no longer deploy.  Had a poor tour in 07 and realized that I was no longer fit enough to soldier.  It was a hard decision but the right decision.   My sore knees and back have improved over the past year with a change of pace.  No VAC pension just my annuity.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Sep 2009)

lou-reed said:
			
		

> I am going to add my opinion probably to the dismay of the majority on this forum but I have to agree with riggermade.
> 
> Not on how he presented his opinion or his somewhat draconian thought process, and definitely not going back to the old way but I do think that serving members on VAC pension should not be allowed to go on tour.
> 
> ...



So what are you advocating, that anyone injured does not have the right to serve their nation?

You, as Riggermade, are confusing the concept of the VAC payment.  It is a tax fee compensation, towards their wounds, incurred by their duty.  Paul Franklin is advocating that we get with the times and pay what is owed to us, and allow members to continue to serve.  However, you and Riggermade feel that the injured do not deserve to be compensated for their injuires, especially if they serve.  This is the uneducated concept I have been talking about.


All I can say is, for shame, that two people who have served would come up with this ignorant belief!  We who have served, and have been wounded, deserve to be recognized by our Government!!

Those that have been wounded, deserve to be compensated monetarily, and with job security!  You two characters live by some old age, sitting in the mess, commiserating attitude that if anyone claims they are injured they are weak or scamming the system.

As Riggermade alluded to me, get your head out of yer aise, and show respect those of us that have been damaged by our service.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (26 Sep 2009)

Just to be clear, neither one of the two suggested (or stated) that anyone who collects is scamming the system. And neither said these injured soldiers shouldn't be allowed to serve their nation.

Riggermade said 'some were scamming" --- and some indeed are. That is a fact. I've seen "some" laugh about doing such at work.

How about keeping the emotions in check (seems this subject always brings them out) - and stick with quoting what they actually said instead of reading so very very much more into it.


----------



## bdave (26 Sep 2009)

riggermade said:
			
		

> I am done debating here as you think you have an answer for all.  What i am saying is there is an abuse of the system by some members and you are sadly mistaken if you think it isn't happening.  I agree there are members who deseve the help but there are those who don't



Why would you want to take down something that some people actually need just because a few jerks are taking advantage of the system?

I see this as a "it's OK to convict 10 innocent people, to get one crook" dilemma.
Whereas 48th regulator is saying "no, it's not" and you are saying "yes, it is".


----------



## lou-reed (26 Sep 2009)

hey 48th, I never said or alluded to claiming anyone was weak or scamming the system - You said that so do not put words or thoughts into my prose.  Guess what,  I too have been damaged by my service.  Thus, why I released before it got worse.    

I also did not say the injured did not deserve to be compensated.  I also did not say they did not deserve to continue to serve.  When did being compensated have ANYTHING to do with the right to serve? as you allude to.

I cannot put myself into the shoes of a soldier who has been injured in combat and thus cannot fully appreciate the challenges a soldier faces when they are in this situation.  Does a soldier deserve to be compensated yes, of course.  They also have every right to continue to serve.   However, I do not fully agree on the deployment issue.  My opinion to which I am entitled to.


----------



## Armymedic (26 Sep 2009)

Just to add my two cents.

I agree with the basic premise of what riggermade is stating.

If a person who is receiving VAC benefits is able to deploy to a mission as arduous as the mission in Afghanistan is, then their reasons for receiving those VAC benefits should be reexamined on a individual basis.

There are people who fuck the system. But because they do is not a good reason for the system to fuck everyone else.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, neither one of the two suggested (or stated) that anyone who collects is scamming the system. And neither said these injured soldiers shouldn't be allowed to serve their nation.
> 
> Riggermade said 'some were scamming" --- and some indeed are. That is a fact. I've seen "some" laugh about doing such at work.
> 
> How about keeping the emotions in check (seems this subject always brings them out) - and stick with quoting what they actually said instead of reading so very very much more into it.




Hi Vern,

Before you pipe up, and I am sure it is because of emotions, rad the whole thread.....





			
				riggermade said:
			
		

> My biggest complaint is with serving members receiving VA help and then going on tour to Afghanistan.  If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VA help.  I have voiced this to people at VA and am always told it doesn't happen but I personally know people doing it.





			
				lou-reed said:
			
		

> I am going to add my opinion probably to the dismay of the majority on this forum but I have to agree with riggermade.
> 
> Not on how he presented his opinion or his somewhat draconian thought process, and definitely not going back to the old way but I do think that serving members on VAC pension should not be allowed to go on tour.
> 
> ...




Our Clients
We provide pensions for disability or death, economic support in the form of allowances, health care benefits and services to:
	•	members of the Canadian Forces and Merchant Navy veterans who served in the First World War, the Second World War or the Korean War
	•	certain civilians who are entitled to benefits because of their wartime service
	•	former members of the Canadian Forces (including those who served in Special Duty Areas) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
	•	survivors and dependents of military and civilian personnel.
Our Commitment to you as a Client
As a client, you will:
	•	be respected as an individual;
	•	receive services based on need;
	•	be part of the decision making process;
	•	be encouraged to remain independent;
	•	have your families and communities considered as integral aspects of your life;
	•	be treated fairly and courteously;
	•	receive high quality services in a timely manner; and
	•	be encouraged to provide feedback to VAC as to the effectiveness of our service to you.
Client Centred Service Approach
See also: Client Centred Service Approach Section
VAC's philosophy of Client Service is based on a client-centred approach where our staff identify and respond appropriately to the needs of the individual client. Our services include screening, referral, information, assessment and monitoring. You are eligible for some of these services both while you are awaiting a decision on your disability pension and after you are in receipt of a disability pension.



The forces does not cover all of the treatment to personnel that have been wounded,.  VAC and other services are used to cover these services.  Again, I ask all that are mush mouthing, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment?  Stop his treatment outside of the Military system, which is not qualified to deal with amputees, leave his family alone??

Vern, before you pipe up, because of emotions from a perceived insult to you another thread, read into what I have been fighting for this last 15 plus years. Paul Franklin is now doing, what I have been doing.  Advocating for the wounded who have served, to continue to serve with all the services readily available.

Stop trying to pull back the tide, based on _your_ emotions...

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (26 Sep 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> Just to add my two cents.
> 
> I agree with the basic premise of what riggermade is stating.
> 
> ...



Absolutely agree with your thoughts on this.

Perhaps - Riggermade titled this thread wrong ...

Perhaps he should have inserted the words "deploy" as even he stated in his original post that his issue was with those "who deploy" receiving VAC services.

Regarding the cash-out for injuries ... absolutely they should be awarded. I've no issues with that.

But, there are those still collecting monthly pensions for "bad backs" who couldn't do PT, who dagged red for deployment(s) because of that pensioned bad back, who mysteriously saw their backs become "healed" (at least "healed enough to do their first BFT in 4 years ...) when it was announced that tours became tax-free - 3 months earlier though: "I can't lift that Sgt (a 1/2 pallet!! - empty), I'm on a pension because my back is fucked".  It's those people that irritate the hell out of me. 


Tess, I've indeed read the whole thread - perhaps you should revisit the OP and note the words "DEPLOY". And, my posts here have SFA to do with any other thread. You know better than that. :


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Absolutely agree with your thoughts on this.
> 
> Perhaps - Riggermade titled this thread wrong ...
> 
> ...



For the third time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment, had this injury happened before the new charter?

Answer me that, and I will make my next statement.

dileas

tess


----------



## lou-reed (27 Sep 2009)

I agree that perhaps the subject could have been better titled.  However, I think that 48th confused the spirit of riggermade 's original post.  

To 48th, I was referring to the Deployment side of this issue.  I do not think that any decent person would suggest taking away compensation.

Obviously a very emotional topic for you 48th, perhaps you should take a step back and actually read what us "two characters" were trying to say.


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> For the third time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment?
> 
> Answer me that, and I will make my next statement.
> 
> ...



FFS.

Did you even bother to read other's posts? "DEPLOY, DEPLOY, DEPLOY" not "SERVE, SERVE, SERVE" as you are swinging out their comments to be about.

No one has stated they have an issue with soldiers getting their lump sum when they are injured, NOR DO I. It's the 4th damn sentence of mine in the quote of mine you put in your post below. Read.

And, as Lou-Reed has stated: "If an injured soldier passes his BFT and manages to meet Universality of Service ... then they should INDEED be able to deploy." Read.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

And what is the ideology of the VAC payment?

dileas

tess


----------



## Armymedic (27 Sep 2009)

Are all VAC payments now a single lump sum, or are there still new cases where soldiers recieve monthly payment over a long term (more than a yr, for instance)?


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

SFB said:
			
		

> Are all VAC payments now a single lump sum, or are there still new cases where soldiers recieve monthly payment over a long term (more than a yr, for instance)?



All new applications fall under the new charter, which is a lumps um payment.

Anyone receiving payment under the old charter, of monthly payments, can still receive additional percentage hikes if the injury is deemed to be associated witht he original injury.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Sep 2009)

riggermade, lou-reed

I am still serving. I receive a monthly pension and hearing aids for the damage the service did to my hearing. I *DEPLOYED* to Afghanistan with the problem and benefits because my profile allowed it.

Want to try kick me out or take my benefits? Do you consider me taking advantage of the system? Am I trying to trick someone and collect benefits I'm not entitled to?

Are either of you doctors or medical specialist that can determine the extent of someones malady better than the myriads of professionals and review boards that these others and myself have had to prove our cases to? Are you completely familiar with the files of these people?

I thought not.

Not everything fits into your little cookie cutter, pissed off world. There are many circumstances that you are not privy to, nor should you be.

You _may_ have a valid point in there somewhere, but you're not in possession of enough facts to whip out that big, broad brush and start painting everything in sight with it.


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2009)

I'm on a PCAT too. I've deployed. I'm 100% deaf on the left-hand side - a service related injury. A hearing aid won't help me as I've no hearing bones left in there and part of my middle ear was removed during my surgery.

I met universality of service. I pass my fitness tests and carry on.

Neither one of riggermade OR lou-reed said they wanted to kick anyone out of the service. It was about "deploying" pers. And them meeting Universality of Service. lou-reed actually made a point of directly stating that in his original post here.


----------



## riggermade (27 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Absolutely agree with your thoughts on this.
> 
> Perhaps - Riggermade titled this thread wrong ...
> 
> ...



Vern

I did not title this..it was split and I will assume whichever mod did so named it to further his argument


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2009)

riggermade said:
			
		

> Vern
> 
> I did not title this..it was split and I will assume whichever mod did so named it to further his argument



Thanks for that. Perhaps they should retitle it then to accurately reflect what you actually stated in your original post. Seems the word "deploy" is invisible in your original post.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm on a PCAT too. I've deployed.
> 
> I met universality of service. I pass my fitness tests and carry on.
> 
> Neither said they wanted to kick anyone out.



They did advocate those that use VAC, to be stripped of the service if they serve, and could deploy.

You agreed with them.

As for the Titling, I split it, so Paul's thread was not derailed or ambushed....

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> They did advocate those that use VAC, to be stripped of the service if they serve, and could deploy.
> 
> You agreed with them.
> 
> ...



Perhaps you should rename it then - you've missed the "deploy" bit in their posts and the current title is NOT reflective of what was brought up ... no matter how much you wish to claim it is.

You've got your blinders on again.

And, as for me agreeing with them --- apparently I'm advocating kicking my own ass out then!! And, taking away the VAC pension too.

But, I'm not ... that's just how your are perceiving this thread because you are reading more (and not reading the "deploy" bit) into it than it actually is.


----------



## Armymedic (27 Sep 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> All new applications fall under the new charter, which is a lump sum payment.



Old system aside,

It should no longer be an issue. Someone has a disablity/injury, gets payment.... 
Does not fit universality of service, released. 
Does fit universality of service, serves.
Does fit universality of service, and can complete all prerequisites for deployment, deploys. 
Does fit universality of service, and can not complete all prerequisites for deployment, does not deploy.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Thanks for that. Perhaps they should retitle it then to accurately reflect what you actually stated in your original post. Seems the word "deploy" is invisible in your original post.



Done


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Done



Thank you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Thank you.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should rename it then - you've missed the "deploy" bit in their posts and the current title is NOT reflective of what was brought up ... no matter how much you wish to claim it is.
> 
> You've got your blinders on again.
> 
> ...



Again,


For the third fourth time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment, and deny any further service from VAC.

Answer me that, and I will make my next statement.


----------



## gcclarke (27 Sep 2009)

And the moral of the story is that any VAC payments are to compensate someone for any *current or future* hardships or employment opportunities lost as a result of an injury that happens while serving. 

Should someone get injured in a manner that may affect future employment, and are compensated accordingly, does this mean that they should not be allowed the privilege of employment on operations in the service of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada in right of the Canadian Armed Forces? Of course not. This is intended to cover _all_ future employment, not merely employment opportunities within the Canadian Armed Forces. And if someone, despite these injuries, is still willing and able to perform in some operational capacity, should they be punished for that? No, that would be asinine, and only serve to drive away from the Canadian Armed Forces more of its valuable personnel, and reduce its operational capability.


----------



## lou-reed (27 Sep 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> They did advocate those that use VAC, to be stripped of the service if they serve, and could deploy.
> 
> 
> 
> tess



48th...It is clear to me that regardless of whatever anyone in this forum says that is contrary to your opinions - and probably the opinion of anyone who is receiving a VAC benefit - will be wrong and chastized for opining so.  

Nowhere in my posts did I advocate stripping anyone of a VAC service if they continued to serve.  For your information I did utilize VAC services upon my return from my deployment.  It was not monetary compensation but I did get the service that I needed for a physical injury as a result of my service.  Without those services I do not know how well I would have recovered.  

Recceguy...good on you that you are still able to deploy.  However, I have witnessed snr soldiers with severe hearing problems deploy.  In one case, a snr ncm wearing two hearing aids deployed and could not even give a briefing to incoming soldiers because they could not hear him speak because he was unable to hear himself.  In my opinion not a good thing.  

As for being in a pissed off world - not sure where you got that idea from by reading my posts.  In fact, releasing when I did after accomplishing all that I wanted to in my 20 year career was the second best decision I have made (the first best decision was to join the CF), and I could not be happier.


----------



## reccecrewman (27 Sep 2009)

Sould soldiers receive VAC pensions while deploying? Why not? If a soldier has been injured mentally or physically, is he broken forever? Maybe yes, maybe no. His VA lump sum is an award and recognition of that particular wound or injury. This is why we have the guidelines of universiality of service. They are the minimum requirements a soldier must meet to be employed by the CF. If a soldier meets these requirements, regardless of past injuries and awarded pensions, why should he be punished with no deployments?

If you get hit by a car on civvy street by a guy running a red light and get your legs broken, should the victim have to wait for retirement or quit his job to be able to sue and receive compensation? No, and the notion is ridiculous. In 8-10 weeks, he's good to go, and has every right to carry on with his life as he did before being hurt, BUT, he's STILL entitled to his entitlement from the driver's insurance company.

So, if a soldier blows a knee in the field or on ops, and he requires surgery to repair the knee, he may recover and be able to meet his trade and or universal requirements and still go on to a fruitful career and deploy again. Just because he got a payment for that blown knee doesn't mean he should be punished. Look at the macho men who get hurt in their careers (Bulged discs, torn knee ligaments) and despite the fact they KNOW they're hurt, they opt NOT to put in a CF98 and get a record of their injury and put in paperwork with VA because they're of the old school belief that to do so is weak and they must "soldier on" Then, after they retire (with their ailments more than likely aggravated and worse) they try to go to VA and claim their injuries and surprise surprise...... they hit a brick friggin wall because there's NO documented proof that those injuries are attributable to CF service. THEN they have a most frustrating fight on their hands to prove their injuries ARE attributable to their service.

So, to answer the thread's question, YES, soldiers who receive a pension for a wound or injury SHOULD be able to deploy IF they meet their trade and or universal physical requirements. YES, there are those who cheat the system and SHOULD face repercussions, but that's NOT what this thread is about. If we want to discuss people who scam the system, we should start a thread with that as it's title, not spam a thread on "Should soldiers who receive VAC pensions be able to deploy" with non thread related arguments on the scammers out there.

My .02 anyway


----------



## Armymedic (27 Sep 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Again,
> 
> 
> For the third fourth time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment, and deny any further service from VAC.
> ...



If you insist....then for the reply you are so desperately seeking; see my response at reply #31.


----------



## axeman (27 Sep 2009)

I receive a pension , as as i type i am here in KAF. I am of a mind the pension that i have granted is a nicety , it will not allow me to live if i get out of the forces but it will allow me  to live a better  life when i do . While it is nce to get a small check once a month "old system of payouts". i would gladly refuse them  if all my med troubles would go away and never appear again. i am here under a OP REQ,shortage of trained pers for training that i received in the past. i discussed quite frankly my issues with the docs  and i am still dagged green . It is to be used as a quality of life adjustment payout. What mine allows me to do is to hire someone when i cannot do something due to reasons i will not go into here.   MY 2 cents


----------



## Infanteer (27 Sep 2009)

People are sure getting pissed off at each other here.

I have no stake in this argument and don't have too much knowledge on the subject, but to me:

1)  If a person receives a permanent injury to their physical or mental well-being, the government provides them with restitution (as I understand now, in the form of a lump-sum payment like an insurance settlement);

2)  If the member's medical category is still good to go and he can pass all required physical and mental fitness checks, then he can deploy abroad on operations - he still gets (and should) that money for getting hurt while under military service;

3)  If the member's PCAT doesn't seem to fit the extent of their injury (and the remuneration they received for this injury) then perhaps they should be reassessed; and

4)  The CF is doing more to find positions for those with PCATs that prevent full universality of service - these soldiers have a special niche in the CF and should be looked after.  It's not perfect, but it's getting better.

Am I missing anything?  What is the argument about?


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

lou-reed said:
			
		

> 48th...It is clear to me that regardless of whatever anyone in this forum says that is contrary to your opinions - and probably the opinion of anyone who is receiving a VAC benefit - will be wrong and chastized for opining so.
> 
> Nowhere in my posts did I advocate stripping anyone of a VAC service if they continued to serve.  For your information I did utilize VAC services upon my return from my deployment.  It was not monetary compensation but I did get the service that I needed for a physical injury as a result of my service.  Without those services I do not know how well I would have recovered.



No Lou, 

People are not being chastised by me, because they go against "my opinion".  People are being chastised for trying to drag the system back 20-30 years, after all of the efforts that have been made by those who had to go through the broken system.  Your statement below does just that;  You would have the member wait until he retires to apply for a pension.  We had been doing this before, and it was deemed not a working process.  The payment, is recompense for the pain and suffering incurred by the member, during duty.



			
				lou-reed said:
			
		

> I am going to add my opinion probably to the dismay of the majority on this forum but I have to agree with riggermade.
> 
> Not on how he presented his opinion or his somewhat draconian thought process, and definitely not going back to the old way but I do think that serving members on VAC pension should not be allowed to go on tour.
> 
> ...





			
				SFB said:
			
		

> If you insist....then for the reply you are so desperately seeking; see my response at reply #31.



Right you did, and for giving me an answer, you receive a virtual pat on the back as you understand where I am coming from.  Infanteer also nailed it.


I would just like to hear from the e VAC naysayers that insist on not allowing an injured member to receive VAC services, and still be able to serve.

dileas

tess


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Sep 2009)

48th regulator, not to get you going, but why do you say "drag the system back 20-30 years ....through a broken system" ?

Do you think VAC does a good job? Why? Everywhere in Canada or just Toronto? Just your experience? Because you are satisfied?


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Sep 2009)

I'm sure 48th will reply, but what I think he is saying is that VAC is not perfect, but rather than regressing, he wants to keep maintaining forward progress.....

Regarding this 





> Do you think VAC does a good job? Why? Everywhere in Canada or just Toronto? Just your experience? Because you are satisfied?



Be prepared for this: Do you think VAC does a poor job? Why? Everywhere in Canada or just BC? Just your experience? Because you are dissatisfied?


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> 48th regulator, not to get you going, but why do you say "drag the system back 20-30 years ....through a broken system" ?
> 
> Do you think VAC does a good job? Why? Everywhere in Canada or just Toronto? Just your experience? Because you are satisfied?





			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I'm sure 48th will reply, but what I think he is saying is that VAC is not perfect, but rather than regressing, he wants to keep maintaining forward progress.....
> 
> Regarding this
> Be prepared for this: Do you think VAC does a poor job? Why? Everywhere in Canada or just BC? Just your experience? Because you are dissatisfied?




Muskrat, I could not have said it better.

As for VAC doing a good job, much better than the past.  Right across Canada.  Not from my own personal experience, but with those soldiers that I deal with everyday that use the services VAC provides.

dileas

tess


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Sep 2009)

Thanks. Just asking. Did not want to get into a fight. 

muskrat89: good answer, plus add Manitoba.

I am dissatisfied. Others I know are mainly dissatisfied, but some satisfied. WWII Vets/families say wonderful, especially VIP service.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Thanks. Just asking. Did not want to get into a fight.
> 
> muskrat89: good answer, plus add Manitoba.
> 
> I am dissatisfied. Others I know are mainly dissatisfied, but some satisfied. WWII Vets/families say wonderful, especially VIP service.




Have you voiced your dissatisfaction with VAC, to the Ombudsman?

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=bor

dileas

tess


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Sep 2009)

No, but I should put my money where my mouth is.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

Right on,

It is the only way we can fix a broken system.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Again,
> 
> 
> For the third fourth time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment, and deny any further service from VAC.
> ...



For the third time:

I've answered at my reply #19 (4th sentence); and my reply #22 (2nd sentence). For the last time, no-one here said anything about anbody returning any payment or denial of services (you used the word "services" in the thread title). As said many times, the comment was in reference to those who "abuse" VAC - those kind who "use VAC" to avoid doing their jobs here in Canada (I even gave you a personal example of mine) and collect their payments/utilize services & use their Cat as an excuse NOT to do their jobs ... who "suddenly" are fit enough to deploy overseas (meet universality of service) when it's a tax-free spot (they dagged red for a Mirage spot due to that "fucked up back" merely 3 months prior) - and (in the example I gave you) very quickly reverted to the old "my back is too fucked to work/do duties etc once their taxfree tour ended ...

The current system is way better than it used to be - that does not mean there are aren't abusers and THAT is what we're talking about. It all comes down to "malingering". Those who claim DVA pensions for that bad back who can't bend over and pick up a pencil when there's a witness about ... but get nailed doing just that when it's min manning and their WO happens to walk-in without notice while bobbing along to the tune they've got cranked on the radio. That's malingering - that's who we're talking about ... ever trying charging someone with that these days? Good luck. Someday I'll make a videotape of one of these types - where "medical problem that's VAC pensionable" seems to appear/disappear based upon where the tour is to and whether the position is tax-free or not.

They ARE out there.

As for the good Capt - GOOD on him!! He's STILL doing his job. He's met universality of service - he's collected the payment for his injuries and he receives VAC services that he requires. He's deploying again. GOOD on him.
He's not the kind of whom we speak. We're speaking of the kind who collect payments and services who have injuries (or don't) when it's CONVENIENT for them. THAT's what needs to get fixed.


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2009)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> So, to answer the thread's question, YES, soldiers who receive a pension for a wound or injury SHOULD be able to deploy IF they meet their trade and or universal physical requirements. As every one of us in this thread so far has stated!! -
> YES, there are those who cheat the system and SHOULD face repercussions, but that's NOT what this thread is about. If we want to discuss people who scam the system, we should start a thread with that as it's title, not spam a thread on "Should soldiers who receive VAC pensions be able to deploy" with non thread related arguments on the scammers out there.
> 
> My .02 anyway



My insertion in yellow.

As for the rest, the guy who "started this thread" or "this thread's intent" - the original Poster in this thread didn't choose the topic title. It was chosen by a mod. That OP also clarified just a few posts in that he was talking about "abusers of the system", not "everyone".


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> For the third time:
> 
> I've answered at my reply #19 (4th sentence); and my reply #22 (2nd sentence). For the last time, no-one here said anything about anbody returning any payment or denial of services (you used the word "services" in the thread title).





			
				riggermade said:
			
		

> I have some issues with VA as I am sure many do and I find that being released and not medically has caused me alot of problems with getting help from VA.
> 
> My biggest complaint is with serving members receiving VA help and then going on tour to Afghanistan.  If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VA help.  I have voiced this to people at VA and am always told it doesn't happen but I personally know people doing it.
> 
> _edit to clarify thread title_





			
				lou-reed said:
			
		

> I am going to add my opinion probably to the dismay of the majority on this forum but I have to agree with riggermade.
> 
> Not on how he presented his opinion or his somewhat draconian thought process, and definitely not going back to the old way but I do think that serving members on VAC pension should not be allowed to go on tour.



Vern, Is there another type of member that can go on tour?  playing the game of semantics only stretches out the thread, it does not help your argument, which I am still trying to figure out......



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As said many times, the comment was in reference to those who "abuse" VAC - those kind who "use VAC" to avoid doing their jobs here in Canada (I even gave you a personal example of mine) and collect their payments/utilize services & use their Cat as an excuse NOT to do their jobs ... who "suddenly" are fit enough to deploy overseas (meet universality of service) when it's a tax-free spot (they dagged red for a Mirage spot due to that "fucked up back" merely 3 months prior) - and (in the example I gave you) very quickly reverted to the old "my back is too fucked to work/do duties etc once their taxfree tour ended ...



So this is they type of comment Paul Franklin needs to hear in  a thread dedicated to his leaving the Military?  Further to that, your anecdotal evidence of some guy with a bad back scamming the system, until he can go on tour signifies what?  How does it support this thread, and the arguments made by Riggermade and Lou-reed?  That because of the odd reprobate that finds a way to steal from the Government, we should deny all people these services?



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The current system is way better than it used to be - that does not mean there are aren't abusers and THAT is what we're talking about.  It all comes down to "malingering". Those who claim DVA pensions for that bad back who can't bend over and pick up a pencil when there's a witness about ... but get nailed doing just that when it's min manning and their WO happens to walk-in without notice while bobbing along to the tune they've got cranked on the radio. That's malingering - that's who we're talking about ... ever trying charging someone with that these days? Good luck. Someday I'll make a videotape of one of these types - where "medical problem that's VAC pensionable" seems to appear/disappear based upon where the tour is to and whether the position is tax-free or not.
> 
> They ARE out there.
> 
> ...




So you are talking about malingerers.  Riggermade and Lou-Reed are doing the same, oh I get it now, sorry  :.  Can you quantify the number of "malingers" that are out there, with hard proof and evidence, that would justify RM to state;



			
				riggermade said:
			
		

> If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VA help.  I have voiced this to people at VA and am always told it doesn't happen but I personally know people doing it.
> _edit to clarify thread title_



You gave Kudos to the Good Captain who went overseas with an amputated leg, yet you are adamant that no one is advocating  against him doing that.  That is why I asked about Capt. Simon Mailloux.  If people can state that If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VAC's help, why am I out of order in asking them whether people who have deemed fit to serve overseas after an injury should they then stop using VAC services, and return the payment?

I am questioning your intension, Vern.  Is it to defend people that I have maligned, or is it to just bust my chops?  You agree with the comments made by others, and myself, but when I question them you jump all over me?

I am the person who split this thread, as it was first in the MCPL Paul Franklin "leaving military to further cause" thread.  RM's statement about people using VAC trying to serve, to the point of deployment being wrong, I found not only crass for that thread, but something I had to address.

I am a type of guy, who comes out swinging in threads, especially when it involves those that have been injured.   I can not help that.  I have pounded the tarmac too long trying to change things, and when I see others still suffering that way it boils my blood.  On top of that, when I see people advocating to turn the clock back, to catch the few "Malingerers" It sends it into steam mode.

Thieves, have always existed, and there will be no way of stopping them.  Locks are not meant to keep you out, they are a message to thieves that valuables are there for the stealing.  All I am reading is people advocating to destroy the valuables, to stop the thieves from stealing.....

I will apologize to Riggermade, for using him in this post, as he asked to bow out of the thread.  However, I had to reference to RM's post to clarify to Vern why I was critical of the intent.


dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Vern, Is there another type of member that can go on tour?  playing the game of semantics only stretches out the thread, it does not help your argument, which I am still trying to figure out......
> 
> So this is they type of comment Paul Franklin needs to hear in  a thread dedicated to his leaving the Military?  Further to that, your anecdotal evidence of some guy with a bad back scamming the system, until he can go on tour signifies what?  How does it support this thread, and the arguments made by Riggermade and Lou-reed?  That because of the odd reprobate that finds a way to steal from the Government, we should deny all people these services?



No, but you split the thread, as it should have been. I don't see anything in the OP about Paul specificly though ... it was a comment about VAC benefits; thus not a comment about Paul himself ... that's quite obvious to me. it was, quite simply, a tangent - nothing personal.




> So you are talking about malingerers.  Riggermade and Lou-Reed are doing the same, oh I get it now, sorry  :.  Can you quantify the number of "malingers" that are out there, with hard proof and evidence, that would justify RM to state;



I don't have to quantify numbers Tess. They are out there. There's lots of threads on this site about those pers. And again - NO ONE (And I'm really sick of your insistance that anybody has) has stated that EVERYONE should be denied benfits and/or service from VAC. He clarified he was speaking about those who ABUSE the system - not everyone. And despite how much better VAC is now ... that abuse STILL needs to be fixed; and, when it is - then threads like this won't happen. Every try to charge one of them lately Tess? Like I said ... good luck with that. You'll likely not see any numbers on it either - given the 100% reluctancy of the CoC to call out the pers who are doing it - I've tried and the response has always been "the MOs and the CoC won't touch it."



> You gave Kudos to the Good Captain who went overseas with an amputated leg, yet you are adamant that no one is advocating  against him doing that.  That is why I asked about Capt. Simon Mailloux.  If people can state that If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VAC's help, why am I out of order in asking them whether people who have deemed fit to serve overseas after an injury should they then stop using VAC services, and return the payment?



And no one here HAS advocated against him doing that provided he meets the Universality of Service reqts (I'm sure that's now the 4th time I've stated that - and this WILL be the last). Why am I out of order in what I stated Tess? I too am on a PCat collecting those VAC benefits. And not a single pers here (yet again) said single word about anyone returning ANY benefits. So stop asking why we're saying that - we haven't so you are not going to get an answer to something that was NEVER said.



> I am questioning your intension, Vern.  Is it to defend people that I have maligned, or is it to just bust my chops?  You agree with the comments made by others, and myself, but when I question them you jump all over me?



You think this is all about you? Or who you are? Wow. I jump all over you apparently (you still have your blinders on BTW), yet you made reference right away in this thread to an occurance of mine in another thread that had/has nothing to do with this one and claimed that that was the reason (and why) I was posting here. I think you should ask the man in the mirror whether or not it is actually YOUR intention to bust my chops rather than vice versa. I've already stated that posts have ZERO to do with you, who you are, OR that other thread. I don't think I've agreed with a full comment that you've made in this thread yet BTW. I've certainly agreed with you on points of the Capt etc and other injured receiving their lump sums ... but then no one ever said they shouldn't. 



> I am the person who split this thread, as it was first in the MCPL Paul Franklin "leaving military to further cause" thread.  RM's statement about people using VAC trying to serve, to the point of deployment being wrong, I found not only crass for that thread, but something I had to address.
> 
> I am a type of guy, who comes out swinging in threads, especially when it involves those that have been injured.   I can not help that.  I have pounded the tarmac too long trying to change things, and when I see others still suffering that way it boils my blood.  On top of that, when I see people advocating to turn the clock back, to catch the few "Malingerers" It sends it into steam mode.



RM stated his problems with the issue and clarified just a few (if not the very next post) that he was speaking about those who abuse the system not everyone. You have insisted (and continue to do so) that he said "everyone" and said "everyone should return benefits and be denied VAC service" - He said NO such thing. Alas, not a single soul has said "turn back the clocks 20/30 years" either. You are pulling that out of your ass. FIX the system because despite how much you may like it now ... it still needs to be improved to out the malingers and put the monies saved there towards those who actually DO require VAC services.



> Thieves, have always existed, and there will be no way of stopping them.  Locks are not meant to keep you out, they are a message to thieves that valuables are there for the stealing.  All I am reading is people advocating to destroy the valuables, to stop the thieves from stealing.....
> 
> I will apologize to Riggermade, for using him in this post, as he asked to bow out of the thread.  However, I had to reference to RM's post to clarify to Vern why I was critical of the intent.
> 
> ...



Ahhh yes. Thieves exist, but out there in the real world outside of VAC ... when they get caight thieving, they get charged and possibly jailed. Again, ever try charging someone with malingering these days Tess? I have. Myself and my CoC were absolutely stunned when buddy who couldn't pick up his pen from the floor managed to suddenly dag green on the medical. We were NOT stunned when he returned from tour only to revert to the old "I can't do my job again ... the taxfree tour is done now" ... Funny, he can do his job overseas when it suits him, but he can'r do it here in good old Canada.

I am one of those pers on PCat and VAC enabled. I do my job at home and overseas .. not just when it suits me. Even those injured pers who can't deploy who have been injured still put their 110% in when they go to work in whatever capacity they can. THOSE are not the pers were're talking about.

I'm talking about the freeloading scumsucking asshats who really enjoy that pension VAC gives them each month and who brag about how easy it was to pull off a taxfree bonus "for nada". I have the right to be pissed off about them - for I am one of those Canadian taxpayers that they are DEFRAUDING.

Edited to fix quotations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Sep 2009)

> I'm talking about the freeloading scumsucking asshats who really enjoy that pension VAC gives them each month and who brag about how easy it was to pull off a taxfree bonus "for nada". I have the right to be pissed off about them - for I am one of those Canadian taxpayers that they are DEFRAUDING.



Them report them to the authorities, with the pertinent info needed to start an investigation.


----------



## Loachman (28 Sep 2009)

Other than her chain of command, which, as she said, is unable or unwilling to do anything, to whom should she report this?

Anyway, the temperature gauge on this thread is pushing through the red zone. I'm locking it for a cooling-off period.

I've tried to sort out exactly what the principal antagonist(s) are saying. I don't think, despite all of the yelling and screaming, that there's really any disagreement.


----------

