Should Soldiers Receive VAC Services while Deploying?

[axeman]

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]

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]

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.

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. 

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[the 48th regulator]

Right on,

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

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

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.

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]

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]

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).

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

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......

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?

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.

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;

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]

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.


dileas

tess

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]

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]

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.