The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think this was touched on before but it here it is in more laymen terms.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060401/vets_benefits_060401/20060401?hub=Canada


Updated Sat. Apr. 1 2006 11:43 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The federal government biggest overhaul of benefits since the Second World War is kicking in just as Canada takes on its most aggressive military role in decades.

However, some critics worry that the new veterans' charter, supported by all parties last spring and taking effect on April 1, might shortchange wounded soldiers.

The key change is giving disabled veterans a lump-sum payment of $250,000 instead of a monthly tax-free pension.

Critics say that means less money for those injured in service of their country.

"Disable soldiers, under the current system, will receive anywhere from 80 to 150 per cent more than they will after April 1," said Sean Bruyea, a Gulf War veteran.

He describes the move as a "callous, bureaucratic move to save money on the backs of disabled veterans."

While the federal government disputes Bruyea's numbers, a Veterans Affairs study does not concern about the cost of rising pension claims by younger soldiers.

Lump-sum payments "would serve, over time, to regain control of an alarming future liability scenario," the study said.

Defender argue the new plan offers quicker benefits and more help.

"Job training, vocational, could be social rehabilitation," said Pierre Allard of the Royal Canadian Legion.

He also defends the lump-sum payment, saying, "Actuarially, that lump sum will produce similar amounts of money as does a monthly pension."

The federal government said the new rules are not set in stone.

CTV News has learned there is a proposal under consideration to allow a choice, in some cases, between a lump-sum and a monthly payment.

With a report from CTV's Roger Smith

 

[Franko]

Just goes to show you how much the politicians really care about veterans.

Regards

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I don't know.  What is wrong with taking $250K, if you think you might not live for more than a couple years?  Or you are thinking about starting a business?  Or feel like investing the money yourself? 

I'm not saying that this is good for every set of circumstances, but I could easily see how many people would prefer a lump sum, depending on their personal situation.

Cheers.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Yes you make a point SKT but perhaps an option is preferable.

 

[orange.paint]

Surprise,surprise. Soldier's are in more volatile regions and now they look at the numbers of pensions they will have to pay out.This really pisses me off.

Put your life on the line for the government,and watch them turn their back on you afterwards.

Now my wife has to listen to me ran all night.

 

[LIKELY]

In todays national Post
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=eaa4a573-c006-47af-8172-245b9dc537c4

Must investigate further.

 

[Peacenik]

Personally, I think that $250,000 is a bit low... if a service member had the option of paying into a civilian life/disability insurance plan, the payout would be much higher.  The fact is that once the government has asked you to deploy, it should assume the entire financial cost of sending you, including the the cost of voiding your insurance plan. 

How are they going to get us to join the armed forces if they aren't going to pay for the cost of sending them to war?

 

[Bin-Rat]

They said it wrong in there... You DON"T get $250,000...

Actually the way it works is you can get UP TO $250,000 for example if you are assesed at only a 5% disability, guess swhat you will get  a lump-sum payment of only $12,500. To get the $250,000 you have to assessed at 100% Disability...

So it is mis-quoted...

As from first post
The key change is giving disabled veterans a lump-sum payment of $250,000 instead of a monthly tax-free pension.

and as per that Link for laymens terms..
The key change is giving disabled veterans a lump-sum payment of up to $250,000 instead of a monthly tax-free pension. The payment will be pro-rated depending on the level of disability.
So again 5% = $12,500
10% = 25,000
25% = 75,000

Now, heh from Vac point of interest at least onthe old system, when ever you applied if they did in fact give you a favourable decission what you basiclly got was 5%, then if you felt it should be more, then it's fight time and you then start a life long fight to get them to raise it to where it should be.

In this link you will see, from a 1998 report on how they had been giving out assessents, the solid line would be WW vets and the dotted line to CF...

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9823xe04.html

From seeing that chart, if you think your gonna get a high assesment.. I would think again... They think anything over 15% is really to much, and if you get it 15% your doing well...

Haven't been able to find on the internet any current postings, seems after 1999 they haven't posted any more information like this, so one can't see how bad the VAC is actually doing... but... oh well..

Oh found the link I was looking for....
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/vete-e/REP-E/rephealthfeb99part3-e.htm

Edited to add new foundlink

 

[17thRecceSgt]

I think there are 2 main points that VAC needs to improve, and never would have happened under the Liberals:

1.  How they figure out what you benefit amount should be; and

2.  The gosh darn time it takes them to make any decisions.  Its ridiculous.

I think part of the problem is they have a Department rampent with people who have never wore so much as a Boy Scout uniform. 

Scale the department back if needed, staff it properly and begin by streamlining the way you determine someone's beneifts, and by providing benefits IN A TIMELY MANNER.

Last Jan, I had my assessment with the Senior District Medical officer here in Halifax...the Doctor was saying "so when you get the decision back, and appeal it..."

Thats just retarded.

Vet's should be treated like Vet's, period.  Not the same as Bessy-Sue who is trying to get welfare.

But they need to clean their shite up because this system, I am finding out as I am wading thru the BS now, from an injury (jumping out 'o Herc's) in 1992 that I have CF98s for, and paperwork up the ying yang, which should be very cut and dried...they told me in Jan "I wouldn't expect to hear anything now until atleast August at the earliest".

I am fine, I can work, walk, etc.  What about people that are REALLY injured?  Are they getting treated like Bessy-Sue trying to weasel her way in the Welfare $ pot?  I hope not. 

:threat:

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Ottawa makes special payment for dead soldiers: $250,000 to each family: Four families were not covered under Veterans Charter

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060502/npt/060502ax.htm
PUBLICATION:  National Post
DATE:  2006.05.02
EDITION:  National
SECTION:  Canada
PAGE:  A6
BYLINE:  Elizabeth Thompson
SOURCE:  CanWest News Service
DATELINE:  OTTAWACANADA 
WORD COUNT:  755


OTTAWA - Stephen Harper's government has voted behind closed doors to pay $1-million to the families of four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan over the course of the past year, CanWest News Service has learned.

The special ex gratia payment adopted by a Cabinet Order-in-Council dated April 6 will see $250,000 go to each of the families of soldiers killed between May 13, 2005, and March 31, 2006, while on active duty. The payment is being made in addition to the monthly survivor payments of $1,500 or more a month to which the families were already entitled.

The four soldiers killed during the time period covered by the Order-in-Council are Private Robert Costall, who was killed in a firefight with Taliban insurgents on March 28; Master Corporal Timothy Wilson and Corporal Paul Davis, who died after their LAV III crashed March 2; and Private Braun Scott Woodfield, who was killed Nov. 24, 2005, when his LAV III was involved in a traffic accident.

The Order-in-Council does not cover the last four soldiers killed in Afghanistan: Lieutenant William Turner, Corporal Matthew Dinning, Corporal Randy Payne and Bombadier Myles Mansell. They all fall under the terms of the new Veterans Charter, which provides for a lump-sum payment of $250,000 for the families of soldiers killed rather than monthly benefits.

Nor does it cover members of the Canadian Forces who were killed prior to May 13, 2005 -- the date that Parliament approved the new Veterans Charter. The families of the seven soldiers killed in Afghanistan prior to that date, including four soldiers killed by friendly fire in April, 2002, fall under the old regime of monthly benefits.

Under the old system, for example, a widow with two young children would not receive a lump sum payment, but would receive $1,500 a month for life and $900 a month for her children until they reach 18 years old (or 25 years old if they are still in school.)

Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson said the idea of making a special payment to the families of the four soldiers came to him as he was carrying out the painful task of writing a letter of condolence to the widow of one of the soldiers killed.

"I guess it was the death of the first young men that occurred. I was writing a letter of condolence to one of the young widows and I was thinking if this had happened after April 1 she would have had $250,000 tax free to help her start her life over again in addition to the other benefits."

"It's one of the things I thought of because in my previous life I used to be a financial planner and I just know to a young family how important that $250,000 would be. It's tax-free. It could make a big difference in terms of paying off a mortgage or buying a home or just securing a future for them and their children. So it's one of the things I felt compelled to do and I am just very pleased that the Prime Minister and my colleagues supported me on it."

Mr. Thompson defended the decision to single out those killed over the past year but to not go further back in time.

"I picked the passage of the [Veterans Charter] bill because that was the only legislative framework that we could build it around. If we didn't have a particular date like that, you could conceivably go back to the Korean War or World War II, I suppose."

If the implementation of the Veterans Charter had coincided with when it was adopted by Parliament, the families of the four soldiers would have already been covered by the new provisions, he pointed out.

While Parliament adopted it on May 13, 2005, it only went into effect on April 1 of this year, he said.

"As a result of that, a number of families basically fell through the cracks in terms of the $250,000 tax free that the young families of these soldiers would have received as a result of their death. This ex gratia payment really fills that void."

A new system in place that calls for a $250,000 payout to the families of soldiers killed coupled with the increased danger to troops currently serving in Afghanistan has prompted the government to increase the amount it budgets for those kinds of payments, acknowledged Mr. Thompson.

"Veterans Affairs will be granted more money than it was last year. I guess in a sad kind of way, sobering kind of way, we know that some of that money will be going to those families whose lives have been changed because of a tragedy in Afghanistan."

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

To the best of my knowledge... this is not "Harper's special money".  This is a SISIP disbursement when you pass away while on theater.

 

[scoutfinch]

While I stand to be corrected, SISIP is an insurance program.  The money to which the article refers is Treasury Money and not related to SISIP.

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

I probably am wrong... and lets hope one of them Admin guys clarify this one for us.... But my understanding is that before one of them dangerous deployment, there is extra SISIP paperwork/coverage because of the nature of the mission.

 

[scoutfinch]

You are correct that overseas personnel are atleast encouraged to max out their SISIP coverage prior to deployment but if I recall correctly, this coverage only extends to the extent of $400,000.  Like I said, SISIP is insurance.  It is underwritten by Manulife Financial, I believe.  Just like any other policy of insurance, the member pays for the coverage.

The money referrenced in the article is different as is the Veterans Act money. 

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

I heard the higher ups talking about it.... the 400K is the normal thing we all have.... the 250k is extra....

 

[camochick]

We pay for the 400,000 and its something my husband had to go and sign up for from sisip. It's not something that you automatically get.

 

[404SqnAVSTeach]

We pay for the 400,000 and its something my husband had to go and sign up for from sisip. It's not something that you automatically get.

I never claimed that it was automatic.  My wife and I elected to only have 100K each.... the question is about the extra 250K

 

[scoutfinch]

I am not sure if I am making myself clear:

The $250,000 referred to in the article has NOTHING to do with SISIP. 

SISIP is an insurance policy offered to service members (which I believe is underwritten by Manulife Financial) that does not have the typical *act of war* clause contained in most other insurance policies. 

 

[AmmoTech90]

I think it's a really nice gesture.

But does that mean that everyone who filed a VAC claim between 13 May 05 and 31 March 06 will be able to receive benefits under both the old system (the pension) and the new Veteran's Charter (the lump sum)?

Would a governments refusal to do that stand up in court?  Can an Order-in-council be challanged in court?

Hmm, could be can of worms.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Anything filed before the date of April 1 2006, falls under the old system, regardless when the descision is made.

dileas

tess