• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread

"tempest in a teacup"  -  Tea POT.  Tempest in a Tea POT.

" We are already the world's best payed military..."

- Nope.  Look at what a Cdn CWO makes vs an American Command Sgt Major.

 
Okay,

From here

E-9 with 24 years service makes 5097.80 base, which today is 5 687.23235 CAD. CWO 2 base pay according to DND is 6517 CAD.

Looks fairly close to me, taking into acount benefits and such. I may be mistaken but isn't the US GI Bill a bit more generous than what we have?

 
I think what the military provides is adequate. That and the sisip coverage is more than enough if you're smart with it. If you have six kids,its unfortunate but no one made you have that many kids. Do what you can with what you have. I know an awesome woman who raised four on no insurance money when her husband died and she's doing great.

TMM, we can't get extra coverage because he is at war. If it was that simple do you think we would be so dumb as to not get it.

As a wise man once told me, Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. If your husband or wife is overseas with the military , then make a plan for the what if's before he or she goes. You should do that anyhow, because death doesnt ask us when we want to go.  >:D
 
camochick said:
TMM, we can't get extra coverage because he is at war. If it was that simple do you think we would be so dumb as to not get it.

I realise that. Is it time for SISP to get with the times and offer the 2x, 3x, 4x life model or even better go up to $1 000 000, which is not unheard of? After all with people living into their 80s it isn't all that much once amortised.
 
Base Pay charts only tell part of the story.  The whole "pay and benefits package" will differ.  The US CSM here is making 92k USD.  At Graf, he had a car and house provided.  They give what we would call executive level 'perks' to their top end senior NCOs.

'That and the sisip coverage is more than enough if you're smart with it'.

- I pay for SISIP and SDB.  Monthly.  I want no truck with people who claim they have a right to insurance they have NOT bought.

- Just watch how fast SISIP will try to 'meld' their benefit with the DVA one, so: if you pay for 400k coverage with SISIP, they will try to remove the DVA 250k from the 400k they owe your estate.



 
I realise that. Is it time for SISP to get with the times and offer the 2x, 3x, 4x life model or even better go up to $1 000 000, which is not unheard of? After all with people living into their 80s it isn't all that much once amortised.

Who on earth would buy such a policy? Life insurance isn't a positive return investment, unless you actually expect to die very soon and haven't told anyone. The point isn't for your family to reap a windfall in the event of your death (don't really want to give them any ideas, now, do we), it's to make it so that the sudden loss of income doesn't completely ruin their lives. You get enough insurance to guard against this possibility.

If you end up making money on a life insurance policy, you've already lost the game.  :)

Base Pay charts only tell part of the story.  The whole "pay and benefits package" will differ.  The US CSM here is making 92k USD.  At Graf, he had a car and house provided.  They give what we would call executive level 'perks' to their top end senior NCOs.

Well, I think it's safe to say that on the whole and considering that most of us are Jr. ranks, we (Canadians) are paid quite well compared to our allied peers.
 
Britney Spears said:
Who on earth would buy such a policy? Life insurance isn't a positive return investment, unless you actually expect to die very soon and haven't told anyone.

Plenty of people buy such policies; it's part of estate planning. That's why the insurance industry offers term, WL, UL and Seg Funds. I don't see why CF personnel should be denied the options.
 
"Well, I think it's safe to say that on the whole and considering that most of us are Jr. ranks, we (Canadians) are paid quite well compared to our allied peers."

- Agree 100%.

" I don't see why CF personnel should be denied the options."

- We are not denied civ insurance. 
 
TMM said:
Plenty of people buy such policies; it's part of estate planning. That's why the insurance industry offers term, WL, UL and Seg Funds. I don't see why CF personnel should be denied the options.

Your NOT as TCBF said -- however most policies (unlike SISIP) will not cover warzone etc stuff.... (go figure - it cuts into their profits)
 
TCBF said:
- We are not denied civ insurance.

Now I'm confused because posters in this thread have indicated they cannot get such insurance since SISIP is the only provide who will issue policies to CF active personnel? Enlighten me please.
 
I personally have such policy. My company pays half the premiums and I pay the other half.

Does this mean I want my husband to profit from my death. No I don't but I want to insure that God forbid something happens to me that my children and my husband are taken care of. Is it more money then they need. Most likely but hey I only pay half of the premium so why not get the most for my buck.


TMM yes cf members can get insurance civi side but most policies will not pay if the death is result of a combat zone. SISIP from the research I have done is the only place that will insure for a very reasonable rate.
 
Thanks luv! I figured it was something like that. My brother in law works for a firm that pays exorbitant premiums when they send people into war zones, declared or not.
 
TCBF said:
"tempest in a teacup"  -  Tea POT.  Tempest in a Tea POT.
if you're an American. If you're Canadian, it's teaCUP. If you're a Brit, it's a "Storm" in a teacup.
 
There are a FEW compaies that will ensure in a cbt zone (my policy thru my company does - althought If I get whacked by a terrorist act out of theatre on leave I dont get shit...).  I'm not sure how it works (my contract specifies the what/where/why etc) - but since they insure contractors - I would guess they should insure soldiers too  :-\

One of the compaines has a $1M policy for their guys - and they are active shooters helping out USSOC
 
Plenty of people buy such policies; it's part of estate planning. That's why the insurance industry offers term, WL, UL and Seg Funds. I don't see why CF personnel should be denied the options.

We're off on a bit of a tangent here, but there are very, very few estates that would derive any benefit from WL, UL, or Seg funds. the insurance industry offers them and markets them heavily because of their high profit margins, and more money for them means less money for your family. Unless you are either a) heavily in debt and a require protection of your estate from creditors, or b) extremely wealthy and facing a large capital gains tax bill on your estate upon death, I can't see a reason why anyone would purchase them.

Does this mean I want my husband to profit from my death. No I don't but I want to insure that God forbid something happens to me that my children and my husband are taken care of. Is it more money then they need. Most likely but hey I only pay half of the premium so why not get the most for my buck.

All things being equal, you're not getting the most for your buck. The way to get the most for your buck is to pay just enough to guard against the remote possibility of your premature death, and spend the difference in premium on something that actually benefits you NOW, or investing it yourself and reaping the full return on investment instead of letting the insurance company take a cut.

It might feel warm and fuzzy to think that your family gets a whole bunch of money if you die, but the simple truth of the matter is that that a) you're probably not going to die any time soon, and b)the insurance company cannot possibly give you more money than you yourself already put in. If either of the above were not true then the insurance company would not be making any money. The purpose of insurance is RISK MANAGEMENT, it is an expense, not an investment.
 
Yup, the only "Freedom 55" they really offer is to themselves.........
 
A touch OT again but those products can indeed help some people, like me and Mr. TMM. Not for everyone but they do serve some solid purposes(sorta like a military career ;))
 
daily gleaner
Published Monday May 28th, 2007
Appeared on page A1
The family of at least one Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan had to shoulder part of the cost of burying their son last year because the Defence Department's funeral stipend wasn't enough.

And there appear to be other cases.

The injustice has prompted the military to ask the federal Treasury Board for a formal increase in the allowance, a request that will be considered this week, The Canadian Press has learned.

The long-standing limit imposed on funeral expenses for both regular and reserve members of the Forces has not increased for years.

It wasn't given any consideration until the military learned through the grapevine about the plight of an individual family, which it didn't identify.

"This was brought to our attention and we immediately looked into it," said Cmdr. Denise Laviolette, a spokeswoman for the Forces.

"My understanding is that a family was speaking to another individual, who was not from the department and that person passed it along to us."

Within days of contacting them, she said, the soldier's family had been reimbursed the shortfall between the stipend and the total funeral bill.

"That was one of the reasons we looked into the overall rate," said Laviolette. "We did not get a formal complaint, but we were certainly made aware that one family had initially paid out of their pockets."

All serving soldiers, sailors and aircrew are entitled to a funeral at public expense, but there are a series of limits and exceptions.

While Treasury Board considers the rate increase Thursday, Laviolette said no families will have to make up the difference.

"In the meantime, we are definitely funding to the actual cost of a funeral," she said in an interview. "We have gone to other monies available until we get the increase."

The department has been topping up burial costs for at least the last nine months, Laviolette added.

A number of relatives were reluctant to talk, but at least one other family of a soldier killed last year, contacted by The Canadian Press over the weekend, said it also experienced a shortfall in burial expenses.

The family has requested reimbursement but hasn't been given a decision.

"We haven't heard back, unless they put the cheque in the mail yesterday," said a family member.
 
Hansard, House of Commons, 28 May 07
Article link

(....)

National Defence

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, every member of Parliament in this House supports our troops in Afghanistan. Now the Government of Canada must support our fallen soldiers and their families.  Clearly I want to ask the Prime Minister, will he now inform this House that effective immediately this government will now pay the full costs of the funerals for our Canadian fallen heroes?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, since I have been in office I have directed the department to pay the full funeral costs of fallen soldiers. I also directed the department to review the previous Treasury Board policy set by the Liberals to come to a proper resolution and line it up with current realities.

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, it is fairly clear that Canadians do not care about bureaucratic submissions to the Treasury Board, as we learned yesterday, asking for more funds. Canadians want funeral cost aid in full right now.  Will the Prime Minister give a personal guarantee—which we have not heard—here and now, that effective immediately, the Government of Canada will pay the full costs of the funerals for our soldiers who have paid the ultimate price? Yes or no?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I will give a better guarantee than that. We have been doing it since I have been in office. Any family that has had to bury one of its loved ones is entitled to full recompense for the funeral.

(....)



Statement by the Minister of National Defence
News release NR–07.045, 29 May 07
Article link

OTTAWA— The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, issued the following statement:

“Canada's New Government has been unwavering in our commitment to supporting all members of the Canadian Forces and their families. It is therefore with considerable distress that I note recent media reports regarding families of deceased Canadian Forces members who may not have received full reimbursement for normal funeral and burial expenses. If confirmed, this would indicate that my direction was not followed and I can assure that this will be dealt with accordingly and corrected as soon as possible.

I cannot imagine the pain a family feels after losing a loved one who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

I want to reiterate that any family eligible for support for funeral expenses shall receive the appropriate reimbursement.

I have directed Defence officials to contact military families who lost a loved one, to ensure that these families received all of the support to which they are entitled. It is unfortunate this is required.

Our Government stands behind our service members and their families. We will give them what they need and deserve. The guidelines regarding funeral and burial benefits for CF members put in place in 1999 are being corrected and updated to reflect current realities.”

-30-

 
DND funding came up short for funeral: parents
Updated Wed. May. 30 2007 11:58 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The parents of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan last year came forward on Wednesday, claiming the Canadian Forces has failed to pay the full cost of the funeral for their son.

Lincoln and Laurie Dinning contradicted a claim from Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, who said that the military had paid the full cost of each funeral service for troops killed during his term.

"We stand here telling you today we have not been fully reimbursed for the costs of Matthew's funeral costs," Lincoln said during a Parliament Hill news conference.

He said the funeral for Cpl. Matthew Dinning cost more than $12,000, but the military only contributed $5,600.

The Defence Department says it compensated one family whose funeral expenses outstripped the military's $4,675 burial stipend. And O'Connor told the House of Commons this week that since he became minister in early 2006, he has ensured that the full cost of each funeral has been covered.

Ninety minutes before Dinning family publicly claimed they had been denied their rightful benefits, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and the chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, said the department will cover more expenses linked with military funerals.

"Our support is unconditional," Hillier said.

"Whatever the challenge -- be it financial or any other challenge -- we will do what has to be done.''

O'Connor said the department is still trying to determine whether any families of the 55 soldiers killed in Afghanistan have not received the money they should have received, O'Connor said.

The Dinning couple say they fit in that category. They told the news conference they still have not been reimbursed the difference between the allowance and the final bill, despite having filed two written requests to National Defence last year.

They said they decided to go public after reading O'Connor's statement that all funerals had been paid for.

"After reading these comments my wife and I were offended and felt that our family's integrity was being called into question by Mr. O'Connor," Lincoln said.

"We stand here today telling you that we have not been fully reimbursed for Matthew's funeral costs, despite the fact Mr. O'Connor stood up in the House of Commons and told the Canadian people the exact opposite."
More on link
 
Back
Top