Thucydides said:
Since we are dealing with health care and health care is a provincial responsibility, then by rights it is up to the province to provide the treatment for a vet living there. The fact that different provinces do things differently makes the decision of where to release a bit more difficult, but that will be a factor with virtually every aspect of life outside of healthcare.
As per the post above, although Vets Affairs deal with healthcare issues, I do believe that their healthcare being looked after is something the Federal government agreed to do in return for their service. Throwing the Vets to the Ministry of Health, or in the case that the LPoC is in power and throwing them to the *provincial* health systems, and giving them the same inadequate public healthcare that everyone else receives, and no compensation (i.e. You are no longer able to work for the rest of your life, you should be provided some sort of basic income in addition to the healthcare required) provided to overcome the fact that their ability to earn income has been, is really no different than doing nothing for them. They're getting the same thing a civilian would get in that instance.
Thucydides said:
While this is what is supposedly on offer, in real life you end up going through hoops of fire, and it seems in our own personal case that the burden of proof is on my wife (military records and doctor's reports notwithstanding), and they take their own sweet time in responding. The issue of dealing with multiple "offices" which never seem to communicate is also huge time waster, I suspect the real motivation is to simply wear the "client" down until they give up. It is a good thing I am geographically remote at the moment; the latest outrage is the new "case worker" refuses to discuss any issue that goes back further than 6 months (despite literally years of misinformation, miscommunications and errors on their part); that case worker should be looking for benefits of their own due to blunt trauma injury.....
Does the whole "proving it is a service-related injury" cause problems for a lot of people?
I understand that if I blow out my knee and tear my ACL/MCL/meniscus, I do a CF-98, and in 20 years if that CF-98 hasn't gone into the admin blackhole, then there is the proof of that injury in the CF-98. If I have no lost the use of my leg because the knee is toast, I would receive some sort of compensation.
However, in many cases, people serve 25-30 years, they break their bodies over the course of time, retire, and when they turn 50-60 all those things they did have caught up to them. There may be no CF-98s at all since there was never a major "injury," but the condition of one's back/knees/hips tells a different story. They receive no compensation because there is no "proof" there was a service-related injury?
Is the latter scenario a common problem for many?
Right now, we offer those who serve 20, 25 years their pension ASAP. I have to wonder if part of that retirement package at 20 or 25 years shouldn't be to include lifetime, "elevated" health coverage, paid for courtesy of the Federal government. If a doctor finds they need treatment for something, they could just show their doctor their insurance card and have it billed to the insurance company. No need for a Veterans Affairs claim or even a department.