Attn: Veterans/survivors of veterans

[the 48th regulator]

It does,

Your mother collects a monthly allowance.  This allowance under the old system was intended to offset any costs associated in the care of survivors.  Children up to the age of 18 are also given this allowance. Cost of care includes things as an insurance plan, medication etc.

The current plan offers a lump sum payment, rehab, and reintegration programs to allow the Veteran to obtain employment allowing them to be independent.  The family is offered PSHCP as they are not covered by a monthly allowance anymore.

With your mother collecting a monthly VAC survivor's pension, and asking to be covered would be considered double dipping.  If every Veteran, and Survivor under the old system were to do this, I am sorry it would be taxing to the system.

Maybe you should actually call an insurance privider rather than using the net, to get a proper answer.  Try more than one.

That is my point.

dileas

tess

 

[284_226]

It does,

Your mother collects a monthly allowance.  This allowance under the old system was intended to offset any costs associated in the care of survivors.  Children up to the age of 18 are also given this allowance. Cost of care includes things as an insurance plan, medication etc.

The current plan offers a lump sum payment, rehab, and reintegration programs to allow the Veteran to obtain employment allowing them to be independent.  The family is offered PSHCP as they are not covered by a monthly allowance anymore.

We're not talking about injured members here.  We're talking about members who died as a result of military duty.

Today, a survivor receives the $250,000 lump sum as a Death Benefit under the New Charter.  The survivor is also eligible under the New Charter for the Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit ($1132.26 monthly non-taxable), which, when the survivor becomes the age of 65, is free from any income-related deduction.  The survivor is also eligible for PSHCP coverage.

Under the Old Charter, there was only the Survivor Benefit.  Oh, and VIP benefits, if the member was in receipt of VIP benefits at the time of death.  The member was the only person eligible for health care benefits under VIP.

With your mother collecting a monthly VAC survivor's pension, and asking to be covered would be considered double dipping.  If every Veteran, and Survivor under the old system were to do this, I am sorry it would be taxing to the system.

It's not double dipping, as was shown above.

Maybe you should actually call an insurance privider rather than using the net, to get a proper answer.  Try more than one.

That is my point.

We did call Blue Cross (and others) a long time ago to confirm her ineligibility for prescription coverage.  I only posted the link so you had something other than my word to go on.

As you can see, I've done my homework.  I've read the New Charter and the old benefits program, and know them inside and out.

If my father had passed away 4 1/2 years later than he did, my mother would've received $250,000, $1132/monthly non-taxable, and would've been handed the PSHCP on a silver platter.  As it stands now, my father spent 4 1/2 years less time in this world as a result of his military service, and my mother is only receiving the $1628 survivor benefit.

The Health Benefits provision under the New Charter, as it is drawn up, applies to the survivor of every veteran who died as a result of military service, not just those who died after 1 Apr 06.  The Health Benefit was included to bridge the gap that now exists between the old Charter and new Charter.

 

[the 48th regulator]

If my father had passed away 4 1/2 years later than he did, my mother would've received $250,000, $1132/monthly non-taxable, and would've been handed the PSHCP on a silver platter.  As it stands now, my father spent 4 1/2 years less time in this world as a result of his military service, and my mother is only receiving the $1628 survivor benefit.

The Health Benefits provision under the New Charter, as it is drawn up, applies to the survivor of every veteran who died as a result of military service, not just those who died after 1 Apr 06.  The Health Benefit was included to bridge the gap that now exists between the old Charter and new Charter.

This is rich, who told you this one?  I am sorry he would not have received a lump sum benefit, as he was awarded a pension in 2001 at 100%, do you not read what you type?  IF he had applied after April 1st, then he would have received a lump sum payment according to his ailment, not the full monty upon death?

What library did you do your homework in?  In fact, if your Mother made a claim under the new act for the death of your father and it was denied, why did you not appeal and then go to tribunal, or did you do that?

dileas

tess

 

[George Wallace]

Today, a survivor receives the $250,000 lump sum as a Death Benefit under the New Charter.  The survivor is also eligible under the New Charter for the Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit ($1132.26 monthly non-taxable), which, when the survivor becomes the age of 65, is free from any income-related deduction.  The survivor is also eligible for PSHCP coverage.

Could you clarify that?  I am under the impression right now that the $250,000 lump sum is it.....period!  No other monies after that.  A quarter million and a monthly non-taxible sum is even better than the Politicians have given themselves, and that sounds too good to be true to me.

 

[284_226]

This is rich, who told you this one?  I am sorry he would not have received a lump sum benefit, as he was awarded a pension in 2001 at 100%, do you not read what you type?  IF he had applied after April 1st, then he would have received a lump sum payment according to his ailment, not the full monty upon death?

I did indeed read what I typed.

I've already told you that the time that elapsed between his diagnosis (and pension application date) and the date of his death was six weeks.  His pension did not get approved until 6 months after his death.  Under the new Charter, any injury that results in the death of the member is automatically assessed as a 100% disability - and forms the basis for the death benefit, $250,000.

What library did you do your homework in?  In fact, if your Mother made a claim under the new act for the death of your father and it was denied, why did you not appeal and then go to tribunal, or did you do that?

Please go back and read the thread again, because you're asking questions to which I've already given you the answers.  He applied in Sep 01.  He died in Oct 01.  His pension was approved at a 100% rate in April 02.  The provisions of the New Charter clearly state that the survivor of any veteran who dies as a result of military service is eligible for PSHCP coverage.  The initial application for the pension was made under the old rules.  VAC is saying that because the PSHCP benefit is under the new Charter, it's not a benefit available to those under the old Charter, which is not what the new Charter says.  VAC says it's not open to appeal because it's an application for a benefit under the new Charter by a recipient under the old Charter.

 

[the 48th regulator]

284_226,

Listen carefully.  This is the "NEW VETERANS" Charter.  If you had done the homework you claim to have done, such as the Self-Screening Tool you would have found that if your father were alive, he too would have been ineligible, and fallen under the old system!

To me I see an opportunist that has convinced his mother that there is more out there than there is.  Your father passed on over five years ago, and was still awarded a pension of 100 percent.  Your mother has received a monthly allowance since then based on this amount.  Now a new charter intended to aid and integrate "New Vet's" who have been injured, and medically released so that they may integrate back into society and provide for their family, and you both are trying to gain something from that. 

You personally have an agenda against the Government and VAC, and are using this to tie them up.  There I have thrown it on the table.  I am a Veteran that was wounded in action, and If my injuries will end up being my demise in the future, I too hope that my family will take an aggressive action as yours, to help my wife.  However, I do not see that you have used the system as it was designed.  As I asked did you appeal and go to a tribunal, or your mother?

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

I'm going to post the CANFORGEN once again,

CANFORGEN 031/06 ADM(HR-MIL) 013 211025Z FEB 06
APPLICATIONS FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE PENSION ACT AND THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER
UNCLASSIFIED

THIS MESSAGE WAS PREPARED BY ADM(HR-MIL)/DQOL IN CONSULTATION WITH VETERANS AFFAIRS CANADA (VAC)

THE CANADIAN FORCES MEMBERS AND VETERANS RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPENSATION ACT WAS ENACTED ON 13 MAY 05. COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE QUOTE NEW VETERANS CHARTER (NVC) ENDQUOTE THIS LEGISLATION WILL REPLACE THE PENSION ACT FOR DISABILITY CLAIMS RELATED TO MILITARY SERVICE THAT ARE SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER THE COMING-INTO-FORCE DATE OF 1 APR 06. THE PENSION ACT AND THE NVC ARE ADMINISTERED BY VAC

CF MEMBERS AND VETERANS WHO HAVE A SERVICE-RELATED MEDICAL DISABILITY FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NOT YET SUBMITTED A CLAIM HAVE UNTIL 31 MAR 06 TO APPLY FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE PENSION ACT. ALTERNATIVELY, THEY MAY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AFTER THAT DATE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE NVC

CF MEMBERS AND VETERANS WHO ALREADY QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE PENSION ACT WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THOSE BENEFITS AFTER THE NVC COMES INTO FORCE. A MEMBER OR VETERAN WHO HAS APPLIED FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE PENSION ACT BUT HAS NOT YET RECEIVED A PENSION DECISION MAY WITHDRAW THE APPLICATON AND RE-SUBMIT IT UNDER THE NVC

TO APPLY FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE PENSION ACT, A VALID APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED THAT IS EITHER POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED BY VAC ON OR BEFORE 31 MAR 06. AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY HAND, MAIL OR FACSIMILE IS ACCEPTABLE BUT A VERBAL INQUIRY OR TELEPHONE CALL TO VAC IS NOT. TO BE CONSIDERED VALID, AN APPLICATION MUST CONTAIN THE CLIENT S NAME, ADDRESS, DATE OF BIRTH AND THE NAME OF THE CLAIMED DISABILITY, AND BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT OR PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACT ON THEIR BEHALF. APPLICANTS WILL NORMALLY HAVE 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE VAC RECEIVES THE APPLICATION TO PROVIDE THE REMAINDER OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PROCESS THEIR CLAIM OR THEY WILL LOSE THE RIGHT TO APPLY UNDER THE PENSION ACT. IN THAT EVENT, APPLICANTS MAY APPLY UNDER THE NVC

CF MEMBERS AND VETERANS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY UNDER EITHER THE PENSION ACT OR NVC HAVE ONLY A SHORT TIME TO EXERCISE THAT CHOICE AND SHOULD WEIGH THE BENEFITS OF EACH OPTION CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING A DECISION. INFORMATION ABOUT THE NVC IS PROVIDED ON THE VAC WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.VAC-ACC.GC.CA. THE LINK ENTITLED QUOTE APPLY NOW OR LATER ENDQUOTE ADDRESSES THE CHOICE BETWEEN BENEFITS UNDER THE PENSION ACT AND THE NVC, AND THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ALSO IDENTIFY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN MAKING THE DECISION. INFORMATION ON PROCESS AND BENEFITS CAN ALSO BE OBTAINED BY CALLING THE VAC TOLL-FREE LINE IN ENGLISH AT 1-866-522-2122 OR IN FRENCH AT 1-866-522-2022

COMMANDING OFFICERS ARE ASKED TO ENSURE THAT THIS MESSAGE IS DISSEMINATED WIDELY

This has been addressed in this forum before, and the "news" that pers who are collecting monthly cheques from VAC do not qualify for the lump sum etc of the NVC is not new.

Any pers/survivors who filed claims on or before 31 Mar 06, are handled under the Pension Act.

Any pers/survivors who file claims after the coming into force date of 01 Apr 06, of the New Veterans Charter (NVC) are handled quite separately under the NVC.

So you qualify for treatment under one or the other, dependant upon the date the application was made.

Veterans/Survivors who were in receipt of Pension Act benefits upon the enaction of the NVC, do not qualify to collect additional lump sump payments under the NVC.

Veterans/Survivors who apply after CIF date of NVC, will receive the benefits laid out under it's legislation and like-wise, are not entitled to collect any monthly awards/payments that fall under the auspices of the Pension Act.

You get one or the other....not both.

Can we lock this up now mods? It's been beat to death.

 

[284_226]

Could you clarify that?  I am under the impression right now that the $250,000 lump sum is it.....period!  No other monies after that.  A quarter million and a monthly non-taxible sum is even better than the Politicians have given themselves, and that sounds too good to be true to me.

It's in the new Charter - http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF.

$250,000 is the Death benefit.

28. The Minister may, on application made within the prescribed time, pay a Canadian Forces income support benefit to a veteran’s survivor if the veteran was in receipt of that benefit at the time of their death and if

(a) the veteran dies as the result of an injury or a disease other than an injury or a disease described in paragraph 29(a);
(b) the survivor meets the prescribed employment-related criteria; and
(c) in the month in which the application is made, a calculation made under subsection 37(1) in respect of the survivor would result in an amount greater than zero.

So if a member is in receipt of an Income Support benefit at the time of their death, and but dies from a non-service related illness or disease, the survivor is eligible for Income Support.  In this case, benefits are income-tested.  Of course, they won't have received the $250,000 death benefit in this case.

29. The Minister may, on application, pay a Canadian Forces income support benefit to a member’s or a veteran’s survivor if

(a) the member or veteran dies as a result of
    (i) a service-related injury or disease, or
    (ii) a non-service-related injury or disease that was aggravated by service; and

(b) on the day on which the application is approved, the member or veteran, if alive, would be at least 65 years of age.

So, the injury or disease is service-related, or non-service-related but aggravated by service, then the Income Support benefit is payable if the member was 65 or older at the time of death, and is not income-tested or taxable.  That's what I was getting at with the scenario involving my parents.  If the same scenario had unfolded 4 1/2 years later - after 1 Apr 06 - instead of receiving the Survivor benefit under the old Charter, she would have received the Death Benefit and the Income Support benefit, because my father would have been over 65 years of age at the time.

The survivor of a member who dies now (under the new Charter) may also be eligible for Earnings Loss Benefit, subject to income-testing  payable until the member would have been age 65.

As an aside, the Death Benefit wording is one of the flaws in the new Charter.  If a member is critically injured today, but lives for more than 30 days after the injury and then dies, the death benefit isn't payable - the disability amount is. 

 

[armyvern]

No.

 

[284_226]

284_226,

Listen carefully.  This is the "NEW VETERANS" Charter.  If you had done the homework you claim to have done, such as the Self-Screening Tool you would have found that if your father were alive, he too would have been ineligible, and fallen under the old system!

Now hold on a minute here.  It's interesting that you mention the self-screening tool.  Go to it now - it's at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/client_screening.

Enter "I am a spouse/common-law partner, survivor or dependent child of any of the above persons." at Step 1.

It should tell you "Spouses/common-law partners, survivors and dependent children of a CF Member/Veteran may also qualify for the programs and services available through the New Veterans Charter."

To me I see an opportunist that has convinced his mother that there is more out there than there is.  Your father passed on over five years ago, and was still awarded a pension of 100 percent.  Your mother has received a monthly allowance since then based on this amount.  Now a new charter intended to aid and integrate "New Vet's" who have been injured, and medically released so that they may integrate back into society and provide for their family, and you both are trying to gain something from that. 

You personally have an agenda against the Government and VAC, and are using this to tie them up.  There I have thrown it on the table.  I am a Veteran that was wounded in action, and If my injuries will end up being my demise in the future, I too hope that my family will take an aggressive action as yours, to help my wife.  However, I do not see that you have used the system as it was designed.  As I asked did you appeal and go to a tribunal, or your mother?

And as I told you, VAC says it's not open to appeal because it's an application for a benefit under the new Charter by a recipient under the old Charter.

As to the rest of your accusations, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.

 

[armyvern]

It's in the new Charter - http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF.

No actually it isn't. That's your interpretation of it.

Your mother was in receipt of benefits under the Pension Act on 01 Apr 06, therefore she is entitled to the death/survivor benefits that are applicable to the Pension Act.

My grandfather (a WWII Vet), on the other hand, has never applied for any benefits relating to his service, but just recently did so. Because he has done this since April 01 2006,  he and my grandmother therefore fall under the auspices of the NVC, they will not be receiving any monthly cheques.

 

[armyvern]

Enter "I am a spouse/common-law partner, survivor or dependent child of any of the above persons." at Step 1.

May be eligible....or did you miss that part?

It has been laid out for you. The may be eligible depends upon whether or not you were already bering handled under the auspices of the Pension Act (which your mother is) or whether you are a new applicant since the coming into force of the NVC.

 

[284_226]

I'm going to post the CANFORGEN once again,

Thank you for posting something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Veterans/Survivors who apply after CIF date of NVC, will receive the benefits laid out under it's legislation and like-wise, are not entitled to collect any monthly awards/payments that fall under the auspices of the Pension Act.

You get one or the other....not both.

That is NOT what the NVC says.  If you've been reading the intricacies of the legislation as I've been pointing it out, you'd see that there are benefits under the NVC that are CLEARLY applicable to those who were injured or died prior to 1 Apr 06.

Can we lock this up now mods? It's been beat to death.

If you don't like what you're reading, ignore it.  It doesn't make what I'm saying wrong.

 

[the 48th regulator]

As to the rest of your accusations, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.

Oh quelle surprise....

I call 'em as I see them.  You are tieing up the system period.  There have been numerous attempts to show you the err of your ways, however with your anger towards the system you are using this as a means of getting back at them.  I am sure you would not benefit in any way, would you now?

dileas

tess

 

[Trinity]

OK

So what we have here is ONE side  saying YES.
The other side saying No.

Neither side agrees with each others arguments.
No one is going to capitulate on their arguments here
(although after reading I know which side I think is correct)

284_226  Do whatever you feel is best.  Good luck.
I hope you can get benefits.

This really deserves a lock.  I think the only thing its tying up... as tess keeps saying

its tying up bandwidth

 

[the 48th regulator]

OK

So what we have here is ONE side  saying YES.
The other side saying No.

Neither side agrees with each others arguments.
No one is going to capitulate on their arguments here
(although after reading I know which side I think is correct)
284_226  Do whatever you feel is best.  Good luck.
I hope you can get benefits.

oh padre do tell, do tell

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

Thank you for posting something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Of course it must be, because it specifically mentions the two acts and eligibility based on your date of application, but then again, it doesn't back up your argument so of course you think it's irrelevant.

That is NOT what the NVC says.  If you've been reading the intricacies of the legislation as I've been pointing it out, you'd see that there are benefits under the NVC that are CLEARLY applicable to those who were injured or died prior to 1 Apr 06.
If you don't like what you're reading, ignore it.  It doesn't make what I'm saying wrong.

Again, you are wrong. You just don't like what you are reading and what you are being told.

Yes it does mention service prior to the CIF date, that would be in reference to past serving members such as my grandfather / his survivor who had never applied prior to 01 Apr, but are now only doing so.

By your argument all who collect the lump sum under the NVC should also be eligible to collect monthly benefits under the Pension Act, not the case.

 

[284_226]

No actually it isn't. That's your interpretation of it.

It's not interpretation, it's right there in black and white.

Your mother was in receipt of benefits under the Pension Act on 01 Apr 06, therefore she is entitled to the death/survivor benefits that are applicable to the Pension Act.

Answer me two questions:

Show me, precisely, where it says on the page at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF that none of the content of the Act applies to members injured/died prior to 1 Apr 06.

Explain to me why they bothered to include a clause at Section 6 which specifically excludes service prior to 1 Apr 1947 or during Korea from eligibility for Rehab services.  Korea and pre-1947 service would be before 1 Apr 06, would it not?

My grandfather (a WWII Vet), on the other hand, has never applied for any benefits relating to his service, but just recently did so. Because he has done this since April 01 2006,  he and my grandmother therefore fall under the auspices of the NVC, they will not be receiving any monthly cheques.

Irrelevant.  It's quite clear that applications made after 1 Apr 06 are dealt with under the new Charter.

 

[Trinity]

oh padre do tell, do tell

Sorry tess.

A chaplain doesn't take sides, but walks with each individual member
in their journey in their beliefs and understandings.  My job isn't to change
their mind but to simply be there.  ;D

 

[284_226]

Oh quelle surprise....

I call 'em as I see them.  You are tieing up the system period.  There have been numerous attempts to show you the err of your ways, however with your anger towards the system you are using this as a means of getting back at them.  I am sure you would not benefit in any way, would you now?

This oughta be good - do please explain to me how I could possibly benefit from getting PSHCP coverage for my 73 year old mother.