Attn: Veterans/survivors of veterans

[armyvern]

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

And you can't see it for the paper it's written on.

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?

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

I already did, it's there for Veterans like my grandfather who are only now applying, and who neither applied for nor received anything prior to 01 Apr 06. And you know what, there's still alot of them out there that fall into that category. Unfortunatly, your mother is not one of them. (edited to add: or else the self-assement for elibility tool would not read "May" qualify; by your own reasoning it should read..."you all qualify").

 

[Trinity]

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

THEN WHY continue to argue about it.  Just go apply and continue to fight for
the benefits you thing that are owed to you/your mom.

Trying to convince tess and vern isn't going to change anything...  literally NOTHING.

 

[the 48th regulator]

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

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.

God forbid anything happeneing, but I am sure you wouldn't get anything, eh?

dileas

tess

 

[284_226]

THEN WHY continue to argue about it.  Just go apply and continue to fight for
the benefits you thing that are owed to you/your mom.

Why?  Because vern is arguing apples and oranges.  This isn't about an application that was made after 1 Apr 06.  It's about legislation that came into effect on 1 Apr 06 that not only affects those injured or who die after the implementation date, but also affects those that were injured or died any time after Korea!

Geez, even TBS knows what's going on, because in their PSHCP Directive dated 1 Apr 06 (to coincide with the coming into force of the NVC), it CLEARLY states that survivors of veterans who died as a result of military service (with NO DATE CAVEATS) are eligible for PSHCP coverage.

Trying to convince tess and vern isn't going to change anything...  literally NOTHING.

Then they may as well stop questioning what's right there in black and white.  Leave the thread open, and I'll be sure to provide updates as I forge forward through the bureaucratic red tape.

 

[284_226]

God forbid anything happeneing, but I am sure you wouldn't get anything, eh?

Now that was completely uncalled for.  At no point did I EVER claim that my mother should be eligible for the Death Benefit.  I used the example to illustrate precisely why the PSHCP eligibility was thrown into the NVC - because it narrows the gap between benefits of the new and old Charters.

Cheap shot, tess.

 

[armyvern]

Why?  Because vern is arguing apples and oranges.  This isn't about an application that was made after 1 Apr 06.  It's about legislation that came into effect on 1 Apr 06 that not only affects those injured or who die after the implementation date, but also affects those that were injured or died any time after Korea!

yeah OK.

but also affects those that were injured or died any time after Korea

who had not already been in receipt of claims under the Pension act. Ergo the "may be eligible for benefits clause."

Geez, even TBS knows what's going on, because in their PSHCP Directive dated 1 Apr 06 (to coincide with the coming into force of the NVC), it CLEARLY states that survivors of veterans who died as a result of military service (with NO DATE CAVEATS) are eligible for PSHCP coverage.

provided those veterans were not already being handled under the Pension Act.

 

[niner domestic]

Point of clarification please? Did I understand you correctly that your mother is NOT eligible for drug coverage under the drug plan for seniors in Ontario?

 

[284_226]

Point of clarification please? Did I understand you correctly that your mother is NOT eligible for drug coverage under the drug plan for seniors in Ontario?

She is covered by the Ontario Drug Benefit.  However, the list of medications covered is very limited, and there are several that would be covered under PSHCP that aren't under ODB (think cancer).  Additionally, if she had PSHCP coverage, she (like anyone else that has two coverages) can submit a claim for a hearing aid, for example, have the first $300 covered under one coverage, and submit the remainder to PSHCP up to the limits of coverage under PSHCP.

 

[niner domestic]

Why not just claim under med expenses in the Income Tax Act, the additional expenses and reduce her tax liability on pensions/income? 

 

[armyvern]

ODB doesn't cover the cost of cancer drugs in Ontario because that role is fille by "Cancer Care Ontario" who provide the coverage for cancer-specific drugs.

 

[284_226]

who had not already been in receipt of claims under the Pension act. Ergo the "may be eligible for benefits clause."

No, that's not what it means.  We were clearly told that if my father was still alive, he would be eligible for Rehab benefits under the New Charter, despite his pre-existing relationship under the old Charter and disability benefit.

provided those veterans were not already being handled under the Pension Act.

The PSHCP Directive doesn't say that.  Show me where it says that.

Edited first paragraph to add "despite..."

 

[284_226]

ODB doesn't cover the cost of cancer drugs in Ontario because that role is fille by "Cancer Care Ontario" who provide the coverage for cancer-specific drugs.

Cancer Care Ontario only provides funding for intravenous drugs.

 

[284_226]

Why not just claim under med expenses in the Income Tax Act, the additional expenses and reduce her tax liability on pensions/income? 

I'm not terribly familiar with her tax situation, so I can't tell you if she's doing that or not.  Don't you have to go over a certain amount of spending before being able to claim med expenses?

 

[284_226]

I must say, I'm a little surprised by a few of the responses in this thread.  At the beginning of the thread, I made it clear that this was about PSHCP coverage, and only PSHCP coverage.  The eligibility arises from the New Veterans Charter.  I've laid out my case, clarified points as necessary, and even managed to get a couple of Members of Parliament onboard.

It's been suggested that the NVC is only for those who were injured or died as a result of service-related causes after the implementation date of 1 April 06.  Well, none of the legislation or directives contain any reference to that.  Not one.  What they do make reference to is the date that PSHCP eligibility begins, and that date is 1 April 2006.  To me, that means that someone who fits into one of the eligibility groups gained eligibility to join PSHCP on that date, and has nothing to do with the date of the member's death.

Some have asked about whether coverage was obtained under Blue Cross, ODB, or other avenues.  I answered the questions, but that's not really what this is all about.  It's about gaining a benefit for all veterans/survivors, or more accurately, getting VAC to apply their legislation as it is written.  I seriously doubt that anyone retiring from the CF these days is refusing participation in PSHCP because they'll have company health coverage with their next employer.  It enhances the coverage, and the two plans complement each other - and any enhancement is worthwhile in my books.

If there's anyone out there that thinks a 73 year old survivor of a former servicemember who died as a result of service-related exposure to asbestos isn't deserving of having VAC provide PSHCP coverage, then I'd like to hear about it.  If you're arguing with me, that's what you're saying.

 

[George Wallace]

I must say, I'm a little surprised by a few of the responses in this thread.  At the beginning of the thread, I made it clear that this was about PSHCP coverage, and only PSHCP coverage.  The eligibility arises from the New Veterans Charter.  I've laid out my case, clarified points as necessary, and even managed to get a couple of Members of Parliament onboard.
..............
If there's anyone out there that thinks a 73 year old survivor of a former servicemember who died as a result of service-related exposure to asbestos isn't deserving of having VAC provide PSHCP coverage, then I'd like to hear about it.  If you're arguing with me, that's what you're saying.

As you are more or less 'demanding' these entitlements, I have a question for you.  As you have pointed out, members now retiring are not likely to refuse "participation in PSHCP", I would also like to point out to you that they will have elected to continue to pay contributions towards PSHCP.  That is quite different from someone who has not paid a cent towards these benefits.

If you do not elect to participate in PSHCP on Release, you have a one year period of grace, after which you can no longer apply to participate in the plan should you change your mind. 

Now you want someone who has never paid into the plan to receive benefits.  Do you see where you are wrong yet?

 

[muskrat89]

At the beginning of the thread, I made it clear that this was about PSHCP coverage, and only PSHCP coverage.  The eligibility arises from the New Veterans Charter.  I've laid out my case, clarified points as necessary, and even managed to get a couple of Members of Parliament onboard.

So what is it you want of this site? You've made your position known.

I think if this site is going to be nothing more than a venue to pursue your own cause, then you need to go away (voluntarily or otherwise) and create your own site on which to wage war on VAC or whomever.

Note to all - this thread is close to being locked.

 

[284_226]

As you are more or less 'demanding' these entitlements, I have a question for you.  As you have pointed out, members now retiring are not likely to refuse "participation in PSHCP", I would also like to point out to you that they will have elected to continue to pay contributions towards PSHCP.  That is quite different from someone who has not paid a cent towards these benefits.

So, what you're saying is that the survivor of someone who dies as a result of military service today, who is eligible for PSHCP coverage and has never paid a cent into it, shouldn't be?  They do deduct premiums from monthly pension payments, you know.

If you do not elect to participate in PSHCP on Release, you have a one year period of grace, after which you can no longer apply to participate in the plan should you change your mind.

Which is irrelevant, really.  The benefit is there, you've chosen to opt out of it.

Now you want someone who has never paid into the plan to receive benefits.  Do you see where you are wrong yet?

Any of the spouses of the servicemembers who have been killed in Afghanistan since 1 April 2006 are clearly eligible for PSHCP coverage, according to VAC, and I strongly suspect none of them have ever paid into it.  Are you really saying that's wrong?

 

[284_226]

So what is it you want of this site? You've made your position known.

I think if this site is going to be nothing more than a venue to pursue your own cause, then you need to go away (voluntarily or otherwise) and create your own site on which to wage war on VAC or whomever.

Note to all - this thread is close to being locked.

So discussion of an issue related to veteran's benefits is over the line for this forum?  Are you saying that the use of this forum to raise awareness of veterans issues, in the hopes that perhaps others in the same situation might be able to bring about change (or follow existing policy properly, for that matter), is above the purview of this forum?

It's not my cause.  If my mother were the only person in Canada who appears to be eligible for PSHCP coverage, but is being denied by VAC, then you could say it's my cause.  It's not my cause.  I'd venture a guess and say there are many veterans and survivors in exactly the same situation - who should be eligible for coverage but are not.  Some of them might even be on this forum.  I'd say most aren't even aware.

So, lock it if you must, but be sure you're locking it for the right reason.

 

[George Wallace]

So, what you're saying is that the survivor of someone who dies as a result of military service today, who is eligible for PSHCP coverage and has never paid a cent into it, shouldn't be? 

What kind of idiotic comment is this?  They are eligible because they have paid into the plan.  Where have you been hiding?

They do deduct premiums from monthly pension payments, you know.

Yes, we all know that.  Does your mother (or father's pension) pay these same premiums?

Which is irrelevant, really.  The benefit is there, you've chosen to opt out of it.

 
It is relevant to current plan holders.  As your father was not a plan contributer, why do you expect benefits?

Any of the spouses of the servicemembers who have been killed in Afghanistan since 1 April 2006 are clearly eligible for PSHCP coverage, according to VAC, and I strongly suspect none of them have ever paid into it.  Are you really saying that's wrong?

Don't be so assine.  The spouse is covered under this plan.  Again, where have you been?  Obviously you really don't know anything about the PSHCP and are trying to get a free ride. 

 

[muskrat89]

but be sure you're locking it for the right reason

That's between myself and the owner of the site.

discussion of an issue

You're not discussing, you're obsessing/ranting/lecturing

use of this forum to raise awareness of veterans issues,

There are many on these means that are genuinely interested and knowledgeable in Veteran's Issues, and these issues are indeed important to many members. This is, however, Army.ca not Veterans.ca  If this issue is as important as you say, and you are as passionate as you say, I'd be interested in seeing the website that you created to specifically educate the masses, as you are trying to do here. Certainly, for such an important issue, you have been willing to invest your own time and financing in a website for which this cause is the primary goal - as opposed to this site... As you are aware, this site is paid for and operated by someone else, and although some discussion on Veteran's Affairs is welcome, I don't think that it was the intent of the owner to make it a grand stand for an individual that seems to believe that the process is flawed, and seems unwilling or uninterested to discuss much else.