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

Attn: Veterans/survivors of veterans

George Wallace said:
What kind of idiot are you?  They are eligible because they have paid into the plan.  Where have you been hiding?

The survivor hasn't paid into the plan, George.  The survivor.

Yes, we all know that.  Does your mother pay these same premiums?

If VAC followed their own piece of legislation, I'm sure they would deduct premiums from her monthly pension payments.
 
It is relevant to current plan holders.  As your father was not a plan contributer, why do you expect benefits?

What are you talking about?  Participants in the plan can start submitting claims right after they become eligible.  You don't have to pay into it for umpteen years before you can start claiming on it, right?

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. 

Wrong.  Under the old Charter, if the member dies, eligibility for spouse and dependants ceases.  The only way a spouse or survivor could become eligible themselves was to be in receipt of an ongoing recognized survivor's or children's benefit.  (That's right out of my PSHCP handbook dated 1 Jul 2001).  Under the new Charter, eligibility for the PSHCP is guaranteed by the Charter.
 
284_226 said:
What are you talking about?  Participants in the plan can start submitting claims right after they become eligible.  You don't have to pay into it for umpteen years before you can start claiming on it, right?

So are you saying you mother (or your father's pension) contributes to the plan?
 
284_226 said:
The survivor hasn't paid into the plan, George.  The survivor.
Again, an asinine comment.  The survivor/dependant has paid into the plan via the spouses deductions.

284_226 said:
If VAC followed their own piece of legislation, I'm sure they would deduct premiums from her monthly pension payments.
She would have had to made the application to do so, as I am positive it would not be an automatic change to an existing policy. 

284_226 said:
Wrong.  Under the old Charter, if the member dies, eligibility for spouse and dependants ceases.  The only way a spouse or survivor could become eligible themselves was to be in receipt of an ongoing recognized survivor's or children's benefit.  (That's right out of my PSHCP handbook dated 1 Jul 2001).  Under the new Charter, eligibility for the PSHCP is guaranteed by the Charter.

So.  There is your answer.  I would hope that you read the latest version of the PSHCP handbook that has come out with policy changes, rather than one that is six years old and several versions out of date.
 
George Wallace said:
So are you saying you mother (or your father's pension) contributes to the plan?

My father doesn't get a pension.  He's dead.  My mother gets a Survivor's pension, out of which she would have PSHCP premiums deducted if she were allowed to become a participant like the legislation says she's supposed to.
 
George Wallace said:
Again, an asinine comment.  The survivor/dependant has paid into the plan via the spouses deductions.

What??  I pay into PSHCP right now, and I pay the premium for my wife's coverage.  She makes no contributions whatsoever.  If I were to die, under the old Charter, she would NOT automatically become a participant.

She would have had to made the application to do so, as I am positive it would not be an automatic change to an existing policy.

She did apply, and was denied, with the reason stated as being the date of my father's death being before 1 Apr 06, the implementation date of the Charter.  This is wrong, as the Charter makes no such stipulation.

So.  There is your answer.  I would hope that you read the latest version of the PSHCP handbook that has come out with policy changes, rather than one that is six years old and several versions out of date.

Stick with me here.  I read it out of an old book deliberately so that you would know the information about eligibility was about the OLD Charter and not the new one.
 
muskrat89 said:
You're not discussing, you're obsessing/ranting/lecturing

Yes, I'm discussing.  Actually, I'm repeating myself because people keep asking questions I've already answered, but that's besides the point.  People are bringing up points that are patently wrong, in an attempt to find some kind of flaw in legislation that's right there in black and white, that says survivors of members who die as a result of military service are eligible for participation in the PSHCP.

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

Are there not a significant number of members here who are veterans?  If I'm reading right, you're a veteran.  'Nuff said.

  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...

I'm not in the website business.  I'd have thought this would have been an excellent avenue for communication with persons/members who are in a similar situation, but it doesn't appear to be so.

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.

Come on, that's a perfect straw man.  The cost and operation aren't really the issues here, are they?  This forum is littered with other individuals who've raised valid concerns, only to piled on by certain groups of people who never seem to be wrong.  I come in with a valid concern, on topic to the forum, clearly state my points, and when people fire erroneous information back at me, I'm supposed to sit back and go "Hmm...ok"?  If you've got a point to make, back it up with fact.  I have.
 
Considering no one decide to listen to my post a few pages
back saying... certain individuals will not listen to other individuals,

HOW ABOUT we use of one our plentiful lawyers that resides on
the site to make a professional opinion......


NINER  ;D

What is your take off of this?

EDIT.. not to insult anyone... really.  Just.. it seem IMO that
the only way to end this is someone who can weed through this
and find an answer..
 
Trinity said:
Considering no one decide to listen to my post a few pages
back saying... certain individuals will not listen to other individuals,

Oh, I'm listening...how else could I be able to point out the errors in George's points?  :)

HOW ABOUT we use of one our plentiful lawyers that resides on
the site to make a professional opinion......


NINER  ;D

What is your take off of this?

I'd be interested to hear as well.

Edit:  As a matter of fact, I'm prepared to "wait out" to see if someone can shed light on this.  There ya go  :)
 
284_226 said:
Oh, I'm listening...how else could I be able to point out the errors in George's points?  :)

How very interesting.

You haven't pointed out much to me, except your incessant manner.  I could continue to ask you questions, but it is like asking a child questions one little tidbit at a time.  You are very tiring. 

If your mother has been denied benefits in the new program because she does not qualify, accept the fact.  If your mother is already receiving benefits from the old plan, be happy with that and don't try to 'double dip'.  You have the PSHCP documents and still insist on warping the fine print to suit your personal desires.  I really don't care to listen to your prattle any more.

Good luck in your future endeavors.
 
George Wallace said:
If your mother has been denied benefits in the new program because she does not qualify, accept the fact.

Because VAC, a bureaucratic organization, has never been wrong before, right?

Good luck in your future endeavors.

Thanks.
 
At least if she gets a pension under the old system she is one better then me.. I don't qualify for my pension till I am considered disabled by a doctor and that will take another year and half at least to see what returns to me and what doesn't. Son I think you should feel lucky your mother gets anything, personally I am of a firm belief that pensions end with the person who qualified.

all IMO of course
 
HitorMiss said:
At least if she gets a pension under the old system she is one better then me.. I don't qualify for my pension till I am considered disabled by a doctor and that will take another year and half at least to see what returns to me and what doesn't.

I'm sorry to hear that.  In this specific case, though - it's hard to argue that death is anything but a 100% disability, right?

Son I think you should feel lucky your mother gets anything, personally I am of a firm belief that pensions end with the person who qualified.

So, assuming you're married, when you finally do become eligible for a pension, you'll be sending the Spousal amount back, right?  :)

No offence intended - just illustrating a point.  Hope things work out for you sooner than later, and without the hassle we had to go through.
 
284_226 said:
I'm sorry to hear that.  In this specific case, though - it's hard to argue that death is anything but a 100% disability, right?

No death is death and is covered by other functions in the CF for those serving. However dying does not then mean that your mother is entitled to 100% disabilty stauts just cause so and so is now dead.


284_226 said:
So, assuming you're married, when you finally do become eligible for a pension, you'll be sending the Spousal amount back, right?

You missed my point. The Canadian government is incredibly generous to let anyone other then the disabled person recieve penion benifits. As in I should recieve X amount and thats it just for my injuries, no spousal benifits nothing for my daughter when I die. Just stuff for me until I die.

284_226 said:
No offence intended - just illustrating a point.  Hope things work out for you sooner than later, and without the hassle we had to go through.

Trust me lad you couldn't insult me on my worst day. I really could careless in the in end. Illustrate your point all you like but the letter of the law as the Lawyers who work for VAC say's your wrong and I'm pretty sure they are confident enough to go to court over it.

Things worked out for me because I made them work out, I didn't sit on a website and whine, I addressed to problem head on and took my own time and alot of my own effort to achieve my goals.
 
HitorMiss said:
No death is death and is covered by other functions in the CF for those serving. However dying does not then mean that your mother is entitled to 100% disabilty stauts just cause so and so is now dead.

Well, VAC (and umpteen civilian LTD plans) disagree with you.  Spousal amounts are par for the course.

You missed my point. The Canadian government is incredibly generous to let anyone other then the disabled person recieve penion benifits. As in I should recieve X amount and thats it just for my injuries, no spousal benifits nothing for my daughter when I die. Just stuff for me until I die.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  Not sure many would agree with you though.

Trust me lad you couldn't insult me on my worst day. I really could careless in the in end. Illustrate your point all you like but the letter of the law as the Lawyers who work for VAC say's your wrong and I'm pretty sure they are confident enough to go to court over it.

And they may have to do just that.  The unfortunate part is, up until now, both Peter Stoffer and I have been dealing with the Client Services department at VAC.  Even he's frustrated with attempts to communicate with anyone higher than low-level management.  We're dealing with people who work from scripts.  It'd be great if we could communicate with somebody higher, perhaps in their legal department, but they just aren't set up that way.  That's why I was advised to write the Minister of Veterans Affairs directly.

Things worked out for me because I made them work out, I didn't sit on a website and whine, I addressed to problem head on and took my own time and alot of my own effort to achieve my goals.

Oh, rest assured that the letter to the Ministers of Veterans Affairs and DND are already on their way in the mail.  And I will win.

BTW, maybe it's just me, but I do take it as odd that someone who is only 28 is calling me "son" and "lad" at the age of 40.  You a Newf?
 
284_226 said:
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.

284_226 said:
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.


284_226 said:
Oh, rest assured that the letter to the Ministers of Veterans Affairs and DND are already on their way in the mail.  And I will win.

BTW, maybe it's just me, but I do take it as odd that someone who is only 28 is calling me "son" and "lad" at the age of 40.  You a Newf?

Nope not a cheap shot, in fact a very expensive one.

Your Honor I rest my case.

You Lad, are a sorry example of what a Canadian is.  To speak to two injured Veterans that have to suffer through delays because of the likes of you.  For shame, and you get the hopes up of your dear mother.

Aren't your stones bothering you yet?

dileas

tess
 
the 48th regulator said:
Nope not a cheap shot, in fact a very expensive one.

Your Honor I rest my case.

You Lad, are a sorry example of what a Canadian is.

Oh, spare me.  I've served 21 years and counting, and have forgotten more than many will ever know about what it is to be a Canadian.

To speak to two injured Veterans that have to suffer through delays because of the likes of you.

I had no idea telling two injured veterans that I think they're wrong about something constituted abusive behaviour.

For shame, and you get the hopes up of your dear mother.

She's quite fine with what I'm doing.  She's not the type to fight, and probably wouldn't even have appealed the VAC decision about the disability pension without me helping her out.

Aren't your stones bothering you yet?

No, but feel free to ask me in 15 years or so when I retire from the CF.

 
She's not the type to fight, and probably wouldn't even have appealed the VAC decision about the disability pension without me helping her out.

Then answer me that, as  you still have not.  Has your mother appealed the decision and gone to a tribunal?

dileas

tess


 
the 48th regulator said:
Then answer me that, as  you still have not.  Has your mother appealed the decision and gone to a tribunal?

I've answered you twice, actually.

VAC will not allow an appeal because there's nothing TO appeal.  I asked about appealing it and got gobbledegook about it not being a case of being denied, it's that she's ineligible in their thinking.  If the appeal avenue was available, I'd take it.  VAC told me to contact my MP if I wanted it looked into further.
 
284_226 said:
I've answered you twice, actually.

VAC will not allow an appeal because there's nothing TO appeal.  I asked about appealing it and got gobbledegook about it not being a case of being denied, it's that she's ineligible in their thinking.  If the appeal avenue was available, I'd take it.  VAC told me to contact my MP if I wanted it looked into further.

Six Pages.  Six Pages.  ::)
 
VAC will not allow an appeal because there's nothing TO appeal.

Exactly

STOP MAKING IT HARD FOR US NEW VETERANS BY BOGGIN' UP THE SYTEM.

YOUR MOTHER COLLECTS A SUBSTANIONAL PENSION FROM VAC, USE THAT TO SUPPORT HER!!!



there I have said it.

dileas

tess
 
Back
Top