the 48th regulator said:
Do you even know how the process is done? If she makes a new claim, based on what she she believes she deserves, then this will be looked at. If denied she has the power to appeal. Do you even know how the process works? You really are out of control, and I feel for both MP's who have had to unfortunate pleasure of dealing with you, let alone VAC and any other Government body in your sights.
I'm quite conversant with how the process works. After all, I
did tell you that I was the one that assisted my father with the initial application, and assisted my mother with the appeal process when she was initially turned down. I must've done a fairly good job of getting my point across, since they reversed their decision and went from "benefits denied" to "100% disability".
Now, let
me explain how it works to YOU. One makes a new claim if one believes their
condition has worsened, or if they have a
new condition exacerbated by a pensioned condition, causing additional hardship/pain/loss of mobility/etc. Considering the claim was made by my father, do you honestly believe that we could successfully claim that he is any more
DEAD than he is right now?? That, sir, is the explanation gave to me when we initially raised questions about PSHCP coverage in April 2006. In
THIS case, it is not a new CLAIM that is submitted, because there is no change in the member's health - he's still
DEAD. In this case, it is a mere application for PSHCP coverage that is submitted - the form at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/programs/ghi - and the result of that application was that she was deemed to be ineligible and there is no appeal process because there is no additional disability being claimed. Even BPA says that's a fair assessment, and their job is appeals. Got it?
I am sorry, but I will have to break the sites rules with this statement. You Son, are a tool. Plain and simple, a tool. In fact I will call you a wedge the most basic of them all. You are trying to "Wedge" yourself in anyway you can, into benefits not designed for your Mother. Why, because of your own personal agendas. You come here spewing your rhetoric, and when we try to offer our opinion and advice you attack us.
I did NOT come here with any sort of agenda. Any suggestion that there is some sort of hidden agenda in play is nothing short of a product of your overworked imagination. Why else would you have gone to the lengths of making an accusation that I was ACTUALLY the fella from Gagetown that was released for kidney stones, and I was on some mad hunt for money? I also
did not come here seeking your opinion or your advice - I spent a great deal of time writing and re-writing my initial post so as to address the concerns you and the site owner raised. I made it quite clear that I was only seeking to advise others who are in a similar position that they should take up the issue with their MP, because VAC's front line workers made it quite clear that they believed the eligibility criteria were interpreted properly and that the only people who could change that interpretation were those who drafted it - the committees and Members of Parliament.
Go on and trundle off somewhere else with your crusade, and may you one day understand that you are hurting all of us Veterans with your agenda. Don't sugar coat it with the fact your helping dear old mum, as it is plain why you want this to work in your her favour. I should put you on ignore, as I have been advised, which may shut you up. However the part about me, that had to suffer with appeals due to delays brought by the likes of you, just won't allow me to let go.
What agenda? Is getting VAC to properly interpret and apply their own piece of legislation an agenda? You STILL insist that I'm getting something out of this - why don't you grow a pair and say what it is? Do tell me what I could possibly gain from ensuring that a veteran's survivor gets a benefit that a recent change in legislation grants.
You're b*tching at the wrong person. Don't take it out on me, and don't take it out on the members of this forum. Your problem is with Veterans Affairs and insufficient staff in their offices to complete the workload presented to them. Feel free to take it out on your MP. But don't you DARE take aim at me for helping someone make a legitimate claim for a benefit that is available to them under VAC legislation. I am sincerely sympathetic to any difficulties you're having with VAC as a result of your clearly service-related disability, as well as anyone else's - but your quarrel is not with me, it's with VAC and the people who write legislation in this country.
I strongly suggest you take the advice of whoever is advising you to engage your "ignore" button. Evidently you have a problem with target identification.
