Should Soldiers Receive VAC Services while Deploying?

[riggermade]

While I agree to most of what Paul says I think alot of the problem is the mentality in the CoC.  I myself got out before it went to a medical release, a huge part due to the way I was treated because of physical disabilities that although not visible were there.  After many years of jumping I have arthritis in every major joint and degenerative disc disease.  Because it was not visible I was considered a slacker and being a WO you get crap from above and disrespect from below.  I did four tours and there was no fanfare about what we did, Afghanistan has brought to light alot of problems that have never been dealt with before.

I have some issues with VA as I am sure many do and I find that being released and not medically has caused me alot of problems with getting help from VA.

My biggest complaint is with serving members receiving VA help and then going on tour to Afghanistan.  If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VA help.  I have voiced this to people at VA and am always told it doesn't happen but I personally know people doing it.

Paul I wish you well in your future endeavours and keep up the fight

edit to clarify thread title

 

[the 48th regulator]

My biggest complaint is with serving members receiving VA help and then going on tour to Afghanistan.  If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VA help.  I have voiced this to people at VA and am always told it doesn't happen but I personally know people doing it.

Paul I wish you well in your future endeavours and keep up the fight

Some of the services provided by VAC, for those that are injured and still serving, cover expenses for the member that the military does not cover.  i,e, Psychologist.  Also, if the member is diagnosed with a mental injury, and receives a VAC pension, their family members are entitled to treatment being paid for by VAC.  The Military, and Provincial health plans do not cover this.

So before you moan to VAC, realize there are a broad spectrum of services, that benefit serving members and their families that are not covered by anyone else.  It took too long for people to fight for these services, we don't need uneducated Soapboxing to destroy these services.

dileas

tess

 

[riggermade]

Some of the services provided by VAC, for those that are injured and still serving, cover expenses for the member that the military does not cover.  i,e, Psychologist.  Also, if the member is diagnosed with a mental injury, and receives a VAC pension, their family members are entitled to treatment being paid for by VAC.  The Military, and Provincial health plans do not cover this.

So before you moan to VAC, realize there are a broad spectrum of services, that benefit serving members and their families that are not covered by anyone else.  It took too long for people to fight for these services, we don't need uneducated Soapboxing to destroy these services.


tess

I am not uneducated and I am not soapboxing and who do you think you are to comment to that effect? I agree that there is  conditions that require help but there are people who ar double dipping and if you think it is not happening then you best pull your head out of wherever it is.

When a member is receiving a VA pension for let's say a bad back but they are fit enough to do multiple tours you don't think there is a problem with the system?

 

[the 48th regulator]

I am not uneducated and I am not soapboxing and who do you think you are to comment to that effect? I agree that there is  conditions that require help but there are people who ar double dipping and if you think it is not happening then you best pull your head out of wherever it is.

When a member is receiving a VA pension for let's say a bad back but they are fit enough to do multiple tours you don't think there is a problem with the system?

It is not double dipping and it is not compensatory in the sense it replaces the wages lost.  It is an award for the pain and suffering one receives due to an injury.  Pull your head out of whatever it is you have it, and get your facts straight before you pontificate on behalf of the downtrodden.

The problems with the system are slowly being fixed, and if you want to help, get informed and understand what the VAC system is about, before you come on here piping up how you think you are championing some sort of crack within the system.

dileas

tess

 

[riggermade]

You have your opinion and I have mine.  If you can go on tour then why do you need a pension from VA?  I am not championing anything I am voicing my opinion and if you have a problem with that...tough. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

You have your opinion and I have mine.  If you can go on tour then why do you need a pension from VA?  I am not championing anything I am voicing my opinion and if you have a problem with that...tough. 

No no,

It is not a matter of hiding behind opinion.  The fact is that VAC is a method of compensating for the pain and suffering, and a system to allow a soldier to carry on with their lives.

You want to roll back that system that people like me have pushed hard to clean up.  Every single soldier that has been wounded deserves to be paid, and to be serviced.  We are also pushing, as Paul is trying to do, to have soldiers still serve when injured.

By you concept, Paul (Sorry to use you mate) should not have been looked at at all, by VAC, until he left the military.

You call this a "fair" opinion?

dileas

tess

 

[riggermade]

I am not saying if you are wounded you shouldn't be compensated or that members should be released if they can contribute.  What I am saying there is members who are using the system to their advantage who do not deserve to be helped.

In all honesty if a member is receiving a monthly pension for a bad back but they can do the BFT every year and do a tour that they are really in need of help?

Now I realize there are conditions VA helps the members and thir families with,  the CF has to step up and start helping out.  I realize VA has an interest in this but you know as well as I do that the military is lacking in helping families

 

[the 48th regulator]

I am not saying if you are wounded you shouldn't be compensated or that members should be released if they can contribute.  What I am saying there is members who are using the system to their advantage who do not deserve to be helped.

In all honesty if a member is receiving a monthly pension for a bad back but they can do the BFT every year and do a tour that they are really in need of help?

Now I realize there are conditions VA helps the members and thir families with,  the CF has to step up and start helping out.  I realize VA has an interest in this but you know as well as I do that the military is lacking in helping families

`

Now you have lost me here.  A guy with a bad back, who can do the universality of serivce does not deserve to receive a pension.  Okay;  What about Capt. Simon Mailloux?  Since we no longer award monthly pensions, just a lump sum payment, you would have him return the amount he has received?

Again, I do not see how you can sit there and justify such a draconian way of thinking, with regards to how we compensate soldiers for doing their duty and being injured.

We are not talking about someone with a blister, or nipples being chafed by a run....


dileas

tess

 

[kratz]

The serve or get out approach has harmed the CF a number of times over the years.

Now that there are changes occurring and decision makers observing, to revert back to the old approach due to those who abuse the system does a disservice to those who truly need the assistance.

To understand "the system", and it's mandates, you need to know who is responsible for what. What the modern CF and VAC are responsible for are truly morphed from the cold war era.

 

[riggermade]

I am done debating here as you think you have an answer for all.  What i am saying is there is an abuse of the system by some members and you are sadly mistaken if you think it isn't happening.  I agree there are members who deseve the help but there are those who don't

 

[the 48th regulator]

I am done debating here as you think you have an answer for all.  What i am saying is there is an abuse of the system by some members and you are sadly mistaken if you think it isn't happening.  I agree there are members who deseve the help but there are those who don't

I call BS,

You are done here, because your "Opinion" has been torn apart as being an asinine concept of capturing the small number of abusers, by denying the majority of services deserved by the injured and wounded.

Maybe next time you should rethink such knee jerk posts, before you hit the send button, as where this topic is concerned I will never be done....

dileas

tess

 

[lou-reed]

I am going to add my opinion probably to the dismay of the majority on this forum but I have to agree with riggermade.

Not on how he presented his opinion or his somewhat draconian thought process, and definitely not going back to the old way but I do think that serving members on VAC pension should not be allowed to go on tour.

If a soldier is injured either physically or mentally then that soldier should have all the access to all and every service available to them to ensure their recovery.  It does not matter if it is a soldier who has lost limbs or a soldier who has nightmares because he has seen flagged draped coffins off loaded from a herc.  Doesn't matter. 

However, in my opinion, if a soldier can carry on with full duties and meet the criteria for deployment (BFT, medical, etc..) and deploy then that soldier should be considered to be recovered from their injuries. 

With their injuries recorded on file they can apply for pension when they retire or when they feel that their injury precludes them from deploying, or continuing to serve.

I retired after 20 years service because I felt that I could no longer deploy.  Had a poor tour in 07 and realized that I was no longer fit enough to soldier.  It was a hard decision but the right decision.  My sore knees and back have improved over the past year with a change of pace.  No VAC pension just my annuity. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

I am going to add my opinion probably to the dismay of the majority on this forum but I have to agree with riggermade.

Not on how he presented his opinion or his somewhat draconian thought process, and definitely not going back to the old way but I do think that serving members on VAC pension should not be allowed to go on tour.

If a soldier is injured either physically or mentally then that soldier should have all the access to all and every service available to them to ensure their recovery.  It does not matter if it is a soldier who has lost limbs or a soldier who has nightmares because he has seen flagged draped coffins off loaded from a herc.  Doesn't matter. 

However, in my opinion, if a soldier can carry on with full duties and meet the criteria for deployment (BFT, medical, etc..) and deploy then that soldier should be considered to be recovered from their injuries. 

With their injuries recorded on file they can apply for pension when they retire or when they feel that their injury precludes them from deploying, or continuing to serve.

I retired after 20 years service because I felt that I could no longer deploy.  Had a poor tour in 07 and realized that I was no longer fit enough to soldier.  It was a hard decision but the right decision.  My sore knees and back have improved over the past year with a change of pace.  No VAC pension just my annuity. 

So what are you advocating, that anyone injured does not have the right to serve their nation?

You, as Riggermade, are confusing the concept of the VAC payment.  It is a tax fee compensation, towards their wounds, incurred by their duty.  Paul Franklin is advocating that we get with the times and pay what is owed to us, and allow members to continue to serve.  However, you and Riggermade feel that the injured do not deserve to be compensated for their injuires, especially if they serve.  This is the uneducated concept I have been talking about.


All I can say is, for shame, that two people who have served would come up with this ignorant belief!  We who have served, and have been wounded, deserve to be recognized by our Government!!

Those that have been wounded, deserve to be compensated monetarily, and with job security!  You two characters live by some old age, sitting in the mess, commiserating attitude that if anyone claims they are injured they are weak or scamming the system.

As Riggermade alluded to me, get your head out of yer aise, and show respect those of us that have been damaged by our service.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

Just to be clear, neither one of the two suggested (or stated) that anyone who collects is scamming the system. And neither said these injured soldiers shouldn't be allowed to serve their nation.

Riggermade said 'some were scamming" --- and some indeed are. That is a fact. I've seen "some" laugh about doing such at work.

How about keeping the emotions in check (seems this subject always brings them out) - and stick with quoting what they actually said instead of reading so very very much more into it.

 

[bdave]

I am done debating here as you think you have an answer for all.  What i am saying is there is an abuse of the system by some members and you are sadly mistaken if you think it isn't happening.  I agree there are members who deseve the help but there are those who don't

Why would you want to take down something that some people actually need just because a few jerks are taking advantage of the system?

I see this as a "it's OK to convict 10 innocent people, to get one crook" dilemma.
Whereas 48th regulator is saying "no, it's not" and you are saying "yes, it is".

 

[lou-reed]

hey 48th, I never said or alluded to claiming anyone was weak or scamming the system - You said that so do not put words or thoughts into my prose.  Guess what,  I too have been damaged by my service.  Thus, why I released before it got worse.   

I also did not say the injured did not deserve to be compensated.  I also did not say they did not deserve to continue to serve.  When did being compensated have ANYTHING to do with the right to serve? as you allude to.

I cannot put myself into the shoes of a soldier who has been injured in combat and thus cannot fully appreciate the challenges a soldier faces when they are in this situation.  Does a soldier deserve to be compensated yes, of course.  They also have every right to continue to serve.  However, I do not fully agree on the deployment issue.  My opinion to which I am entitled to.   

 

[Armymedic]

Just to add my two cents.

I agree with the basic premise of what riggermade is stating.

If a person who is receiving VAC benefits is able to deploy to a mission as arduous as the mission in Afghanistan is, then their reasons for receiving those VAC benefits should be reexamined on a individual basis.

There are people who fuck the system. But because they do is not a good reason for the system to fuck everyone else.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Just to be clear, neither one of the two suggested (or stated) that anyone who collects is scamming the system. And neither said these injured soldiers shouldn't be allowed to serve their nation.

Riggermade said 'some were scamming" --- and some indeed are. That is a fact. I've seen "some" laugh about doing such at work.

How about keeping the emotions in check (seems this subject always brings them out) - and stick with quoting what they actually said instead of reading so very very much more into it.

Hi Vern,

Before you pipe up, and I am sure it is because of emotions, rad the whole thread.....

My biggest complaint is with serving members receiving VA help and then going on tour to Afghanistan.  If you are fit enough to go on tour then you do not need VA help.  I have voiced this to people at VA and am always told it doesn't happen but I personally know people doing it.

I am going to add my opinion probably to the dismay of the majority on this forum but I have to agree with riggermade.

Not on how he presented his opinion or his somewhat draconian thought process, and definitely not going back to the old way but I do think that serving members on VAC pension should not be allowed to go on tour.

If a soldier is injured either physically or mentally then that soldier should have all the access to all and every service available to them to ensure their recovery.  It does not matter if it is a soldier who has lost limbs or a soldier who has nightmares because he has seen flagged draped coffins off loaded from a herc.  Doesn't matter. 

However, in my opinion, if a soldier can carry on with full duties and meet the criteria for deployment (BFT, medical, etc..) and deploy then that soldier should be considered to be recovered from their injuries. 

With their injuries recorded on file they can apply for pension when they retire or when they feel that their injury precludes them from deploying, or continuing to serve.

I retired after 20 years service because I felt that I could no longer deploy.  Had a poor tour in 07 and realized that I was no longer fit enough to soldier.  It was a hard decision but the right decision.  My sore knees and back have improved over the past year with a change of pace.  No VAC pension just my annuity. 

Our Clients
We provide pensions for disability or death, economic support in the form of allowances, health care benefits and services to:
• members of the Canadian Forces and Merchant Navy veterans who served in the First World War, the Second World War or the Korean War
• certain civilians who are entitled to benefits because of their wartime service
• former members of the Canadian Forces (including those who served in Special Duty Areas) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
• survivors and dependents of military and civilian personnel.
Our Commitment to you as a Client
As a client, you will:
• be respected as an individual;
• receive services based on need;
• be part of the decision making process;
• be encouraged to remain independent;
• have your families and communities considered as integral aspects of your life;
• be treated fairly and courteously;
• receive high quality services in a timely manner; and
• be encouraged to provide feedback to VAC as to the effectiveness of our service to you.
Client Centred Service Approach
See also: Client Centred Service Approach Section
VAC's philosophy of Client Service is based on a client-centred approach where our staff identify and respond appropriately to the needs of the individual client. Our services include screening, referral, information, assessment and monitoring. You are eligible for some of these services both while you are awaiting a decision on your disability pension and after you are in receipt of a disability pension.



The forces does not cover all of the treatment to personnel that have been wounded,.  VAC and other services are used to cover these services.  Again, I ask all that are mush mouthing, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment?  Stop his treatment outside of the Military system, which is not qualified to deal with amputees, leave his family alone??

Vern, before you pipe up, because of emotions from a perceived insult to you another thread, read into what I have been fighting for this last 15 plus years. Paul Franklin is now doing, what I have been doing.  Advocating for the wounded who have served, to continue to serve with all the services readily available.

Stop trying to pull back the tide, based on your emotions...

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

Just to add my two cents.

I agree with the basic premise of what riggermade is stating.

If a person who is receiving VAC benefits is able to deploy to a mission as arduous as the mission in Afghanistan is, then their reasons for receiving those VAC benefits should be reexamined on a individual basis.

There are people who fuck the system. But because they do is not a good reason for the system to fuck everyone else.

Absolutely agree with your thoughts on this.

Perhaps - Riggermade titled this thread wrong ...

Perhaps he should have inserted the words "deploy" as even he stated in his original post that his issue was with those "who deploy" receiving VAC services.

Regarding the cash-out for injuries ... absolutely they should be awarded. I've no issues with that.

But, there are those still collecting monthly pensions for "bad backs" who couldn't do PT, who dagged red for deployment(s) because of that pensioned bad back, who mysteriously saw their backs become "healed" (at least "healed enough to do their first BFT in 4 years ...) when it was announced that tours became tax-free - 3 months earlier though: "I can't lift that Sgt (a 1/2 pallet!! - empty), I'm on a pension because my back is fucked".  It's those people that irritate the hell out of me.


Tess, I've indeed read the whole thread - perhaps you should revisit the OP and note the words "DEPLOY". And, my posts here have SFA to do with any other thread. You know better than that. :

 

[the 48th regulator]

Absolutely agree with your thoughts on this.

Perhaps - Riggermade titled this thread wrong ...

Perhaps he should have inserted the words "deploy" as even he stated in his original post that his issue was with those "who deploy" receiving VAC services.

Regarding the cash-out for injuries ... absolutely they should be awarded. I've no issues with that.

But, there are those still collecting monthly pensions for "bad backs" who couldn't do PT, who dagged red for deployment(s) because of that pensioned bad back, who mysteriously saw their backs become "healed" (at least "healed enough to do their first BFT in 4 years ...) when it was announced that tours became tax-free - 3 months earlier though: "I can't lift that Sgt (a 1/2 pallet!! - empty), I'm on a pension because my back is fucked".  It's those people that irritate the hell out of me.


Tess, I've indeed read the whole thread - perhaps you should revisit the OP and note the words "DEPLOY".

For the third time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment, had this injury happened before the new charter?

Answer me that, and I will make my next statement.

dileas

tess