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

Soldiers squander disability payouts

ArmyVern said:
Wow. When are you going to inject some reality into your assinine post?

That guy or gal who is receiving 250 000k (pretty much the max) is also going to be minus about 4 limbs. That means, he or she is purchasing himself a specialized vehicle (as a necessity with some of that initial payout) and will also be hiring staff to look after him each month and other staff to go out and manage all those apartments he is leasing out to all those tenants that he isn't able to go collect rent cheques from, to do the repairing of appliances, to do the maintenance and upkeep (lawn, snow removal etc), landlording on his behalf.

12k a month doesn't pay for too many staff  ... it certainly won't be 12k a month in his/her own bank account --- especially after he contributes to their UIC, pension plan etc as their "employer". He's actually be going into the hole (ie: the financial red) every month.

I suggest that you also require some financial planning courses if you suggest that your "obvious" suggestion that these troops just don't "listen to the advice they're given" (especially from "planners" such as yourself with "plans" like you've just suggested) are the ones behaving like kids who need to be taken by the hand.

That's my own HO of course.


Any modification to his home, or vehicles, are covered by either VAC or DND.  This also includes any medical care he requires, such as staff.  It does not come out of the lump sum payment.

Please let's not cloud the thread with innuendos.

dileas

tess

 
Offical announcement tomorrow. I await to see if it' gonna be smoke and mirrors or an actual fix/improvement.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100918/wounded-soldiers-aid-100918/
 
  I hope it all works out.  Unfortunately I can see it turning into a pissing match between those of us injured at home vs. the guys injured overseas........
 
It our position that if the injury/illness is attributable to military service, then there should be NO distinction.
 
dogger1936 said:
Offical announcement tomorrow. I await to see if it' gonna be smoke and mirrors or an actual fix/improvement.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100918/wounded-soldiers-aid-100918/

I vote smoke and mirrors. Separating deployed from undeployed injuries is not dealing in good faith in my opinion. Divide et impera. Don't give 100%+ until you are overseas troops. Otherwise your health coverage won't even cover expenses.
 
It is smoke and mirrors.Fortunately myself and many comrades still have our limbs...although their held together with nuts and bolts. Honestly I'm glad those with more serious injuries are gonna get some extra money. And believe this is what I needed to finally fell the "number" we all are. Time for a vocational change. I would suggest to any young man wanting to join the combat arms...don't. It's not worth the pain.
 
CallOfDuty said:
  I hope it all works out.  Unfortunately I can see it turning into a pissing match between those of us injured at home vs. the guys injured overseas........

Every time the government wants to make a big announcement those injured in battle are always brought up, it as if the rest of don't fit into the equation
 
riggermade said:
Every time the government wants to make a big announcement those injured in battle are always brought up, it as if the rest of don't fit into the equation

That is incorrect. It doesn't matter how you got hurt. If you are ill/injured and that is attritbutable to service, you will be covered.
 
So in laymens terms this new "up to 1000" bucks is to bring troops upto a 46,000 a year living when they are completing their 2 years of schooling etc? What happens after ocational rehab is complete?

As well those who are missing limbs may get a medical pension.

Thats what I got out of the changes.
Am I correct in that?
 
riggermade said:
Every time the government wants to make a big announcement those injured in battle are always brought up, it as if the rest of don't fit into the equation

Easiest way to sell it to the general populace is to equate the injury to combat. If they said it was for pers in the military who lost limbs to cancer or car accidents, everyone will want to know why they don't get the same cash.
 
PuckChaser said:
Easiest way to sell it to the general populace is to equate the injury to combat. If they said it was for pers in the military who lost limbs to cancer or car accidents, everyone will want to know why they don't get the same cash.

"In the Line of Duty" is popular: "All that is normally required in some area of responsibility."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/line+of+duty

dogger1936 said:
I will be very interested in seeing what defines a catastrophic injury.
Reply #4:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/96607/post-972749.html#msg972749

 
Jim Seggie said:
That is incorrect. It doesn't matter how you got hurt. If you are ill/injured and that is attritbutable to service, you will be covered.

Unless they say that too much time has elapsed since your injury......over 25 years ago according to Section 45 of blah blah blah you get squat. You can appeal and they tell you to do so.
The Lawyer gets paid by Veterans Affairs.......and so does the Judge.

A Snowball in Hell would have a better chance.

 
Who decides.? See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/96219.0.html
 
Jim Seggie said:
It our position that if the injury/illness is attributable to military service, then there should be NO distinction.

What about Oseoartritis:
"There are two categories of OA – primary and secondary.  Primary, or idiopathic, OA appears without any apparent cause.  It is usually seen in the elderly.  Secondary OA occurs in joints that have sustained an injury.  This injury can be a result of previous trauma to the joint."

Joint Trauma and Osteoarthritis

As I read above, This new injury would be a direct result of an older injury, and therefore likely to emerge far later than after the 25 year limit. So then a young soldier gets injured early on in his
career, serves 25+years, eventually retires and developes Secondary OA afterwards, He has no
recourse to Veterans Affairs ?  It doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Hi
I'm a reporter from looking to talk to people from Ontario about their experiences coming home - including struggles with VAC and lump sum payments.

Anyone want to talk?

pamela
 
pamela steel said:
Hi
I'm a reporter from looking to talk to people from Ontario about their experiences coming home - including struggles with VAC and lump sum payments.

Anyone want to talk?

pamela

Good luck
 
Grimaldus said:
For a reporter your language skills seem to be severely lacking.  You don't articulate very well, where did you do your schooling?

They forgot a word.  Is that enough to deserve "severely lacking"? 

It wouldn't hurt for you to ease up a bit.
 
I may be more a wordsmith than I am a typist. Meant to write - a reporter from metroland media. Thanks for the input.
 
Back
Top