VAC Return to Lifetime Pensions Discussion

[MARS]

Does it matter if that was during war or peace?
:facepalm:

I can guarantee you it doesn't matter one fucking iota to the hundreds, no, thousands of civilian taxpayers walking past me on Front Street in Toronto as I write this.

Get yourself an empty Tim Hortons cup and tell your story to them...maybe you will have enough spare change for a hamburger when you are done.

WTF does this even have to do with a CoC??  He is talking taxpayers...and while we are all taxpayers, we are really talking about the millions of civilians ignorant to our, and in this case, your plight, who fund this thing.  Those civilians grossly outnumber us and at this very moment, they are more concerned about their Christmas shopping than they are EVER going to be about your back.

Just saying...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'm really glad I am not in your CofC...seriously, it sure doesn't come across like you've much compassion for injured service people with the 'volunteered' line.  My back is degraded for life, with no chance of improvement, from an argument with a DZ that I lost.  Does it matter if that was during war or peace? I've been told my latter years are likely going to be spent in a wheelchair.  Is that not enough, or does it have to be from an IED or a enemy sniper round thru the spine 'during war'?

:facepalm:

So I'll ask you then...what is your belief/opinion on what is 'enough'?

Spare me.  I have no feeling in my feet - and have not had so for four years.  I have advanced OA in one of my hips, which needs to be replaced.  My knees are truly fucked, I have post concussive syndrome, and I have 7 compromised disks.  I also volunteered to be an infanteer, and it comes with the territory.  I will happily take what is offered in compensation of my injuries, but i do not fel entitled to more than what the people of Canada have on offer.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I can guarantee you it doesn't matter one fucking iota to the hundreds, no, thousands of civilian taxpayers walking past me on Front Street in Toronto as I write this.

Get yourself an empty Tim Hortons cup and tell your story to them...maybe you will have enough spare change for a hamburger when you are done.

I've no doubt you're correct, and I've never claimed the average Canadian cares overly about Armed Forces members or vets in Canada, except perhaps around Nov 11th.  Also why the government can ignore the issue, or partly why. 

WTF does this even have to do with a CoC??

He is not 'just' a taxpayer, is he?  Is he not also an Officer in the CAF with decades of experience and of a somewhat high rank?  That was what I was thinking when I said I am glad I am not in his CofC;  his post certainly makes it sound like injuries only mean something if they are in wartime, and hey, we're all just really volunteers right?  That was the context of my opening comment.

He is talking taxpayers...and while we are all taxpayers, we are really talking about the millions of civilians ignorant to our, and in this case, your plight, who fund this thing.  Those civilians grossly outnumber us and at this very moment, they are more concerned about their Christmas shopping than they are EVER going to be about your back.

Just saying...

Trust me, I know, and so do many other people who were injured during their service.  They care about important things like free wifi on public transit!!!!! 

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm thankful I'm not nearly as injured as many of you (not to sound harsh). I think what bothers me most is only one messed up disc and tinnitus so debilitating I sometimes dummy myself with whiskey so I can sleep. Which explains a lot of my late night posts eh?  ;D

Serious question though, how does our VA/benefits system compare to the civilian world?  So if someone's back was injured due to/at work what might they be looking at for compensation? Are we fairly equal to civi street, are we in a better position?  How does our benefits system compare to firefighters or LEOs?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Spare me.  I have no feeling in my feet - and have not had so for four years.  I have advanced OA in one of my hips, which needs to be replaced.  My knees are truly fucked, I have post concussive syndrome, and I have 7 compromised disks.  I also volunteered to be an infanteer, and it comes with the territory.  I will happily take what is offered in compensation of my injuries, but i do not fel entitled to more than what the people of Canada have on offer.

I guess the difference between you and I, in part, is that I feel some compassion to you, both as a taxpayer and a still serving member who was injured during service (I only mentioned my back, because it is the only one I receive a pension for at this time).  Regardless of peacetime, volunteered for the crunchie trade, etc.  It was in the service of your country. 

You didn't actually answer my question on what is 'enough'.  If you have any thoughts on what is 'enough', I'd like to hear them.  Or, what is 'too much'.  You've answered more like a politician to this point, not really saying what is enough but that it should be good enough.

I didn't think there was any value of reacting to your 'spare me' comment, but again...I am glad I'm not in your CofC, if a back injury that could mean 'retirement spent in a wheelchair' isn't worthy of your compassion.  :not-again:  I'd honestly prefer to spend retirement with my wife, who I leave home alone quite often, in the canoe, or hiking or travelling or something other than her pushing me around and helping me get onto the toilet.  I know...selfish of me. 

 

[mariomike]

How does our benefits system compare to firefighters or LEOs?

The City of Toronto Police, Fire, Paramedics:
Suitable Job
Suitable employment is defined as employment consistent with the employee’s skills and functional abilities that does not pose a health and safety hazard to the employee or co-worker.

For Police and Fire that likely means Prevention.
For Paramedics ( being a much smaller Department ), it could mean anything. Community Medicine, Community Referral EMS (CREMS), vaccination clinics, public relations. Possibly re-assignment to another Department.

Employees who are placed in a permanent alternate position, due to an occupational injury/illness (as defined by the *Workplace Safety & Insurance Board), will be subject to the normal assessment period and will receive the wage rate of the position to which they are assigned. If the pre-injury rate of pay is higher than the relocated position rate, then the pre-injury rate is to be maintained. It is understood that the pre-injury rate is subject to all wage increases negotiated.


*Workplace Safety & Insurance Board ( WSIB ) Ontario
http://www.wsib.on.ca/WSIBPortal/faces/WSIBHomePage?_afrLoop=1244956027391000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=10dklwajwd_102#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3D10dklwajwd_102%26_afrLoop%3D1244956027391000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D10dklwajwd_126

There is also a Long Term Disability ( LTD ) plan for non-occupational injury / illness.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I guess the difference between you and I, in part, is that I feel some compassion to you, both as a taxpayer and a still serving member who was injured during service (I only mentioned my back, because it is the only one I receive a pension for at this time).  Regardless of peacetime, volunteered for the crunchie trade, etc.  It was in the service of your country. 

You didn't actually answer my question on what is 'enough'.  If you have any thoughts on what is 'enough', I'd like to hear them.  Or, what is 'too much'.  You've answered more like a politician to this point, not really saying what is enough but that it should be good enough.

I didn't think there was any value of reacting to your 'spare me' comment, but again...I am glad I'm not in your CofC, if a back injury that could mean 'retirement spent in a wheelchair' isn't worthy of your compassion.  :not-again:  I'd honestly prefer to spend retirement with my wife, who I leave home alone quite often, in the canoe, or hiking or travelling or something other than her pushing me around and helping me get onto the toilet.  I know...selfish of me.

To play devil's advocate somewhat- does saying that a veteran shouldn't be entitled to 100%/90%/80%, etc recovery of wages for their lifetime necessarily equal a lack of compassion or empathy? The reality is that the government needs to come out and make a bold statement about what, as you say, is too much or too little and use that as a definition to either move forward or end the debate.

As for the "service to your country" comment, I think we overuse this somewhat. Any teacher, fire fighter, policeman, lawyer, judge, etc is doing a "service for their country". The difference between all of them and the CAF is unlimited liability. If a judge hurts himself walking into court than shouldn't he be entitled to a similar pension as a soldier who hurt himself outside of the scope of unlimited liability? What about a teacher who is attacked by a student?

 

[AirDet]

It doesn't surprise me that the Liberals think less of us. We've always been considered extendible by the Liberals. All we were asking for was parity and respect. We should have seen this slap in the face coming. 

 

[mariomike]

All we were asking for was parody and respect.

I think you mean "parity". 
https://kathleenwcurry.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/easily-confused-words-parody-vs-parity/

 

[AirDet]

The other interesting thing I noticed with the release was the statement on service standards. As of last week VAC is still working on first applications from October 2016. Yes, you read that right 2016.... so much for them saying it has improved.

 

[AirDet]

I think you mean "parity". 
https://kathleenwcurry.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/easily-confused-words-parody-vs-parity/

I hate auto correct!!

 

[Rifleman62]

I don't think it was the use of the word; it was sentence structure:

All we were asking for was parody parity and respect. We should have seen this slap in the face parody coming.

 

[TCM621]

As far as I can see, expectations are a return to the previous levels of monthly pensions as well as all of the new features since then, focused on rehab, re-entry etc.

I don't see that. Maybe I'm wrong but it looks to me like a much reduced pension with a bunch of taxable benefits added on and benefits which claw back pensions and income a vet earns totally separate from any injury.

I like the rehab, the federal hiring law is really good on paper and the education benefit is long overdue (although it has nothing to do injured vets). But they didn't address the issues brought up, they just focused on the words "lifetime pension". The biggest issue being the claw back of pension earnings.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

EITS,

You have me at a disadvantage sir.  You seem to know who I am, which is unfortunate, as I cherish the thin veil of anonymity that this forum affords us all.  i on the other hand only know what you do, and that we served in the same theatre of war recently, at the same time.  By all accounts, and all of my comments, you and your compatriots served well and honourably.  For the record, I am certain that you have never been on my direct chain of command.

I also note from your posts that you are in a leadership position.  As such, you must surely have known that your "I would not want to be in your CofC" comment was inflammatory in the extreme.  That is a hard thing to hear from anyone - and harder still to hear anonymously .  I would like to think that you made the comment without the full knowledge of how extraordinarily dismissive it was.  If that is not the case, feel free to PM me and we can discuss further.

I guess the difference between you and I, in part, is that I feel some compassion to you, both as a taxpayer and a still serving member who was injured during service (I only mentioned my back, because it is the only one I receive a pension for at this time).  Regardless of peacetime, volunteered for the crunchie trade, etc.  It was in the service of your country.

 

I certainly feel compassion for any soldier who has been injured in the line of duty.  For those that know me beyond an avatar or a reputation, this has been been true for my entire career.  I would ask that you not be so quick to judge my comments as showing a lack of compassion for those I have served for my entire adult life. I also acknowledge that you served your country...as have teachers, first respondents, public servants, scientists, day care workers etc. 

You didn't actually answer my question on what is 'enough'.  If you have any thoughts on what is 'enough', I'd like to hear them.  Or, what is 'too much'.  You've answered more like a politician to this point, not really saying what is enough but that it should be good enough.

We have a conundrum here,  I have yet to hear what "enough" looks like.  i have merely stated that it feels like an unrealistic expectation.  Can you tell me what "enough" looks like for your injury, or even mine?

I didn't think there was any value of reacting to your 'spare me' comment, but again...I am glad I'm not in your CofC, if a back injury that could mean 'retirement spent in a wheelchair' isn't worthy of your compassion.  :not-again: 

Please refer to my comments above.

I'd honestly prefer to spend retirement with my wife, who I leave home alone quite often, in the canoe, or hiking or travelling or something other than her pushing me around and helping me get onto the toilet.  I know...selfish of me.

I am not sure how this relates to the care, support, or pension that we receive.  Are you suggesting that there is some combination of medical, social and financial treatment that will change your diagnosis?

In closing, I have had to think a bit about how I would respond to this post.  I veered between taking extreme umbrage, and shrugging it off.
I have hopefully adopted somewhat of a middle course.  If you are personally offended or affronted in some way by my response (as opposed to seeing it as a countervailing view in a discussion board), I can only hope that you will take it to PMs.

With respect,

PPCLI Guy

 

[McG]

It doesn't surprise me that the Liberals think less of us.

I’m not sure one can point a finger at any single political party if one is unhappy with the current proposal. I have seen a few CPC media feeds patting themselves on the back for having made this proposal first just before loosing the last election.

 

[Teager]

What is enough? What does enough look like? Well enough would be parity with the pension act. The problem we have is that the proposed plan helps those that are severely injured which is good and a step in the right direction but only 12% of veterans fall into that category. So 88% of veterans don't see anything with the new plan and don't see parity with the previous system.

In my own opinion you have to wonder how many billions of dollars has the government put towards VAC but how much of an effect has it had on veterans and receiving benefits? Billions of dollars don't seem to be helping the process of applying to vac and getting the services veterans need in timely matter. What should have been done first is clean house of all the beaucrats that are keeping the system heavily weighed down and just causing delays and frustration. Next as Brian has said is a complete re-write of the NVC. There's enough data to show what's good and works and what doesn't and I'm sure with the help of the veteran community something could be done up that would be fair and the majority of vets would be satisfied with. We all know that will never happen so we will continue to beat on this dead horse and slap little band aids on issues that cost Billions but the end result is very small for vets.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The NVC is a creation of the Liberals, no one else.  But, the Cons did SFA to correct or change jack shit, had dickheads as the Minister at times and cut back on services.  Neither is a hero or a devil, they both are to me, equally disappointing.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1531451-veterans-unimpressed-with-new-pension-plan

Veterans unimpressed with new pension plan - 21 Dec 17
Critics say Liberals failing to live up to ‘one veteran, one standard’ commitment

A good read.



http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/national-news/2017/12/20/confusion-frustration-greet-liberals-pension-plan-for-disabled-veterans/

Confusion, frustration greet Liberals’ pension plan for disabled veterans - LEE BERTHIAUME, Canadian Press - 20 Dec 17

Extract: 1. “It’s confusing,” said Jim Lowther, president of VETS Canada, which support homeless veterans in different cities across the country. “We’ve been going over this all morning, but it’s very vague.

            2. While veterans who want the money right away will still be able to choose the lump-sum payment, the Liberals are also giving them the choice of a monthly payment instead worth up to $1,150.

Those with severe or permanent disabilities will also be eligible for an additional new benefit worth between $500 and $1,500 per month. Both benefits are tax free.

Officials said the more than 61,000 veterans who have already received a lump-sum award will be assessed to determine how much they would have received per month. They will also be eligible for the new benefit, which officials said will be retroactive and could result in substantial one-time payments.

The government will also lump together six different benefits for veterans who can’t find work or whose post-military careers pay less than when they were serving in uniform.

Yet it wasn’t immediately clear who will be eligible for different elements of the new pension plan, or even which of the income-replacement programs will remain in existence after they are merged.

          3. “All of those covered under the (existing) New Veterans Charter will be automatically assessed against the new pension-for-life program,” O’Regan said.

          4. “They’ve created chaos with a vague presentation,” said Aaron Bedard .....“It’s like watching Game of Thrones: You get a couple of answers, but you end up with a dozen new questions.”

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I also note from your posts that you are in a leadership position.  As such, you must surely have known that your "I would not want to be in your CofC" comment was inflammatory in the extreme.  That is a hard thing to hear from anyone - and harder still to hear anonymously .  I would like to think that you made the comment without the full knowledge of how extraordinarily dismissive it was.  If that is not the case, feel free to PM me and we can discuss further.

In all honesty, I'll admit that the comment was overly harsh for the point I was trying to make;  afterall, I am 47 not 17.  Please accept my apology, I did go overboard in trying to make a point.   

We have a conundrum here,  I have yet to hear what "enough" looks like.  i have merely stated that it feels like an unrealistic expectation.  Can you tell me what "enough" looks like for your injury, or even mine?

For me, I'd like to know that when I am 70+, if I have to get assistance to get out of a wheelchair, that it will be provided so my wife isn't left to struggle with that task.  Or that she won't have to go cold in the winter, or shovel snow because I can't.  I think each person may define it differently what is 'ideal' for their injury.  I am, mostly, concerned with the worst case scenario vets;  those who can't work, who can't look after themselves properly, those who have been broken in body and spirit and need care in ways many Canadians will never understand because they've never sacrificed for others.

I am mostly upset at this newest...I hesitate to call it initiative...announcement because it is *empty* to me, starting with the issue that it will not take effect until April 2019.  It is an empty promise at this point. 

I recall a case from many years ago now, of a LdSH (RC) Warrant Officer, who was shot thru the spine in the FYR, and how the government bickered over who would pay for his wheelchair ramp and what location he was 'authorized' to have it installed.  I remember it because it was the first time I remember being angry at the government and how it was completely missing the point of caring for a vet.  This is the only reference I could find of the story today in a short amount of time looking.   

And here we are today, with more promises that are placed over a year away.  All talk, no walk at least from where I stand.  Again.  It's upsetting.  Not every injured veteran will have the success that Tom Martineau had in recovery.  We, the Canada we, need to look after those ladies and gents for as long as they need us to.

If you are personally offended or affronted in some way by my response (as opposed to seeing it as a countervailing view in a discussion board),

Not offended at all, I expect people to have varying positions on many topics on the site and to stand behind them with conviction. 

Again, my apology to you for going overboard to make a point.

 

[mariomike]

Any teacher, fire fighter, policeman, lawyer, judge, etc is doing a "service for their country". The difference between all of them and the CAF is unlimited liability.

The S.O.P. we operated under was simple,

"Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."

That would apply to police officers, firefighters and paramedics. But, not teachers, lawyers and judges.

The police officers, firefighters and paramedics killed on 9/11 are one example of that S.O.P.

The Rescue Task Force ( RTF ) S.O.P. at Active Shooter incidents is another.
https://nypost.com/2016/10/02/city-program-sends-unarmed-firefighters-and-emts-into-active-shooter-situations/
City sends unarmed firefighters and EMTs into ‘active shooter’ 

They go running in when teachers, judges and lawyers are running out.