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

Close to 1 Billion unspent

Chargersfan said:
NO, IT DOESN’T.
Click to expand...
yelling steve carrell GIF
 
Like Bush senior said - a billion here, a billion there then we can talk about real money.

The way governments spend there won't be any funding left for anyone.
 
'Unspent' is a bit of a misnomer though, NP money is like Cinderalla, and if you don't spend it by Mar 31 you need to 'return it' and ask for 'new funding', even if you are buying something April 1st.

It makes O&M management a pain in the ass. Capitol funded projects are far easier in my experience than in service projects to manage.

VAC turning money back in should mean money isn't the reason for any service issues, but they may still have some areas overfunded and others under, so it might be really complicated. But now they can't cry poor anyway when they deny anyone's claim the first time out of habit.
 
Last edited:
Navy_Pete said:
'Unspent' is a bit of a misnomer though, NP money is like Cinderalla, and if you don't spend it by Mar 31 you need to 'return it' and ask for 'new funding', even if you are buying something March 1st.

It makes O&M management a pain in the ass. Capitol funded projects are far easier in my experience than in service projects to manage.

VAC turning money back in should mean money isn't the reason for any service issues, but they may still have some areas overfunded and others under, so it might be really complicated. But now they can't cry poor anyway when they deny anyone's claim the first time out of habit.
Click to expand...
That isn’t the point. VAC isn’t the only department this is happening in, so it’s not a bug, but a feature. I have a hard time believing that all these departments are giving themselves a ‘buffer’ of billions of dollars just in case there are cost over runs. Does the CBC keep a couple hundred million in reserve, then pay it back at the end of they year? The government over promises to placate everyone, then under—delivers because it knows that the legacy media, and the system at large, is not going to hold them accountable - ever.
 
Chargersfan said:
That isn’t the point. VAC isn’t the only department this is happening in, so it’s not a bug, but a feature. I have a hard time believing that all these departments are giving themselves a ‘buffer’ of billions of dollars just in case there are cost over runs. Does the CBC keep a couple hundred million in reserve, then pay it back at the end of they year? The government over promises to placate everyone, then under—delivers because it knows that the legacy media, and the system at large, is not going to hold them accountable - ever.
Click to expand...
It's a feature because no one has enough capacity to spend the money with the LOE it takes at a high level.

And yes, pretty standard to budget extra; it's called 'contingency' (or more commonly, 'in case shit' money). So if nothing major happens, and you hit the budget, great. If something comes up, you have extra funding. If something can't get spent that year, you do the responsible thing and 'return it'.

It's not like all the departments are sitting on piles of cash though; it's a theoretical amount of money on paper until you actually spend it, then it's a real cost.

The fact that budgeted money is not being spent isn't a big deal, it's the why that matters, and that's not here.
  1. ALl our programs are fully funded and we didn't need this money - that's responsible use of tax pay money
  2. We are denying benefits to not spend - that would be evil bullshit (but pretty unlikely institutional directive)
  3. We have money for programs, but don't have people to administer the programs, so we can't spend the money - that indicates they need some extra people (or whatever resources would get that program going).
COuld be a mix of a number of issues, but just saying that the reports themselves make big headlines but don't mean anything on their own.
 
Quirky said:
While I'm not defending that statement, what is an appropriate level of compensation for duty-related injuries?
Click to expand...
Have you read and seen the new vac rates and what level of injury it takes to qualify for each? Anything over 20% is near impossible to qualify for, crippling life altering injuries are rated at 10-15%. So heres $200 monthly and good luck, it is a bad joke.
The entire system is designed to pay as little as possible.
To start I would double all the monthly payments for physical injuries, it is hard to game the system there.
To be less popular you also need to crack down on abuse, people who are in basic training with a dozen claims are more suspect for example.
 
Soldieratheart said:
Have you read and seen the new vac rates and what level of injury it takes to qualify for each? Anything over 20% is near impossible to qualify for, crippling life altering injuries are rated at 10-15%. So heres $200 monthly and good luck, it is a bad joke.
The entire system is designed to pay as little as possible.
To start I would double all the monthly payments for physical injuries, it is hard to game the system there.
To be less popular you also need to crack down on abuse, people who are in basic training with a dozen claims are more suspect for example.
Click to expand...

Until the scope of awarding a claim is changed, people will always abuse it and want their entitlements. It's the system that's the problem, not the basic training claims.

Abusing claims for physical injuries is no different than for mental. There is a reason why insurance companies will follow people with physical "problems" then take them to court if they suspect fraud. I highly doubt VAC does this.
 
Quirky said:
Until the scope of awarding a claim is changed, people will always abuse it and want their entitlements. It's the system that's the problem, not the basic training claims.

Abusing claims for physical injuries is no different than for mental. There is a reason why insurance companies will follow people with physical "problems" then take them to court if they suspect fraud. I highly doubt VAC does this.
Click to expand...
It is a lot easier to abuse a mental health claim than a physical one to say otherwise is politically correct but disingenuous. The flip side of that is a mental health claim is the absolute easiest to get approved for and the most generous rating chart(not that any claim is truly generous). Thus why I would dig deeper into the Basic training PTSD and anxiety claims. Unpopular opinion but I am skeptical that 4 months in Meaford or Wainwright scarred you for life especially given the controls against abuse that are now in place and have been for years. I do not know the full scope of this but I have had new privates come to me with over a half dozen claims with less than a year in and no deployments.

Anecdotal and personal but under the American system my physical injuries rate is over 90% in Canada with the VAC chart I am around 30% with an average wait just shy of 2 years on 3 claims. I cannot argue it because to get higher I essentially would need to be in a hospital, bed bound or in such pain let's just say I would not stick around to collect. Due to this, you end up working through pain for years or decades because your family has to eat which does further damage.

I am not sure what you mean by changing the scope of a claim?

They surely could not limit the physical ones more than they have. Currently, awards are roughly 1/3 of the value of the old charter with more stringent criteria than the American system or the old Canadian charter. It is literally designed to screw over vets while giving political cover to say otherwise.

I actually feel they physically should follow up on people hidden cameras and all, punish those who abuse the system but not everyone else.

As for max benefit amounts it should likely top out at 70-80% of income yearly indexed, no you should not get rich but you should not have to worry about food and shelter if you had a limb blown off AKA Justin's you are asking for too much. Technically this is in place but again good luck to the majority who need it since given the vac disability chart it is very hard to qualify.
 
Last edited:
Navy_Pete said:
It's a feature because no one has enough capacity to spend the money with the LOE it takes at a high level.

And yes, pretty standard to budget extra; it's called 'contingency' (or more commonly, 'in case shit' money). So if nothing major happens, and you hit the budget, great. If something comes up, you have extra funding. If something can't get spent that year, you do the responsible thing and 'return it'.

It's not like all the departments are sitting on piles of cash though; it's a theoretical amount of money on paper until you actually spend it, then it's a real cost.

The fact that budgeted money is not being spent isn't a big deal, it's the why that matters, and that's not here.
  1. ALl our programs are fully funded and we didn't need this money - that's responsible use of tax pay money
  2. We are denying benefits to not spend - that would be evil bullshit (but pretty unlikely institutional directive)
  3. We have money for programs, but don't have people to administer the programs, so we can't spend the money - that indicates they need some extra people (or whatever resources would get that program going).
COuld be a mix of a number of issues, but just saying that the reports themselves make big headlines but don't mean anything on their own.
Click to expand...
It’s closer to #2 than any of the others and you don’t need to give a directive, you can make your intent known without saying a word. I can show you my own VAC decisions that have even left case managers and BPA lawyers scratching their heads.
 
Chargersfan said:
It’s closer to #2 than any of the others and you don’t need to give a directive, you can make your intent known without saying a word. I can show you my own VAC decisions that have even left case managers and BPA lawyers scratching their heads.
Click to expand...
I fully believe you, but on the flipside know people who get a lot of support from their case workers, so not sure it's deliberate and intentional. May still be widespread as a result of concentrated incompetence, lack of training, and other reasons, but I doubt any executives have their performance bonus tied to denying benefits.

You can't get that kind of details from a headline, and also can't fix things from a 10k' review. Probably a whole bunch of different contributing factors, and different ones for different people, and you can only figure that looking at things in the weeds.

On our own side, I know we keep having to return millions of dollars just on projects I work on due to delays, lack of HR etc. It's a massive ass pain, and it doesn't take long for those hundreds of thousands/millions on individual projects to get up to massive numbers.

And just because I have money this year for a supported project, no guarantee I'll get money next year for the same supported project, which is great for planning. Pretty frequent for it to get held until the summer as well, so even best case that can add months of delays, loss of the quote validity (30 days is standard) and all sorts of other headaches.

I don't think companies do their finances like we do NP, but it's a really inefficient way to do things.
 
‘… but I doubt any executives have their performance bonus tied to denying benefits.’

Maybe, but they sure as he11 aren’t giving out bonuses for approving the most disability claims either. Interestingly, VACs own numbers say they approve most applications at a rate of 80-90%…so, why the years’ long delays? When there’s an 80-90% success rate, why is it taking 1.5, 2, or 3 years to green light it? And if it fails and goes to the BPA the win rate is over 50%. My BPA review of my back has taken years and untold hours. I am going to win it too. It’s 100% that I will win. In the meantime you have paid a lawyer $100’s/hour to help me fight you, instead of just quickly approving and moving on. For every one who gives up, there are ornery, cranky guys like me who will feed off of it to fight for everything. Now I am pissed off and I will use expensive lawyers to go after everything….every hang nail. Feeding this bad mojo is so bizarre…
 
If you are injured in service to this country you should be taken care of. Having been a dumb 18 yr old in Lahr the best advice I can give a young recruit make sure ALL!! injuries are documented by CAF as well as recurring problems from said injury. That stress fracture from piss poor boots in basic could cripple you 30 years later. The paper trail helps with VAC. Lack of a report filed by a medic in 4 Fld Amb could screw you later on.
 
mods: if this Isn't the right thread for my post please move to the appropriate thread
 
Recon 3690 said:
If you are injured in service to this country you should be taken care of. Having been a dumb 18 yr old in Lahr the best advice I can give a young recruit make sure ALL!! injuries are documented by CAF as well as recurring problems from said injury. That stress fracture from piss poor boots in basic could cripple you 30 years later. The paper trail helps with VAC. Lack of a report filed by a medic in 4 Fld Amb could screw you later on.
Click to expand...
CF98s! Get them done ASAP and don't let your CoC slink out of doing them (I had a new 2LT stall one of mine off for months when I was a SGT, he got a stern talking to by the Coy 2IC for doing so)
 
ArmyRick said:
CF98s! Get them done ASAP and don't let your CoC slink out of doing them (I had a new 2LT stall one of mine off for months when I was a SGT, he got a stern talking to by the Coy 2IC for doing so)
Click to expand...
This, if you think you might need one, submit it. It's an easy form, it's not an indictment of anyone and it's just to protect you in the future. If you don't need it, no problem, if you do though it's on file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top