Should Soldiers Receive VAC Services while Deploying?

[lou-reed]

I agree that perhaps the subject could have been better titled.  However, I think that 48th confused the spirit of riggermade 's original post. 

To 48th, I was referring to the Deployment side of this issue.  I do not think that any decent person would suggest taking away compensation.

Obviously a very emotional topic for you 48th, perhaps you should take a step back and actually read what us "two characters" were trying to say.

 

[armyvern]

For the third time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment?

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

dileas

tess

FFS.

Did you even bother to read other's posts? "DEPLOY, DEPLOY, DEPLOY" not "SERVE, SERVE, SERVE" as you are swinging out their comments to be about.

No one has stated they have an issue with soldiers getting their lump sum when they are injured, NOR DO I. It's the 4th damn sentence of mine in the quote of mine you put in your post below. Read.

And, as Lou-Reed has stated: "If an injured soldier passes his BFT and manages to meet Universality of Service ... then they should INDEED be able to deploy." Read.

 

[the 48th regulator]

And what is the ideology of the VAC payment?

dileas

tess

 

[Armymedic]

Are all VAC payments now a single lump sum, or are there still new cases where soldiers recieve monthly payment over a long term (more than a yr, for instance)?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Are all VAC payments now a single lump sum, or are there still new cases where soldiers recieve monthly payment over a long term (more than a yr, for instance)?

All new applications fall under the new charter, which is a lumps um payment.

Anyone receiving payment under the old charter, of monthly payments, can still receive additional percentage hikes if the injury is deemed to be associated witht he original injury.

dileas

tess

 

[Fishbone Jones]

riggermade, lou-reed

I am still serving. I receive a monthly pension and hearing aids for the damage the service did to my hearing. I DEPLOYED to Afghanistan with the problem and benefits because my profile allowed it.

Want to try kick me out or take my benefits? Do you consider me taking advantage of the system? Am I trying to trick someone and collect benefits I'm not entitled to?

Are either of you doctors or medical specialist that can determine the extent of someones malady better than the myriads of professionals and review boards that these others and myself have had to prove our cases to? Are you completely familiar with the files of these people?

I thought not.

Not everything fits into your little cookie cutter, pissed off world. There are many circumstances that you are not privy to, nor should you be.

You may have a valid point in there somewhere, but you're not in possession of enough facts to whip out that big, broad brush and start painting everything in sight with it.

 

[armyvern]

I'm on a PCAT too. I've deployed. I'm 100% deaf on the left-hand side - a service related injury. A hearing aid won't help me as I've no hearing bones left in there and part of my middle ear was removed during my surgery.

I met universality of service. I pass my fitness tests and carry on.

Neither one of riggermade OR lou-reed said they wanted to kick anyone out of the service. It was about "deploying" pers. And them meeting Universality of Service. lou-reed actually made a point of directly stating that in his original post here.

 

[riggermade]

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. :

Vern

I did not title this..it was split and I will assume whichever mod did so named it to further his argument

 

[armyvern]

Vern

I did not title this..it was split and I will assume whichever mod did so named it to further his argument

Thanks for that. Perhaps they should retitle it then to accurately reflect what you actually stated in your original post. Seems the word "deploy" is invisible in your original post.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I'm on a PCAT too. I've deployed.

I met universality of service. I pass my fitness tests and carry on.

Neither said they wanted to kick anyone out.

They did advocate those that use VAC, to be stripped of the service if they serve, and could deploy.

You agreed with them.

As for the Titling, I split it, so Paul's thread was not derailed or ambushed....

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

They did advocate those that use VAC, to be stripped of the service if they serve, and could deploy.

You agreed with them.

As for the Titling, I split it, so Paul's thread was not derailed or ambushed....

dileas

tess

Perhaps you should rename it then - you've missed the "deploy" bit in their posts and the current title is NOT reflective of what was brought up ... no matter how much you wish to claim it is.

You've got your blinders on again.

And, as for me agreeing with them --- apparently I'm advocating kicking my own ass out then!! And, taking away the VAC pension too.

But, I'm not ... that's just how your are perceiving this thread because you are reading more (and not reading the "deploy" bit) into it than it actually is.

 

[Armymedic]

All new applications fall under the new charter, which is a lump sum payment.

Old system aside,

It should no longer be an issue. Someone has a disablity/injury, gets payment....
Does not fit universality of service, released.
Does fit universality of service, serves.
Does fit universality of service, and can complete all prerequisites for deployment, deploys.
Does fit universality of service, and can not complete all prerequisites for deployment, does not deploy.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thanks for that. Perhaps they should retitle it then to accurately reflect what you actually stated in your original post. Seems the word "deploy" is invisible in your original post.

Done

 

[armyvern]

Done

Thank you. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thank you. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

Perhaps you should rename it then - you've missed the "deploy" bit in their posts and the current title is NOT reflective of what was brought up ... no matter how much you wish to claim it is.

You've got your blinders on again.

And, as for me agreeing with them --- apparently I'm advocating kicking my own ass out then!! And, taking away the VAC pension too.

But, I'm not ... that's just how your are perceiving this thread because you are reading more (and not reading the "deploy" bit) into it than it actually is.

Again,


For the third fourth time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment, and deny any further service from VAC.

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

 

[gcclarke]

And the moral of the story is that any VAC payments are to compensate someone for any current or future hardships or employment opportunities lost as a result of an injury that happens while serving.

Should someone get injured in a manner that may affect future employment, and are compensated accordingly, does this mean that they should not be allowed the privilege of employment on operations in the service of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada in right of the Canadian Armed Forces? Of course not. This is intended to cover all future employment, not merely employment opportunities within the Canadian Armed Forces. And if someone, despite these injuries, is still willing and able to perform in some operational capacity, should they be punished for that? No, that would be asinine, and only serve to drive away from the Canadian Armed Forces more of its valuable personnel, and reduce its operational capability.

 

[lou-reed]

They did advocate those that use VAC, to be stripped of the service if they serve, and could deploy.



tess

48th...It is clear to me that regardless of whatever anyone in this forum says that is contrary to your opinions - and probably the opinion of anyone who is receiving a VAC benefit - will be wrong and chastized for opining so. 

Nowhere in my posts did I advocate stripping anyone of a VAC service if they continued to serve.  For your information I did utilize VAC services upon my return from my deployment.  It was not monetary compensation but I did get the service that I needed for a physical injury as a result of my service.  Without those services I do not know how well I would have recovered. 

Recceguy...good on you that you are still able to deploy.  However, I have witnessed snr soldiers with severe hearing problems deploy.  In one case, a snr ncm wearing two hearing aids deployed and could not even give a briefing to incoming soldiers because they could not hear him speak because he was unable to hear himself.  In my opinion not a good thing. 

As for being in a pissed off world - not sure where you got that idea from by reading my posts.  In fact, releasing when I did after accomplishing all that I wanted to in my 20 year career was the second best decision I have made (the first best decision was to join the CF), and I could not be happier.     

     

 

[reccecrewman]

Sould soldiers receive VAC pensions while deploying? Why not? If a soldier has been injured mentally or physically, is he broken forever? Maybe yes, maybe no. His VA lump sum is an award and recognition of that particular wound or injury. This is why we have the guidelines of universiality of service. They are the minimum requirements a soldier must meet to be employed by the CF. If a soldier meets these requirements, regardless of past injuries and awarded pensions, why should he be punished with no deployments?

If you get hit by a car on civvy street by a guy running a red light and get your legs broken, should the victim have to wait for retirement or quit his job to be able to sue and receive compensation? No, and the notion is ridiculous. In 8-10 weeks, he's good to go, and has every right to carry on with his life as he did before being hurt, BUT, he's STILL entitled to his entitlement from the driver's insurance company.

So, if a soldier blows a knee in the field or on ops, and he requires surgery to repair the knee, he may recover and be able to meet his trade and or universal requirements and still go on to a fruitful career and deploy again. Just because he got a payment for that blown knee doesn't mean he should be punished. Look at the macho men who get hurt in their careers (Bulged discs, torn knee ligaments) and despite the fact they KNOW they're hurt, they opt NOT to put in a CF98 and get a record of their injury and put in paperwork with VA because they're of the old school belief that to do so is weak and they must "soldier on" Then, after they retire (with their ailments more than likely aggravated and worse) they try to go to VA and claim their injuries and surprise surprise...... they hit a brick friggin wall because there's NO documented proof that those injuries are attributable to CF service. THEN they have a most frustrating fight on their hands to prove their injuries ARE attributable to their service.

So, to answer the thread's question, YES, soldiers who receive a pension for a wound or injury SHOULD be able to deploy IF they meet their trade and or universal physical requirements. YES, there are those who cheat the system and SHOULD face repercussions, but that's NOT what this thread is about. If we want to discuss people who scam the system, we should start a thread with that as it's title, not spam a thread on "Should soldiers who receive VAC pensions be able to deploy" with non thread related arguments on the scammers out there.

My .02 anyway

 

[Armymedic]

Again,


For the third fourth time, and person, what should Capt. Simon Mailloux do?  Return his lump sum payment, and deny any further service from VAC.

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

If you insist....then for the reply you are so desperately seeking; see my response at reply #31.