Soldiers squander disability payouts

[Pusser]

No, it's not that basic.  You are singling out one aspect of the entire Charter.  You have to look at everything else.

Furthermore, if you stick your lump sum payment under a mattress, you're right, the amount you receive is probably less than you would likely receive with a pension.  But that's not a winning argument because Government simply retorts that if you invest the money properly, you can create a fund that will pay you the equivalent of that pension.

A better argument would be to state that the NVC fails in its intent of continuing to support veterans in a sustainable way that was at least as good (if not better) than under the old Pension Act.  One can do this by pointing out that the actuarial calculations upon which the lump sum payments are base are flawed, or that the assumption that veterans were capable of managing the money effectively was also flawed.  There are a number of ways to tackle this effectively without simply yelling, "this is wrong because this doesn't equal that!"  That argument will get you nowhere.  Attack the disease (the flawed reasoning) not the symptom (fact that dollar for dollar, the lump sum does not equal pension).

Careful who you challenge to do the math.  The government has access to plenty of actuarial accountants who can produce charts and graphs that will make your head spin and prove without a doubt that the earth is flat.

 

[Nemo888]

Having said that, I am not thrilled with some aspects of the NVC either and I am not supporting it over the Pension Act.  However, as I have said on numerous occasions on this forum (and even in this thread), winning a dispute requires the logical presentation of verifiable facts in support of your argument.  Simply jumping up and down and screaming that something is wrong (standard naval debating society tactics notwithstanding) will only serve to cloud the argument and cause you to lose.  We need to remove the emotion from the debate and stick to the facts.  Does the NVC really and truly screw people over, OR do veterans simply believe they are being screwed over because the NVC deals with things in a different way?  You also have to look at the entire package when making the assessment.  Singling out benefits for one on one comparison does not necessarily help your argument either.

The VAC Doctor examining me cried after giving me a positive decision and thanked me profusely for my service. It was never disputed. I think the poor people at VAC know full well that we are being treated unfairly on the new system.

 

[Future Pensioner]

No, it's not that basic.  You are singling out one aspect of the entire Charter.  You have to look at everything else.

Furthermore, if you stick your lump sum payment under a mattress, you're right, the amount you receive is probably less than you would likely receive with a pension.  But that's not a winning argument because Government simply retorts that if you invest the money properly, you can create a fund that will pay you the equivalent of that pension.
do the math.  The government has access to plenty of actuarial accountants who can produce charts and graphs that will make your head spin and prove without a doubt that the earth is flat.

Which of course has been proved incorrect on this forum a number of times.

While I agree that this needs to be handled correctly, the biggest thing that needs to be made very clear is that this is not necessarily about the money or "getting what is owed to me".  As far as I am concerned this is about the feeling that one was treated fairly and equally (all tings considered).  Currently the system does not do that - whether it be VAC or the VRAB.  The system is broke and does not do a good job in treating people in a fair and consistent way.

 

[kratz]

Canada asks 100% from their service members and is only willing to pay out a minor percentage if the member suffers a permanent injury in the service of the nation?

Despite all claims, the NVC I am not impressed with the results.

Anyone can send their thoughts about the NVC and the Legion's support of it directly to RCL Command through this link.

 

[dogger1936]

A better argument would be to state that the NVC fails in its intent of continuing to support veterans in a sustainable way that was at least as good (if not better) than under the old Pension Act.  One can do this by pointing out that the actuarial calculations upon which the lump sum payments are base are flawed, or that the assumption that veterans were capable of managing the money effectively was also flawed.  There are a number of ways to tackle this effectively without simply yelling, "this is wrong because this doesn't equal that!"  That argument will get you nowhere. 

It's called pure anger about not being treated fairly. I don't know your history, however I'm guessing you are one of the very few who have lost body parts in a tour of duty and are being served under NVC AND are pleased? If not I suggest driving down to Pet and having a chat with some of the guys who WERE going to go on CTV and show the canadian public what a few grand buys you and if they thought it was fair. Then you can maybe understand a bit of the anger.

While I agree with your stance that anger and arm flailing will get nothing, you idea about taking 80,000 and  putting it into a magical investment to make 1500 sounds flawed as much as your argument that this new charter is good as or better than before.

If this is better can I choose to be treated poorer under the old veterans act? If so I will gladly take a monthly payout.

As well if this magical investment is only possiable in NDHQ/Ottawa can you please invest it for us and just give us the same as they handed out before?

 

[Tank Troll]

It's called pure anger about not being treated fairly. I don't know your history, however I'm guessing you are one of the very few who have lost body parts in a tour of duty and are being served under NVC AND are pleased? If not I suggest driving down to Pet and having a chat with some of the guys who WERE going to go on CTV and show the canadian public what a few grand buys you and if they thought it was fair. Then you can maybe understand a bit of the anger.

While I agree with your stance that anger and arm flailing will get nothing, your idea about taking 80,000 and  putting it into a magical investment to make 1500 sounds flawed as much as your argument that this new charter is good as or better than before.

If this is better can I choose to be treated poorer under the old veterans act? If so I will gladly take a monthly payout.

As well if this magical investment is only possiable in NDHQ/Ottawa can you please invest it for us and just give us the same as they handed out before?

That is what it comes down to right there you hit it squarely on the head.

 

[Beech Boy]

I've read through this thread with great interest.

My understanding is:

There was an old act in place.... It was replaced by a new act.... and those in charge claimed they were making the change  to better meet the need of veterans. However, from reading the comments on this thread that hardly appears to be the case.

I must be missing something, but to add to Dodger1936's point, would it not be a logical argument that if those in charge truly have the best interest of the veterans at heart then they should give them an option between the old and new formulas? I do not understand how it could be claimed that the compensation is now as good or better than before, but that a veteran can not choose to utilize the old act.

Again, I am admittedly ignorant on the topic, but I am trying to become more informed as the thought of people making such huge sacrifices for our country and then not being treated fairly infuriates me. Please someone let me know what I'm missing, all I could speculate was that it may be an administrative nightmare... But again that is just an uninformed guess.

Beech

 

[GAP]

I would suggest you read the act, or at least a summary....

 

[Beech Boy]

I'll take that reply to mean that my comment was way off base. I apologize, I'll go back to eyes and ears open, mouth shut (or in this case fingers still).

Beech

 

[GAP]

Like you, I don't know all the implications, but, I follow the thread on listen....

I have nothing worthwhile to add that is going to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Nostix]

I'll just take the time to point out once again that just because someone is pointing out the government's thought process on the new act, doesn't mean that they are arguing for it.

It's very important to be able to understand the whole argument so that you can fashion a concrete, comprehensive response. The key here is to quantify into facts why the new system is broken, something that anecdotes and opinions fail to do.

 

[57Chevy]

The system needs to include both the monthly payment and
some sort of portion of the calculated payout figure.
That way, the monthly payment would include the cost of living increases
and the payout.....although less......would likely go toward
the betterement of the pensioners quality of life.
(In which ever manner he/she chooses.)

And don't forget.......you can ask for a review of you case. (things can worsen)

Injuries don't go away.....
Pensions for injuries should be the same.

 

[SeanNewman]

Injuries don't go away...

While I agree with you in the majority of cases, I'm not so sure that's always the case.

Of course if someone loses a leg that's permanent; that person is disabled forever.  That being said though, the human body really is impressive for regenerating itself if the cause of the disability is something like a musc/skel issue.

I'm certainly no MD, but I like others on these threads know that some people are milking the system.  I'm not saying that person was not injured when they said they were, or the doctors had it wrong, but do people get re-assessed every 5-10 years or so?

What if the body naturally gets better after a decade?  What if the CF could pay for a new surgery in the future that would completely remedy a broken spine that someone's getting $4k for per month right now?

So to re-state my question (sorry if it has been answered on one of the thousand posts on the topic): With a pension is it considered a one-time decision (not including appeal) that once the member is considered disabled they get paid for life or their lump sum and never need to prove over time that they're still disabled?

Has anyone ever thought about what would happen with the one-time payments if something ever happened with the example above if in the future broken spines and paralysis can be repaired?  Would that soldier have to pay back a chunk of his lump sum pro-rated for how much of his life he has left?  It seems to me like the monthly payments would make far more sense for that reason; they can just be amended on the fly if a 20% disability becomes a 50%, or a 10% or even 0%.

The soldier would have still been compensated for the time they were disabled but it's still flexible if they get better/worse.

 

[Alea]

Injuries don't go away.....
Pensions for injuries should be the same.

+ 300 for these wise words 57Chevy!

Alea

 

[dogger1936]

I'm certainly no MD, but I like others on these threads know that some people are milking the system.  I'm not saying that person was not injured when they said they were, or the doctors
The soldier would have still been compensated for the time they were disabled but it's still flexible if they get better/worse.

I'm certainly no MD + KNOW that some people are milking the system.

I've been injured mentally and physically. My CoC didnt diagnois me....a MD did. however I do remember when Troop warrants werwe cross trained as MD`s (I.E that knee is ok...etc ;D) As for yourself as a Capt in the military why don't you do a admin review if you KNOW these members are playing the system?  I as a Sgt have even got rid of my TCAT even though it hurts like hell daily. Cause that whole soldier on attitude is ingrained. HOWEVER I have done admin reviews on my troops who have been in the UMS more than at work. Not only does it benifit the unit by cutting people who cannot be employed,it also provides the member with a place to heal up to either come back OR released or OT`d medically. Win Win.


Pusser: The comments before were not a dig at yourself in anyway, thanks for adding to the conversation. but please realise where the anger is coming from.

 

[SeanNewman]

Dogger,

As my thread specifically stated, I am not accusing any doctors of ever getting anything wrong.

However, is it not possible for a doctor to diagnose something and then have the ailment get better or worse over time?

The same way one would expect a soldier to be awarded more compensation money if their condition got assessed as worse, is the inverse not true that we would expect them to stop getting paid of they got better?

 

[Future Pensioner]

It's very important to be able to understand the whole argument so that you can fashion a concrete, comprehensive response. The key here is to quantify into facts why the new system is broken, something that anecdotes and opinions fail to do.

I would agree, as would most people on this forum, that this topic needs to be fully understood to be properly addressed.  I for one realize this fact, but I also realise that there is a proper time and place in which to fully articulate my concerns.  I would suspect that most people on this forum are just fed up and frustrated at the way they have been treated and "marginalised" and in my case, I have limited time and effort in which to deal with this.  So you will have to excuse me if I chose not to spend my energy outlining everything on this forum - I believe that this is not the purpose of the forum.  I believe that most people are sharing their "anecdotes" and "opinions" so that they can "vent" and, in doing so, hopefully get responses that let them know that they are not alone in their frustration and challenges they are facing in dealing with or having dealt with the "system".

I for one am very grateful to all the people that have took the time to post something on this thread.  I hope that folks keep posting their "opinions" and "anecdotes" - it helps to comfort some of my frustration to know that I am not alone in my boat, rowing all by myself.

Once again - THANK YOU TO ALL FOR YOUR POSTS!

 

[dogger1936]

Dogger,

As my thread specifically stated, I am not accusing any doctors of ever getting anything wrong.

However, is it not possible for a doctor to diagnose something and then have the ailment get better or worse over time?

The same way one would expect a soldier to be awarded more compensation money if their condition got assessed as worse, is the inverse not true that we would expect them to stop getting paid of they got better?

First off you must be 22...nothing gets better with age! (except my good looks).

In all seriousness you can get re assessed if it gets worse. For sure if it gets better I would agree with a ceasing of funds....so would most people who are seriously injured. fact is most injured will never get better, infact it's a good bet they will decline with age. Providing a quality of life to our injured vet's is a cost of war.

Agree future pensioner. If I get released Im going right to CBC CTV. And I suggest everyone released missing limbs etc show the canadian public your injuries and tell them what you get.

 

[SeanNewman]

...fact is most injured will never get better...

Which is the first thing I wrote a couple posts ago 

My question was for the minority.

 

[Pusser]

Pusser: The comments before were not a dig at yourself in anyway, thanks for adding to the conversation. but please realise where the anger is coming from.

I understand where the anger is coming from, but I also know that sometimes the anger of the mob is misguided.  Just because everybody thinks something is true, doesn't make it so.  I agree that the NVC is not doing what it should, but everybody seems to be looking at the Pension Act as if it was some heaven-sent ray of perpetual sunshine.  It isn't now and never was.  Unhappy veterans are nothing new.  There were unhappy veterans before the NVC and there will likely be unhappy veterans after whatever comes next.  The NVC likely attempted to address some problems that were identified in the old system.  Was it successful?  We don't know for sure.  The NVC is still in its infancy.  Did the law of unintended consequences kick in and create new problems?  It would seem so.  However, it takes time to identify flaws and develop solutions.  It's never as simple as simply saying we're going to do this one thing differently