Soldiers squander disability payouts

[57Chevy]

48th,
        The same way as we paid our fines, if any, over the course of our TI. ;D

I don't think returning completely to the old system is the preferred answer to the problem
amongst the majority of those in receipt of a lump-sum.
I could be wrong.
Actually, or supposedly, a simple time/monetary equivalency equation is easily calculated.
Either calculated to receive and immediate monthly indemnity, or
a deferred one as mentioned by Petamocto. (which would surely be unpopular)
No offence.

I enjoy Pussers' mention regarding injection of hybrid solutions
That..... is a step in the right direction.
I can go as far as saying that those in receipt of a monthly pension for sustained injuries
should receive an award solely by reason of the injury.
Is that so far-fetched ?

Truly.....Pusser
if, as you say (which is true). that NVC received 'all-party' support,
And thereby, surely by the people.......Why is there a time limit on making a claim for any normally pensionable injury of 25 years ?    And furthermore,
Why should that limit be a hurdle, in any way, in the process of such claims ?

Pain and Injury are completely separate......one the other.
You can be injured, and not feel a thing. Not even know anything about it for years to come.
While another, with the same injury the pain can be so excruciating right now, and last years.
On a scale of 1 to 10, How much did your injury hurt ?
Answer........What is the importance of the pain level over the fact of the injury ?
Does the injury not warrant an award in itself ? Even when and if the injury has consolidated ?

What I'm trying to say........Is that that there should have always been an award for injury,
and a pension for the consequences thereof, for life. (including reassessments, etc)

I suppose, this is why I like the idea of the split pension method I mentioned earlier.
And, you might agree, it is plausible.

I would like to take the opportunity to add :
In my dealings with VA, I have always been treated with the highest courtesy, respect, and understanding. Bare in mind, I have on occasion, become a mite angry over something or another.
It can be quite frustrating.

*correction to "our fines"

 

[SeanNewman]

Actually, or supposedly, a simple time/monetary equivalency equation is easily calculated.
Either calculated to receive and immediate monthly indemnity, or a deferred one as mentioned by Petamocto. (which would surely be unpopular)
No offence.

None taken, but I don't see how a wounded vet couldn't take it as good news.

Under the current system, a Vet has been told that they are getting a large cheque and that is the end of it.  They are thus in the mindset that's all they're going to get for their injury forever.

If they go back to monthly payments after someone got a lump sum, I don't see how it would be unpopular that in 10 years (or whatever the balance turns out to be) they will start getting more money every month.

That to me is like a win-win, because they are getting the same amount of money overall for that first 10 years, but they basically got a 10 year interest free loan.

 

[CallOfDuty]

Under the current system, a Vet has been told that they are getting a large cheque and that is the end of it.  They are thus in the mindset that's all they're going to get for their injury forever.

  Not quite though.  They tell you after you get your claim that you are free to appeal it every two years, in case things change for you medically or whatnot.

  I think the hardest thing to deal with is that say you break your back and receive a lump sum payment of 13,800$.  And the guy next to you had the same injury before the new charter and  he makes about 1,200$ a month, tax free for the rest of his life.  So he makes in 1 year, what you technically may receive when it's all said and done.  MASSIVE difference.

 

[dogger1936]

Pusser:
Your saying quote:
I've seen enough misinformation posted here and in other forums to stand by my "misguided mob" argument.  What I've often seen is not entirely wrong (there is always a grain of truth in even the most fantastic of rumours), but it is not entirely correct either. 


Instead of holding back why not tell vern and tell us whats correct. Throwing out political speak like this says one of two things. You don't have a clue what your talking about, or you know something but aint sayin.

Why not enlighten us with your knowledge so everyone can benifit.  Iwould love to see where vern's post is not correct. Maybe you can help the misguided mob.

As well I still stand by my offer for you to come down and meet up with a handfull of guys....body parts may vary.

 

[Occam]

Instead of holding back why not tell vern and tell us whats correct.

He has been.  Unfortunately, you're stuck in transmit and aren't paying attention to what I see to be very well thought out (and tactically sound) arguments.  He's not the bad guy - and he's telling you what has to be done in order for veterans to win this one.

 

[armyvern]

... People who write and implement policy will defend it against all comers, so you need to understand their thought process and produce arguments that show where it was flawed.  Simply saying the lump sum payment is not enough so we need to revert to a monthly pension is not a winning argument because they already have an answer for that (i.e. it just needs to be invested properly).  ...
Finally, remember that the NVC received all-party support.  We may be able to get it amended, but I highly doubt we'll see it revoked.

I've already put forth my reasonings for DVAs "it just needs to be invested properly" retort being flawed and NOT reflective of reality. As someone else has posted, if it is that easy ... I'm quite sure Mr Blackburn et al would be willing to do such with their own pensions n'est ce pas? Funny --- I don't see that occurring any time in this millennium.

I haven't seen anyone hear argue for the NVCs "revocation", but rather the return of the financial portion to the pension vice lump sum; after all the NVA is a living document according to their own words; so why aren't they fixing the problem??

Because some invisible poll somewhere that they are using to back themselves up (& save themselves beaucoup d'argent on the backs of our injured's futures ...) had a whole bunch of anonymous "satisfied" people who are, apparently, DVAs majority. Yet not a single "unsatisfied" soldier who forms the minority has ever met, heard from, or heard mention of a single name of, any one of these invisible "satisfied" customers.

Perhaps DVA should be mandated to "put that data" onto the public table rather than just quoting figures that only they are allowed to see; they keep using that as an "excuse" to say that there is not a problem (that's their fault or responsibility to correct) with the lump sum --- then they can ante up the proof. It is NOT, nor should it be, our injured's job or responsibility to prove them wrong.

DVA exists under it's mandate to look after these personnel. It is their job to correct their problems ... without long, drawn-out decades long court battles. I am old enough to have served during the decades when our vets had to sue them to get paid the interest on their pensions that "DVA had earned on the vets money, but not paid to the vet" ... and when spouses lost their pension when they remarried after their vet had passed on. No, it certainly has never been about the money & savings for DVA.

Our injured should not be required to fight for dignity and respect. They should not be required to go through this simply because "all party support" bought into the bureaucrats "spin on how vets would be better off" when that has now been shown to be an errone us and flawed spin. Especially in the years that should have been their golden years - years that these others will be enjoying their grandkids and playing catch with them - while our vets are guaranteed SFA by way of dignity, respect, QoL or financial stability during their very own "golden years"; golden years which have now begun far too soon due to injuries received at the very behest of those who "supported" the NVA.

Perhaps those "supporters" who now obviously know that the NVA is flawed --- should do the right thing and "support" the evolution of this financial document whereby the lump-sum is modified to a return to the monthly pension; after all, there shouldn't be any issues about doing that coming from any party because, as they say, "it isn't about the money".

 

[Future Pensioner]

My question, and this may open up a whole new can of worms; If we return to a monthly system, what will happen to those that have fallen under the NVC, and received a lump sum?

dileas

tess

A suggestion:

"Fix" a start date.  Figure out what the monthly pension amount will be.  Start the individual on the monthly system.

To account for the lump sum payment:  Go back to date of application, figure out how much the individual should have received on the "monthly" plan over the term (adjusted for every year).  Deduct this amount from the lump sum.  The balance is what is "owed" by the individual.  This can either be paid back by the individual all at once, or, like a buy back of pension system, a loan is opened in the balance amount at a REASONABLE interest rate and then is paid back by the individual.

Example:

20% award level.  Applied on 01 Sep 07 (therefore 36 months for purposes of calculation) - granted a $51,145.85 lump sum (This does not take into account any other monies that the individual would have received under the NVC (ie PIA, 75% factor, etc...) - but they can be calculated in). 

Today's rate for 20% monthly pension - $661.80;  2009 - $640.92;  2008 - $625.28;  207 - $613.03

(5 months x 613.03)+(12 months x $625.28)+(12 months x $640.92)+(9 months x $661.80) =  $24,215.75

$51,145.85-$24,215.75= $26,930.10 owed either lump sum or payments.  Maybe the monthly payment can be deducted from the new $$661.80 monthly disability award that the individual will begin receiving.



This is an example only and may not be a perfect system, but then again it is just a suggestion.

 

[SeanNewman]

To me it seems absurd to make the members pay it back, interest or not.

First, it was given under the assumption that they were fully entitled to it, secondly it could be tied up in investments or a house, and lastly it's dumb to pay it back when the monthly payments will eclipse it at some point anyway.

Your last example of subtracting it from his new pay makes a tad more sense, but it not completely because as per above all that money is going to find its way back to the soldier anyway.

 

[57Chevy]

Being a member of CAFA , I sometimes receive letters of concern by veterans circulating around throughout
the many other respected associations. Through the grapevine so to speak. This one is of particular interest.
With respect, NNNPD (PM for provision if need be)
           
                ______________________________________________________________

Subject: Is it time for veterans collectively to help each other? No one else appears to be committed to resolving Veteran's problems.


      Gentlemen; Recent events concerning the firing of veterans Ombudsman Stogran and the apparent lack of interest by Canadians in general would seem to suggest that veterans groups and organizations that claim to represent veterans in the resolution of their problems, had better become much more vocal in assisting veterans who need help, because apparently no one else will.
     
      Two events that have taken place in the past year have convinced me that if veterans of any era ( WWII, Korea, Peacekeeping, Afghanistan, etc.), do not step up and help each other now, perhaps we don't deserve help!
     
      The first event was a series of veterans "round table" meetings established by VAC and held across Canada during the summer of 2009. Veterans were invited to these meetings and present to the VAC representatives, all of their concerns( pension, health and other issues). I attended two of these round table meetings, held in Cochrane and Calgary Alberta respectively. To my surprise and disappointment, only 7 veterans attended the Cochrane meeting, chaired by David Sweet of Veteran's Affairs, while fewer than 20 attended the Calgary meeting, chaired by then Minister Thompson himself. After these meetings, I summarized the items discussed and personally presented a list of 8 recommendations to the Minister. I've heard not one word from anyone in VAC regarding this list of suggested improvements to the New Veterans Charter and I can guess why. So few veterans showed up at these meetings, that VAC didn't believe there were enough veterans who cared about veterans problems to pay any attention!
       
      The second event that should cause concern among veterans and their apparent unwillingness to stand together for their common good took place in Edmonton during 12 - 22 August 2010 at the annual Fringe Festival. The event was a series of  7 performances of a play called WAR & THERAPY, about a psychologist and her attempt to help a veteran suffering from the trauma of memories of war. I learned about the play from Keith Black of VAC, who forwarded a request that at least one veteran volunteer to attend each of the 7 performances to participate in an interactive Q&A session with the audience at the conclusion of each performance. (To help educate the public about war and the issues that affected soldiers who were involved after returning home).
       
      I forwarded Mr. Black's request, as well as a brief description of the play and it's significance to my contacts at 4 Veteran's Associations, encouraging these groups to have members volunteer to attend the Q&A sessions. NO ONE VOLUNTEERED, even though Edmonton is literally filled with veterans and returned soldiers! I volunteered to participate in two of the Q&A sessions and the comments by civilians in those audiences made it clear to me that Canadians generally do not understand soldiers and their role in a democratic country, nor do many of them seem to care and our politicians know this ! That's why they don't care either !
       
      The results of this apparent lack of interest by veterans to stand up for each other and tell their stories in these two examples of opportunities presented and missed, suggest to me that if we don't get off our asses and help ourselves, we don't deserve help!  Lets face it, if VAC tells the Canadian public that approximately 70% of our veterans are happy with the New Veterans Charter and no one speaks for the other 30%, will anything change if we don't get vocal ! !
       
      To conclude, I encourage each of you to share this message with your Association and it's members and I further suggest that if individual veterans are concerned about how Canadian Governments treat Canada's veterans, that they are not shy about writing to their MP to declare their displeasure. I have already contacted my Member of Parliament.

 

[Turner]

As a member that received a lump sum for PTSD I really wish that I could have received a monthly payment. With PTSD, your lifestyle has to be changed in order to deal with the mental illness. A lump sum is just a big spending spree for a few months. A monthly payment could help support your growing needs to do "other things" in order to not fall into a downward spiral (which could easily happen with PTSD) I would return my lump sum if it was going to be a monthly payment instead. Except I don't have much of it left so that would difficult to do I guess!

 

[57Chevy]

There is no law against the seemingly squandering of money with regards to receiving a lump-sum.
It is well known that shopping is a type of therapy in itself. Looking around at new things, clothing, equipment, tools and so on is a great idea. Buying everything is not.

It seems that during the time a recipient is waiting for his unknown amount, he already has the twinkle in his eye on something or other, be it repayment of loans or other debt........ I think that's pretty well normal.
I mean, lets face it, if your driving an old clunker.........you probably had your eye on a better one.
Maybe even a new one.

Turner,
Thanks for sharing that.
Best regards

 

[Wookilar]

I was one of the ones polled.

I said, I would prefer it over time. Now, I do not remember all the questions (4?5?, not many), but it seemed to me at the time that the questions were definately skewed for a particular outcome. While I may have failed my Stats course the first time, I certainly passed the second time, so I understand at a very basic level at least, on how to build a survey to come up with a certain data set.

As it comes to "squandering" my lump sum payment, I'm like Turner (and probably many others), there's not much left. I even went to SISIP with 9D and we presented our plan to them and got a thumbs up on all counts (which felt very good, by the way. The amount of sweat and lbs I probably lost scared I was going to piss it away).

A monthly pension, even a small one, would be far superior to any lump sum, except possibly at the max upper end (where you could see some very quick, and substantial, returns if invested in the right areas). Problem is, who the hell gets the max award? Someone so screwed they're lucky to be still breathing. How much capacity will they or their family have to properly plan anything when they are just going to be focused on surviving?

Before I get on a full on rant, I'll pause there...

:2c: for what it's worth.

Wook

 

[Alien1]

$250,000.... Wow.... This check should come with a money managing course. With that, you can have a $750,000 loan and buy up to 20 apartments building in Montreal and create your own $12,000 monthly pension check..... 

 

[Michael OLeary]

It does come with available financial advice. The problem is that those who might not invest it wisely likely won't take the advice anyway.

I was at a VAC briefing this week. The rep who spoke to us acknowledged that the lump sum payment is currently under review.

 

[Alien1]

It does come with available financial advice. The problem is that those who might not invest it wisely likely won't take the advice anyway.

I agree with you but why are they complaining then if they don’t listen advices??? It’s nobody’s fault if some soldiers lack of financial education. Knowledge is power and it’s everyone owns responsibilities to get the necessary education and knowledge to invest that money in a proper way. Taking soldier by the hand like a 5 years old kid doesn’t help.... at the end, they cry like kids to have more candies. At lease, it’s good if they can have choices. A monthly check for those who can’t manage money and a full check for those who can make millions out of it.

 

[SeanNewman]

Alien1,

A lot of what you are now discussing has already been covered on this thread if you go back to the beginning.

All the pros/cons about each system, and first hand accounts of those who have and are going through the process.

 

[armyvern]

$250,000.... Wow.... This check should come with a money managing course. With that, you can have a $750,000 loan and buy up to 20 apartments building in Montreal and create your own $12,000 monthly pension check.....

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.

 

[SeanNewman]

Vern,

Are you sure that he has to pay for his own things like a vehicle conversion out of that $250k?

I'm not challenging everything you wrote, I just thought that it had already been pointed out that a soldier doesn't have to pay out-of-pocket for disability-related things like a ramp, car conversion kit, etc.

 

[57Chevy]

It does come with available financial advice. The problem is that those who might not invest it wisely likely won't take the advice anyway.

I was at a VAC briefing this week. The rep who spoke to us acknowledged that the lump sum payment is currently under review.

It certainly does, prior to or just after receiving the lump sum, you get a little package in the
mail with lots of good information to consider.

That review should be good news for soldiers and veterans alike.
Thanks Mike

 

[Occam]

It certainly does, prior to or just after receiving the lump sum, you get a little package in the
mail with lots of good information to consider.

You get more than just a package of information.

You may be eligible for financial planning paid for by VAC.

From the link:

Financial advice

Under the New Veterans Charter, disability awards, detention benefits and death benefits are lump sum amounts. You may wish to seek out the advice of a financial expert to help you manage your lump sum payment. If the payment is $12,500 or more, some, or all, of the fees related to this advice may be paid by our Department, up to a maximum of $500.