Fraud & Disability

And before this devolves any further, I think that this thread will be locked.

Teen, I do not think the comment was called for, but nor was it all that offensive. At least no more offensive than telling other disabled Veterans that they are frauds, and not worthy of support from VAC, because they weren't injured in combat. Rags had to expect some backlash for his comments, and IMPO, he could be told off in far less polite ways, and likely would be, if face to face.

I don't give a fiddler's fadoo what you think Navrat. You openly insulted another veteran and it was uncalled for not to mention you broke a CSAT rule.

Oh and I wasn't apologizing for you. I was apologizing to Rags that he had to read such a comment from another veteran on a Forum that has rules about not insulting another veteran.

So why don't you grow a pair and apologize for what you wrote about another veteran on a veteran friendly forum.

Apologize , Teen give me a break! How about Rags apologize to every veteran that wasn't injured by combat and making 99 percent of the veterans who have been injured and are fighting VAC for benefits stop feeling like shyte! I'm so sick of the battle injured BS he's been saying for years! It's dirty , mean spirited and down right nasty! Oh I my injuries did occur in A battle zone when I was posted to the Canadian embassy in Kabul during the early years but I don't go around knocking poor and injured veterans who get injured anywhere and everywhere. So Teen don't apologize for me, I don't need you to cover something I stand proudly for, and it's about time somebody put a soak in the heros mouth. The last thing 99 percent of you want is a movement which Rags stated he would start that wants to cut VAC benefits, instead Teen you should get a pair and thank me!

His example is fiction. The primary criteria to receive a disability award, is the presence of a proven disability, which is a condition that by their definition "means the loss or lessening of the power to will and to do any normal mental or physical act." , so having an unconfirmed diagnosis, paired with a temporary treatment would not qualify as a disability.

And even if they did approve it, the Table of Disability does not support his claims of a $15000 payment.

Rating Criteria
Nil One episode of D.V.T. with no sequelae.

Nine D.V.T. requiring greater than 1 year thromboprophylaxis; or
Post-thrombotic leg syndrome with edema and pain.

Thirteen Post-thrombotic leg syndrome with edema, pain and ulceration; or
Recurrent D.V.T. or pulmonary embolus secondary to D.V.T. while on thromboprophylaxis.

So, an SDA approved disability is automatically 5/5ths, so it would have to be a minimum of 10%, but only if his docs show that he was told to take the aspirin for at least a year, and they had been some sort of clinical tests, such as an ultrasound, to confirm the diagnosis. But this is what I was talking about, how he could stretch or bend the truth to fit into his argument. Even his claim about the other approved conditions the veteran seem suspicious. They would never approve separate claims for Degenerative disc disease AND chonic back pain. They would be bracketed. And they also won't approve a claim for tinnitus, unless there is service related hearing loss as well. I know because they denied my Tinnitus claim, and in spite of being diagnosed with moderate hearing loss within 5 years after my release, they stated that my release medical did not indicate any hearing loss at that time.

ya nav love ya buds but that bit at the end their I gotta agree with teen their not necessary buds .

propat

Offside there Navrat! That comment to Rags was not called for. He has agreed to step back from the discussion so there is absolutely no need to throw an insult like that at him.

I don't know if Navrat will apologize for that comment Rags but I will apologize to you that you had to read a comment like that. I also apologize to any guest that has read it as well.

ive known 2 guys that are getting DVA pensions they don't deserve and one other that was and got caught . so it happens but from my experience very rarely . given the ombudsman's report on VRAB that would confirm this . in fact it seems fraud is being committed by VRAB against soldiers on a massive scale .

now I don't have a WIA or SM didn't know the WIA existed and now its to late . because of dates cant get a SM either but don't really care it doesn't change my situation either way .

now here is a little food for thought .

why cant newly disabled combat vets get a monthly pension ?? well I suggest because of the NVC .

why do we have the NVC ? I believe it was to save money because the GOC thought the DVA budget would grow to high in the far future with a war going on.


one might even say that the expenses incurred due to the changes in DVA in 99 may have lead to a perceived need for the NVC by the GOC in the first place .

one might even say that by the GOC allowing non combat injured into the PA in 99 is the biggest reason combat vets cant get the PA pension today .

maybe not my opinion got no time for the GOC at this time so they can lay in their bed the way they made it .

before 99 I thought it was to restrictive now if VRAB was honest not restrictive .

but the way things stand right now with VRAB perpetuating fraud at a scale that dwarfs any fraud that soldiers could possibly pull off I say make the GOC pay and pay through the nose until they straighten out the mess THEY MADE and stop pointing the finger at vets as if we were the ones who made the laws tables and whatnot and sat in parliament to vote them in.

everyone has the right to their opinions and I appiciate them all . I may not agree but even some of the ones I disagree with do hold some merit and I can appiciate .

JMO

propat

The book is garbage and you guys all know I'm a legion member and I have talked to many Second World War vets(not many left at my legion) and Korean War and none of these guys think like Rags. When I mentioned the stripe and his comments to one old guy he laughed and said Us veterans were brothers and I want the same benefits for the cook right thru to the commando, he must be a modern guy! That's it folks , this kinda of garbage divides the veteran community. The majority of veterans , even the young afghan reserves , who seen action want the same for everyone regardless because like the old timer told me without the cook you can eat and can't fight, without the supply guy you can't rearm and fight again and most important without the pay clerk no money gets sent home to the wife, which is very very dangerous. The point is ,if you remove a piece of the rifle it can't fire, every piece is equally important, so I just think Rags has hero complex and should submit a claim to VAC , or loosen the stripe around your head because it's squeezing too too tight!

6608 thanks for that buds .bruce if ya don't mind would you keep an eye on his case studies ? im curios' about how many are actually fraud .

in the preview 6608 provided their is only one case study and it is not fraud .

maybe a loophole if you will or poorly written laws or tables but not fraud .

im wondering how many of the case studies are just rules and laws he disagrees with rightly so or wrongly , as compared to how many are actually fraud .

propat

Like I said before I would not pay to much attention to what is written in this book.

The way it works your condition or conditions have to be service related to be inline with applying for benefits through Veterans Affairs.
If there not service related , you don't get approved it's as simple as that.
I know a lot of Veterans who receive benefits through Veterans Affairs and not one of them are receiving benefits for non service related injuries.

Gary McCauley is simply giving an opinion based on his time with VRAB , an his own personal opinion.
He uses CPL Smith example with a bruised thigh stating that the CPL was horsing around on the tarmac when the injury occurred  and therefore should not be entitle to benefits from DVA.
No kidding !
Where is the proof that CPL Smith submitted and application for VAC benefits based on the admission by CPL Smith that the injury occurred while he was horsing around on the tarmac ?
You won't find it because I'm guessing it does not exist.
So without Gary McCauley actually providing the proof of his opinions , he is without any justification of any such truth that it even occurred in the way he claims it did.
He is out to provoke an insult medically released Veterans based on his own beliefs , there could very well be some claims that have been approved by DVA that are questionable , I don't really know for sure as I don't have access to the same files DVA has but I would need those files to make an assessment on the percentage of false claims , if they exist.

To write a book about a subject without providing the proof of the subject is simply just ones opinion which holds no merits to the author of the book.

Like I said to Rags , if this is the position he an Gary McCauley feel so strongly about , get together , gather the proof an do  whatever it is you want to do.

I have no time for individuals who for whatever reason want to inflict conflict to medically released service members , show me the proof or shout your mouth.

Rags, I do not think that your opinions are shared by most Veterans, even those with combat injuries. I've been on this site since the second or third day of it's existence, and in all that time, you are the only member who has said that only those with combat injuries should be getting benefits from Veterans Affairs. And I bet your views would be different if you had been injured in a training accident. I've never been in combat, but I have feared for my life several times, being approached by low flying aircraft or fast moving small boats while in the Persian Gulf after 9/11 and the attack on USS Cole. I've also had people in my cross hairs, waiting to see if they were merely curious about the ship, or pull out a weapon and open fire. I am also assessed at well over 100% disabled, and deserving of every nickle of support that I am receiving.

Upon further reading, G.F. McCauley has an obvious hang-up with those who have experienced combat and those that have not.  It's a shame to see he brought this attitude into his work and into the public domain.

I'm not saying that there are no instances of abuse to the system, but McCauley is using this argument as a smoke screen to attack all service members who have sustained injury or disease outside of combat.  

And at points also trying to compare those that have seen combat, as if the threat of death or bodily harm or the prospect of having to kill another human being, not to mention the horrors that accompany all those scenarios are somehow different depending on the years and war/s served in.

One thing is for sure.  Whether,  it was in Flanders Fields, Dieppe, Kapyong, The Medak Pocket or the poppie fields of Afghanistan just to name a few,  combat is combat, there is no argument against that.

I still have more to read 6608, I'll finish the book then try to give a decent review, but McCauley has me riled, so I can't make any promises

Bruce72, Looking forward to your review i did just find a preview at the following link below.............


https://paperc.com/books/fraud-disability-the-snafu-at-veterans-affairs/546564/x01_Copyright.xhtml







Cheers

@ 6608

I'm reading the book now. I purchased it from Kobo. I wanted to rip it from the net, but couldn't find a "free" copy. I feel gross for paying 10 bucks for it, but had to read this smut, if only to validate my theory that the people who work for VAC are morally bankrupt.

In the introduction, G.F. McCauley a.k.a. The Clown admits to sitting in Tim Hortons while discussing veterans cases with a VAC employee. And all within ear shot of strangers sitting around them.

This is a blatant violation of privacy laws. The Clown should be sued just for that alone.