Fraud & Disability

Rags , I thank you for your duty in combat but will never feel sorry for my VAC disability pension and award for non combat roles and I am over 100 percentage disabled.

I was never injured in combat.

But screwed over by the institution, insurance companies and politicians and puppets who pull the strings.

I never wanted out, do you hear me on this one?

I am fighting a different fight now.

Rags, Yes! Combat Veterans and especially those injured and killed should be honored on a different level.
And
Trust me you are!
When I walk around, I have no medals to wear on my chest or a war story to share.
I can only say that I was forced out of the military.
Then I focus my pride and joy towards people like you Rags, why?
You deserve it more then I do, because you looked danger in the face and survived.

But my reality is that being a military dependent and a military member, I really don't know anything else.
My life is and always will be about the military.
I am a bright Canadian unarmed ex-Soldier, my defense is a smile and acknowledgment of your existence, respect other as you want others to respect you, or at least that is how I feel about it.

I hear you loud and clear..............it would appear the voice is being drowned out. I will say no more I will ask for any combat wounded to pass comment on this, there are few of us I wonder if there are any here.

And when I say combat wounded to comment i mean you have a WIA strip or Sacrifice medal. No WIA no SM dont comment here. We will see how silent CSAT is with actual combat wounded.

Rags
MID,CD,WIA
I will respectfully disengage and withdraw from this battle field.

Rags what your saying or suggesting is merely a personal opinion based on nothing more then what it is you believe.
It is an insult to the members an guest of CSAT , it will not change the attitudes or mindset of disabled Veterans.
You have tunnel vision of an issue that holds only to separate/categorize medically release Veterans.

The so called storm you talk of has already started with the enactment of the NVC , but it's a storm that Veterans , Veterans advocacy groups and the courts will fight.
It will not work today or tomorrow because it's all based on the concept of saving money on the very backs of CF personnel.

How many applicants do you think will want to sign on to the service knowing that if injured in non combat theater they are to be inline with their civilian counterparts with respect to what their benefit entitlements are ?
The recruitment is already in a mess , add this type of mindset to it an what would be the result ?

Nobody's suggesting that those in combat are not deserving of special recognition or even special treatment to their service , we all look after each other be it combat or non combat , we fall under the exact same umbrella , that is just being a part of the armed service , some are put into the front lines where others are not , to suggest those who are not in the front line an get injured only receive insurance/workmen's compensation is an insult to all serving members of the armed forces.
Like Rex said , if their going to lean in that way , they better change the rules of the service with not only allowing to sue , but also put those into the same umbrella as the civilians who by the most part have a 9 to 5 job an do not have to worry about being sent into arms way.

CSAT is a place to help one another with all benefits , we do not categorize each other for what or who is entitled to benefits based on combat or non combat , it is all the benefits available to all Veterans be it DVA or SISIP.

Rags if you feel so strongly on your position on this my suggestion would be to contact the said author of the book in question Gary McCauley , perhaps you guys can get together an advocate for your cause an maybe even write a book together.
But to advocate this on CSAT where I do not see any support for you is not helpful to anyone on here , and it's really not warranted as you have made your point crystal clear in the past.

So bottom line is that your point is taken an further discussing it will only lead to upsetting the forum members , so it would be best to drop this topic for the sake of respecting the Forum.
It is a very controversial opinion.

When I joined the Forces I joined for life.

When a 3b medical is warranted and you are injured, you are covered.

Did you see some of us younger injured Vets, Raggy poo? I have a family of three and I was medically released with no control due to my injuries.  
Does it play with your head the rest of your life? Yes, and the hardest part is (in my own delusional mind) they (the CF) still own me.

Fraud & disability,  Thanks for those who made the system FAIR.

P.s You can take me away from the military but you can't take the military away from me.
To those in control and who have done me injustice, I have been waiting 19 years quietly.  I know that I was unjustly treated from the moment I stood up for myself.
Rags P.s buddy, I was covered to the teeth with insurance and guess what? They treat me like I am the burden.

Imagine spending your first 25 years of life surrounded by the CAF and now your free!  But yet when you watch the news the world keeps spinning and the trouble spots are brewing and gathering morons for a caliphate ruining their beautiful land and heritage.  
Here  is to the true north strong and free!
A Real Canadian!
Are You?

I do believe that VAC already determines those injured in combat and those not by assigning an A or B to their K card do they not. For certain things that I became injured I was in a special duty area and have a B on my card. For two others I have an A. B entitles me to a lot different care.

Rags. That is where you are wrong. When members of CSAT speak loudly, we are speaking for ALL veterans who have been injured, even those who lost their careers due to a non service related injury. Heck, I wish VAC offered supports to any Veteran who needs them, just because they are a Veteran. after all, it is called Veterans Affairs, not Disabled Veterans Affairs. Where as you only try to speak for your personal situation, while telling anyone who listens, that everyone without combat injuries are somehow less worthy of support from VAC. But like I said before, military life is dangerous, even without combat. There was a sailor who lost his head in an accident while sitting in Halifax Harbour. I saw another lose two fingers just by having a door closed on them, while alongside. We had yet another who was lost at sea a couple years ago. Those are things that did not happen because they were in combat, but still not something that the average Canadian would have to worry about. So if they want to take benefits away from those, who are injured outside of combat, even if service related, then they better change the rules about CF members not being allowed to sue the government for their injuries. Then we will really see how much it costs the government.

Be forewarned I have raised this here for a few years hoping some would see the merit cause the day is soon going to come when the government of the day will make decisions to fix this mess and I hope we are all prepared for the outcome. There are storm clouds on the horizon that we created and the Government of the day created. It has to change and I suggest will change sooner then you think. Lets be part of a fair solution that works for those that deserve it and protects those that come after us.

Remember the voice of the combat wounded is being drowned out by the vast number of office worker injuries. Remember us when you speak so load we are not heard.

Rags

Rex,
I dont disagree with some of what you say. My view point is a global response to the overall problem and a overall solution. Obviously there are smaller details of what constitutes a wounded in battle injury and what is a full up office work place injury. It is hard to separate the nuance in a few lines on a chat site. In person over a beer having an open frank discussion one can get into the weeds and separate what the details are cause there are always exceptions to the rules.

Rags

Problems arise when you have multiple organizations offering different benefits for sub-sections of a relatively small cross section of Canadians. Originally SISIP was created for those medically released with non service related injuries, because they couldn't get LTD coverage from private insurance companies, and were not covered by the Pension Act. It was eventually extended to PA recipients as well, as they deemed the PA alone wasn't adequate support for severely disable Veterans. And unless you can provide us with an unrevised copy of the original Pension Act legislation, I refuse to believe that the PA was ever intended for only combat related injuries. My father in law received a 100% PA pension, because he was injured in Korea. Except he was injured in a training accident AFTER the war ended. And I know of some WW2 era Veterans that received benefits, and never even left the country. So if it had been only for combat injuries, it was fixed well before any of us were ever born.

Trooper,

  I answer YES to the question......but my reason is different then the comments you make. My point about twisting words is again apparent. At no time did my argument have anything to do with trade of injured! Why is that to make your argument you place trade as a key point in your view? Wounded in combat does not have anything to do with your trade. That argument about not signing on the dotted line or not being committed to battle is a false argument. All trades at some point end up in potential and some times battle. Several in resent years have lost there lives.....Air Force photo tech is a resent example. So the twist of my argument is your insistence to keep bringing non combat arms trades into the argument of wounded on the battle field. It sets a wrong tone to what I am talking about. So lets be clear wounded in battle is wounded in battle trade is irreverent so cannot be used as an argument.

Rags

Rags here's the problem I get with what your saying or suggesting/opinion , now read carefully of what I'm writing , if you get hurt on the job it's an insurance an workmen's compensation issue , alright I get what your saying and fully understand it but that statement only holds for the civilian population and I'll tell you why and it's quite simple , the civilians work for companies , industry , private companies and government , none , and I repeat none have sign the dotted line to answer the call of war.
So let me know if I'm twisting your words here , you are basically saying that all non combat injuries from the CF are to be in the exact same category as civilian workers with respect to injured benefits ?

If your answer is yes , then I would suggest to you that you advocate for non combat trades to be exempt from signing the dotted line to answer the call of war , because this would be the only way to put those non combat forces members inline with the civilian population in terms of what they receive for their injuries , insurance , and workmen's compensation.

Well, ya know what I think. Dont dismiss the actual global comment the author is trying to make. Its valid. The question is how do we fix the system so that all CF members can gain help support and medical treatment be they wounded in combat or on the job. As I have said I support a plan that defines the money pool and support resources so that it is fair to all the tax payer and the injured be they combat or on the job.

One must ask themselves what the original context of Veterans affairs was for in the first place and what the original intention of SISIP LTD was. The system that was in place pre 98 was perfect except one small issue (SISIP) the court case fixed that error but at the same time the DVA was changed and messed the whole thing up.

Its simple if you get hurt at work.......its a private insurance and worker compensation issue if you get hurt in battle its a Veterans Affairs issue....SHIT SIMPLE! unless you want the  the extra benefits battle wounded used to get but all get now.

Let me just say that there are many that claim a battle injury is the same as a injury on the job. Yes in many cases thats correct but a piece of steel through your leg on the range with medical and hospital there and the exercise stops as 100s of people aid in the recovery and help of the injured. Family just down the road bright shinny ambulance hospital await. Try getting a piece of steel in the body 100 kms behind enemy lines 5,000 kms from home with just 5 or 6 guys to help you who are busy trying to ensure they too dont get hurt and all along hold off the enemy and not tending to you. Lay there for hours stopping up your hole with your finger and struggling to get your canteen open to fluids in ya. all the time no screaming no making a sound stay awake staying alert so you can save yourself cause NO ONE IS COMING TO HELP YOU!!!!! Live with that spend 20 days nursing your own wound cause they cant fly docs into you. Trust me there is a difference in the office injury and the battle injury.....shall I go on.....how about picking metal wood stones garbage out of your scares for years later cause you did have the benefit of a modern hospital to tend to you. Battle wounded used to get treated differently now we are all lumped into the same pool......not fair. I dot care if you signed on the dotted line you never got called to cash that cheq!

Rags

The thing is, the entire book could be a lie. He has experience writing fiction, so he could have used that experience to embellish the so called fraudulent claims. There is no evidence that any of his examples ever happened, or happened in the manner he claims. And since he does not include any names, the Veterans that he is supposedly calling out, cannot dispute his claims or correct the record. And I bet those that were foolish enough to buy into his lies, have never served a day in their lives.

And Navrat, VAC will never decide to only cover combat related injuries, because there would be not enough claims to justify the department. Military life is dangerous, and we are asked to put our lives on the line all the time. I remember one time on ship where we had to strike the guard rails to conduct a shoot. At sea, you are not allowed forward of the breakwater without a safety belt, to avoid falling overboard. Unfortunately, they did not have a belt large enough for me, so there I was standing in the middle of the Focsle, in rough seas, not only without a safety belt, but holding onto the safety lines for two of my shipmates. If we had hit a large wave, all three of us would have been gone. But it's not like you could refuse to do the job.

What's a bit concerning is that it says no claimants are named but is he allowed to use Vets cases as examples in his book? Would this not be breaching privacy? I'd be pissed if this guy took my file removed my name and put it in a book to make me look like a fraud due to this idiots opinion.