Will SISIP follow VAC's 15% increase to the ELB?

Okay, so are you saying lawnboy that SSIP LTD is deducting my pennision amount  from the 75% total and they are paying in fact less then 75% because of my penision deduction.

I hope I am right in what your saying now because I view it like.  Let's say I worked full time at a job, I would get paid 100% from my current job and still paying into CPP, but I would still get my monthly CF penision amount till I am 65 with no penalty.  

So, why can SSIP not pay my 75%  military monthly salary without deducting my monthly CF penision.  I paid into both plans, but they now penaltize me monthly.

I think a light switch went on for me lawnboy.  Hopefully you can see what I am talking about.

From my FB group. SISIP + NVC is the right way...

Was replying to a question on SISIP vs ELB when it struck me:

SISIP is supposed to be "own occupation" Long Term Disability insurance.

Earnings capacity Loss Benefit (ELB) is a copy of SISIP, including the automatic qualification if medically released.

However, ELB gets away with that part of the deal in that they use SISIP to "complement" ELB. I think they should look up the definition of "complement."

I'm adding this as a preamble to "supplement" or "complement" my earlier post where I compared the definitions of the words.

Here is where I am going:

1. SISIP now covers "own occupation;" nearly exclusively;

2. ELB now covers "any occupation," BUT the NVC states that we have the RIGHT to ELB after medical release via the 120 day clause!

We are supposed to get the same as the Pension Act pensioner. If we don't they get a way more significant benefit from the same amount of contribution.

They paid:

1. The Right to sue for the pension;

2. Cash & service for the SISIP LTD.

We paid:

1. The Right to sue for the NVC benefits;

2. Cash & service for SISIP LTD.

So how come we can't get what we paid for? The Pension Act pension was replaced by a "suite of benefits." We had no choice about that decision. They could have left the pension in place. They chose to meddle with the design.

The hidden design here, what I am trying to expose, is that the NVC was designed SOLELY to get rid of the SISIP + pension problem.

What they failed to realize or knowingly ignored was that the SISIP + pension deal is the Bradburn Rule. That was the way it was supposed to be since 1976 when they added on duty injuries to SISIP LTD. Their negligence landed us all in this position. Had they done it right back then, everyone would accept it as normal.

As they did it wrong, everyone accepts the WRONG way as normal & that makes my job extremely hard.
I used to be a teacher, allow me to "teach" SISIP & VAC a lesson:

Complement (Oxford Dictionaries)

A thing that contributes extra features to something else in such a way as to improve or emphasize its quality: local ales provide the perfect complement to fine food

Supplement (Oxford Dictionaries)

A thing added to something else in order to complete or enhance it: the handout is a supplement to the official manual

Federal Long Term Disability insurances, like SISIP LTD, are meant to supplement other benefits.

Canada Pension Plan is stated to supplement other benefits in the Canada Pension Plan Act preamble.

So if I get SISIP LTD & it is designed to "supplement" other benefits, like CPP, it is meant to be added to something else to complete it or enhance it. As it is a monetary benefit, this can only mean more money with both benefits than with just the one benefit. That logic is unassailable.

However, SISIP LTD claims the Right to clawback the value of the Canada Pension Plan Disability insurance. Let us, for example, say I was getting $2,000 SISIP LTD. Then I get $1,000 CPPD.

In SISIP's reality, I am "supplemented" by the fact that I now get $1,000 from SISIP (they save $1,000 at my expense) & $1,000 from CPPD, for a total of $2,000.

This can, at best, be described as STATUS QUO but for the fact that the cost & aggravation of applying for the CPPD is oppressive. We pay premiums into CPP to get CPPD if we become disabled. We pay premiums into SISIP LTD to "supplement" CPPD. Gaining NOTHING is not able to be described by the most able wordsmith, as a "SUPPLEMENT."

Maybe they mean that SISIP LTD is meant to "complement" CPPD. The Oxford Dictionary states this means to contribute extra features to improve or emphasize its quality. Sounds like the exact same thing as "supplement."

Using the same figures, $2,000 SISIP LTD & $1,000 CPPD:

SISIP pays $1,000 (they "complement" by reducing the SISIP LTD by the same amount as CPPD pays) & CPPD pays $1,000 for a total of $2,000. Obviously, this is not a "complement," either.

Seems that their definition of "complement" & "supplement" require them to attend remedial lesson after school.

Fortunately for Canadian disabled veterans, there are readily accessible sources that allow an understanding of what goes through the heads of the government workers that administer these plans.

In 2003, there was a case where Sun Life sued Ryan in Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Sun Life v Ryan NSSC 2003) & parol evidence was used. Normally, when a judge must interpret a contract, the "four corners" rule applies. The agreed upon terms only can be judged, not the draft material.

In the parol evidence, there was a letter from a Treasury Board Secret where a MORON stated that the Sun Life Disability Insurance plan was meant to supplement other benefits, "in other words to be subtracted from the Sun Life benefits."

Obviously, this person had less than the best education experience if he believed that "supplement" means "subtract."

Let us all tell CRA that we will "supplement" our taxes this year by a voluntary "supplement" using the same definition.

Won't they be surprised when we get more taxes back & not pay in more as they expect!

The scary thing here is that the judge in the Ryan NSSC 2003 case did not say, "Hang on a second there. read that last piece back to me. Are you serious? Are you high? Supplement does not mean "subtract," it means "add! Case dismissed, I rule in Ms Ryan's favour & award punitive damages for the IDIOTIC position taken by Treasury Board Secretariat."

Unfortunately, that did not happen so we are still stuck with the STUPID procedure where we pay into more than one benefit plan only to lose the value of one of the benefits!

Insane.

They need ann education & we should give it to them.

Pinger, I agree totally. The sneaky illegal interplay.

Take the Manulife T4A form sent in. That is a lie. That might be forgery. Criminal Code s. 366 (I think, been some time since I reviewed it) says to place false information on a document to fool someone is a crime.

What crime? Society must trust in documents. If we don't trust what we read, in an official document sent to CRA that affects our tax situation, who can we trust? The rule of lw depends on everyone following it, geneerally. I used to be a payroll tax colletor. What Manulife is doing is the same as a Payroll Accounting firm. They must put the actual payer on the forms, according to the Canadian Payroll Accounting agency. Yet Manulife & Canada flout the Income Tax Act. The actual payer, not the financial intermediary must plae their name on the forms. (National Bank of Canada v Canada FCA 2003: National Bank lost. They took CRA to court when they were using Manulife to hide their role to avoid EI premiums. The judge said, "Not only is Manulife not an 3rd party insurer, it is not an insurer. It acts as the finanical intermediary for the employer."

Well to me... sisip is DND and elb is VaC.
It's the sneaky interplay that's not good.

Beyond that, shop for policies that are independent and DIRECT payouts
(good luck on that) Danger pay?

That's hindsight though. Never knew shyte when I was young

Repost from my FB group. Somersall SCC 2002 should help us greatly.

ICYMI?: Somersall SCC

72 In view of the near-negligible value of the subrogation right, it would be overreaching, in my view, to regard its loss as significantly changing the insurer’s position.

** The risk that the insurer has assumed is effectively compensated for by the insured’s monthly premium.

**Without being #cynical, I would be very surprised indeed if the loss of a subrogation right with little practical value were significant enough to have any effect whatever upon the insurer’s balance sheet.

**** The #insurer is #free to set #premiums at such a level as to ensure that its #risk is covered, exclusive of the anticipated value of subrogation rights, and I would cautiously presume that this is precisely what it has done.

- Here is the answer to SISIP saying that offsets would cost more. SISIP is free to set the premium at what it requires. If the offsets are illegal, they have saved money though illegal means.

73 The value of the indemnity payment, by contrast, is of great significance to the insured.

- The value of the non-indemnity payment is of great significance to the insured & disabled veteran.

** It is clear enough that the insured valued the availability of such payment highly enough to pay a substantial increase in monthly premiums for it.

- It is clear that the disabled veteran, while serving, valued the availability of such payment highly enough to pay the monthly premiums as required by law.

*** It is also clear that the insurer would rather not make the payment, to the extent of pursuing the case all the way to this Court.

- It is clear that the insurer, SISIP, would rather not make the payment, to the extent of forcing us to take it to court

bigrex, by paying premiums to an insurance get an entitlement to payment.

The insurer sets the premium, who are we to argue how much they set it at? The Somersall SCC 2002 case is important here: "Without being cynical, I presume the insurer is free to set the premium at whatever it please." (Or words to that effect)

What you say about cost versus benefit is also present in the Manuge case. From 1976-2012, the premium was kept artificially low by unlawfully taking the Pension Act pension indemnity insurance payment into account. Had they factored in the cost of paying the SISIP LTD + Pension Act pension, the government would have had to pay much more in premiums.

My lawsuits will reveal that the premiums should have been even higher because they unlawfully clawback CF & CPP pensions.

McInnes Cooper tried to say something to me on that: "You get what you pay for!"

I presume he meant I didn't pay much so why expect much.

My reply to him though is right in law: "I paid for my CPP, CF pension & SISIP. Therefore I am entitled to all, 100% of each."

Bradburn Rule: get what you pay for. It isn't our fault they don't understand insurance. If they did, they should have left the Pension Act pension alone.

I agree that SISIP should increase to 90%, but it shouldn't be because we paid premiums, because they will only say that the premiums had been based on receiving compensation for 75%, not 90%. And the government will never allow you to collect 180% of your pre-release income, by replacing the same lost income twice, from two separate sources.

I'm talking to a reporter now on this now & I hope she will do a story. My points to her were:
1. SISIP is 1st payer for service injuries so it MUST go to 90%;
2. We paid the premiums so we have to get SISIP + ELB;

The good news is Micheal Blais is on it effective 22 August. (According to his facebook page) He has the ears of the top dogs.... got a feeling we will have answers soon ...stand by !

Not sure about sparrows or birds in the belfry but I do have my real pet budgies.

Anyhow, back to sisip 15.

I get really fired up about SISIP. Paid the premiums but I luckily never had to put in a claim (?) to them. Most buds I served with hated sisip because they were crooks.

Was sisip ever voluntary but recommended for pineapples? Some insurance was v. recommended for wife, kiddies etc. but had to sign up for it in the late 70's. It was not compulsory.
Perhaps I'm thinking of a will? Maybe that's it. No lol.

Back to 15% though. Was announced a while back effective 31 Oct. for elb under VaC.

15% for sisip? It ain't under VaC. It's under DND right? Meanwhile... MVA Hehr is the Deputy (associate?) M of DND as well. And all the while sisip is just a 3rd party insurance company in the back pocket of DND.

Sisip is private sector. They are NOT a Federal Department.

Something is extremely fracked with this picture besides me. Too many footsies...

Some would think sisip should mirror elb? Say... VaC and DND to jive Federally right?

Nada. But that's just my opinion. Thoughts?

lol @ firebird I know you do buds .

propat

propat enough with the among others and just tell me already. LOL Never mind I know.

Elgin you would not happen to be Sparrow in disguise?

number 4 yadda yadda yadda

Number 3