OPINIONS/COMMENTS on the 3 Jun 2014 NVC Report

I think it's a good idea to start discussing the details of this report.  
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/412/ACVA/Reports/RP6635229/412_ACVA_Rpt03_PDF/412_ACVA_Rpt03-e.pdf

So if ELB is for life do LTD clients automatically move over to ELB?
Will LTD get 85% if ELB does?  Will an increase to 85% make Manulife bail on the LTD program?
If 85% is approved is it retro or on a going forward basis?
If the lump sum is to mirror all workman comp figures is it retro or going forward?
Should the caregivers allowance be brought back?

So have at it everyone.  Let's hear the suggestions and help VAC and DND write their reports.

Well, my first comment is about the proposed use of net income to calculate ELB. All the recommendations leading into this review, were to increase the percentage of ELB, from 75% to 90-100% based on gross amounts. I feel that increasing the percentage, but basing it on a reduced net amount, is disingenuous, and an attempt to minimize and reduce the only recommendation in the report that would have an immediate economic affect on Veterans for several thousand Veterans.

Just what we need another "net income" v "gross income" fiasco. That has to be a typo because that ends up giving even less to injured soldiers!

They took that 85 percent of net income , non taxable , from the old Ontario WCB ,workers compensation board, my father in law was grandfathered under this for an accident at work

This net bothers me because everyone is taxed different so that ltd maybe your only source f income and end up paying very little tax anyway, so in that situation the current level you'd receive more. What purpose does these reports have, it's like throwing 100 dollars In a pot and stirring it around , the point being that there's no new money just the same 100 dollars in the bucket being given out . How do we benefit

I believe it's a cost saving measure to cut sisip and transfer everyone to VAC ? Plus this will help keep union jobs at VAC . There's a lot of political bs involuted with this.

I was a 2 year SISIP followed by ELB dated to Feb. 2008 so most of my monies stolen is a direct result of VAC playing along with SISIP when it came time for deductions. now that it is time for retro they go back a few months...wtf.

I received back peanuts compared to what i would be owed if they retroed back to the start of my ELB deductions.

Will continue to push for retro, will not give up the fight, my name is in the hat for ELB lawsuit, so bring it on!

I agree Nav, the plan might be fair for the WCB, because everyone affected, are charged the same rate of taxes. But when you are dealing with a Federal program, people in Provinces, like Quebec, are going to receive a lower non taxable benefit, than someone who is living in a province like Alberta, or BC. The only up side to this, is since ELB is currently lumped together with the PIA and PIA supp, when taxes are calculated, this would separate the 2 programs, meaning less taxes would be taken from the PIA side of things.

I guys, my comments ;-)

--That the earnings loss benefit be non-taxable (Does probably mean that it is not consider income than for those who receive CAF annuity this annuity could not be counted as income deduction) and set at 85% of net
income, up to a net income threshold of $70,000 Note: That is the only way this will be beneficial I think !!

--that Veterans Affairs Canada consider the use of a probable earnings approach in determining the amount of
the benefits, and include better access to the three grades of the permanent impairment allowance, for which eligibility criteria must be clarified. Note: Probably earning approach - I want to see what they will do with this one.  PAI not clear how criteria will change - Hope it goes with % of disability - It will make sense.

--and that financial support be provided to family members of seriously-disabled veterans acting as “primary caregivers” as defined under section 16. (3) of the Veterans Health Care Regulations. Note: Not clear at this point.

The report says to be more "liberal" in decisions. Did they even know there is non-medically trained adjudicators making assessments? Also did they investigate how an adjudicator does their decision making?

If this report is focused on the most severely injured. In VAC's books severely injured is what 78%?

How many vets do we know with PTSD and are only assessed at 40-60% and the PTSD is so bad they can't even wash themselves?!

It's time to drive into the heads of VAC, MP's, the public that a "number does not represent reality"

Teen, jusr received a call from my CM stating that my daughter was not eligible for assistance from the pshycologist she had used 2 years ago. Reason, unkown but I was told to put it through my insurance.
I have suffered from PTSD for years and my daughter was getting help previously but then stopped when she went off to university. She now feels she needs some assistance BUT no, our government does not want to help!
I am pissed. Why is there a timeframe stuck to this? She needed help, got it, now needs further assistance.
NO is such an easy answer.
When you say: " Did they even know there is non-medically trained adjudicators making assessments? Also did they investigate how an adjudicator does their decision making?" I can tell you I asked my adjudicator the last time if he was a doctor - NO - Nurse - No - anyone with any medical background -NO - so I told him that he was not qualified to hear my case! He told me he "may not have the medical quals but he had the AUTHORITY!" My lawyer grabbed me as I was standing up to hobble over and throttle the guy.
Total political BS continues.
There is some good news but not a total package that we can be happy about.
I appreciate all you do for us, THANK YOU!

loggie go to this website http://www.osiss.ca/en/index.html OSISS is for the spouses and children. Maybe your daughter can get some help with this organization

Good day Guys, awake early this Am I have a question who somebody could answer - I am confuse about one recommandation - the following;

That the earnings loss benefit be non-taxable and set at 85% of net
income, up to a net income threshold of $70,000, that it be adjusted
annually to the consumer price index,

Let break it down it say - It say it is recommended that ELB be non-taxable and set at 85% of net. What do you understand Guys ?? would it mean that no other income will reduce the ELB ? or something else ? 85% of net ???? I am confuse - Thanks guys
Cosmo

Cosmo, this seems to be the only really contentious part of the report, other than their refusing to even look at anything besides a lump sum award. There are so many aspects about this that are unclear at the moment. Like how can it be called non taxable if they calculate the base amount using some sort of tax calculation. Also, what tax rate are they going to use to determine your net income? Are they going to include provincial taxes in the calculations? Are they still going to deduct other taxable income sources, from a non taxable benefit?

But honestly, since none of these recommendations are binding on the Government, I would not be surprised, if the only three recommendations that do NOT get acted upon, are the increase to the Lump Sum, the change to ELB rate, or making ELB a lifelong benefit.

Thanks Teen i will definitely look into that.