Off topic post / Moved

Not without making my point made and it has been made now. Now I will leave it be. You are welcome.

Firebird, it has been addressed, so please leave it be. Thank you

I have Major Depression ( PTSD ) , had it since 2000 , served 9 more years after that before being Medically released and I have never been in Combat. My psychological condition comes from the very people in the Military , not the Military itself , however I could not sue another Military member for their actions. The only thing that I could do is file a claim with Veterans Affairs , the organization designed to help currently severing Military members as well as Veterans. I had to wait until I was released to apply for the insurance ( SISIP ) coverage which as you all know is very difficult to receive. I thought about suing the individual members throughout my career once I was no longer in the Military but there was just to many wrong doing people , currently serving and already retired. So NO I do not feel like I do not deserve financial support , health support and physical support. I struggle with my physical and psychological conditions every day and it takes every thing that I have to do it and it is still not enough. I go through hell everyday , put my family through hell everyday and I have almost killed them. Went to jail for it , SO NO I WILL NEVER STOP FIGHTING TO GET EVERYTHING THAT IS AVAILABLE TO ME AS A VETERAN.

Good statement, Big Rex!

I have to go with Trooper on this. You have made your opinions very clear Rags, now and in the past. It's one thing to tell a Veteran that you don't think that they will be successful in their application, based on the available information and or experience, but to tell them that they do not deserve the benefits, because they did not endure something such as combat, can be quite inflammatory. So to keep bringing it up, would only serve to antagonize other Veterans, who have been permanently disabled for reasons other than combat. So lets agree to disagree and drop the subject altogether.

So I respectfully request that everyone should rather focus on how we can help other Veterans, and NOT on whether or not we feel they deserve the benefits they are seeking. Trust me, disabled Veterans have enough detractors within the bureaucracy, and hurdles to overcome, without adding our voices to the mix.

Here's a good one, emergency stations at sea because individuals standing watch on deck collapsing due to standing watch for less than an hour of inhaling exhaust from whatever fumes funneled passed the member standing watch on deck of an HMCS, great shit, knowing that your body is rolling around on the quarter deck while past out, glad they didn’t role over board.
Oh yes, they blamed the two individuals instead of acknowledging the true facts like always.
True Story
Maybe not the same kind of danger, but still the dangers of serving is still there.
I love the smell of exhaust in the morning.

Rags ,

Your point is made and understood , that is your opinion and that is your right to voice your opinion , we also have the right to voice our opinions , I'm not going to spend to much time debating on who's opinion is right or wrong.

If you carefully read what I have written , you will understand my point a bit clearer.

In any event like I said , I or others may see it in a different way , if you want to come on here accusing me of twisting your words , fill your boots , but in the end , I will stick to what it is I believe , as you will stick to what it is you believe.

I must also say that it is true that we encourage members to respectfully voice their opinions , but a lot of Veterans will not agree to what it is you believe which unfortunately can result in insulting a lot of disabled Veterans.
So be prepared for some disagreements on your position in this particular topic.

Trooper,

That is why we had Long Term Disability Insurance for that exact reason non battle related injuries. The only issue is what pot of money and who is responsible thats it to argue front line verses rear Esh or battle trade non battle trade is a non starter argument. A front line infantry soldier that injuries his knee in a gym PT after hours pickup game of broom ball is the same as a cook in this argument so dont confuse the two to better make your and teens position look valid. But they are different from the soldier who lost his leg in a mine explosion in A Stan or the cook that lost his leg in A Stan beside the soldier. Those two in A Stan be they front line or Esh are treated the same. Stop the silly twisting of reality. Argue the point Im making as to why should DVA pay for the broom ball after hours injury when private insurance handles that for everyone in the work force and handled it for us pre 99.

So enough of the twisting of reality to make your argument look reasonable argue the real point. And as I said this poor fellow would have been treated just fine under pre 99 SISIP private insurance system. It is only now that we have messed up this system so bad that we need to go back to base principles of pre 99 and pre 95 DVA and private insurance.

Rags

I was the guy who handed out the canex points! Hand hasn't been the same!

To add from my last post , I do believe if the argument is to only make available VAC benefits to those who have received battle injuries , then the wording for those non combating trades should not include the obligation to answer the call of duty , when signing the dotted line , when entering the service.

The problem is that you cannot fight battle's without support trades , it's that uniqueness that puts under the same umbrella.

Whether you fall off a fuel vehicle , being a medic attending to the injured , or back home working in one of your trades and get injured , were all in the same group , whether your in the front line or not.

To start to categorize this in the form of who or what soldier gets VAC benefits, is not justified in any way shape or form.

Yes, there are people who have had questionable claims approved, but for every one of those, there are hundreds, or more, of legitimate claims that have been denied over the decades. The PA was brought in, and expanded, beyond combat, because the GoC recognized that military life is inherently dangerous, and that you do not have to be in combat to be injured, or even killed. And the very fact that we are capable of being put into a life threatening situation, just because it's Tuesday, means that most private insurance companies will not accept to take on LTD or life insurance for CF members.

In fact, there have been 57 CF members killed on duty since 2006, that are listed as non combat related, or accidents. Many of them here in Canada.

In my opinion I think we have to first ask ourselves what is driving the perceptions of Battle entitlements , versus non Battle entitlements , in the deciding factor between who gets to receive Benefits under VAC , besides ones own personal beliefs.

Firstly when discussing the past pension act , in general it is refered to those from WWI & WWII , in my opinion this only holds true to a certain extent.
By this I mean the PA was available to all serving military personnel prior to 2006 , and not just for those from past wars and Battle injured soldiers , all serving members.

The next question that should be asked or answered is why was the pension act available pre 2006 ?

It is my understanding and feel free to correct me here , the pension act was not only to honor the sacrifice of those in the front line but to honor all serving members who signed on to answer the call of war.
It was the sacred obligation that was put in place to honor and respect both , or all.
In reality , it was a show of respect that was put in place by our government , to honor all serving members  and to highlight the importance of recognizing the fact that all who signed on , signed on to answer the call of duty , not just the infantry , but all who signed.
It was a one Veteran one Standard approach that worked well , and was well received for the most part by Veterans who found themselves being medically released.

Fast forward to the now enacted NVC , here in my opinion is where the shift in perception of the above has shifted , from the one Veteran one Standard approach , to the Battle soldier benefits perception , with regards to VAC.
In my view the move had brought forward some excellent benefits , but only to show that few were getting what was in place with the previous pension act.
No longer was the perception looked at , as previously looked at in the past , one Veteran one Standard approach.
The biggest problem in my mind was the taking away of the lifelong pension , and the tax free from all received benefits under the old act.

They could have repaired this shortly after the NVC was enacted by re introducing the old act as it was , and adding some of the good benefits from the NVC to it.
However , that is not the case , and this perception seems to be on the mindset of those who can actually fix it.

In my opinion this continued mindset , perception , attitude is only going to increase the anger within the injured Canadian military population.
The fight , backlash , court suits will only grow with intensity moving forward.

What is so mind-bottling about this whole situation is that this could be fixed in the proper manner if the right information was given to those in charge of fixing this , and those in charge would actually listen , and act in a command fashion to fix it.

In closing ,

in my view , as long as this perception continues to play forward , Veterans will have no other choice but to fight to protect each others rights , and fight to regain that sacred obligation that was once in place.

Rags + Navrat - It is not often I chime in, but I totally agree with you Navrat. Rags, I do not see what I went thru and seen at Swiss Air, under the military, greed as you suggest. I have many injuries over the yrs in the CF, and that one , my last ended my career. I too did missions, but it was one in Peggys Cove that was the end of it all. So I do not see your reasoning. If not for the help I got fm VAC, OSSIS, and this gp, I would not be here. VVV...

I guess VAC would be outta business pretty quick with the battle injuries only situation ! Bottom line if your in uniform and injuries your covered! Period! You want a two tier system and that is not good. Rags sometimes you act like your some battle hardened World War Two veteran who was in combat for 5 years. Give me a break! Really! I used to hear the same bs from the WW 2 veterans at the legion who thought the Korean War veterans didn't deserve anything and the Korean veterans and ww2 did it to every veteran afterward at the legion. Imagine what they would have thought of your battle hardened experience! People like you can't help yourself , let it go, what does it matter to you if someone in uniform gets hurt and gets a pension from vac , it doesn't take away from your massive battle harden war experience!

This is a perfect example of why SISIP private insurance is so important to CF members. A Stroke is an insurance issue not a Veterans affairs issue. It would only be a VA issue if the stroke came from battle injuries while recovering. We have so F%#*ed up the system that it is now total dysfunctional. This poor fellow deserves help and support from the system. In the old system pre 99 he would have had support and help right away from SISIP. Veterans affairs would have had nothing to do with it.

We need a system that is clear and simple. Battle injuries VA deals with non battle injuries are private insurance carrier. Private insurance Shit simple the way it works for everyone in the work place. DVA is the extra to cover the battle wounded as it was originally created for. Anything else is greed and misguided.

Rags