Veterans who battled Tories to hold protest against Liberals over treatment

The thing is, the two denial letters came from Veterans Affairs, not the province. If it was up to the province to decide who had access, VAC would have stated that at some point in the last few weeks. Also, the Director of Veterans services at the VMB, is a VAC employee. So the hospital itself may be operated and controlled by the province, like staffing, but VAC hasn't completely washed their hands of it

One more important thing people need to remember is that it seems VAC is now going to follow provincial rules/guidelines when it comes to daily living aids.

For example. I have a CPAP for sleep apnea. In Ontario the province pays for 14 "perishable parts" (like headgear, cushions) so VAC pays for 14 items only.

Saskatchewan I believe only pays for 11 parts.

So try to familiarize yourself with daily living aids in your province when you call VAC or go to the service provider.

Money and responsability too.

Thanks Teen , so it's all about money!

I thought I heard Kent say that money for Veterans is not a problem , his words , will pay whatever it takes!

From the info I've gathered over the years about veterans and provincial health care...in the mid-80's or so VAC started downloading veteran health care on the provinces and at the end of the year the fed's would cut a cheque to the provinces for the veteran cost.

After Korea a lot of the vet hospitals/long term care facilities were sold to private owners or given to the provinces.  The WW1 veterans were passing away at the rate our WW2 vets are passing now so VAC wanted out of the hospital/long term care game so they included paying for the beds to the homes that took a veteran in.

In the early 90's each province was mandated to provide X amount of beds for veterans depending on the population of veterans in those areas.  I used to have a list from the 90's.  It was about 12 pages for South/Central Ontario and some homes had 1 bed set aside for vets some as many as 15 beds.

Now this is where the problem started....spouses.  Vets wanted to be placed in the same home as their spouse.  Problem is these homes that had beds set aside for vets were not obligated to provide a bed for their spouse.  

VAC's solution?  They let the contract of beds to be set aside for vets expire.  They left it to the veterans to find their home with their spouse and they would pay for the vet.  

As for the Provincial premier and Hehr going back and forth they are both right.

Hehr is right to say we will pay for the bed but the Premier has to move the vet to the front of the line and put him in Camp Hill.

I know there is 15 beds available but they may be the "premium" beds in the home and VAC does not pay  the "premium" rate.  The home is not ready or willing, because it is owned by the province, to give a premium rate bed to a vet.  So it is on the province because long term care is now a money maker for provincially owned long term care homes.

So that in a nutshell is the fight.

Kent Hehr's Interview with CTV's Steve Murphy

Is it just me or am I missing something here ?

Forward the Video to 3:30 an you will hear our Minister say that the Camp Hill Hospital is provincially own an operated facility.
He goes on to say that Veterans Affairs Canada does not operate the Hospital , he does acknowledge that VAC pays for beds but then goes on to say that it's not within his parliamentary authority to authorize the decision to place the Veteran in this particular Mr.  Petter Blindheim in that Hospital.
He is saying it's a provincial decision.
On the other hand we have the provincial Premier Stephen McNeil who by the way is Liberal calling out the Minister stating that this treatment of denying  Petter Blindheim a place or bed in the Hospital is BS.

So again , what am I missing here ?

Here is the Video;

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=890427&binId=1.1145463&playlistPageNum=1

Lordy, I guess I just type my 2 cents too slow...

But here's my take.

“ We intend to bridge the financial gap between the lump-sums and the lifelong pensions for all those vets who were injured under the lump-sum system. “

Well to me anyway, that sounds like their intending (?) to bridge the disparity between lump sums and PA lifelong pensions.
Taking into account what the initial LSA one received was, and when they got it.
Then forwarding that vets timeline so there isn't any financial difference between them and another vet  with the same disability/% under PA lifelong pensions.

But I don't trust them. What's the GoC's definition of bridging the financial gap going to be? And he didn't specify WHAT lifelong pension so I don't assume it to be PA... “Oh no no folks, we meant the XYZ lifelong pensions”  

What struck me about  Andrew Leslie's response was...

“This ongoing lawsuit began years ago and it is regrettable that under the previous government, veterans had to take this step to ensure their well-being.
Though I cannot discuss any more specifics of an ongoing court case, I can assure Canadians we remain committed to re-establishing lifelong pensions as an option... “

How the heck can this gov't say they remain committed to re-establishing lifelong pensions while at the same time continuing to fight against the very lawsuit they find so regrettable initiated by the last gov't?

I know what that's called...

Fight for veteran denied care


http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=893455

Power Play VIEW FROM THE HILL

Veterans discussion starts at 0:00 ends 4:35


http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=891807

look boys like trooper said and I have said from the get go to much debate might I add that returning the PA pension is easy , relatively fast , and the right thing to do not complex , complicated or will take time and the lifelong pension can mean just about anything .

the GOC also new this from the get go so when they use the words complicated , complex and such they are directly referring to a lifelong pension that IS NOT the PA pension .

yes that's right they are telling you they will not be using the PA pension FLAT OUT .

I wrote the legislation that would fix this FAST , EASY and most of all the right way the second I heard them words used and passed it on to all the political players and multiple vets sites/advocates . of cores the GOC already knew if they were going to do it that's how they would do it soooo why right it up and send it???

simple just to let THEM know that WE know they are going down the wrong path .

complicated !!!! here it is you fracktards a couple of dozen lines taking up half a page for frack sakes !!!! complicated ?????? seems pretty fracking easy to me elementary really .

so when lesli hehr or ANYONE says those words they know for a fact it aint the PA pension and are telling you that.

the legal route on this sucks always has but it is a last resort thing if all else fails protests and media do help a lot though . a political solution is always best .

see when you fight others in court your ok you have defined circumstances and laws that are unlikely to change in favor of the defendants case .

you do this to the GOC especially one with a majority government they can change the circumstances or laws as they see fit and your once solid case can turn into a soup sandwich in short order .

political solution is simply getting those that make the actual laws and legislation ( GOC ) to want to do what you want .

thing is it has nothing to do with right or wrong so ya gotta get that out of your head . THEY DONT CARE ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG .

we need to pay them to do it and ALL these guys care about is money and votes . so that's the currency . to them they are relatively equal because they are traders and can turn money to votes and votes to money very quickly .

money and votes that's all they care about but you have all heard that from me before and another thing you have heard from me how to get them .

a single veterans political ORG . I know of none out their . advocates and orgs galore but not a political wing anywhere I see.

yes it would need will members and money . run properly it should require no money from its members their are money men for that part if you could get one to sign on .

once established and solid the shoe goes on the other foot . we would not be going to them to ask for anything . they would come to us asking for contributions and support . we would just need something in exchange to provide them with that . and that's easy for them because they can receive both real money and votes in exchange for notional money or taxpayers money .

the best solution doesn't mean its the easiest .

propat

Tks Trooper and teentitan, well said statements from you both. Ya Andy needs to wake up and give his head a shake. Turning your back to us will only work so long..VVV...

Johnny I would like to reply to your question of what you missed in "Andy's" response...acutally I believe a lot of people are going to miss this not just you

On the matter of the lawsuit, while our Government and the plaintiffs may not agree on the specific details outlined in the class action, we do agree that parliamentarians have a sacred obligation to our veterans, as outlined in the Minister’s mandate letter. This ongoing lawsuit began years ago and it is regrettable that under the previous government, veterans had to take this step to ensure their well-being.

It's all in this statement. What the guy formally known as "Just call me Andy" LGen (ret’d) HON Andrew Leslie, P.C., M.P. said is we are now going to baffle your brains with complete bullshyte!

The heart of the Equitas lawsuit is the sacred obligation. He just stated that parlimentarians and the defendants of the Equitas lawsuit agree there is a sacred obligation. Well from all the news articles I have read this week this is what the DoJ is fighting....the GoC does not have a sacred obligation to veterans.

So the Liberal House Whip aka "Just call me Andy" is acting like the General when he retired from the CF. He wrote a scathing report about the army...put his release in...move less then 40 kms from one house in Ottawa to a higher scale Ottawa neighbourhood and submitted a full moving bill to the CF and was paid for the move!

Everyone can suggest, discuss, debate, speculate what kind of lifelong pension will be reinsated but get a grip people! If the GoC wins the Equitas lawsuit the Liberals can keep their promise by giving everyone under the NVC $10 a month for the rest of their lives and voila they kept their promise.

Also there is no plan for a lifelong pension coming back....Why? Because the Liberals let the abeyance of the Equitas lawsuit expire and are going to fight that there is no sacred obligation owed to Canadian veterans from the GoC

Oh and seeing as "Just call me Andy" is going to get a briefing on this from one of his office minions please tell Minister Hehr, yourself, and JT that yes the Equitas lawsuit started under a Conservative government. But said Conservative gov't agreed to an abeyance, removed the DoJ litigator who does not like veterans to work with the lawyers of the Equitas lawsuit to come to an agreed resolution.

It is your Liberal PM who said under a Liberal government veterans would not have to go to court to get the benefits they deserve.

Just to put it in an army term you might understand....Your boss lied his ass off about the above statement!

So "Just call me Andy" ooops sorry you are now going by LGen (ret’d) HON Andrew Leslie, P.C., M.P. stop the crap....come clean....and for the love of God act like a God damn officer of the Canadian Armed Forces and respect the men and women who worked for you!!!!

They could also be talking about the retro lump sum top up, that could, in their minds, compensate those injured since 2006, for the fact that we will not be entitled to the new pension. After all, if they were intending on extending the option of getting the new monthly pension to everyone, why would they even bother giving us more money as lump sums? I could understand if they said that those who opt out of the monthly pension, would get additional money, but not everyone.

As far as the lawsuit is concerned, I think they are seeing if they can get it thrown out or not, before making any announcements. If they can get it tossed, they will likely announce a monthly pension that is far from adequate compared to the PA pension. But if they lose their appeal, they may concede the fact that their only option is to reinstate the PA pension. They know that as long as the lawsuit is alive, they will no be able to bring in anything less than what PA Veterans receive.

Johnny what he is saying is that they want to make the lifelong pensions to reflect the disability award.

It's a BS answer as this would be impossible to do as the different age categories of Veterans would make this impossible.

Also the disability award is tax free an the reason for it is that it's a one time payout , a lifetime pension , be it taxed or not , would be impossible to bridge the gap between the award an the lifelong pension as the age factor would make it impossible.
All of this regardless of the percentage granted.

One very important point for all to consider is that the Liberals promised to implement lifelong pensions , lifelong pensions can mean anything , as long as it is lifelong an they implement it , their promise is complete!

Can someone tell me what Leslie meant in my above post when he said

"Also important to note is that this change is a complicated one. We intend to bridge the financial gap between the lump-sums and the lifelong pensions for all those vets who were injured under the lump-sum system".

This old soldier is not as sharp as he once was. Reminds me of that Toby Keith song " Not as good as I once was, I got a few yrs on me now..Ok I'll stop, tks all, VVV..