Author Topic: Another soldier gets screwed by the miltary and gov't... (Read 730 times)

Snoopi · « **on:** October 01, 2001, 10:46:00 PM »

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/news/canadaworld/277376333893538.html

SOB · « **Reply #1 on:** October 01, 2001, 11:45:00 PM »

heh, looks like he got screwed out of a web page too!

The link doesn't work for me.

SOB

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2001, 12:20:00 AM »

Erm... what is the government and/or military supposed to do in this particular situation?

Neither were discharged for medical reasons... one has been promoted since. How is the military supposed to compensate for lost civilian income potential? Please... share it with everyone... afterall... they are the ones that would have to pay for it.

AKDejaVu

Eagler · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2001, 08:51:00 AM »

"They should admit that it's all politics and compensate me," says Barnes.

have to agree with the above statement.
sounds like they are both disabled due to otj activities. In the private sector an ACLU lawyer would have them sitting fat and pretty in no time. Too bad in cases such as this our military (and Canada's) shows its arse and doesn't do the right thing...

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2001, 08:58:00 AM »

What compensation eagler? Please... share with all. There is no way anyone is going to say "We'll make up for the fact you can no longer be a pilot by giving you tons of money". Truth be told, he got the same amount of money any military member would get for an eye injury. That's the way the military is when it comes to injuries.

I've worked in a veterans hospital before and there's one thing that you get used to. For ever 2 people with serious disabilities... there is someone that is just milking the system. It gets so bad that blanket policies get laid down that impact everyone. Peole who lost a limb would have to come in each year to re verify the disability. Stuff like that...

All this was done because so many people more prone to see an injury as an oportunity to make money. Every cold and caloused attitude I've seen displayed by beurocracy was not without some level of justification. Equal treatment does not equate to fair treatment.

Its not the military nor the government that are screwing these people over. Its the NEED for that kind of policy that is. Thank you fellow countrymen for that.

AKDejaVu

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #5 on:** October 02, 2001, 04:10:00 PM »

non sequiter try again.

others screw va so unfair policys are insituted wich screw the inocent and it is the fualt of the general public.

try

the va made the mistake of not doing its job in the first place (allowing cheats) restrictions are made in a blanket form with the knowledge inocent disabled vets will get screwed . (lawsuits will overturn unfair policys as usual) va will pay entire originaly owed amount retroactive to claims plus costs of litigation.

general public to blame indeed. lumping the guilty with the innocent and screwing them all is not acceptable never has never will be. that is what seperates this great country from the rabble it grew from . that and very little else.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #6 on:** October 02, 2001, 04:38:00 PM »

Quote

others screw va so unfair policys are insituted wich screw the inocent and it is the fualt of the general public

Point 1: What about the decision was unfair?
Point 2: Is it possible to treat everyone equally AND fairly?
Point 3: With the VA, the general public is not to blame.. only ex military members. But why do you think speed limits are in place? Why do you think there is a limit on the number of sale items you can buy? Does anyone in the public milk social security or welfare for all its worth?

Quote

the va made the mistake of not doing its job in the first place (allowing cheats) restrictions are made in a blanket form with the knowledge inocent disabled vets will get screwed .

For every cheat "allowed" there was a person trying to cheat. Please, come up with a fullproof method to verify "I have a pain". This is what a large majority of VA claims are based on. That and psych "disabilities". I work with several people that milked that one for all it was worth... usually to the tune of $1200/month. A scary thought on many aspects.

Quote

general public to blame indeed. lumping the guilty with the innocent and screwing them all is not acceptable never has never will be. that is what seperates this great country from the rabble it grew from . that and very little else.

Human nature is very much to blame. As a rule, that is seen in the general public. Sorry to break that to you... but its true... especially when it comes to "free money" for the rest of your life.

And... not "all" are screwed. All are treated equally. There is a big difference. For most it works out, for others it does not, for some it works out great. There is not a mission to "screw" anyone over. There is no "screw them" decision process going on. There is very specific guidelines to handle those issues for well established reasons. I'm sorry you do not like them, but you surely can't question their need.

Will this individual be able to get employment elsewhere? Is the military responsible because he can't be a pilot in the civilian sector? Should the military compensate him because he can't be a civilian pilot?

You're discussing someone that has to give up excess and risks becoming average. Sorry, but his pain is no different than anyone else's. Compensation should be the same.

AKDejaVu

Thrawn · « **Reply #7 on:** October 02, 2001, 05:34:00 PM »

Point 3: With the VA, the general public is not to blame.. only ex military members.

Actually, that's not correct. The Ministry of Veteran's Affairs is headed by an elected Member of Parliment. And the people that run that department are civil servents. The ex-military are the clients of the M of VA. They don't run it. So it is difficult for me to understand how they are to blame

For more information:

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]

Dinger · « **Reply #8 on:** October 02, 2001, 05:58:00 PM »

Uh folks. This isn't private employment. This is the military. The folks should be compensated as every other military member injured as a result of hostile enemy action. That doesn't mean you pay 'em lost earnings as a result of the civilian job they were hoping to have thanks to their military training.
Note too that the American wasn't "forced out" of his job.
I wonder what the real story is. PErhaps the Canadian government did give this guy a raw deal. But bottom line: don't believe those recruitment ads that talk about the military as a source of vocational training.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #9 on:** October 02, 2001, 06:12:00 PM »

Quote

Point 3: With the VA, the general public is not to blame.. only ex military members.

Actually, that's not correct. The Ministry of Veteran's Affairs is headed by an elected Member of Parliment. And the people that run that department are civil servents. The ex-military are the clients of the M of VA. They don't run it. So it is difficult for me to understand how they are to blame

I'm not talking about the people running the VA.. I'm talking about its patients. I'm somewhat confident they are ex-military or a direct relative of an ex-military member.

AKDejaVu

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]

Thrawn · « **Reply #10 on:** October 02, 2001, 07:25:00 PM »

Ah, I understand now, but how are they to blame?

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #11 on:** October 02, 2001, 08:15:00 PM »

just can't think of anything non inflamitory to say. but i totaly dissagree with you. and believe the courts will also. we will see

Snoopi · « **Reply #12 on:** October 02, 2001, 08:17:00 PM »

Compensation for possible earnings is bogus and not what i'm concerned about.
It's like saying I should be compensated because I could have invested in Microsoft.
That is pointless and "whiny" afaik.

What i'm amazed at is the $90 he gets for a benefit. Most private company insurance coverage would pay more than this.
On one hand the Canadian Forces get decent pensions after 20 years and if you are an officer you get very nice pay (Majors get around $70,000) But if you are a grunt then you get paid little (ok..) and get almost nothing if you get injured. (not good IMO)
The least they could do with this guy is give him a different post like the U.S. did for their soldier. He has experience that could be used elsewhere to benefit the forces.

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Snoopi ]

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #13 on:** October 02, 2001, 09:02:00 PM »

Ah...

Then snoopi... I suggest you re-read the article. It doesn't say why the gentleman was discharged. It specifically says he can't talk about it.

Basically, there is no indication of how the individual was treated. Just that he was discharged (4 years later) without giving details of the discharge.

Kinda difficult to form a conclusion on how badly someone was screwed over based on this.

As for what a private company would pay... you may want to re-check that. If the company was liable... then its another story... but that doesn't seem to be the situation here.

AKDejaVu

Snoopi · « **Reply #14 on:** October 02, 2001, 09:25:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Ah...

Kinda difficult to form a conclusion on how badly someone was screwed over based on this.

As for what a private company would pay... you may want to re-check that. If the company was liable... then its another story... but that doesn't seem to be the situation here.

AKDejaVu

Well i must admit the acticle gives little informtion. I've been able to glean some info from friends of mine in upper ranks of the forces.
Lately the common practice seems to be, "make sure they get paid as little as possible if injured, and get rid of them to cut costs". There is more to it than that, but it seems to be the basic "jist" from what my friends have said.

As for private company insurance coverage, the last time I was not self employed., I would have got $623 a month if I had lost the use of one eye. (work related or not)