Canadian Soldiers Assistance Team (CSAT) Forum

The Future of VAC – Hell Bent On Self-destruction

Go down

Re: The Future of VAC – Hell Bent On Self-destruction

Post by Teentitan on Tue 23 Jun 2015, 11:59

This is my read on SISIP and why they are not going away soon. Combat Insurance. Manulife is the only insurance company in Canada that will provide Combat Insurance at low rates and the trade off is SISIP.

To get rid of SISIP and this is my opinion the GoC needs to subsidize an insurance company to provide Combat Insurance.
avatar
Teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3312
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: The Future of VAC – Hell Bent On Self-destruction

Post by bigrex on Tue 23 Jun 2015, 11:56

If they would get rid of SISIP, and transfer everyone who is medically released to the ELB program, not only would it boost client numbers, but it would save taxpayer money as well.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3246
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

The Future of VAC – Hell Bent On Self-destruction

Post by Teentitan on Tue 23 Jun 2015, 11:03

Once again another strange title, but one that is based on a self-fulfilling prophecy envisioned by the senior leadership of VAC. Before the introduction of the NVC, the VAC leadership looked into a crystal ball and realised that most of its clients would be dead in a very short period of time. After a lot of navel gazing, some bureaucrats developed the “plan” known as the NVC as a way to increase its client numbers. Unfortunately, client numbers continued to decline.

One of the main reasons for this negative trend is that VAC seems more adept at causing self-inflicted wounds than solving problems.

Creating the NVC was like using a band-aid to treat a sucking chest wound. (If you doubt this, then why have there been almost 500 recommendations to change the NVC and why do many pre-NVC problems persist?)

The NVC helped to further fragment the Veterans Community by adding more types of clients to an already crowded array (RCMP, war service, non-war service, dependants, NVC and PA hybrids, and NVC clients), and creating more work for its overworked and under-appreciated front line workers, who have to navigate the complex and convoluted legislation, policy and services. (see Veterans Affairs morale plunged alongside staffing levels: survey 5 March 2015:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-affairs-morale-plunged-alongside-staffing-levels-survey-1.2982470

In my opinion segregating clients is discrimination.

From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Why are only 18% of all Canadian Veterans clients of VAC?

The simple answer is that VAC has rejected many because they do not qualify. This is in stark contrast to the policy in 1918 and 1945 when war service Veterans could access many more programs than are currently provided. Of note, access to modern programmes tends to be based on the nature and extent of a client's disabilities. War service Veterans could apply regardless of whether or not they had been injured, wounded or ill.

If I was one of the senior leaders of VAC, one of my major objectives would be to increase the number of clients and encourage the addition of services to ensure more Canadians could apply. Surely, the 82% of Veterans who are not clients and many of their dependants could be served by VAC.

Why is VAC not doing more to recruit new clients?

One major challenge may be the corporate mindset that favours rejection over recruitment. One of the major systemic problems is that VAC denies and discourages applications. (A policy known as Delay, Deny and Die among Veterans.) Even when it does accept a new client, VAC often limits access to services. This is obvious from the frequent “lowballing” of medical disabilities. Very few clients are approved for 90-100% disabilities. Only 227 have received 100% of the NVC lump sum out of 46,760 recipients. Even the new lump sum of $70,000 will be offered on a limited basis. Initial estimates suggest hundreds rather than thousands, despite the fact that 46,000+ clients have received NVC lump sums.

Despite VAC's long term forecast, the total number of clients has not decreased at the rate anticipated. It was forecast that VAC would have 155,000 clients by 2020 or a decrease of about 5500 per year. In 2010, there were 210,000 clients, in 2013 there were 208,970 and 205,213 in 2014. This decrease is only 957 clients per year. On average 5,000 to 6,000 full-time CF members are released annually and up to 1,200 are medical releases (unable to meet the minimum standard for Universality of Service). If VAC had accepted every medical release, then the number of clients would have increased.

VAC analysis indicates that CF Veterans can be grouped into three categories in terms of applications:

25% before their release date;

25% after release and within two years; and

50% more than two years after release.

This suggests that many applicants can be disqualified because they have failed to apply within the two year period stipulated by VAC. Thus VAC could deny client status to most Veterans.

In my opinion, this is clear evidence of the self-fulfilling prophecy!
avatar
Teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3312
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: The Future of VAC – Hell Bent On Self-destruction

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum