Canadian Soldiers Assistance Team (CSAT) Forum

CIA Reassessment Review

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Bruce72 on Thu 11 May 2017, 00:17

Trooper wrote:What gets me is the Idea that VAC thinks we are accepting this implementation along with others they brought forward as a significant and major improvement. The fact of the matter is what they are bringing forward is so out to lunch that it's becoming more and more obvious to the Veterans eye, that Veterans are leaning more and more of just how Ignorant and disrespectful our government really is towards it's disabled Veterans. I'm very proud to read post posted on this forum acknowledging the unfairness that is coming from our government, this shows that members are paying attention, and are in no way going to be fooled by those in charge of our care for what implementations, they are implementing. It all starts from our Prime Minister, then our Minister of Veterans Affairs, they are responsible for our care, and so far in my opinion have let us down. Yes it is true that we have seen movement on our file since the Liberals took power, but if the movement is not of high quality, it simply only movements which does not address, or improve significantly our file the way they are claiming it to be. What is going on here? In my opinion it is a combination of a lot of things, but at the very top in my view sits on three principals, 1. The Prime Ministers lack of knowledge of the Veterans file, the betrayal of what was promised in public, on record from him, and his poor judgement in keeping our Minister in that portfolio. 2. Our Minister of Veterans Affairs who himself lacks in knowledge of our file, and allows the bureaucrats to run the show regardless of what is presented by them, no motivation to learn our concerns. He is useless in that portfolio in my opinion, he is just putting in time for his personal gain but at the same time taking credit for all the bull that is being presented by the bureaucrats. 3. The bureaucrats themselves are the most evil of all three, these individuals are creating bullshit write ups for implementation that does very little to help Veterans, but secures themselves for ongoing future bandage fix implementations. Lady's and gentlemen, these people are looking after themselves, they parade all of what they've done with gold star ratings, it is nowhere near gold star ratings, some if not all or most are insults to our intelligence. It's funny how things gets twisted and left out when a party gets elected. This change from PIA to CIA is an excellent example of the tactics used by the bureaucrats to give that perception that this is just one of the many improvements the Liberals have implemented on our file. It is not an improvement and further to this, no name change was necessary, but it is necessary to make it look real impressive. I can go on all night, but I think anyone reading this gets the point. I don't even have to mention the Lifelong Pension because we all know about that ordeal.
As long as this forum shows that we see, and fully understand exactly what is going on with our file in terms of the evil tactics they are using against us, they will never succeed in fooling us.


I also think that the fact Mike Blais was fired from the "committee" for being outspoken and transparent is a clear sign that the veteran community is getting the shaft.

Bruce72
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 743
Location : Newfoundland
Registration date : 2014-03-13

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Nemo on Wed 10 May 2017, 21:02

well said Trooper
avatar
Nemo
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 347
Location : canada
Registration date : 2010-08-13

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Guest on Wed 10 May 2017, 19:18

What gets me is the Idea that VAC thinks we are accepting this implementation along with others they brought forward as a significant and major improvement. The fact of the matter is what they are bringing forward is so out to lunch that it's becoming more and more obvious to the Veterans eye, that Veterans are leaning more and more of just how Ignorant and disrespectful our government really is towards it's disabled Veterans. I'm very proud to read post posted on this forum acknowledging the unfairness that is coming from our government, this shows that members are paying attention, and are in no way going to be fooled by those in charge of our care for what implementations, they are implementing. It all starts from our Prime Minister, then our Minister of Veterans Affairs, they are responsible for our care, and so far in my opinion have let us down. Yes it is true that we have seen movement on our file since the Liberals took power, but if the movement is not of high quality, it simply only movements which does not address, or improve significantly our file the way they are claiming it to be. What is going on here? In my opinion it is a combination of a lot of things, but at the very top in my view sits on three principals, 1. The Prime Ministers lack of knowledge of the Veterans file, the betrayal of what was promised in public, on record from him, and his poor judgement in keeping our Minister in that portfolio. 2. Our Minister of Veterans Affairs who himself lacks in knowledge of our file, and allows the bureaucrats to run the show regardless of what is presented by them, no motivation to learn our concerns. He is useless in that portfolio in my opinion, he is just putting in time for his personal gain but at the same time taking credit for all the bull that is being presented by the bureaucrats. 3. The bureaucrats themselves are the most evil of all three, these individuals are creating bullshit write ups for implementation that does very little to help Veterans, but secures themselves for ongoing future bandage fix implementations. Lady's and gentlemen, these people are looking after themselves, they parade all of what they've done with gold star ratings, it is nowhere near gold star ratings, some if not all or most are insults to our intelligence. It's funny how things gets twisted and left out when a party gets elected. This change from PIA to CIA is an excellent example of the tactics used by the bureaucrats to give that perception that this is just one of the many improvements the Liberals have implemented on our file. It is not an improvement and further to this, no name change was necessary, but it is necessary to make it look real impressive. I can go on all night, but I think anyone reading this gets the point. I don't even have to mention the Lifelong Pension because we all know about that ordeal.
As long as this forum shows that we see, and fully understand exactly what is going on with our file in terms of the evil tactics they are using against us, they will never succeed in fooling us.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Nemo on Wed 10 May 2017, 16:39

One would think that if you qualified for SISIP LTD and CPP(D), you would qualify for DEC. But no.... Of course, I never qualified for TPI either and this is just a name change but it is meant to make the public think that the government is improving benefits for disabled veterans and it is not.

Take the DEC name away cause it is a crock of shit. Go back to calling it whatever it was before and stop making it out as if all disabled veterans who can't work are eligible for this. Cause they are not.

VAC's criteria is too strict to qualify for most disabled vets. I know some that receive a lot of money from VAC and yet they are motorbiking, skiing, canoing, mountain climbing. I wish....I find it tiring for my legs going into a shopping trip in Wallymart. But I have looked at the criteria for DEC and I simply would not qualify.

If you were medically released from the military and are considered disabled by SISIP and CPP then you should qualify for this.
avatar
Nemo
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 347
Location : canada
Registration date : 2010-08-13

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by bigrex on Wed 10 May 2017, 15:12

Nemo, I completely understand where you are coming from. Compensation for Veterans should not be an either/or type of scenario, where you either suffer a debilitating medical condition, or you lost X number of years of service due to the injury/illness. So if you met the criteria for CIA before these changes, and they want to add compensation for lost employment opportunities, it should be a separate benefit.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3317
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by bigrex on Wed 10 May 2017, 14:45

Yes, in order for them to use the years of service, you have to be declared to have a DEC. Then it comes down to how much money they say you are capable of earning, not how much you actually make. So if they say that you are capable of working say 20 hors per week at an office job, and the average office workers salary is say $13/hr in your region, they will say that you have an earnings capacity of $1040/mo. So in order to get grade 1 CIA, you have to have served less than 10 years, and have an imputed salary of over $3100/mo. the thing is, I'm not sure if the include amounts recieved from CIA and ELB, to determine if you fall below that 33% or 66%.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3317
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Nemo on Wed 10 May 2017, 14:45

I just call bullshit on all this. They should amend this allowance because it does nothing for those that could not work after release unless they meet certain disability criteria. And for those people. their careers were adversely affected to. I certainly agree that if you have no legs, you better damn well be getting compensated for that far above what I am. But why can't I be compensated for my loss of my career and I was never able to work again?

So yes, I agee with allowances/awards based on missing limbs and other disabilities. But when it comes to career impact, you don't need to have lost your limbs to be affected. Everyone who got out medically who could not work again due to their medical condition should be entitled to DEC. Otherwise the name is as others say just to make them feel good and to deceive the Canadian public into thinking that all disabled veterans are adequately compensated.

Just like the jerks took away SISIP for life and make it end at 65 unless you got out before a certain date in 1995.
avatar
Nemo
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 347
Location : canada
Registration date : 2010-08-13

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Guest on Wed 10 May 2017, 14:34

There might be a bit of confusion about what exactly is going on with these changes and reassessments.

First off, the criteria's for eligibility for the CIA for determining level 1 , 2 and 3 have not changed. They are the exact same criteria's than the former PIA.

What has changed is the name from PIA to CIA.
What has also changed is the addition or expansion added to the determination to increase from CIA level 3, to level 2.
It is this change that has VAC reassessing those who are receiving level 3 of the CIA, to see if they qualify for an increase to level 2.

How they are doing the reassessments is looking at two main things;

1. VAC will determine how many years of a 25-year career a Veteran has served.

A. If the Veteran served more than 20 years, that means he/she they had less than 5 years left to serve. The lost military earnings potential does not affect the Veteranís CIA (PIA) grade level assignment and the Veteranís CIA (PIA) Grade will remain the same.

B. If a Veteran served between 0 and 20 years, that means he/she had more than 5 years left to serve. The Veteranís CIA (PIA) grade could increase, depending on the level of earning capacity.

Is a compulsory retirement age being used as part of the assessment?

Yes.

The Canadian Armed Forces compulsory retirement age of 60 years is used as part of the assessment in relation to the years left to serve. Once VAC determines how many more years of a 25-year career a Veteran had left to serve, his/her age at release is taken into consideration. For those Veterans who could not have served a full 25-year military career before age 60, VAC uses the years left from their release to their 60th birthday to determine the number of years left to serve.

2. Impact of earning capacity

A. If Veterans are assessed as capable of earning 66.7% or more of their adjusted pre-release salary, will not be affected by earning capacity.

B. If Veterans are assessed as capable of earning less than 66.6% or less of their adjusted pre-release salary their CIA grade could increase, depending on years left to serve.

C. If Veterans are assessed as capable of earning 33.3% or less of their adjusted pre-release salary, their CIA grade could increase, depending on years left to serve.

How are Veteransí earning capacity determined?

A. If Veterans are not currently designated as having a diminished earning capacity (formerly total and permanent incapacity), their CIA grade will remain the same.

B. If Veterans currently have a diminished earning capacity (formerly total and permanent incapacity), VAC already recognizes that they are not capable of earning 66.7% or more of their adjusted pre-releasing salary. A Veteranís CIA grade could increase, depending on the results of the new assessment.

As you can see not much of an implementation, not many will benefit, some will but in my opinion this is just another bandage implementation that will be used or publicized by the Liberals as a gold star towards their achievements on the Veterans file.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Taz on Wed 10 May 2017, 13:57

Ok. I thought that the supplement was for those who absolutely could not work and the grades were based on the level of how badly your disabilities affected your earning potential for work.
avatar
Taz
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 23
Location : NB
Registration date : 2017-03-06

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Teentitan on Wed 10 May 2017, 13:52

If you want to go above Grade 3 you need to be identified as DEC.

Grade 3 CIA is for people who can still work but not at the amount of money they used to make. CIA is a boost to help the vet if all the vet can find is part time, or a minimum wage job.

If you only served 7 years and were to be declared DEC then you most likely would go to Grade 1.
avatar
Teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3314
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Bruce72 on Wed 10 May 2017, 12:11

Taz wrote:So are you saying that unless you are DEC that you cannot go to Grade 2?

That's my understanding of it. But hey, it looks great to Jane and Joe civie who think veterans are showered in money by the government.

Bruce72
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 743
Location : Newfoundland
Registration date : 2014-03-13

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Taz on Wed 10 May 2017, 11:32

So are you saying that unless you are DEC that you cannot go to Grade 2?
avatar
Taz
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 23
Location : NB
Registration date : 2017-03-06

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Teentitan on Wed 10 May 2017, 11:27

Someone can correct me here but Taz you are Grade 3 because you are not DEC.

If your CM reviews your situation and you submit the paperwork for DEC then you would most likely go right to Grade 1 CIA if you are determined to be DEC category.
avatar
Teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3314
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Taz on Wed 10 May 2017, 10:27

I was on SISIP LTD for 5 years and ELB for 1.5 years without working. I finally got the nerve to give work a try in 2015 but was not earning anywhere close to my pre-release salary. I don't understand how VAC determines who get's an increase and who does not.
avatar
Taz
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 23
Location : NB
Registration date : 2017-03-06

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Nemo on Wed 10 May 2017, 10:05

Hey Taz... So if u can't work...VAC is telling you that you don't have diminished earling capacity?
avatar
Nemo
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 347
Location : canada
Registration date : 2010-08-13

Back to top Go down

Re: CIA Reassessment Review

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

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