So your answer to the erosion of benefits is to sit still and let them
balance the budget on retirees backs?
Oh did you miss the Federal judge who DID rule health care was promised
.....that the Bush Admin immediately appealed the district ruling. The
appeal
stated it was promised BUT the DOD reps who made the promise did not have
legal authority to make such promise so Congress was the only one who
could
fix it not the courts.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Wa****ngton, D.C. ruled
on
18 November 2002 (case #99-1402) that Military Retirees have no legal
standing in the case. The court concluded the U.S. government was
authorized
to break a moral contract of lifetime, earned and deferred government
funded
medical care to those servicemen and women who served their country
honorably for 20+ years. The court did offer sympathy and encouraged the
Legislative Branch to fulfill the moral obligation made by the U.S.
Government. The integrity of the U.S. Government is brought into question
with this issue. Our government can't criticize foreign governments for
not
honoring a commitment and then break a U.S. commitment to their own
warriors
President-elect George W. Bush in a pre-inaugural address on 19 January
2001
said: .we must keep our commitment to those who wore the uniform in the
past.. We will make sure promises made to our veterans will be promises
kept". The obvious question is: When Mr. President?
Senator John McCain in a January 22, 2003 letter to President Bush states,
"The US government's position in this case is a travesty. Not only are we
turning our backs on a generation of heroes, but we are sending a message
to
the service members of today that the government can not be trusted to
keep
its promises to them."
Lawsuit History:
July 1996: Plaintiffs file suit for medical care restoration and monetary
damages in Federal District Court in Pensacola, FL., charging age
discrimination, 5th amendment taking of property and breach of contract.
June 1997: District Court dismisses plaintiffs' claim of age
discrimination,
but agrees to hear further argument on their 5th amendment taking of
property and breach-of-contract theories.
August 1998: District Court denies plaintiffs' entire petition.
December 1998: Plaintiffs appeal to US Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, Wa****ngton, D.C.
March 2000: Federal court hears oral arguments of the parties.
February 2001: Three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,
Wa****ngton, DC overturns the district court decision. Finds that military
retirees who entered service before June 7, 1956, had been promised free
lifetime health care in return for a career of military service and were
due
compensation of up to $10,000 each for the government's failure to live up
to that promise.
June 2001: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Wa****ngton, DC agrees to a
rehearing before the full (en banc) court.
March 6, 2002: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Wa****ngton, DC hears oral
argument in the case.
November 18, 2002: Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirming the
US
Government position that military retirees have no legal standing to
receive
the medical care promised. (View complete ruling at www.fedcir.gov, case
99-1402.
January 24, 2003: Plaintiffs Petition for a writ of Certiorari filed in
the
Supreme Court of the United States.
February 24, 2003: Case formally entered on US Supreme Court docket
#02-1226
calling for responses by March 26, 2003. Extension granted for responses
to
the court by May 02, 2003.
June 02,2003: US Supreme disapproves Writ of Certiorari, rejecting the
case.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Wa****ngton, D.C. ordered plaintiffs
L/Cols. "Sam" Schism and Robert Reinlie be re-heard in oral argument on
their Feb 2001 victory in the FedCt of Appeals, March 6, 2002 at 2:00 PM,
re: Military Retiree Lifetime Medical Care.
In the Appeal from the Pensacola Federal District court, the Wa****ngton,
D.C. Federal District Court in Feb 2001 reversed and gave the plaintiffs
Summary Judgment and ordered the case back to trial court to award
damages.
The US government requested a rehearing. On March 6, 2002, Attorney Col.
Geo. "Bud" Day argued the WWII/Korean Retiree case to the 13 member (en
banc) court, and the United States focused on why the U.S. should be able
to
break their promise of free lifetime medical care to the WWII/Korean
retired
veterans.
Col. Day originally filed a Class Action initiative, which could impact as
many as 1,500,000 WWII and Korea War military retirees, but was made moot
when the Pensacola Federal District awarded summary judgment to the
government. A renewed motion for Class Action status will be delayed
pending
Supreme Court action.
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any
war,
no matter how justified, shall be directly pro****tional to how they
perceived veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by our
nation" George Wa****ngton
"BigRedWingsFan" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:52np7eF1pcl5bU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I am going to type this real slow and in short, concise sentences so you
>might have a chance to understand it. I really don't care about Dr. Chu.
>I do understand what he is trying to do and why. I do not agree with it.
>It is, IMO, inevitable, that we military retirees are going to have to
>share more of the cost of our healthcare. It just happens to be a
>country-wide phenomenon in case you've been living in your mother's
>basement shut off from every news source except for Carl Combover's DNC
>propaganda sheets. See what the UAW has caused GM & Ford to do with their
>retiree healthcare programs.
>
> We were NOT promised FREE healthcare for life. It was suggested that we
> would receive healthcare (no mention of cost of lack thereof), and we
are,
> at a minimum, receiving it in the form of a government sponsored health
> insurance.
>
> By the way, how come your hero Levin hasn't sent me my first concurrent
> receipt check yet? Wasn't that high on his priorities?
>
> "Tom" <tomtk3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:FNadnQO_pbQZ1VvYnZ2dnUVZ_qunnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>I don't get it why do you love this guy so much when he keeps trying to
>>balance his budget on the backs of retirees???
>> "BigRedWingsFan" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:52l7q2F1osagcU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Tom" <tomtk3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:z7KdnQkgzOsrx1jYnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> USDR Legislative Update
>>>>
>>>> Date: January 17, 2007
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tricare fee hikes needed, task force is told
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By Gordon Lubold - Staff writer
>>>> A new task force charged with looking at the future of military
health
>>>> care may help the Pentagon to do what it failed to do last year:
>>>> convince an unreceptive Congress to increase some fees for Tricare
>>>> users in order to keep the military medical system whole. The Task
>>>> Force on the Future of Military Healthcare, mandated by Congress, had
>>>> its first substantive meeting Tuesday, during which its 14 members
were
>>>> briefed on the issues confronting the Defense Department's health
care
>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Senior Pentagon officials gave the task force an earful. The
prognosis
>>>> for the health care system is grim, said David S.C. Chu, the
Pentagon's
>>>> personnel chief, unless higher fees
>>>>
>>>> - which would be aimed mostly at "working age" retirees, those under
>>>> age 65 - aren't implemented, and soon. The Pentagon is already trying
>>>> to increase efficiencies within the system and implement better
>>>> business practices to save money. But that won't do it alone, Chu
told
>>>> the group.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "It's our conclusions that the current business practices do not lead
>>>> to a sustainable benefit over the long term," he said If Congress
>>>> doesn't allow the Pentagon to "rebalance" the ratio of costs paid by
>>>> the department and by beneficiaries, and charge beneficiaries more
for
>>>> the services they use, then the health care that all military members
>>>> and dependents receive will suffer, he said.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Last March, Chu said the percentage of health care costs covered by
>>>> beneficiaries had shrunk from 27 percent in 1995 to a current level
of
>>>> about 12 percent. At that time, the Pentagon was putting forth an
>>>> ambitious program to fix the long-term viability of the Tricare
>>>> program, considered by defense officials to be one of the best health
>>>> care programs in the nation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The thrust of the proposal was to increase some Tricare enrollment
fees
>>>> and deductibles
>>>> for retirees under age 65. Defense officials argued that the fee
>>>> structure has not been significantly changed in more than a decade -
>>>> even as health care costs have consistently shot upward - and that
the
>>>> only way to continue offering a high level of service is to make
those
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the plan drew sharp criticism from both Republicans and Democrats
>>>> on Capitol Hill, who did not want to tinker with fees, and the
proposal
>>>> was dropped. Chu acknowledged that politics played a role in the
>>>> Pentagon's failure to articulate its message properly, and that they
>>>> had introduced the proposal at an already fractious time in national
>>>> politics, as debate raged about the war in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "There was a deep reluctance to make a change," Chu said. Pentagon
>>>> officials won't acknowledge if they'll be back again with a similar
>>>> proposal when President Bush's fiscal 2008 defense budget is released
>>>> Feb. 5. But if so, the task force, which Chu said can play a role in
>>>> building consensus on this and other issues, may help grease the
skids
>>>> in Congress. For now, the group is simply learning the challenges
>>>> facing the Pentagon, members said.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The group will meet again Feb. 6.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Noel Pritzl
>>>> Web Site Director, USDR
>>>> (931) 648-4292
>>>> Angler88@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
