http://www.tricare.mil/News/2002/news0235.htm
Retired Air Force Col. George E. "Bud" Day filed the lawsuit on behalf of
individuals (collectively known as the Class Act Group) who entered
service
before June 6, 1956 -- determined to be the date when reference to medical
care on a space-available basis appeared in federal statute. The lawsuit
alleged that retirees age 65 and over who entered active duty before June
6,
1956, and their eligible family members were entitled to free health care
for life. It also requested monetary reimbursements per person of no more
than $10,000 to cover the amount withheld from Social Security pay for
their
Medicare Part B premiums, as well as gaining relief from future Medicare
deductions.
You were probably still suckling at your mother's breast in 1956. You
really have no clue do you.
"Tom" <tomtk3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:BrKdnb2gnIXouVrYnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> So your answer to the erosion of benefits is to sit still and let them
> balance the budget on retirees backs?
>
I write to my critters regularly, not only about retiree issues, but
others
that affect me as well. I am currently in the process of putting a letter
together to them concerning the lack of TRICARE Prime participating
hospitals in Wisconsin Too bad it falls on the deaf ears of the 3 blind
mice of Feingold, Kohl, and Kind, as well as the Dimocrap governor of WI,
Jim "Welfare" Doyle, regarding this matter, citing Gov. Pawlenty - R of MN
and his successful efforts to expand availability in our neighboring state
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/01/apMinnTricare070130/.
My current
Primary Care Manager for TRICARE Prime is in Lake Geneva, the closest
available, which is over a 3 hour drive away.
>
> 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.
Nice spin. Read it again: http://www.tricare.mil/News/2002/news0235.htm
>
> 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]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
