DUH its what got you TFL!!!
"BigRedWingsFan" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:52onvdF1pm30fU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
