Duh! I'm only 54, asshat, TFL doesn't help me now. I need TRICARE Prime
coverage closer than 180 miles away.
"Tom" <tomtk3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Z7GdnRSkqbassVrYnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
