It sure will matter when ya get there...thats only like 11 years from
now...think about it.
How could ya be in SE MI and be 180 miles away from a Doctor? Or are
saying
you WANT to be seen in a "Military Hospital"
"BigRedWingsFan" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:52op5eF1pbcr1U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
