DON'T go now it was getting interesting....I still think that for every
retiree including you that we need somebody besides DR Chu in that chair
who
will bring new ideas to fix problem with budget besides "increase costs to
retirees or make cuts". If you remember the whole point of raising fees
was
to force people our age out of the system.
"BigRedWingsFan" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:52opm6F1ogqbiU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Tom" <tomtk3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:RYidnYnXOLCFsVrYnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Your Branch of service has to authorize your CR payment and then you
can
>> call the Finance people for retirees.....Mine started automatically but
>> then
>> again the Air Force always has been better at that sort of
thing...taking
>> care of its own.
>
> You really are an idiot. I am 40+% with a combined compensable rating
of
> 30% (which I have told you several times). Carl Combover has to give it
> to me first and you intimated that he would do so as one of his first
acts
> as the alleged leader of the Senate Armed Forces committee. I figured
he
> would do so by royal proclamation somehow in the first 100 hours.
>
>>
>> Maybe you should donate that payment to help out Dr. Chu with his
budget
>> balance problem. I'm sure he would love to use you as an example of
HOW
>> much the retirees sup****t making more sacrifices for the nation you
would
>> get coverage in the Wa****ngton Post and I bet a thank you from King
>> George
>
> You really don't have a clue at all, Tom. Too much crack I suppose will
> do that to you. And by the way, it is PRESIDENT Bush. I'm finished
here,
> seems all I am doing is enabling your disgusting habit of beating dead
> horses.
>
>>
>> "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]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
