"Tom" <tomtk3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:uPidnbyxp-uQrVrYnZ2dnUVZ_vipnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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"
Who said I was in MI? I left ****t Huron in 1973 when I enlisted and have
not lived there since. You must not read for comprension very well at
all.
This is from an earlier post in this thread:
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.
>
>
> "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]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
